Muslim students banned from wearing veils at Birmingham Metropolitan College

Angry Muslim students have hit out at college chiefs after being banned from wearing religious veils for “security” reasons.
All students, staff and visitors to Birmingham Metropolitan College have been told to remove any face coverings so individuals are “easily identifiable at all times”.
But the controversial ban of the niqab - a veil that leaves only a slot for the eyes - has sparked fury among some Muslim girls, who say they are being discriminated against.
The policy was revealed just days after politicians discussed banning the burka. Kettering MP Philip Hollobone - who refuses to see constituents who will not lift their veils - raised the issue in a Private Member’s Bill, saying it “goes against the basic part of the British way of life”.
News of the policy at the Birmingham college was broken to one prospective Muslim student at the start of the new term last week.
The angry 17-year-old girl, who did not want to be named, said: “It’s disgusting.
"It is a personal choice and I find it absolutely shocking that this has been brought in at a college in Birmingham city centre when the city is so multicultural and so many of the students are Muslim.
“It upsets me that we are being discriminated against.
“I don’t think my niqab prevents me from studying or communicating with anyone - I’ve never had any problems in the city before.”
The teenager was so upset at the policy that she says she decided to look for another college place in the city.
Hoodies, hats and caps have also been banned at the college, which was formed after the merger of Matthew Boulton and Sutton Colfield colleges.
Principal and chief executive Dame Christine Braddock DBE, said the policy had been in place for some time and had been developed to keep students safe.
She said: “We have a very robust Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy at Birmingham Metropolitan College but we are committed to ensuring that students are provided with a safe and welcoming learning environment whilst studying with us.
“To ensure that safeguarding is a priority, we have developed our policy alongside student views to ensure we keep them safe.
“This needs individuals to be easily identifiable at all times when they are on college premises and this includes the removal of hoodies, hats, caps and veils so that faces are visible.
“All prospective and progressing students, as well as staff, have been advised of the policy, which will mean everyone allowed on the premises can understand and know each other in a safe environment.”
But another student at the college, Imaani Ali, 17, said her “freedom has been breached” by the rule.
“Me and another friend who wears the veil were only told we wouldn’t be allowed inside the college after we had enrolled,” the applied sciences student told the Mail.
“They haven’t provided us with another alternative. We said we would happily show the men at security our faces so they could check them against our IDs, but they won’t let us.
“It’s a breach of my freedom and I feel discriminated against. This is my religion, it is what I believe in.
“I don’t really want to go to a place that doesn’t accept me but I have no choice now.”
But other students at the college - which has several campuses across the West Midlands including the former Matthew Boulton city centre facility - agreed with the ban.
Chante Young, 17, who is studying business, said: “You don’t know who is underneath it. You can’t see any of their face - only their eyes.”
The college welcomes around 9,000 16-19-year-olds each year, as well as 35,000 adult learners and more than 250 international students.
Its website boasts that international students receive “supportive personal attention” and it was shortlisted for an AOC Beacon award in 2011 for International Learner Support.
What the BMC students say
Nicola Zelek, 17, who is studying applied sciences, maths and English, said: “They should be allowed to wear them because it’s their religion.
“Other girls wear skirts and short tops and no-one will say anything to them.”
Anna Dorj, 18, who is studying business, said: “I believe it is good for security. You can’t see their face and it is hard to communicate with them.”
Ozayr Mir, 17, also studies business. He said: “The rule is alright if it is for security reasons. They aren’t being asked to show off their body parts.”
Ellie Crossingham, 18, is on a business and law course and said: “I can see both sides.
“It is their religion and I think you have to respect people’s views, but I don’t think it’s fair that you can’t see their faces, for safety reasons. You’re not allowed to wear helmets or hats.”
Suleman Hussain, 17, is taking A-level science at the college and disagreed about the policy. He said: “They’re not going to bring a bomb to college. They have come here to learn.”

RPK: Anwar has destroyed Bersih

Bersih has been hijacked by the opposition and now appears like it is the fourth coalition member of Pakatan Rakyat, says RPK.

