Sunday, 11 January 2015
Algerian Islamists call to ‘strike Jews’ in celebration of Paris attack
Islamists in Algeria shouted anti-Semitic slogans at a rally celebrating the slaying of 12 people in Paris.
Several dozen men participated in the rally that took place Wednesday outside a mosque in the Belouizidad district of Algiers, the news site tamurt.info reported Thursday.
They shouted “strike France and the Jews,” “Allah is the greatest” and “Charlie is dead.” French authorities suspect the Jan. 7 attack on the offices of the Charlie Hebdo weekly was carried out by Islamists who targeted the publication for its satirical cartoons lampooning Islam.
Elsewhere in Algiers, Islamists celebrated the deadly attack with a dance party on the street near the Djamaa Lihoud mosque, tamurt.info reported.
Several dozen men participated in the rally that took place Wednesday outside a mosque in the Belouizidad district of Algiers, the news site tamurt.info reported Thursday.
They shouted “strike France and the Jews,” “Allah is the greatest” and “Charlie is dead.” French authorities suspect the Jan. 7 attack on the offices of the Charlie Hebdo weekly was carried out by Islamists who targeted the publication for its satirical cartoons lampooning Islam.
Elsewhere in Algiers, Islamists celebrated the deadly attack with a dance party on the street near the Djamaa Lihoud mosque, tamurt.info reported.
Up to 8,000 Nepali girls trafficked to Dubai
DELHI: A multi-agency international operation, led by Central Bureau of Investigation,
has stumbled upon an organized racket of trafficking of young Nepalese
girls to Dubai for alleged prostitution and Delhi's IGI airport is the
transit point for their travelling to the gulf country.The investigation has revealed that nearly 6000-8000 Nepalese girls aged between 20 to 30 years have been trafficked to Dubai via Delhi till December 2014.
The agency has informed the ministry of external affairs, ministry of home affairs, bureau of immigration and Nepal authorities through Interpol about the organized syndicate, which sends the girls on tourist visas.
French gunman and wife holidayed in Malaysia, says report
Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who was shot dead after taking hostages at a Paris kosher grocery store, once holidayed in Malaysia with his wife, CNN reported today.Hayat Boumeddiene is now on the run and has become France's most wanted woman.
Coulibaly is one of three terrorists who brought France to a halt in 48 hours of bloodshed.
CNN reported that 26-year-old Boumeddiene was on the run and considered armed and dangerous.
Coulibaly died in a hail of bullets along with four hostages in the storming of the Jewish supermarket by French security forces.
According to judicial documents, a police search of Coulibaly's residence in 2010 turned up a crossbow, 240 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition, films and photos of him during a trip to Malaysia, as well as letters seeking false official documents.
However, Boumeddiene eluded capture during the confusion as the hostages were running away, CNN reported.
The Daily Mail reported that Coulibaly and Boumedienne had married in a religious ceremony, not in a civil ceremony – the only marriage legally accepted in France.
While Coulibaly had a well-documented track record, Boumeddiene remains a shadowy figure.
However, the one-time cashier was reportedly radicalised after meeting Coulibaly.
Boumedienne is of Algerian background and had altered her surname to “make it sound more French”, the Daily Mail quoted an investigating source as saying.
She told police who had interviewed her as part of their inquiries into Coulibaly’s murky dealings with Islamic extremists that in 2009, she had walked away from a low-paid job as a cashier in Paris.
After marrying Coulibay, Boumedienne “devoted herself” to him, the Daily Mail reported.
Interrogated by police in 2010, Boumeddiene said she was inspired by her husband and the radicals she lived with to “read a lot of books on religion”.
"Because of this, I came to ask questions on religion," Boumedienne reportedly told police.
"When I saw the massacre of the innocents in Palestine, in Iraq, in Chechnya, in Afghanistan or anywhere the Americans sent their bombers, all that… well, who are the terrorists?"
She added that when Americans killed innocents, it was the right of men to defend their women and children.
Always cool and composed, Boumeddiene had never wavered under police cross-examination.
To neighbours, the pair were quiet, respectful and normal and had even gone on a holiday to Malaysia together, according to the Daily Mail. – January 10, 2015.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/french-gunman-and-wife-holidayed-in-malaysia-says-report#sthash.GBFBVEEI.dpuf
Suspect hunted over Paris attacks left France last week
A woman hunted by French police as a suspect in the attacks on a satirical paper and Jewish
supermarket in Paris left France several days before the killings and is believed to be in Syria, Turkish and French sources said.After killing the gunmen behind the worst assault in France for decades, French police launched an intensive search for Hayat Boumeddiene (pic), the 26-year-old partner of one of the attackers, describing her as "armed and dangerous".