INTERVIEW

PETALING JAYA: Popular blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has said that election reforms movement Bersih has failed in its main aim of bringing about electoral reforms in Malaysia.
He said that Bersih had made the mistake of aligning itself with Pakatan Rakyat, and had shown more interest in making Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim the prime minister of the nation.
“The window of opportunity for change has closed. If we want to see political reforms (and hence electoral reforms as well) it will have to be on another platform.
“Bersih is too tainted, and in particular because it is now seen as an Anwar Ibrahim movement. Anwar has destroyed Bersih,” he told FMT in an interview today.
The editor of Malaysia-Today blog said Bersih should have remained non-partisan although it was political, adding that support from both sides of the political divide were essential to see electoral reforms in Malaysia.
“If the fight for electoral reforms is merely an opposition effort, and with no support from those in government, then we will never see electoral reforms in Malaysia,” he said from the UK.
He also had harsh words for Anwar, saying that the PKR de facto leader was talking about unfair elections now when he himself was part of a political party which had enjoyed the fruits of the system for 16 years from 1982 to 1998.
“Without this unfair election system Umno would have been out of power as early as 1990.
“But Anwar never raised this back in the 1980s when he was in Umno and when he needed Umno to remain in power so that one day he could become the Prime Minister.
“Anwar exploited this unfair system to fulfil his personal political agenda and ambition. Anwar was part of the problem back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
“Today, Anwar is offering himself as the solution when he is the problem rather than the solution.
“If Anwar had succeeded in his effort to topple Mahathir in 1997-1998 and had become the Prime Minister instead of getting kicked out of Umno, do you think he would be talking about the unfair elections today?” asked Raja Petra.
When asked on what was needed to bring about a change in Malaysia, Raja Petra said the only way was for Malaysians from both sides of the political divide unite to fight for change.
“This is not happening yet. It is still Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. And that is not the recipe for change.
“There are extremists from both sides — Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat. We need to build a centrist movement that includes supporters from both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat. Until that happens you can forget about ever hoping for change,” he said.
Below is an excerpt of the Q&A with Raja Petra Kamarudin:
Could you tell about your involvement with Bersih?
In the beginning, Bersih was an ad hoc and informal movement. I really don’t know how the whole thing came about but some of us from the civil society movements, bloggers, etc., — basically activists — got together to plan a movement to fight for electoral reforms (as a first step to political reforms).
Some of us, of course, were ‘professional’ politicians who had earlier been involved with the reformasi movement and participated, or were behind, the various demonstrations that were organised back in 1998, 1999, 2000, and so on.
That was back in 2007 at the height of the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad-Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tussle. In fact, Mahathir had already resigned from Umno and was leading an anti-Pak Lah campaign that criss-crossed Malaysia. If you can remember, Mahathir was attacked with mace at the Kota Bharu airport and I was also there and suffered the ‘spill-over’ of the mace.
You may not be aware of this, but what we can probably now call ‘Bersih 1.0’ (since we now have Bersih 2.0, Bersih 3.0 and probably soon Bersih 4.0) was also supported by some within Umno.
In fact, we had a few meetings with the Umno people and I even brought DAP leaders such as Ronnie Liu to these meetings — plus I also brought the Umno people to meetings with a few DAP people. Some of these Umno people have even now joined DAP, Aspan Alias as one example. The Umno people also helped sponsor the BERSIH caps and T-shirts costing thousands of ringgit.
Hence Bersih 1.0 was not entirely an opposition effort, although some opposition politicians may have been involved.
It was, as far as I was concerned, a civil society effort that included activists, bloggers, politicians, and so on, from both side of the political divide. And for about two years from 2006-2007 we had many meetings that included supporters of both the government and the opposition (Pakatan Rakyat did not exist yet at that time).
We even launched a movement (not party) called Barisan Rakyat in early 2008 even before Pakatan Rakyat was formed — which was a coalition of six non-Barisan Nasional political parties from West Malaysia and East Malaysia — to take on Barisan Nasional (we realised that to win the general election we needed people from Sabah and Sarawak as well).
Sadly, though, Lim Kit Siang made a press statement denying that Barisan Rakyat was an opposition effort and soon after that Pakatan Rakyat was launched that involved only three parties and excluded the parties from East Malaysia plus PSM.
You have put up some “fiery” writings about Bersih. What is your general view about Bersih and what is your evaluation on its performance in electoral reform for the country? To what extend can the Bersih movement have an impact on the Malaysian political and electoral system?
To ensure the success of Bersih 1.0, we spoke to some people in government to obtain the consent of Istana Negara for us to hand a memorandum regarding electoral reforms to His Majesty the Agong — then His Highness the Sultan of Terengganu. It took many months of lobbying and behind the scenes negotiations and finally we managed to obtain the consent.
The police had initially classified the planned Bersih 1.0 march as an illegal assembly. However, after we managed to obtain the consent of Istana Negara, the police ‘loosened up’ and allowed the march (which attracted tens of thousands of people). However, only 10 people would be allowed into Istana Negara to hand the Memorandum to His Majesty the Agong.
On the day of the Bersih 1.0 event, thousands marched to the palace. When we reached the palace gates we received instructions to wait outside. We were told that ‘the leaders’ were coming and that we had to wait for the arrival of these leaders.
I don’t know whose decision this was but we waited anyway. An hour later, Anwar Ibrahim and various PKR, DAP and PAS leaders arrived and 10 of them went in to Istana Negara. Suddenly the whole thing was hijacked and was turned into an opposition event.
From then on the opposition took over and began organising the Bersih 2.0, Bersih 3.0, etc. events.
From that day on Bersih was no longer a civil society effort. It became an opposition movement with no longer any involvement by people from Barisan Nasional or Umno.
Some see the Bersih movement as an effort to topple the Barisan Nasional regime, what is your view? In related to that, how do you evaluate the relationship between the Bersih and opposition political parties, Pakatan Rakyat?
I believe that Bersih should have remained non-partisan although it is certainly political. We need support from both sides of the political divide if we want to see electoral reforms in Malaysia.
If the fight for electoral reforms is merely an opposition effort, and with no support from those in government, then we will never see electoral reforms in Malaysia.
Hence I resent the fact that Bersih has been hijacked by the opposition and now appears like it is the fourth coalition member of Pakatan Rakyat. Even the chairperson of Bersih was handpicked by Anwar Ibrahim — which is a shame really because then Bersih now ‘belongs’ to Anwar Ibrahim, which was never the original intention back in 2006 and 2007.
If you can remember, in the 2010 general election in the UK, Liberal Democrat fought for political reforms.
That was why I joined the party back in 2009. Conservative agreed to political reforms while Labour only agreed to electoral reforms. Hence LibDem joined Conservative to form the new government although they had earlier said in the event of a hung parliament they would join Labour to form the government.
So we need political reforms. And within political reforms would include electoral reforms. That was what we are fighting for in the UK. That is what Malaysians must fight for in Malaysia as well.
And political reforms would include an end to racial and religious politics, something that ails Malaysia today.
Bersih suffers from an image problem. It now appears as a movement to make Anwar Ibrahim the Prime Minister. Anwar talks about the unfair elections (which is the same problem we are facing in the UK — such as gerrymandering, etc.).
But that was what kept Umno in power when Anwar was in Umno for 16 years from 1982 to 1998. Without this unfair election system Umno would have been out of power as early as 1990.
But Anwar never raised this back in the 1980s when he was in Umno and when he needed Umno to remain in power so that one day he could become the Prime Minister.
Anwar exploited this unfair system to fulfil his personal political agenda and ambition. Anwar was part of the problem back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Today, Anwar is offering himself as the solution when he is the problem rather than the solution.
If Anwar had succeeded in his effort to topple Mahathir in 1997-1998 and had become the Prime Minister instead of getting kicked out of Umno, do you think he would be talking about the unfair elections today?
My opinion is that Bersih has failed. The window of opportunity for change has closed. If we want to see political reforms (and hence electoral reforms as well) it will have to be on another platform.
Bersih is too tainted, and in particular because it is now seen as an Anwar Ibrahim movement. Anwar has destroyed Bersih.
You are one of the co-founders for the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). What happen to the MLCM now?
Just like Bersih, the same has happened to the many other civil society movements as well. They are either aligned to Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. There are no longer any independent movements. Independent movements are not allowed. You are expected to align yourself to either the government or the opposition.
And this was why the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) failed. Malaysians could not accept a movement that does not show loyalty to either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.
Until Malaysians can clamour for an independent movement that is not subservient to the political masters, on whichever side of the political divide, then we will never see change in Malaysia because politics is about power, never mind whether it is opposition or government.
And to gain power the ends justify the means — which is why politics is so corrupt.
What is your view on the current political landscape of Malaysia? How do you evaluate the role of civil society and social movements?
2008 was the peak for the opposition. 2013 saw a slight improvement for the opposition over 2008. Many say 2018 (when the next general election is expected) will be the end of Barisan Nasional and Umno and will see Pakatan Rakyat in power.
I do not believe that. I believe Umno will become even stronger although Barisan Nasional may get weaker because of the non-Umno parties. There is too much at stake for Umno to allow the country to fall into the hands of Pakatan Rakyat. By hook or by crook, Umno will do anything required to stay in power. That is the reality.
The only way we will see change will be when Malaysians from both sides of the political divide unite to fight for change. This is not happening yet. It is still Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. And that is not the recipe for change.
There are extremists from both sides — Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat. We need to build a centrist movement that includes supporters from both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat. Until that happens you can forget about ever hoping for change.
A centrist movement means we need liberalism. Even the opposition is not yet ready for liberalism. But we put the blame entirely on Umno or Barisan Nasional whereas the opposition is equally guilty of the same thing.
How many times do we hear opposition leaders and supporters make statements opposing this, that or the other? Liberalism is a big word. And when you talk about democracy that too is a very wide concept.
To Malaysians, democracy just means voting in an election. General elections may be part of the democratic process but that is not democracy.
Some say democracy means freedom of speech. If democracy means freedom of speech then Malaysia is a democracy because we do have freedom of speech in Malaysia. It is freedom after speech that we do not have.
Then we blame the government for denying Malaysians freedom of speech (or freedom after speech). Are you saying that the opposition allows freedom of speech (or freedom of thought, freedom of choice, etc. — the fundamentals of democracy)?
Can a Muslim girl/woman marry a Hindu boy/man without the Hindu converting to Islam? Can a Muslim leave Islam to become a Christian? Can a man marry a man (or a woman marry a woman)?
Can I dispute the belief that the Quran (or the Bible) is the word of God and publicly say so? Can a Muslim drink beer? Can I make a statement saying that the Monarchy is outdated and a waste of money and that Malaysia should be turned into a Republic?
Can I set up the Malaysian Communist Party (MCP) without getting arrested and getting sent to jail? Can I publicly declare that all religions are nonsense and we should all become atheists?
Now, don’t ask Umno. Umno will certainly say no. Ask the opposition. Will the opposition say yes or will they also say no? The opposition has already said no even before you ask them — if you had been following what they have been saying all this while.
Hence what democracy are we talking about? There is no democracy in Malaysia whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat rules. They are both opposite sides of the same coin. That is the long and short of it all. And that is why we need a non-partisan civil society movement because both sides of the political divide are the same in denying us our civil liberties and hence are equally not democratic.
Many scholars have reached the conclusion that Malaysia is a semi-democracy regime, are you optimistic that Malaysia will in the near future be able to call itself a democracy country?
We cannot say that Malaysia is a semi-democracy. It is like saying someone is semi-pregnant. Either you are pregnant or you are not. How would you define a semi-democracy? Are you saying I can drink one bottle of beer but not six bottles? Or I can drink as long as I do not get drunk? Or I can marry a man as long as I do not indulge in anal sex? What is a semi-democracy? Either I can or I cannot. Period! Either we are a democracy or we are not. Period!
Bersih (and I mean Bersih 1.0 back in 2007) was about electoral reforms. But that was only the beginning and very small part of political reforms in Malaysia. It was how we would we start.
Once we achieve electoral reforms (which has still not been achieved) we will then need to take it to the next level — which is political reforms.
Political reforms will not only involve a strong two-party system in Malaysia but also a strong civil society movement not aligned to any political party, basically a strong third force. But Malaysians do not understand the meaning of a third force.
To most people, a third force means three-corner contests in the general elections — because Malaysians are only capable of thinking in terms of general elections and can’t think beyond that.
General elections are not the endgame. General elections are part of the game plan but not the endgame. General elections are just a means to an end. This, Malaysians cannot seem to understand.
Okay, let’s say in the 2018 general election Pakatan Rakyat manages to oust Barisan Nasional. What then? Will we see more civil liberties? Will all those ‘forbidden fruits’ I mentioned above now be allowed? What is forbidden under Barisan Nasional will still be forbidden under Pakatan Rakyat. There will be no change in matters involving race, religion, language, the monarchy, and so on.
In short, it will still be old wine in a new bottle. Malaysia will never become a Republic. Article 153 will still be in the Constitution. Islam will still be the religion of the Federation and ‘insulting Islam’ will still be a crime (whatever ‘insulting Islam’ really means).
I still cannot say that Allah does not exist without being sent to jail (unless some religious fanatic kills me first). Sex with another man will still be a crime. Elton John and Shakira will still not be welcome in Malaysia because one is gay and the other is too sexy.
And the list goes on. So what change will Pakatan Rakyat bring that Barisan Nasional will not allow?
Malaysian activists and civil society movements have to think beyond general elections and the two main political coalitions called Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. Only then can we talk about change.
Until then we will still just be talking about changing the government, not about changing society. And that is not what I mean by change. And Bersih or Pakatan Rakyat cannot bring the type of change I am talking about.
Bersih is just about toppling Barisan Nasional. In fact, it is now even worse than that. Bersih is now about making Anwar Ibrahim the Prime Minister. That was not why we formed Bersih in 2007.
Since then, however, Bersih has been hijacked and has been turned into an ‘Anwar Ibrahim for Prime Minister’ movement. And that was what made me so angry back in 2010 and the reason why I have been so outspoken since 2010.
Maybe one day, after 2020, Malaysians will wake up and understand where I am coming from and where I am trying to go. I will be past 70 then in the event I am still alive. But we shall have to place our hope in the next generation, my grandchildren’s generation, to see this new awakening.
Until then it is going to get worse before it gets better. Hence prepare yourself for a crash landing before we touch dry land again.
My suspicion is that the fight for real change will not come from the opposition. Umno and Barisan Nasional are desperate to remain in power and they know that they are on the verge of losing power. Hence change will have to come from within Umno and Barisan Nasional if they do not want to lose power.
Umno may become more centrist, as will the other non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional. They will become more centrist out of need and desperation.
And to me it does not matter whether change comes from Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat as long as Malaysia sees change. As politicians will say: the ends justify the means.
Hence as long as we see change it does not matter whether we work with the angel or the devil especially when the devil propagates change while the angel resists change — and even Elton John become an issue for the opposition.
I do not owe loyalty to Pakatan Rakyat. My loyalty is to the fight for change. Hence I will support anyone who supports change, even the Communists if need be. After all, is not Che Guevara my idol (which is why I wear a beret plus I have a collection of his T-shirts)?
I have written-off the present generation Malaysians and even the next generation (my children’s generation). I am hoping for the third generation, my grandchildren’s generation, to bring about this change.
And with the Internet, Globalisation, and so on, this is going to happen ten years down the road, maybe after 2020. Then I can breath my last breathe and go to my grave with a smile of my face because my mission and vision will be complete and my life on earth would not have been wasted.

‘Recognise CPM for its role’

The government should at least admit that Chin Peng and his comrades fought for the nation's independence, says Said Zahari, who witnessed the Hatyai Accord in 1989.

PETALING JAYA: The author of ‘The Long Nightmare’, Said Zahari, who witnessed the Hatyai Accord in 1989, has insisted that the government should have recognised the efforts of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) during the struggle against Japanese Imperialism and British Colonialism.

The Singaporean-born writer, popularly known as Pak Said, also echoed similar views with former Special Branch deputy director Yuen Yuet Leng by saying that Chin Peng and his comrades should have been given a chance to come back.

“I met Chin Peng for the first time in Bangkok when I attended Afro-Asia meeting and soon became good friends.

“He is a man who has played a vital role in the fight for independence. Yes, he is a communist, but CPM was not the only organisation or political party to resist the British occupation.

“There were many other individuals who fought together with CPM, including Malays. Just because they joined the CPM does that mean they were ideologically communist who rejected the notion of god?” asked Pak Said.

Pak Said also said Rashid Maidin performed his Haj so did the rest of his comrades who were active in the communist party.

He added that they were all radical nationalists who believed in the liberation of Malaya and opposed all sorts of occupation from foreign forces.

“My understanding is that they are not communist but more radical nationalist although they were under the communist party.

“The government should recognise their effort,” he said.

Pak Said’s interview with FMT took place just days before the death of Chin Peng in Bangkok on Monday.

I am not a leftist

For many years, Pak Said has been labelled a leftist as his views were often seen as anti-establishment.

His critical views towards Singapore policies frightened Lee Kuan Yew’s conservative government and as a result, he was ousted to a deserted island, Pulau Ubin.

Speaking to FMT at his home in Subang Jaya, Pak Said described that it was the perception of the masses that he was a left-leaning individual.

“I was critical towards Singapore policies and because of that I was imprisoned for 17 years without trial.

“Does that make me a leftist? I don’t know,”

“What is important in life is that we must have strong integrity. Without integrity you are nobody,” he said.

Hari Penjajahan: Polis ugut tangkap anak muda buat perarakan

Antara perkataan yang terdapat pada baju anak-anak muda itu ialah "Apa Anak-Anak Sarawak dan Sabah Mau Lagi?"

KOTA KINABALU : Sekumpulan 20 anak muda Sabah yang cuba membuat perarakan protes tentang apa yang mereka dakwa “Hari Penjajahan” tidak dapat berbuat demikian semalam sebab polis memberi amaran akan menangkap mereka.

Kumpulan berkenaan yang berpakaian t-shirt hitam dan kuning mula berkumpul di depan Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu pada jam 8.30 pagi tetapi anggota polis, beruniform dan berpakaian awam, jauh lebih banyak dari mereka.

Tinjauan FMT mendapati kira-kira 30 anggota polis berada di kawasan itu.

Menurut pemimpin kumpulan anak muda itu, Jalumin Bayogoh, mereka sudah memberi notis kepada pihak polis tetapi pagi semalam diberi amaran polis akan menangkap mereka jika berucap atau jika menaikkan sebarang kain pemidang dan membuat perarakan di bandaraya.

“Polis beritahu kami, angkat saja “hailer” terus tangkap. Hasmin Azroy Abdullah yang turut memimpin kumpulan ditarik polis ke van dan diberi amaran yang serupa. Dia hanya dapat sertai kami semula di akhir perhimpunan kami,” kata Jalumin yang juga salah seorang pemimpin Parti Reformasi Negeri (Star) Sabah.

Azroy merupakan Ketua Pemuda parti itu di Sabah. Kedua-dua mereka pernah bertanding bagi kerusi Parlimen atas tiket Star pada pilihanraya Mei 2013 lalu.

Kumpulan itu kemudian bergerak menuju ke Asia City, kira-kira 800 meter dari bangunan mahkamah dan berehat di sebuah restoran di sana, terus di bawah pengawasan anggota polis berpakaian awam.

Antara perkataan yang terdapat pada baju anak-anak muda itu ialah “Apa Anak-Anak Sarawak dan Sabah Mau Lagi?”. Difahamkan perkataan yang sama ada pada kain pemidang yang tidak dibenarkan diangkat.

Baju mereka itu turut menyatakan dulunya Malaysia adalah persekutuan tiga negara tetapi diubah pada 27 Ogos 1976 menjadi 13 negeri menjadikan Sabah dan Sarawak negeri ke-12 dan ke-13 dalam Persekutuan.

T-shirt mereka bagaimanapun mengandungi fakta yang salah sebab menyatakan pada 16 September, 1963 Malaysia mengandungi Sarawak, Sabah dan Malaya sahaja sedangkan Singapura ketika turut masih berada dalam Persekutuan Malaysia.

Singapura hanya diundi keluar dari Malaysia menerusi undi di Parlimen Malaysia pada 1965.

'Stand by your promises on Chin Peng'

Honour your promises and don't try to milk the death of communist party leader Chin Peng for political mileage, a constitutional expert today told the Umno-BN government.


Abdul Aziz Bari said the government would lose its authority if Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Inspector-general of Police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar continued to vehemently oppose Chin Peng's final wishes for his ashes to be interned in Malaysia.

He reminded them that the 1989 ceasefire agreement between the government and the Communist Party of Malaysia (CPM) was signed by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with their respective predecessors in tow.

"Stop manipulating the emotions of the army and police veterans. Just put up or shut up!" Abdul Aziz (right), a professor from the International Islamic University of Malaysia said in a press statement.

Khalid had said all checkpoints are being watched to ensure that Chin Peng's body was not smuggled in as Chin Peng was responsible for the death of many police and army personnel during the Emergency.

"Khalid should just shut up or ask his own predecessor as to why the police agreed to sign the truce with the communists," Abdul Aziz said in retort.
'Wrong to reject application'
Abdul Aziz said that with the signing of the 1989 document, Malaysia had tacitly recognised the communists.

"The court was wrong to reject Chin Peng's application to come back. The judges asked for documents to prove his citizenship, like a birth certificate. But they knew that it was during the height of emergency and Chin Peng - rightly or wrongly - was a fugitive," Abdul Aziz said.

He added that the court had asked the impossible from Chin Peng, who had fought British rule.

Noting that even some ex-Umno and BN leaders were also detained in the past for communist activities, Abdul Aziz said that the party should stop "demonising" communists and communism.

Sothinathan's dilemma

ANALYSIS With the announcement by M Saravanan that he would not contest for the MIC deputy president post, the only candidate likely to challenge Dr S Subramaniam in the forthcoming party elections is S Sothinathan.

But Sothinathan is said to be in a dilemma, whether to make a second attempt for the post as he did in 2009 or to position himself as one of the three vice-presidents this year and to move up later in 2016, when the leadership transition in MIC takes place.

In the 2009 party elections, Sothinathan contested as the third candidate for deputy presidency, securing a respectable 280 votes against veterans G Palanivel and S Subramaniam. Palanivel won the contest with 629 votes against Subramaniam who polled 547 votes.

Sources close to Sothinathan said although it is an uphill task to unseat the current deputy president and health minister, Sothinathan may still have a fair chance provided Palanivel's supporters back him for the position.
      
"Most of the delegates who were elected in 2009 are likely to be returned again this year. Sothinathan has a comfortable 280 votes based on the 2009 election results.

"Former deputy president Subramaniam’s 547 votes are up for grabs now because Subramaniam is not going to play any role in this election due to his health condition.

"Sothinathan may be able to secure a substantial portion of Subramaniam’s votes and with these votes if Palanivel throws his support to Sothinathan at the last minute, then Sothinathan may be able to cause an upset by defeating Dr Subramaniam," said a source close to Sothinathan.

However, the question is whether Palanivel would take the drastic step of supporting Sothinathan, going against the peace deal brokered by the prime minister himself.

Palanivel has already announced that he wants Dr Subramaniam (right) to be elected unopposed as deputy president.

Palanivel's key supporters are against the leadership transition and want the current president to continue and are doing everything the can to ensure that the implementation of the so-called leadership transition is derailed.

The only option they have now is to put up a credible challenge against Dr Subramaniam for deputy president and the only candidate who has the capacity to carry out that mission is Sothinathan.

Saravanan is a stumbling block
Another source close to Sothinathan opined: "Sothinathan, knowing very well that this is the last opportunity for him to place himself in MIC's hierarchy, is carefully planning his moves."

"If there is no open support from Palanivel then there is no way he can defeat Dr Subramaniam. On the other hand based on his past experiences with Palanivel he is reluctant to rely on Palanivel to take on Dr Subramaniam.