But a source familiar with the situation said that Boumeddiene left France last week and travelled to Syria via Turkey. A senior Turkish official corroborated that account, saying she passed through Istanbul on January 2.
Security forces remained on high alert before a march today which will bring together European leaders in a show of solidarity for the 17 victims killed in three days of violence that began with an attack on the Charlie Hebdo weekly on Wednesday and ended with Friday's dual sieges at a print works outside Paris and a kosher supermarket in the city.
French security forces shot dead the two brothers behind the Hebdo killings after they took refuge in the print works. They also killed an associate – Boumeddiene's partner – who planted explosives at the Paris deli in a siege that claimed the lives of four hostages.
Yesterday, police maintained a heavy presence around the French capital, with patrols at sensitive sites including media offices, and local vigils were held across France. The Interior Ministry said about 700,000 people attended including 120,000 in Toulouse, 75,000 in Nantes, and 50,000 in Marseille.
"It's no longer like before," said Maria Pinto, on a street in central Paris. "You work a whole life through and because of these madmen, you leave your house to go shopping, go to work, and you don't know if you'll come home."
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, a journal that satirised Islam as well as other religions and politicians, raised sensitive questions about freedom of speech, religion and security in a country struggling to integrate five million Muslims.
No warning
A source familiar with the situation said that Boumeddiene left France last week and travelled to Syria via Turkey.
"On January 2, a woman corresponding to her profile and presenting a piece of identity took a flight from Madrid to Istanbul," a source familiar with the situation told Reuters.
The source said she was accompanied by a man and had a return ticket for January 9, but never took the flight.
A senior Turkish security official said Paris and Ankara were now cooperating in trying to trace her, but said she arrived in Istanbul without any warning from France.
"After they informed us about her... we identified her mobile phone signal on January 8," the source said. "We think she is in Syria at the moment but we do not have any evidence about that... She is most probably not in Turkey," the source said, adding the last signal from her phone was detected on Thursday.
An official police photograph of Boumeddiene shows a young woman with long dark hair hitched back over her ears. French media, however, released photos purporting to be of a fully-veiled Boumeddiene, posing with a cross-bow, in what they said was a 2010 training session in the mountainous Cantal region.
French media described her as one of seven children whose mother died when she was young and whose delivery-man father struggled to keep working while looking after the family. As an adult, she lost her job as a cashier when she converted to Islam and started wearing the niqab.
Le Monde said Boumeddiene wed Amedy Coulibaly in a religious ceremony not recognised by French civil authorities in 2009. The two were questioned by police in 2010 and Coulibaly jailed for his involvement in a botched plot to spring from jail the author of a deadly 1995 attack on the Paris transport system.
Booby traps
Participation of European leaders including Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron and Italy's Matteo Renzi in a silent march through Paris with President Francois Hollande will pose further demands for security forces today.
Arab League representatives and some Muslim African leaders as well as Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will attend.
Political and security chiefs were reviewing how two French-born brothers of Algerian extraction, Cherif and Said Kouachi, could have carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks despite having been on surveillance and "no-fly" lists for many years.
Paris chief prosecutor Francois Molins said late Friday the three men killed on Friday in the two security operations had had a large arsenal of weapons and had set up booby traps. They had a loaded M82 rocket launcher, two Kalashnikov machine guns and two automatic pistols on them.
With one of the gunmen saying shortly before his death that he was funded by al Qaeda, Hollande warned that the danger to France – home to the European Union's biggest populations of both Muslims and Jews – was not over yet.
"These madmen, fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion," Hollande said in a televised address.
"France has not seen the end of the threats it faces," said Hollande, facing record unpopularity over his handling of the economy but whose government has received praise from at least one senior opposition leader for its handling of the crisis.
An audio recording posted on YouTube attributed to a leader of the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda (AQAP) said the attack was prompted by insults to prophets but stopped short of claiming responsibility for the assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.
Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas condemned the strike as an unjustifiable terrorist attack.
Before his death at the printing works, Cherif Kouachi told a television station he had received financing from an al Qaeda preacher, Anwar al Awlaki, in Yemen.
Anwar, an influential international recruiter for al Qaeda, was killed in September 2011 in a drone strike. A senior Yemeni intelligence source told Reuters that Kouachi's brother Said had also met Anwar during a stay in Yemen in 2011.