"Sothinathan is going to keep the MIC circles guessing but at the last minute will announce that he is going for vice-president and thereby he is expecting overwhelming support even from Dr Subramaniam’s supporters.

"His idea is to win the vice presidency with the highest number of votes so that he can stake a claim to be the next acting deputy president when Dr Subramaniam moves up as president," he said.

Sothinathan's reluctance to contest for deputy president also stems from the fact that Palanivel denied him the opportunity to contest in the Teluk Kemang parliamentary seat in GE-13, despite Palanivel promising him that he would be considered.

Sothinathan fears that if Palanivel does not support him for deputy presidency after having filed his nominations, then Sothinathan’s future in MIC is doomed.

Therefore, Sothinathan's supporters are urging him to play it safe by going for vice- president and prepare himself for the next three years to stake his claim for the deputy presidency.

But Sothinathan is also facing another dilemma in the form of Saravanan, the current vice president, who is working very closely with Dr Subramaniam and has stood by the deputy president in the recent tussle for presidency with Palanivel.

Upon Palanivel's departure as president in the first quarter of 2016, Dr Subramaniam would be elevated as acting president and he is expected to appoint Saravanan as the acting deputy president. If Dr Subramaniam does not keep Saravanan as his deputy he may face the wrath of Saravanan's supporters who include S Samy Vellu's hardcore supporters.

In this scenario, Sothinathan would not be able to move up in MIC even though he is elected as the vice president because Saravanan would be a stumbling block.

In the final count, Sothinathan’s supporters ssaid that he would bite the bullet and go for vice- presidency and would try to supersede Saravanan by winning with the highest number of votes.

Probably, that achievement, if it materializes, could become the reason for Dr Subramaniam to choose Sothinathan as his next acting deputy president.

---

J JAY RAJ is a long-serving MIC member with a keen interest in Malaysian politics.

Perkasa: Dead or alive, he must not return

Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali said his group will oppose any attempts to bring back Chin Peng's remains to Malaysia.

In an immediate reaction to the former Communist Party of Malaya secretary-general's death today, he said he was not surprised with Chin Peng's death as he is old and should have passed on long ago.

“As with the issue whether the remains should be brought back or not, in my opinion it should not be. If when he was alive we object to him returning to Malaysia. Even in death, his remains should not be allowed to be buried here," he said.

According the Bangkok Post, Chin Peng, born Ong Boon Hua in 1924, had died at a Bangkok Hospital at 6.20am this morning, due to old age.

To Ibrahim, Chin Peng is not only a communist leader who was violent, but is also a criminal.

He said an individual like the Communist leader should be erased from the annals of the country's history, away from the eyes of the younger generation.

"(The communist insurgency is) a dark moment in the country's history which should serve as a lesson but not the history of a terrorist or criminal who destroy a country.

"It is better for Malaysians to remember the history of Tan Cheng Lock and Tan Siew Sin and others like them and not Chin Peng. It is better to forget Chin Peng,” he said in a text message to Malaysiakini.
Similar sentiments were shared by Senator Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor on Twitter.

"To the Chin Peng symphatisers - including NGOs and opposition figures - if you want to defend Chin Peng's rights (to return), it is better that you follow his footsteps by leaving and dying outside the country," he said.

Chin Peng is not a M'sian citizen, reminds IGP

Should the government allow former Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) secretary-general Chin Peng's remains to return to Malaysia?

For inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar, the question shouldn't arise as, technically, Chin Peng is not a Malaysian citizen.

"Although he was born in Sitiawan, he is not a Malaysian citizen. He never took up citizenship when he joined the CPM. I believe he is happy to be buried where he spent most of his time.

"I'm not sure whether he obtained a citizenship from Thailand, but he is not a Malaysian," said Khalid in a text message reply to Malaysiakini.

Chin Peng had once submitted to the Federal Court that he was born on October 1924 in Sitiawan and never had his citizenship revoked nor was he banished from the country.

He claimed that his birth certificate was lost when he tried to escape from the authorities during the Emergency period.
Chin Peng, born Ong Boon Hua in 1924, was pronounced dead at 6.20am this morning in a hospital in Bangkok.

Judges had more 'scrotal gumption' under Pak Lah

Despite the many criticisms against Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's tenure as prime minister, former Court of Appeal judge Mahadev Shankar said one bright spot of his administration was that the judiciary was in better shape.

Mahadev said that the impact was immediate, as Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of sodomy charges soon after Abdullah came to power.

"Within the judiciary itself, there was a change. Sure there was a change and I am referring here to the acquittal of Anwar Ibrahim in the Federal Court.

"At that time, you will see the two male judges on the panel had the scrotal gumption to do the justice that the law required them to do," he said during the book launch of 'Awakening: The Abdullah Badawi Years in Malaysia' in Kuala Lumpur.
The Federal Court had overturned Anwar's sodomy conviction on Sep 2, 2004, slightly over 10 months since Abdullah took over from Dr Mahathir Mohamad as prime minister.
Prior to that, Mahedev, who was on the royal commission of inquiry into judicial fixing that was also set up under Abdullah's tenure, said who the judges "worked for" was up to other minds to explore.
Liberating the judges

But under Abdullah he said the former premier's slogan of "don't work for me but work with me" had resonated with the judges.

"(What) Pak Lah did in the judicial field was to liberate the mind of judges.

"To get to grips with what they had to do was the message he said to them: 'don't do anything to please me, just fulfill your judicial oath and that is enough for me'," he recollected.

These words, Mahadev said, got through to many judges to responded to Abdullah's call.
Furthermore, Mahadev said while people may look at Abdullah's administration with disappointment in hindsight, they must ask themselves what did they do when the former premier asked the rakyat to work with him.

He described Abdullah as a prime minister the country needed at that at that point of time. "We needed him to allow the green shoots to grow," he said.

Abdullah had succeeded strongman Dr Mahathir Mohamad who had been premier for 22 years and later turned against his successor and contributed to his early exit in 2009.

The other 'Maha'
Mahadev noted Malaysia Day today also coincided with the Onum celebration by the Malayali people from Kerala.
In a tongue in cheek remark aimed at Mahathir, Mahadev explained that the name "Maha" was common for those from Kerala, but said his name shouldn't be confused with others who has similar sounding name but shared the same heritage.

At a forum later, editors of the book claimed that their title wasn't a mischievous reference to the former premier's tendency to doze off.

Instead, co-editor James Chin said that the title was fitting as many Malaysians were awakened in the Abdullah years and there was even a sprouting of news portals under his tenure.

Echoing this, the other co-editor Bridget Welsh said: "His (Abdullah's) weakness and unintended consequences made Malaysia stronger - there was a dissipation of fear among Malaysians.

"Malaysians became more critical in how they think about issues and were more analytical. That is part of his legacy," she said.

However, while Abdullah moves out of the frame, Bridget said that the country will likely see continued polarisation as Mahathir's influence lingers and drives the polarising forces.

Malaysian theatrical politics

On which direction the nation is moving towards is a guess that will not falter in any sense.
COMMENT

In the good old days, I watched Tom and Jerry, Road Runner and alike on television for entertainment, as cinemas (or rather called theatres in those days) were a luxury. A weekend outing to the theatre was basically to watch Hindi films that took three hours off your life at each visit.

No wonder we remember their plots so well even to-date without much effort.

But today, I amuse myself with Malaysian theatrical politics. Open any news; if you call so, and it puts a smile on your face. The daily dose comes from the evergreen Barisan Nasional government and followed closely by its villain called Pakatan Rakyat.

And like any typical Bollywood art piece, you must have the comedians thrown in. This role is superbly played and led by Perkasa and the uncountable number of non-governmental organisations.

Alas, not to forget the ultra rogues who outwit the intelligence of the average person, i.e. the criminals.

With the near perfect blend of characters, we have put to shame Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Priyanka Chopra and even Datuk Shah Rukh Khan. We have Najib, Anwar, Ibrahim Ali, Rosmah and the ghost of deceased Altantuya in the cinematically charged saga that has evolved into a magnetic soap opera with re-runs over the years.

What have we not?

Mysterious deaths involving C4, untraceable guns and ammunition, mafia like killings in broad day light, convulated kidnapping cases, border infringements, illicit drugs, corruption conspiracies, scandals, sodomies, racial and religious discomfort, street protests, unwarranted speeches, comical reactions and above all a flaccid parliament.

Plenty of court drama as the seasoning. An ideal “masala-mix” that guarantees to satisfy every palate.

Najib being the superhero currently has gone into hiding literally, as the heat of events unfolding around the nation overtakes the race in all media channels. He may be in the recharging mode to launch missiles soon, since the mother of all parties, Umno, is to convene its election around the corner.

On which direction the nation is moving towards is a guess that will not falter in any sense.

Take your pick. The villains are having a field day lambasting Najib from all directions but like a typical Bollywood hero, he seems to be ducking every bullet and sword hurled to him.

Accompanied with multiple summersaults and using his bodyguards, Najib and his love are merrily jetting around the world without a scratch.

Our political environment post-GE 13 is nothing short of a couple running around the garden singing praises of each other. Except here, the two major parties seem to be running and skipping on thorny beds with the roses having lost its color and scent.

Stale and stinking will best fit the current scenario. We are at the episode where comedians are on the run seeking applauds from the audience. Everybody is tired and anticipating Najib to hover his might over the nation and pull it out of the doldrums.

Will he be the shining knight jumping out of an armored carriage soon or will he further hibernate in the summers of Putrajaya?