Paris prosecutor Molins said there had been sustained contact between Boumeddiene and the wife of Cherif Kouachi, with records of no fewer than 500 phone calls between the two last year. The wife of Kouachi is being questioned by French police.
Coulibaly had also called BFM-TV, to claim allegiance to Islamic State, saying he wanted to defend Palestinians and target Jews. He said he had jointly planned the attacks with the Kouachi brothers, and police confirmed they were all members of the same Islamist cell in northern Paris. – Reuters, January 11, 2015.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/suspect-hunted-over-paris-attacks-left-france-last-week#sthash.RvnFy8Hc.dpuf
Rajapakse defeated by Tamil and Muslim votes
COMMENT Mahinda Rajapakse despite
his nationalist appeal lost his bid for a third-term presidency in Sri
Lanka. He gained 47.58 percent of votes whereas his former colleague and
recently turned opponent, Maithripala Sirisena, obtained 51.28 percent
of votes. It was a surprise for Sri Lankans as well as for outsiders.
Many believed that there was nothing to stop Rajapakse from going for
his third term in the elections held on 8 Jan 2015.
Sirisena, who quit his post in the cabinet of Rajapakse in November last year, had been doing his homework for some time. Eventually, just before the elections, he teamed up with Ranil Wickramasinghe, the leader of the United National Party (UNP); Chandrika Kumaratunga, the former president of Sri Lanka; the former chief justice Shirani Bandaranaike; and other prominent leaders to form a loose coalition to unseat Rajapakse. Rajapakse said that Sirisena “stabbed” him from the rear!
There was a common thinking in Rajapakse’s close circles that the incumbent might not face much difficulty in the contest and given the expected solid support from the Sinhala south, the gains that might accrue from Tamil and Muslim communities to Sirisena could be easily offset.
But alas, this was not what happened. Rajapakse not only lost the support of Tamils and Muslims but also from the majority of the Sinhalese. In the north central of the country and other places of Sinhala concentrations, Sirisena obtained the support of the voters. In Tamil areas such as Vanni, Jaffna, Trincomalee, Ampara, and Batticola, voter turnout averaged 75 percent, much higher than previous elections. In the Muslim areas of Puttalam, Ampara, Colombo, and others, voters shied away from Rajapakse to vote for Sirisena.
Amongst Tamils, although there were urgings to boycott the presidential elections, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which controls the northern province, took the stand that it would urge Tamils to vote against Rajapakse by supporting Sirisena. It is not that Tamils thought that Sirisena would be able to address their problems, they felt that by voting against the “known enemy”, they might be registering their protest vote for the knowledge of the international community.
The urging for boycott by some Tamil diaspora organisations, although well-intended, failed to appreciate the historic choice available to Tamils and how they could exercise their democratic right in a small measure to bring about long-term desired changes in the country.
Muslim dilemma in Sri Lanka
The Muslims being a smaller minority than the Tamils always faced a dilemma as how to respond to changes in the country dominated by the Buddhist majority Sinhalese. For a long time, despite the injustices meted out to them by the Sinhala racist governments, the Sri Lankan Muslim community, given the division in the leadership, invariably went along with the ruling Sinhala elite. In the course of time, they had to pay dearly for their blind loyalty.
During the Rajapakse administration, Muslim communities were especially targeted for attacks by Sinhala Buddhist extremist organisation such as Bodu Bala Sena. In a recent attack against Muslims in an outskirt of Colombo by Bodu Bala Sena, a Muslim woman deeply affected by the wanton attacks against the Muslim community said that if LTTE leader Prahbakaran was alive, the Muslims would not have to face such cruel and inhumane acts.
Given the kind of attacks against Muslims, two main organisations, the All Ceylon Muslim Congress and Sri Lankan Muslim Congress withdrew their support from Rajapakse’s coalition to support Sirisena. With the entry of these two, a stage was set for the mobilisation of Muslim support for Sirisena. Muslims in Colombo, Puttalam, Ampara, and Batticola overwhelmingly supported Sirisena.
For Tamils and Muslims, Sirisena had nothing to offer in terms of getting their support. However, his campaign for democracy, ending corruption, cancelling the licences of two big casinos, and for the restoration of a two-term presidency, must have attracted Tamils and Muslims to a limited extent. Nonetheless, it should be clear to Sirisena and his new friends that without the support of the Tamils and Muslims, he would not have won the presidency, given the power of incumbency.
Rajapakse faced two surmountable problems that plagued his administrations. First was the problem of putting his family and close friends in high posts in the government. His two brothers – Basil and Gotabhaya – occupy senior posts in the government. Basil is the senior presidential advisor and Gotabhaya is the defence secretary, equivalent to the post of minister of defence. Three members of parliament from the south are his family members. It is said that his family members are in charge of five ministries that control 70 percent of the national budget.
Nepotism and cronyism notwithstanding, the second major problem of Rajapakse was the abolishment of the two-term presidency, as enshrined in the constitution. Rajapakse was two-terms in his office and decided to call for elections on Jan 8, 2015, to go for his third term. However, before this ,he used his parliamentary majority to bring about an amendment (18th amendment) to the constitution to allow himself to go for a third term.
As a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court, the incumbent president could call elections two years ahead of schedule. This was what Rajapakse did to gain power, but was vehemently opposed by the country’s Bar Association, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court Shirani Bandaranaike, and members of the opposition. Subsequently, Rajapakse impeached the chief justice and removed her from the office. Sirisena has promised that if he becomes the president, he would rehabilitate both Sarath Fonseka, who fell out of favour with Rajapakse, and Shirani Bandaranaike.
Wise move to take on Rajapakse
Sirisena will be next president of Sri Lanka. He won the elections not because he promised the heaven, but rather circumstances were much more favourable for him to take on Rajapakse. In fact, he was probably intelligent enough to realise that Rajapakse, despite his nationalistic credentials, was becoming a liability to the Sinhala people, especially the elites.
The criticisms from international human rights organisations about the way he conducted the war, the manner in which thousands of innocent Tamils were murdered, the continuing harassment of Tamils, disappearance of innocent people, land grab in Tamil areas, the attack against minorities, and other undemocratic and oppressive acts have made Rajapakse very unpopular in the civilised world.
Moreover, Rajapakse’s close association with China and Pakistan has alienated the Indian establishment to some extent. In fact, in the last few years after the end of civil war and with little or no development to address genuine Tamil concerns in the north and east, countries like India have been thinking of pursuing the option of regime change.
Given the fact that Sri Lanka falls without the orbit of India’s geopolitical sphere of influence, Rajapakse's regime has become an embarrassment to India. Even after the defeat of the LTTE in the bloody war, Rajapakse has not shown interest in addressing long-standing Tamil concerns. On the contrary, the end of civil war has meant not the end of misery of the Tamil people but the continuation of acts of oppression. Under these circumstances, Sri Lanka has shown no interest in advancing the option of federalism as envisaged in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1887.
While there is nothing by way development for Tamils, Rajapakse has sought to check Indian influence by giving a free hand to China and Pakistan. It was China’s economic and development assistance that has resulted in the building of ports and other major projects in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, allowing access to Chinese submarines to dock in Sri Lankan seaports has not gone well with India.
India might not have directly interfered in the electoral process, but its ubiquitous intelligence agencies are active and it might not be too incorrect even to tentatively suggest that India probably extended its intelligent arm to support the loose coalition of Sirisena, Wickramesinghe, and Kumaratunga!
Sirisena is no angel
The victory of Sirisena might have brought joy and happiness to some sections of the Tamil Diaspora. Fine, getting rid of “butcher” Rajapakse was something that Tamils in the north and east, victims of the 30-year war, desired. But Tamils having fought many Sinhala regimes in the past only know too well that Sirisena is no angel. In his campaign, he promised nothing to Tamils; he merely said that if elected, he would call for a more independent investigation to address Tamil human rights grievances.
There was nothing to address the concerns of the Muslims as well. Let us not forget, Sirisena was acting defence minister for the Rajapakse government during the height of civil war and before he parted company, was the secretary of Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP) and former health minister.
In other words, why he departed suddenly to challenge Rajapakse would remain a mystery for some time to come. Apparently, in one of the interviews, he said that he lost confidence with Rajapakse as far back as 2006, but why then did he remain so long as his predecessor’s close confidante? While the TNA did the right thing to ask Tamils to vote in the elections, this should not be interpreted as support for Sirisena. Rather it was a protest vote against Rajapakse.
In the Tamil circles, there is also the lingering fear that their participation in the electoral process might dilute their pursuit of a separate country of Eelam. In the last few months or so, Tamil diaspora organisations such as the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam based in United States have urged a referendum for Tamils whether they wish to opt for separate country or be part of the Sri Lankan political establishment.
Similarly, the Penang Tamil conference in November 2014, among its resolutions, called on the United Nations to conduct a referendum among Eelam Tamil regarding their political future. The history of estranged relations between Tamils and Sinhalese provided the grounds for the LTTE to take up armed struggle in 1977 for the pursuit of separate state.