Reeling out is the opposition who seem to be playing all the musical instruments to rhyme with the songs. They have panoramic eye sight and nothing escapes their vision, no matter how minute or microscopic.

They beat the living daylights out of every issue, be it positive, negative or neutral. They super charge everything to hilt and “carnivalise” issues to the entertainment of its audience.

Has there been any tangible outcome or are we, the public, merely being brought to a musical chair party with the finishing of playing charades?

Our economy is constipated. Crime is in “diarrhoeatic” state. And social bonds among different communities are fast evaporating.

From being a melting pot that once we boasted about, we have soured the broth in every aspect. The ordinary man-on-the-street is merely being entertained with a very heavy price for the ticket.

A movie that has gone terribly wrong and twisted; from its original script. The founding fathers of Malaysia had a different dream and trajectory for the nation.

The audience is being short-changed blatantly and the irony is that there are no refunds for bad movies. Once taken its gone.

Self-claimed movie critic

Of late we have abundant of self acclaimed “movie” critics. Some are constructive and sincere in realigning the story line but some are clearly tainted with ulterior motives.

A good director needs the backing of financially savvy producer, cameraman, light man, dance choreographer; fight coordinator, an effective security around its shooting location, singers and above all a splendid editing team.

Looks like there is an acute need to fill all this vacancies in our movie before it goes nightmarishly wrong that may fit only for theatres in Timbuktoo!

To avoid boredom and mundane story line, there is now a sudden resurrection of Tun, the previous Godfather, as Amitabh did in “Sarkar” (political overlord).

Whipping out his razor sharp writing and oratory maneuvering, Tun just craves to be part of the silver screen again. Plainly put, he is disgusted to the core with the current lead actors and co stars.

His philosophy of a movie is out of the world which befits alien nations. The director, producer, financiar, hero, comedian, composer, lyricists and singer must be a one man show. Only then you can hold the audience long enough to be glued to their chairs.

Tickets are priced for premium four dimension cinemas and honey-laced popcorn comes free; far more during festivities.

No doubt, Tun won mountain full of Oscars and accolades not only locally but universally too for being the avatar for 22 years or so. Nevertheless in his movies, there was never a place for heroines unlike today and he practiced zero tolerance on issues that were not straight sexually.

The making of a new movie is always easier but undoing and retaking a messed and ruffled reel is a daunting task.

We shall wait the “awakening” of the new making. Notwithstanding the downgrading of our masterpiece in acclaimed academies, even sleeping beauty is jumping wagon from Hollywood to get the feel of the happenings.

Silence in no longer bliss. Revealing interviews with sensational intertwining stories that got shelved many years are now resurfacing.

The battle is eagerly being anticipated between “Sarkar” and “Sleeping Beauty”. It may well be known as the hybrid movie which can make or break our superhero if he continues keeping his vocal cords at rest.

Narinder Singh is a FMT team member.

Penulis Tamil juga mangsa royalti

Golongan muda tampil bersuara menuntut hak yang dinafikan sejak dahulu.
COMMENT

Honorarium dan royalti adalah hak pengarang. Perkara ini ditegaskan secara lantang dan berterusan oleh penulis Tamil generasi baru, M Navin sejak tahun 2005.

Perjuangan guru Bahasa Tamil di SJKT Taman Melawati, Gombak itu kini semakin menampakkan hasil, walaupun terus mendapat penentangan hebat daripada kelompok pengarang veteran yang menerajui Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia.

Saya mengikuti polemik, isu dan kontroversi ini menerusi akhbar-akhbar Tamil tempatan dan media sosial, khasnya Facebook sejak beberapa bulan lalu. Rakan-rakan yang terlibat secara langsung dalam bidang penulisan Tamil juga selalu menyampaikan berita terkini.

Peluang untuk mendapatkan maklumat lanjut muncul apabila saya bertemu Navin di sebuah restoran di Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur pada 7 September 2013.

“Masalah bermula pada suatu majlis pelancaran buku esei mengenai sekumpulan pengarang wanita yang menghasilkan karya Bahasa Tamil, tidak lama dahulu.

“Presiden Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia, P Rajendran dan Ketua Jabatan Pengajian India, Universiti Malaya, Dr Krishanan Maniam memperkatakan buku itu dalam acara di Kuala Lumpur,” kata guru berumur 31 tahun itu.

Rajendran khabarnya mengeluarkan kenyataan yang melukakan hati kelompok penulis. Katanya, pengarang wanita kaum India di Malaysia dapat menulis semata-mata kerana pengarang lelaki bermurah hati memberikan ruang dan peluang kepada mereka.

Krishanan pula membuat kenyataan bahawa penulis wanita di Tamil Nadu, India sudah mula menghasilkan karya-karya berunsur lucah; dan mujurlah penulis wanita di Malaysia yang menghasilkan karya Tamil tidak berbuat demikian.

“Saya mewakili kumpulan Vallinam menulis rencana balas menyelar kata-kata mereka berdua yang boleh dilihat sebagai menjatuhkan martabat pengarang wanita di Malaysia.

“Kami meminta kedua-dua mereka menarik balik kenyataan yang dikeluarkan semasa majlis pelancaran buku itu. Jika tidak, kami akan memulaukan semua acara anjuran Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia,” kata Navin yang berasal dari Lunas, Kedah.

Malangnya sehingga kini tiada sebarang maklum balas daripada mereka yang terbabit. Sikap itu menyebabkan khalayak pembaca dan penulis Tamil – khususnya generasi muda dalam kumpulan Vallinam yang diterajui Navin – semakin menyampah dengan sikap Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia yang diterajui generasi lama.

Mana pergi duit hasil jualan buku?


Secara kebetulan, seminggu selepas kejadian itu, persatuan berkenaan mengadakan majlis pelancaran sebuah antologi cerpen. Cerpen-cerpen Tamil yang terbit di pelbagai media khabarnya dipilih dan dibukukan oleh Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia tanpa izin pengarang terbabit.

Tiga daripada penulis yang karya mereka termuat dalam antologi berkenaan membuat kenyataan tidak akan menghadiri majlis pelancaran berikutan isu lama yang belum selesai. Mereka ialah Tayagi, K Balamurugan dan Pandian. Ketiga-tiganya pengarang lelaki yang tetap tidak bersetuju dengan kenyataan seksis yang dikeluarkan oleh Rajendran dan Krishanan.

“Tayagi dalam kenyataannya yang disiarkan di media menegaskan bahawa walaupun mereka bertiga tidak akan menghadiri majlis pelancaran antologi berkenaan, bayaran royalti bagi mereka tetap perlu dibayar,” Navin menceritakan kepada saya dalam pertemuan kami.

Permintaan seperti itu sebenarnya adalah sesuatu yang amat baru dalam arena penulisan dan penerbitan karya Bahasa Tamil di Malaysia; sama ada di akhbar, majalah atau buku. Saya menyedari hakikat ini hasil penelitian sejak seawal tahun 1993.

Ketiga-tiga pengarang itu – dengan sokongan kumpulan Vallinam – menegaskan bahawa Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia sudah pun melakukan kesalahan dari segi Akta Penerbitan kerana menerbitkan karya mereka tanpa izin, persetujuan dan kebenaran.

“Rajendran dan sekutunya amat marah dengan keberanian Tayagi, Balamurugan dan Pandian bersuara menuntut hak royalti. Tambahan pula, sejak awal penulisan Bahasa Tamil di Malaysia, tidak pernah ada pengarang Tamil yang berani membuat tuntutan demikian,” Navin menghuraikan.

Saya berpeluang bertemu Tayagi dan beberapa pengarang lain semasa majlis pelancaran sebuah kumpulan sajak oleh Poongulali Veeran di Petaling Jaya pada keesokan hari dan mereka mengesahkan apa-apa yang diceritakan oleh Navin.

Majlis pelancaran antologi cerpen oleh Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia tetap berjalan. Sebulan kemudian, selepas asakan demi asakan daripada ketiga-tiga pengarang terbabit, persatuan itu mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa jualan antologi berkenaan dihentikan serta-merta.

“Umum mengetahui bahawa kebanyakan stok buku sudah habis dijual pada majlis pelancaran. Sebagai lumrah dalam dunia sastera Tamil, politikus dan pihak berkepentingan akan membeli buku-buku dengan memberikan sumbangan yang banyak semasa majlis pelancaran.

“Maka, tentu sahaja Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia sudah mendapat keuntungan yang banyak menerusi antologi yang dicetak dan diterbitkan tanpa izin pengarang,” Navin mendedahkan.

Persatuan penulis Tamil sukar digugat


Maka, katanya, amat mustahil untuk mengatakan bahawa Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia – yang juga penerbit buku berkenaan – tiada wang untuk membayar royalti dan honorarium kepada penulis.

Oleh kerana amat kecewa dengan sikap serta amalan tidak adil dan kezaliman yang dilakukan oleh Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia, Tayagi dan rakan-rakannya tidak menolak kemungkinan membuat laporan polis demi menuntut hak.

Perkembangan ini pasti sahaja mengingatkan saya kepada isu penipuan royalti teks Komponen Sastera Dalam Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Malaysia (Komsas) melibatkan beberapa rakan penulis kaum Melayu yang didedahkan menerusi Free Malaysia Today sejak Ogos 2011.