Although the armed struggle has ceased, the option of separate state has gained ground, more at the political and diplomatic levels. So, if Tamil organisations called for the boycott of the recent elections, then this boycott must be understood in the larger backdrop of relationship between two principled nations, the failure of passive resistance, the move to take up arms, and finally, the urgings for international human rights investigation.
The ouster of Rajapakse was a good thing for Sri Lanka. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, was one of the leaders who responded early by congratulating Sirisena on his victory and extended invitation to visit India. India must be glad that a major embarrassment in the south has been removed democratically. British Prime Minister Cameron not only congratulated Sirisena, but asked him to allow for the unimpeded international investigation into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
It is hoped that the interest of democracy, justice and human rights, Sirisena takes up the challenges that were not addressed but swept under the carpet by Rajapakse.
P RAMASAMY is Perai assemblyperson and Penang deputy chief minister II.
Sirisena, who quit his post in the cabinet of Rajapakse in November last year, had been doing his homework for some time. Eventually, just before the elections, he teamed up with Ranil Wickramasinghe, the leader of the United National Party (UNP); Chandrika Kumaratunga, the former president of Sri Lanka; the former chief justice Shirani Bandaranaike; and other prominent leaders to form a loose coalition to unseat Rajapakse. Rajapakse said that Sirisena “stabbed” him from the rear!
There was a common thinking in Rajapakse’s close circles that the incumbent might not face much difficulty in the contest and given the expected solid support from the Sinhala south, the gains that might accrue from Tamil and Muslim communities to Sirisena could be easily offset.
But alas, this was not what happened. Rajapakse not only lost the support of Tamils and Muslims but also from the majority of the Sinhalese. In the north central of the country and other places of Sinhala concentrations, Sirisena obtained the support of the voters. In Tamil areas such as Vanni, Jaffna, Trincomalee, Ampara, and Batticola, voter turnout averaged 75 percent, much higher than previous elections. In the Muslim areas of Puttalam, Ampara, Colombo, and others, voters shied away from Rajapakse to vote for Sirisena.
Amongst Tamils, although there were urgings to boycott the presidential elections, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which controls the northern province, took the stand that it would urge Tamils to vote against Rajapakse by supporting Sirisena. It is not that Tamils thought that Sirisena would be able to address their problems, they felt that by voting against the “known enemy”, they might be registering their protest vote for the knowledge of the international community.
The urging for boycott by some Tamil diaspora organisations, although well-intended, failed to appreciate the historic choice available to Tamils and how they could exercise their democratic right in a small measure to bring about long-term desired changes in the country.
Muslim dilemma in Sri Lanka
The Muslims being a smaller minority than the Tamils always faced a dilemma as how to respond to changes in the country dominated by the Buddhist majority Sinhalese. For a long time, despite the injustices meted out to them by the Sinhala racist governments, the Sri Lankan Muslim community, given the division in the leadership, invariably went along with the ruling Sinhala elite. In the course of time, they had to pay dearly for their blind loyalty.
During the Rajapakse administration, Muslim communities were especially targeted for attacks by Sinhala Buddhist extremist organisation such as Bodu Bala Sena. In a recent attack against Muslims in an outskirt of Colombo by Bodu Bala Sena, a Muslim woman deeply affected by the wanton attacks against the Muslim community said that if LTTE leader Prahbakaran was alive, the Muslims would not have to face such cruel and inhumane acts.
Given the kind of attacks against Muslims, two main organisations, the All Ceylon Muslim Congress and Sri Lankan Muslim Congress withdrew their support from Rajapakse’s coalition to support Sirisena. With the entry of these two, a stage was set for the mobilisation of Muslim support for Sirisena. Muslims in Colombo, Puttalam, Ampara, and Batticola overwhelmingly supported Sirisena.
For Tamils and Muslims, Sirisena had nothing to offer in terms of getting their support. However, his campaign for democracy, ending corruption, cancelling the licences of two big casinos, and for the restoration of a two-term presidency, must have attracted Tamils and Muslims to a limited extent. Nonetheless, it should be clear to Sirisena and his new friends that without the support of the Tamils and Muslims, he would not have won the presidency, given the power of incumbency.
Rajapakse faced two surmountable problems that plagued his administrations. First was the problem of putting his family and close friends in high posts in the government. His two brothers – Basil and Gotabhaya – occupy senior posts in the government. Basil is the senior presidential advisor and Gotabhaya is the defence secretary, equivalent to the post of minister of defence. Three members of parliament from the south are his family members. It is said that his family members are in charge of five ministries that control 70 percent of the national budget.