Sebagai pemilik tunggal syarikat ‘Perunding Media, Motivasi dan Penerbitan Uthaya’ serta presiden Kumpulan Sasterawan Kavyan (Kavyan), saya terlibat secara langsung dalam usaha membantu sekumpulan pengarang itu.

Tentulah perjuangan menuntut hak royalti menjadi amat sukar apabila Kementerian Pelajaran/Pendidikan dan menteri sendiri tidak cukup “jantan” untuk tampil membela nasib pengarang Melayu yang tertindas.

Dalam isu melibatkan tiga pengarang Tamil ini pula, tentulah tidak ada gunanya mengharapkan bantuan politikus dalam MIC mahu pun mana-mana menteri dan timbalan menteri daripada kalangan kaum India.

Sejak mendapat tahu kisah penipuan royalti daripada Navin pada 7 September 2013, saya menghubungi pelbagai pihak – termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada wartawan, penulis, NGO, jabatan dan politikus – dan khabarnya Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia memang “sukar digugat” kerana mendapat sokongan pihak atasan.

Namun begitu, bagi saya sebagai individu yang menentang penindasan dan kezaliman, kesalahan tetap kesalahan dan saya tidak teragak-agak untuk bersuara bagi pihak kelompok minoriti yang tertindas.

Berbalik kepada isu melibatkan Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia, Navin menegaskan bahawa kesalahan pertama persatuan itu adalah menerbitkan (membukukan) karya-karya penulis tanpa izin. Sebaliknya mereka sesuka hati memilih cerpen-cerpen yang tersiar di akhbar dan majalah Tamil tempatan.

Kesalahan kedua adalah bahawa persatuan itu menjual antologi berkenaan dan mendapat keuntungan. Akan tetapi, mereka tidak mahu membayar royalti walau satu sen kepada para penulis terbabit.

Penulis generasi muda berani tuntut hak

Tuntutan dan permintaan bagi bayaran honorarium dan royalti bagi karya Bahasa Tamil di Malaysia adalah sesuatu yang amat baru; sama ada karya disiarkan di akhbar atau majalah atau dimuatkan dalam antologi.

Secara mudah, akhbar, majalah dan penerbit buku Tamil berpendirian bahawa pengarang Tamil tempatan harus berterima kasih dan terhutang budi kepada penerbit kerana sudi menyiarkan karya mereka!

Saya secara peribadi amat menyokong keberanian kumpulan Vallinam yang diterajui Navin bangkit memperjuangkan hak royalti bagi pengarang Tamil di Malaysia.

Navin selaku pemilik Vallinam Publication menerbitkan buku rakan-rakannya sejak tahun 2005. Beliau memastikan pengarang menerima royalti yang setimpal. Budaya etika penerbitan profesional yang diperkenalkan oleh Navin adalah sesuatu yang amat luar biasa dalam bidang penerbitan buku Tamil di Malaysia.

Pada 15 September 2013, tiga lagi buku baru dilancarkan oleh Vallinam Publication; iaitu kumpulan esei oleh Navin, kumpulan puisi oleh Poongulali dan kumpulan cerpen oleh Balamurugan. Navin memastikan rakan-rakannya menerima royalti sebaik buku terbit.

“Suka saya menyarankan kepada para pengarang Tamil supaya memulaukan mana-mana akhbar dan majalah yang tidak membayar honorarium bagi karya kreatif yang disiarkan. Jika penulis terus tunduk, selagi itulah penindasan dan kezaliman akan berterusan,” pinta Navin dengan tegas dan berani semasa diwawancara bagi makalah ini.

Sejak awal, pemuda itu menerima sokongan moral daripada pengarang veteran seperti Dr M Shanmuga Siva yang menyetujui perjuangannya. Kini, Navin mendapat sokongan padu daripada sekelompok rakan-rakan pengarang generasi muda yang turut ada kesedaran tentang hak royalti dan etika penerbitan.

“Saya benar-benar berharap mentaliti pembaca dan pengarang karya Tamil akan berubah. Jangan terlalu mengagung-agungkan Persatuan Penulis-penulis Tamil Malaysia dan menyangka mereka berkorban kerana sudi menerbitkan karya kita.

“Pada realiti, persatuan itu mengaut keuntungan besar dengan memeras keringat para pengarang Tamil,” kata Navin yang pernah terlibat secara aktif dalam persatuan itu sebelum menyedari kepincangan yang wujud.

Saya tidak pasti apakah kerajaan dan kementerian serta agensi kerajaan yang tampil menyalurkan dana dalam jumlah yang besar kepada persatuan penulis Tamil menyedari segala hakikat ini.

Uthaya Sankar SB mengucapkan Selamat Menyambut Onam kepada masyarakat Malayali dan Selamat Hari Malaysia kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Stop attacking DAP, Rayer warns lawyer

Seri Delima state rep Rayer rebukes Ranjit Singh for interfering into a political party internal matters without invitation.

GEORGE TOWN: Seri Delima assemblyman RSN Rayer has demanded a state Bar committee office bearer Ranjit Singh Dhillon to immediately withdraw his two statements made against DAP and its leaders in past two months.

Or else, he would contemplate to refer lawyer Ranjit to the Bar Council for disciplinary action.

Rayer claimed that Penang Bar Committee chairman Farid Abdul Gafoor had told him that Ranjit was not allowed to issue press statements in his capacity as the committee’s criminal law sub-committee chairman.

However, Rayer said Ranjit had issued both press statements, one against Bukit Gelugor MP and DAP chairman Karpal Singh in early August and another against the party today in that capacity.

“Ranjit has abused his position as the criminal law sub-committee chairman.

“According to Farid, Ranjit has not been authorised to talk to the press in his committee capacity.

“He has two options, retract statements and keep quiet, or risked being referred to disciplinary committee,” warned Rayer at a press conference in his service centre in Gelugor here today.

In his earlier statement on Aug 6, Ranjit called on Karpal to declare his assets to prove his innocence over allegations that Opposition Leader and Permatang Pauh MP Anwar Ibrahim had allegedly paid him RM50mil to bribe judges and prosecutors.

Ranjit aired his views following claims by Barisan Nasional candidate for Permatang Pauh in May’s general election, Mazlan Ismail that he had received more than 6,000 letters containing Karpal – Anwar graft allegations.

Ranjit said Karpal and Anwar chose to lodge police reports against Mazlan’s claims to maintain their squeaky clean image.

But he said if Penang Chief Minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had declared his assets, there was no reason why Karpal should not.

An English daily today reported Ranjit hitting out at DAP for failing to submit to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) the original 500 letters by delegates confirming their absence in the party’s election on Dec 15, 2012.

“Is DAP defying the ROS in hopes that it would be declared an illegal body?” Ranjit reportedly asked.

He said the letters, which party national organising secretary Anthony Loke on Aug 19 claimed to have, should be made visible to the public.

He said it does not bode well for DAP to sidestep the issue.

He said DAP resistance to follow ROS instructions defied all principles of fair play and lend credence that the party first central executive committee (CEC) was pushed through hurriedly and in suspicious manner.

Referring to these statements, a fuming Rayer rebuked Ranjit for interfering into a political party internal matters without invitation.

“He has no business to comment on our party affairs. He should shut up. He is not a politician,” hit out Rayer, a lawyer by profession and state DAP legal advisor.

When contacted, Ranjit was in no mood to respond to Rayer’s remarks.

“Let it be … Let it be. I’m busy. I have work to do,” said Ranjit before switching off.

‘They lied, Rosli Dhoby not pro-Indonesia’

Documentary evidence showed that British Colonial Office hid truth of how and why Charles Vyner Brooke was assasinated.

KUCHING: The re-emergence of an old incriminating BBC report of famed Sarawak Malay nationalist Rosli Dhoby has irked his family.

Tahar Johnny, a cousin of Rosli, known for his role in the assassination of Sir Duncan Stewart, the second governor for Sarawak, said the later was not pro-Indonesia although he was anti-British.

“Yes, he had a great liking for anything Indonesia. Early in the mornings, he would listen to Indonesian radio broadcasts, and he also liked to read Indonesia books.

“But that was it. He had never mentioned anything about supporting Indonesia to govern Sarawak,” said Tahar, 73 adding that the incident had happened a long time ago and it was not right to kindle “old wounds” especially now that “Sarawak is already peaceful and a better place for its people.”

Rosli was reportedly part of the anti-cessionist movement which was against Rajah Charles Vyner Brooke’s decision to cede the state to the British Crown just after the Second World War.

Rosli, together with his anti-cessionist Rukun Tiga Belas organisation members – Awang Rambli Amit, Morshidi Sidek and Bujang Suntong – had conspired carried out the assassination of Stewart during the governor’s first official visit to Sibu on December 3, 1949.

Rosli stabbed Stewart on his arrival after Morshidi pretended to take pictures of the governor.

The four were subsequently sentenced to death, and were hanged to death on March 2, 1950. Rosli was at the time a 17-year-old lad.

Speaking to FMT, Tahar however admitted to the possibility that there were other conspirators who were sympathizers of the then newly independent and expansion-aspiring Indonesia.

“Some of them (the other members of Rukun Tiga Belas) might have been pro-Indonesia. But I am very sure Rosli wasn’t.

“He indeed had a great admiration for Indonesia, and most likely gained his nationalist sentiments from Indonesia, but he had never mentioned about supporting a union with Indonesia,” he said.

Letter between conspirators

Tahar said further that Rosli had never expressed any aspirations to involve Indonesia in the future of Sarawak.