Nepotism and cronyism notwithstanding, the second major problem of Rajapakse was the abolishment of the two-term presidency, as enshrined in the constitution. Rajapakse was two-terms in his office and decided to call for elections on Jan 8, 2015, to go for his third term. However, before this ,he used his parliamentary majority to bring about an amendment (18th amendment) to the constitution to allow himself to go for a third term.
As a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court, the incumbent president could call elections two years ahead of schedule. This was what Rajapakse did to gain power, but was vehemently opposed by the country’s Bar Association, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court Shirani Bandaranaike, and members of the opposition. Subsequently, Rajapakse impeached the chief justice and removed her from the office. Sirisena has promised that if he becomes the president, he would rehabilitate both Sarath Fonseka, who fell out of favour with Rajapakse, and Shirani Bandaranaike.
Wise move to take on Rajapakse
Sirisena will be next president of Sri Lanka. He won the elections not because he promised the heaven, but rather circumstances were much more favourable for him to take on Rajapakse. In fact, he was probably intelligent enough to realise that Rajapakse, despite his nationalistic credentials, was becoming a liability to the Sinhala people, especially the elites.
The criticisms from international human rights organisations about the way he conducted the war, the manner in which thousands of innocent Tamils were murdered, the continuing harassment of Tamils, disappearance of innocent people, land grab in Tamil areas, the attack against minorities, and other undemocratic and oppressive acts have made Rajapakse very unpopular in the civilised world.
Moreover, Rajapakse’s close association with China and Pakistan has alienated the Indian establishment to some extent. In fact, in the last few years after the end of civil war and with little or no development to address genuine Tamil concerns in the north and east, countries like India have been thinking of pursuing the option of regime change.
Given the fact that Sri Lanka falls without the orbit of India’s geopolitical sphere of influence, Rajapakse's regime has become an embarrassment to India. Even after the defeat of the LTTE in the bloody war, Rajapakse has not shown interest in addressing long-standing Tamil concerns. On the contrary, the end of civil war has meant not the end of misery of the Tamil people but the continuation of acts of oppression. Under these circumstances, Sri Lanka has shown no interest in advancing the option of federalism as envisaged in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1887.
While there is nothing by way development for Tamils, Rajapakse has sought to check Indian influence by giving a free hand to China and Pakistan. It was China’s economic and development assistance that has resulted in the building of ports and other major projects in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, allowing access to Chinese submarines to dock in Sri Lankan seaports has not gone well with India.
India might not have directly interfered in the electoral process, but its ubiquitous intelligence agencies are active and it might not be too incorrect even to tentatively suggest that India probably extended its intelligent arm to support the loose coalition of Sirisena, Wickramesinghe, and Kumaratunga!
Sirisena is no angel
The victory of Sirisena might have brought joy and happiness to some sections of the Tamil Diaspora. Fine, getting rid of “butcher” Rajapakse was something that Tamils in the north and east, victims of the 30-year war, desired. But Tamils having fought many Sinhala regimes in the past only know too well that Sirisena is no angel. In his campaign, he promised nothing to Tamils; he merely said that if elected, he would call for a more independent investigation to address Tamil human rights grievances.
There was nothing to address the concerns of the Muslims as well. Let us not forget, Sirisena was acting defence minister for the Rajapakse government during the height of civil war and before he parted company, was the secretary of Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP) and former health minister.
In other words, why he departed suddenly to challenge Rajapakse would remain a mystery for some time to come. Apparently, in one of the interviews, he said that he lost confidence with Rajapakse as far back as 2006, but why then did he remain so long as his predecessor’s close confidante? While the TNA did the right thing to ask Tamils to vote in the elections, this should not be interpreted as support for Sirisena. Rather it was a protest vote against Rajapakse.
In the Tamil circles, there is also the lingering fear that their participation in the electoral process might dilute their pursuit of a separate country of Eelam. In the last few months or so, Tamil diaspora organisations such as the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam based in United States have urged a referendum for Tamils whether they wish to opt for separate country or be part of the Sri Lankan political establishment.
Similarly, the Penang Tamil conference in November 2014, among its resolutions, called on the United Nations to conduct a referendum among Eelam Tamil regarding their political future. The history of estranged relations between Tamils and Sinhalese provided the grounds for the LTTE to take up armed struggle in 1977 for the pursuit of separate state.
Although the armed struggle has ceased, the option of separate state has gained ground, more at the political and diplomatic levels. So, if Tamil organisations called for the boycott of the recent elections, then this boycott must be understood in the larger backdrop of relationship between two principled nations, the failure of passive resistance, the move to take up arms, and finally, the urgings for international human rights investigation.
The ouster of Rajapakse was a good thing for Sri Lanka. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, was one of the leaders who responded early by congratulating Sirisena on his victory and extended invitation to visit India. India must be glad that a major embarrassment in the south has been removed democratically. British Prime Minister Cameron not only congratulated Sirisena, but asked him to allow for the unimpeded international investigation into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
It is hoped that the interest of democracy, justice and human rights, Sirisena takes up the challenges that were not addressed but swept under the carpet by Rajapakse.
P RAMASAMY is Perai assemblyperson and Penang deputy chief minister II.
'Paris shooting suspects didn't enter M'sia'
"Checks by PDRM (found) Amedy Coulibaly and his wife Hayat Baumeddiene have never entered Malaysia," he said in a Twitter posting today.
According to international news reports, Amedy was shot dead by French police on Friday while holding hostages in a Jewish supermarket while Hayat is believed to have fled the scene.
Before that, Amedy is believed to have shot a police woman while Hayat acted as his getaway driver.
Khalid said this in response to local news report citing UK tabloid Daily Mail that the couple had visited Malaysia prior to the shooting.
Contacted later, Khalid also stressed that Malaysia was a popular tourist destination and people visiting the country does not indicate anything sinister.
"Malaysia is a popular tourist destination and just because someone comes here does not mean that it is for terrorist-related activities.
"They (French authorities) should also reveal which other countries he (Amedy) has visited based on his passport," he told Malaysiakini.
Amedy is reportedly close to Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi who on Wednesday attacked the office of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 people.Charlie Hebdo, or Charlie Weekly, is well known for courting controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders of all faiths and has published numerous cartoons ridiculing Prophet Muhammad.
Conservative Muslims deem the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or God to be blasphemous.
Catholic organisations have filed a dozen of lawsuits against the magazine for, among others, lampooning the Pope.
Violent reaction
Khalid used the violent reaction as an example to justify the government's about turn to retain the controversial Sedition Act.
“Draw a lesson from the incident in Paris. This is why we need the Sedition Act, and PDRM will not let anyone who insults religion off,” he said in another Twitter posting.
The Kouachi brother later barricaded themselves in a printing factory in Paris after police launched a hunt for them.
Amedy who was holed up at the Kosher grocery store had threaten to kill hostages if police stormed the printing factory to capture the Kouachi brothers.
French police later moved in on both locations within 30 minutes of each other, killing the Kouachi brothers and Amedy.
It was found that Amedy had earlier killed four hostages.
Lawyer’s Jakim extremism tweet falls in sedition net
But Kampar MP questions why IGP used photos from cybertrooper.
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: Civil liberties lawyer Eric Paulsen’s remark on Thursday about “extremism” by Jakim (the Islamic affairs department) appears to have got him entangled in the current sedition campaign. And so, too, an MP’s supposed remarks about “Islamic Civilisation” studies.
They appear to be under investigation because the Inspector-General of Police, Abdul Khalid Bakar, appears to have said so in his own tweet today, but it was not clear who he wanted to be investigated.
At the same time, the Kampar MP named by Khalid questioned the IGP’s action in using the photo, which he said came from a cybertrooper’s web site.
Khalid had used two photo montages to accompany his tweet, but did not state the source.
“Statement sebegini memang wajar kita siasat dibawah Akta Hasutan. @PDRMsia akan siasat di bawah Akta Hasutan” he tweeted. (Statements such as these should be investigated under the Sedition Act. PDRM will investigate.)
It was not clear whether he was calling for Paulsen and Ko to be investigated, or whether the police would investigate those who had created the photo montages.
On Thursday Paulsen had tweeted: “Jakim is promoting extremism every Friday. Govt needs to address that if serious about extremism in Msia.”
It appeared to be a tongue-in-cheek remark about Friday sermons, drafted by Jakim, and delivered in mosques across the country.
This was reproduced on a copy of his profile photo, with the word “Biadab” written on it, and used by Khalid together with another photo montage with Ko’s supposed remarks that Islamic Civilisation be abolished.
Ko said the photos had been taken from a cybertrooper’s web site.
The MP told the Star Online that it was in July 2013 when he had made a statement urging the Education Ministry to reverse a ruling for compulsory Islamic Civilisation studies in private universities and letting them decide on their courses.
The Kampar MP questioned the IGP’s action in republishing lies by a cybertrooper, of ordering an investigation based on rumours and in propagating the photo, which would create ill-will.