He was responding to a report by the BBC Radio last year, alleging that a letter between two unnamed fellow conspirators of Rosli had been found, within which they made clear their intentions to help Indonesia to take over British Sarawak.

The existence of the alleged letter, however, was suppressed by the British, amidst fear of hostile reaction from Indonesia. SouthEast Asia was in the midst of pre-war fears.

The British then purportedly linked the assassination to Anthony Brooke, Vyner’s nephew, who was at that time also against Sarawak becoming a crown colony.

In the BBC report dated March 12, 2012, it said former undisclosed documents proved British officials had covered up evidence about Stewart’s assassination, fearing the truth might start a war.

This however, was said to have stained the reputation of Anthony Brooke, who was the “Rajah Muda” or “Crown Prince” for the Sarawak.

Rosli and Morshidi were thought to be members of a group dedicated to restoring Anthony to the throne of Sarawak.

Anthony was never officially informed that the assassination had no connections with him until he died in 2011.

Prior to Sarawak becoming a crown colony, it was ruled by the Brooke Family for more than 100 years.

However, in July 1946, Sarawak became Britain’s last colonial possession, when it was handed over to the Britain by Vyner, in exchange for a £200,000 much to Anthony’s and most Sarawakians’ chagrin.

Indonesia’s eye on Sarawak

Many anti-cession protests were held by the Sarawak people, calling for a return to the Brookes’ rule under Anthony.

When Stewart was killed, suspicions as expected fell on him, alleging him as the leader and center of the anti-cession movement.

The BBC report quoted historian Professor Simon Ball of Glasgow University, of saying that the British had never actually believed Anthony was of any part to assassinate Stewart.

Ball, who had comprehensively researched the assassination case, said evidence showed the ringleaders of the assassination were not acting for Anthony, nor did they have any intention of returning him to power.

Ball had discovered a letter to this effect.

According to Ball, the letter was written by one co-conspirator to the other and in it the correspondents made clear of their objectives of assisting Indonesia to take over Sarawak.

“What they want is freedom as part of Indonesia. So this is the underlying political motive for the killing. It’s not to support (Anthony) Brooke,” Ball was quoted by BBC Radio.

The letter said the British was worried about confronting Indonesia with these new allegations expcially since it was already having to manage insurgency in Malaya.

“So they decided to keep quiet about the fact that this had little to do with Brooke’s supporters and a lot to do with an anti-colonial independence movement, “ added Ball.

He said in the letter marked ‘confidential’, John Higham of the Colonial Office wrote to a colleague in the Foreign Office stating: ‘We have now come to the very definite conclusion that the publication of the correspondence would be dangerous and that it would be undesirable to show it to Anthony Brooke’”

It also mentioned that “the Superintendent of the local Special Branch wrote two weeks later: ‘There is no evidence or suspicion that AB [Anthony Brooke] knew of the intention to assassinate H.E. [His Excellency] The Governor’,”

Malaysia's PM Capitulates to the Hardliners

Najib says 'Bless the bumis'

New benefits reward Malays for May 5 election, saddle the economy for the foreseeable future

The 14 September announcement of an array of new economic benefits for ethnic Malays by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak represents the premier's final post-election capitulation to radical Malay nationalists in the United Malays National Organization.

The new plan signifies a U-turn back to the New Economic Policy of affirmative action for ethnic Malays that were put in place in 1971 following disastrous race riots. Economists are largely in agreement that the policy has saddled the economy for three decades. Najib, an economist himself, has been attempting to undo the policy for three years through his 1Malaysia economic liberalization policy. The new plan will play a major role in UMNO's deliberations at its Oct. 5 annual general assembly and is key to Najib's keeping his job. If nothing else, it is recognition that reform inside the party is dead.

The prime minister has been largely powerless against Malay supremacist forces led by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad since May 5 elections, in which the opposition shocked the ruling Barisan Nasional by winning the popular vote, 50.27 to 47.38%, with the remainder going to splinter parties. The Barisan kept its hold on parliament, 133-89 only because of extensive gerrymandering of parliamentary districts.

Mahathir and the forces aligned with him blame Najib for the Barisan's poor showing because of his attempt to reach out to multi-ethnic voters rather than by inciting the Malay base to capture all potential votes of Malays, who comprise 60.1 percent of the population. As a result, the Barisan captured only about 60 percent of the ethnic Malay vote, taking a drubbing from ethnic Chinese and Indians.

The ensuing insistence on revenge has demonstrated the ruling coalition's rather slippery hold on the concept of democracy, with UMNO cadres demanding that opposition voters be punished for what was regarded as their disloyalty rather than a recognition that corruption, cronyism, rent-seeking, favoritism and growing fear of the Malay supremacists had played a bigger role.

Since the election, the weakened Najib has largely had to bend to the wishes of the Malay supremacists despite the fact that the most virulent of the Melayu Ketuanan (Malays first) candidates, Ibrahim Ali, Zulkifli Noordin and Puad Zarkashi of the supremacist NGO Perkasa, were all rejected by the voters in constituencies in which there were strong Malay majorities.

The demand to punish opposition voters first resulted in a July decision to cut the allocation of public university seats for Chinese students to 19 percent down from 23 percent last year, in line with their representation in the overall population. Indians, who make up about 8 percent of the population, were awarded only 4 percent of the university seats. The rest went to bumiputeras.

The other shoe dropped Saturday when Najib held a widely anticipated press conference to announce the package of new perks in government and finance for ethnic Malays. Najib, also the country's finance minister, said the focus areas would include enhancing bumi equity ownership in the corporate sector as well as asset ownership, according to the prime minister's website.

"The government heard the cries for help from the bumiputeras regarding their level of participation in socio-economic development programs," he said. Targets will be set for quotas for the chief executive officers of government-linked companies (GLCs), including for projects awarded to vendors. To enhance bumiputera equity ownership in the corporate sector, government investment funds will assist bumi-owned companies to be listed on Bursa Malaysia. Other measures will aid bumis in ownership of homes, industrial premises and commercial complexes.

These policies, or ones very much like them, resulted in unqualified ethnic Malays being handed executive positions in GLCs including the state-owned airline, a state-owned construction company and others only to either run them into the ground or to loot them of hundreds of millions of ringgit.

It has also resulted in so-called Ali-Baba companies, in which Alis -- ethnic Malays -- for decades have been handed executive positions in companies run by Babas, the nickname for Straits-born Chinese, creating a relatively wealthy class of ethnic Malays who have lived off their positions without learning the businesses or doing real work, to be treated with disdain and irritation by the executives who make the real decisions. Most economists feel the NEP hobbled the economy, encouraging rent-seeking and enriching a handful of well-placed cronies at the top of the party.

In all, for foreign and domestic investors, these largely signal a dispiriting return to policies that Najib had sought to erase, but who met the virulent opposition of the ketuanan Melayu crowd. Those policies can be expected to put more roadblocks in the way of a dynamic economy, probably permanently crimping Najib's goal of pulling the country out of the so-called middle income trap in which it has been enmired for more than a decade.

It is expected to discourage both foreign and domestic investment and spurring both capital flight and immigration by qualified ethnic minorities seeking advancement elsewhere. Already, according to a World Bank study, at least 1 million Malaysians live permanently overseas.

Najib's announcement of the policy takes place against the backdrop of a worsening racial situation, which the respected news portal, in an editorial last Friday, said has never before "been this bad, this widespread, this debilitating and potentially irreversible for Malaysia."

Since the election, the drumbeat of racial hatred, fanned by the Malay-language broadsheet Utusan Melayu, which is wholly owned by UMNO and which can be considered its mouthpiece, has grown ever more powerful, with ethnic Indians and Chinese, particularly Christians, coming under withering criticism.

It can only be expected to get worse on Oct. 5, when the UMNO annual general assembly gets underway. The conclave has always featured strident calls for emasculating the political and economic power of the Chinese and has always portrayed the ethnic Malays as economic and political victims done out of their rightful place in a country where other races are interlopers.

Najib, initially thought to be in danger of losing his job as premier, as Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had done before him, is expected to survive the AGM as both UMNO president and prime minister, sources in UMNO say, partly because there is nobody who is either ready or wants the job, and partly because Najib is now wholly a captive of the Mahathir wing of the party.

The wild card is that this year for the first time, because of party changes engineered by Najib, all 160,000 UMNO rank and file will vote for the top positions in the party. Prior to this year, the voting was confined to top cadres from each of the party's districts, representing the larger numbers. This time, the party will learn for the first time how deep the resentment runs against the losses the party underwent in the 2013 general election.

Takziah Kepada Keluarga Mendiang Chin Peng

Satu episod sejarah negara berlalu dgn pemergian Chin Peng, mantan SUA Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM). Sejak era penjajahan Inggeris sehingga kemerdekaan, negara terpaksa bergelut dengan penentangan bersenjata komunis. Ramai yang terkorban atau sengsara termasuk dari pasukan keselamatan akibat pertarungan lebih tiga dekad itu. Dan adalah nyata bahawa rakyat kita umumnya menolak gagasan dan ideologi komunis.

Namun mendiang Chin Peng juga akhirnya memilih jalan perdamaian setelah gagal dalam perjanjian Baling 1955 dengan Almarhum Tunku Abd Rahman. Beliau mewakili bekas penggerak PKM, bersama Rashid Maidin memeterai perjanjian damai dan gencatan senjata dengan kerajaan pada tahun 1989.

Maka atas pertimbangan tersebut juga lah, berikutan perjanjian persahabatan negara Malaysia dan China, kami telah menggesa kerajaan mengizinkan beliau menziarahi keluarganya di Sitiawan. Takziah kami ucapkan kepada keluarga mendiang Chin Peng.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

A lone voice warns fellow judges against “obedient judiciary”

The Malaysian Insider  by V. ANBALAGAN

It has been awhile since a senior judge has so publicly reminded his own peers of their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Federal Constitution - and that they should not be bullied by government leaders and Parliament.

But that's exactly what happened when a judge wrote his dissenting opinion on a high-profile appeal recently against the conviction of several activists for illegal assembly.

This is the first time in the history of Malaysia that a judge - Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer (pic) - has held that the requirement for a permit to assemble peacefully under the Police Act 1967 is unconstitutional.

Hamid said that in this case there was a requirement under Section 27 of the Police Act to obtain a permit, but in that process the police could not refuse to grant the permit.

Five former university students were arrested under the charge of unlawful assembly in 2001. They were fined RM3,900 each by a magistrate's court four years later. They challenged this but six years later the High Court let the conviction stand.

The ex-students then took the challenge to the Court of Appeal. Last week, two of the three judges hearing the appeal ruled that the convictions should stand.

Court of Appeal judges Datuk Seri Mohamad Apandi Ali and Datuk Linton Albert were in the majority. Apandi, in his 50-page judgment, said there was no merit to the appeal as the Police Act did not prohibit the right to a peaceful assembly and police were duty-bound to maintain security and public order.

But Hamid dissented, leading the defence lawyer Edmund Bon to hail this judge's decision as a "consolation" as he wrote a very strong dissenting judgment.

"Hopefully constitutional lawyers can pursue this matter before the Federal Court in future cases," Bon said on the court steps after the judgment.

In his dissenting judgment, Hamid said it is a fallacy to believe that the judges had lost their judicial power, following an amendment to the Federal Constitution in 1988.

He said that any unlimited power vested with the executive, which may compromise the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, must be struck down by the courts.

"It is not for the judge to say that the dignity of his office has been stripped by Parliament and accept that the court has no judicial power," he said.

He said an obedient judiciary could not stand as a defender of freedom and would result in there being no rule of law. Judicial power was vested since the inception of the Constitution and cannot be removed, he added.

Hamid said it was for the public to initiate steps to arrest the progress of an obedient judiciary and ensure that the judiciary was independent to protect the Constitution.

"An obedient judiciary will indirectly promote all form of vice, which in all likelihood will destabilise the nation as well as harmony and security," he said in his 77-page, wide-ranging judgment.

Hamid also drove home the point that the view of those who said that judicial power may be removed by Parliament is "purely based on emotional burst of novice interpretation of the Constitution".

He said it could not be so, especially when the oath of the office of judges was to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Hamid said any attempt to remove judicial power would be against the basic pillars of the Constitution.

"Basic structure jurisprudence also did not permit Parliament to undermine the doctrine of separation of powers among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary," he added.

In essence, he said, Parliament cannot legislate to force the courts to be servant to the executive. - September 13, 2013.

Former foes hold no grudges against Chin Peng, they want to move on

by Eileen Ng and Diyana Ibrahim - The Malaysian Insider

Two former policemen who fought Chin Peng and his communist troops have called on the public to move on, with one saying that he was sad over the death of a “friend”.

Former Special Branch deputy director Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng who led the fight against the communists, said he has come to terms with the Malayan Emergency and considers Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader Chin Peng a friend.

“I lost a friend, an enemy who became a friend. Rest in peace my friend,” said Yuen.

After the signing of the 1989 Peace Accord in Haadyai, Thailand, between CPM leaders and government officials representing Malaysia and Thailand, both Yuen and Chin Peng were seen talking and joking with each other, surprising those who were present.

One of them asked Yuen, “Don’t you have resentment against this man?” – referring to the feared Communist leader.

“I turned to Chin Peng and asked him whether he wanted to answer the question. He said no and asked me to answer instead.

“I said: we tried to kill each other (previously) but today, we are alive and in Haadyai, so where’s the resentment?” he told The Malaysian Insider in a telephone interview today.

Yuen said there were no hard feelings between them as each was working for the people in their own way.

As they grew older, he said, they were respectful and less antagonistic towards each other.

“When we were both young, we fought against each other very hard because of differences in ideologies. But after the peace accord was signed, we understood each other better,” he said.

Three years ago, Yuen sent a book, “The First Emergency Revisited” to Chin Peng for the latter’s birthday.

Yuen described Chin Peng as an intellectual and not a hardcore killer as he was portrayed to be.

“Unlike some of his comrades, he still had his humanity,” he said.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who fought the communists as a police officer, described Chin Peng as a “professional”.

Wan Junaidi said he and Chin Peng were “professionals” who believed in different political ideologies.

“I was doing my job and he was doing his,” said Wan Junaidi, who is president of the Sarawak Ex-Policemen Association.

Asked to comment on his death, Wan Junaidi said, “I felt nothing. There was no sentiment. It (the death) meant nothing to me personally,” he said.

“Yes, I was sad when my men got killed. But I was also trained by a commander who taught me to be a professional. I was just a policeman doing my duty against people who broke the law. There was no sentiment.

“I never tortured those communists we captured nor hurt any of them, unless he stood armed before me and I had no choice but to shoot.

“I guess it was the same with Chin Peng,” he added.

Wan Junaidi, however, agreed that Chin Peng’s death would be the passing of another chapter in the history of Malaysia. – September 16, 2013.

Agong Launches Sarawak Islamic Complex

KUCHING, Sept 16 (Bernama) -- The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah Monday launched the opening of Sarawak Islamic Complex in Jalan P.Ramlee here.

His Majesty also named the complex as the 'Majma' Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah'.

The idea to build the complex was mooted by Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud with the aim at making it a symbol of unity and harmony among the multi-ethnic people in the state.

The 17-storey complex was built at a cost of RM100 million and is the new landmark of the city.

It comprises 12-storey office spaces, two-storey library, three-storey commercial podium, with restaurants and food court, as well as parking lots.

It also has a multi-purpose hall with a capacity up to 2,000 people.

The construction of the complex was also a continuation of the Sarawak Islamic Council (MIS) Endowment Project implemented by the Sarawak Baitulmal Fund.

Apart from MIS, other departments that will operate from the complex are the Sarawak Islamic Religious Council Department, Sarawak Mufti Department, Sarawak Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM), Resident's Office and Kuching District Office.

-- BERNAMA

Miss America 2014: Miss New York Nina Davuluri Crowned Winner

Miss America contestant, Miss New York Nina Davuluri reacts after being chosen winner of the 2014 Miss America Pageant as 2013 Miss America Mallory Hagan places a tiara on her head in Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 15, 2013. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

 

Miss New York Nina Davuluri has been crowned Miss America 2014; she is the first American contestant of Indian origin to win the pageant.

Davuluri was crowned Miss America 2014 at the annual pageant that took place at Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, New Jersey on 15 September.

Davuluri, 24, is also the second consecutive Miss New York to win Miss America title. She succeeded Mallory Hagan, who crowned her the winner of 2014 at the pageant’s finale.

During her first press meet after winning the pageant, Davuluri praised the Miss America Organization for being “diverse” and not going the stereotyped way of choosing a winner.

“I’m so happy this organization has embraced diversity,” Davuluri, who made it to the top five finalists after performing a classical and Bollywood fusion dance during talent competition, said. “I’m thankful there are children watching at home who can finally relate to a new Miss America.”
A total 52 contestants vied for the Miss America 2014 title at the pageant’s finale. Besides Nina Davuluri, the other four contestants who made it the top five finalists were Miss California Crystal Lee (runner-up), Miss Oklahoma Kelsey Griswold, Miss Florida Myrrhanda Jones and Miss Minnesota Rebecca Yeh.

Miss America pageant, which is known as a “scholarship pageant” rather than a beauty pageant, awards scholarships to young contestants from the 50 US states as well as the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands. The primary prizes for the winner of the coveted title and her runners-up are scholarships to the institution of their choice.

Nina Davuluri wants to pursue a career in medicine and she said she will apply to medical schools with the help of the scholarship amount she won at the pageant.

The Miss America Scholarship programme, developed by the Miss America Organization, is the largest provider of scholarship money to young women in the world. In 2010, it made available more than $45m (£28m) in cash and scholarship assistance.

Have a look at the photos from crowning moments of Miss America 2014 pageant:

Nina Davuluri reacts with runner-up Miss California Crystal Lee (L) as she is chosen as winner of the 2014 Miss America Pageant. She is crowned by Mallory Hagan, Miss America 2013. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Davuluri, 24, won the 2014 Miss America Pageant on Sunday, giving the prize to Miss New York for the second year in a row. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Nina Davuluri performs a traditional Indian dance during the 2014 Miss America Pageant. She is the first contestant of Indian origin to win the pageant. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Miss New York Nina Davuluri (R) answers a question from host Lara Spencer during the 2014 Miss America Pageant. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Nina Davuluri reacts as she is chosen to move on while competing in the Miss America Pageant. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

The reactions continued as she is announced the winner of the coveted title. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

Nina Davuluri (in yellow) celebrates with other contestants after being crowned Miss America 2014. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

And here comes the final walking moment of Miss America 2014, Nina Davuluri posing for the shutterbugs at the end of the pageant. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail: s.sinha@ibtimes.com