KUALA LUMPUR: Civil liberties lawyer Eric Paulsen’s remark on Thursday about “extremism” by Jakim (the Islamic affairs department) appears to have got him entangled in the current sedition campaign. And so, too, an MP’s supposed remarks about “Islamic Civilisation” studies.
They appear to be under investigation because the Inspector-General of Police, Abdul Khalid Bakar, appears to have said so in his own tweet today, but it was not clear who he wanted to be investigated.
At the same time, the Kampar MP named by Khalid questioned the IGP’s action in using the photo, which he said came from a cybertrooper’s web site.
Khalid had used two photo montages to accompany his tweet, but did not state the source.
“Statement sebegini memang wajar kita siasat dibawah Akta Hasutan. @PDRMsia akan siasat di bawah Akta Hasutan” he tweeted. (Statements such as these should be investigated under the Sedition Act. PDRM will investigate.)
It was not clear whether he was calling for Paulsen and Ko to be investigated, or whether the police would investigate those who had created the photo montages.
On Thursday Paulsen had tweeted: “Jakim is promoting extremism every Friday. Govt needs to address that if serious about extremism in Msia.”
It appeared to be a tongue-in-cheek remark about Friday sermons, drafted by Jakim, and delivered in mosques across the country.
This was reproduced on a copy of his profile photo, with the word “Biadab” written on it, and used by Khalid together with another photo montage with Ko’s supposed remarks that Islamic Civilisation be abolished.
Ko said the photos had been taken from a cybertrooper’s web site.
The MP told the Star Online that it was in July 2013 when he had made a statement urging the Education Ministry to reverse a ruling for compulsory Islamic Civilisation studies in private universities and letting them decide on their courses.
The Kampar MP questioned the IGP’s action in republishing lies by a cybertrooper, of ordering an investigation based on rumours and in propagating the photo, which would create ill-will.
MP: Why no action against IS fan sites in Malay?
Police special task force asked to explain failure in monitoring terrorist activities.
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: The lack of police action against Malay-language web sites glorifying terrorist groups such as Islamic State has come under question.
“What has the special task force called the Police Cyber Investigation Response Centre been doing all his time in monitoring cyberspace?” said PKR international bureau chief Gooi Hsiao Leung, pointing out that the Inspector-General of Police had said the centre was equipped with the latest equipment.
Gooi said in a statement that the Malay-language websites was obviously targeted at Bahasa speaking countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, naming Al-Mustaqbal.net and shoutussalam.com as being among those to spread “radical and extremist propaganda”.
The sites posed a real security threat to Malaysia, he said, and their continued existence reflected a total failure in monitoring terrorist activities on the internet.
He criticised the IGP for remarks defending the Sedition Act and said the police should take their job more seriously. “We do not need the Sedition Act, we need a new IGP,” he said.
FMTKUALA LUMPUR: The lack of police action against Malay-language web sites glorifying terrorist groups such as Islamic State has come under question.
“What has the special task force called the Police Cyber Investigation Response Centre been doing all his time in monitoring cyberspace?” said PKR international bureau chief Gooi Hsiao Leung, pointing out that the Inspector-General of Police had said the centre was equipped with the latest equipment.
Gooi said in a statement that the Malay-language websites was obviously targeted at Bahasa speaking countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, naming Al-Mustaqbal.net and shoutussalam.com as being among those to spread “radical and extremist propaganda”.
The sites posed a real security threat to Malaysia, he said, and their continued existence reflected a total failure in monitoring terrorist activities on the internet.
He criticised the IGP for remarks defending the Sedition Act and said the police should take their job more seriously. “We do not need the Sedition Act, we need a new IGP,” he said.
Butt out of sedition political debate, IGP told
Surendran: Khalid should not interere in the political process
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: The Inspector-General of Police was criticised today for interfering in the political debate about the Sedition Act by posting remarks on Twitter justifying the need to retain the act.
The MP for Padang Serai, N Surendran of PKR, said Khalid’s job as IGP confined him to law enforcement and not to policy or political matters.
His remarks were “a desperate attempt to justify continued usage of the draconian and archaic” law. Khalid had said the Paris attacks killing 12 people at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo showed the need for the Sedition Act in order to protect the country from terrorist attacks.
He said the current debate about whether to retain the act or abolish it, between Barisan Nasional and opposition politicians as well as civil society, was a political matter.
“It is even more disturbing that the IGP has chosen to interfere in the ongoing dispute,” Surendran said. “The IGP, as a top civil servant, has no business to publicly intervene in policy or political matters.”
Surendran said the Sedition Act criminalised legitimate criticism of the government and the authorities, and asked why police were investigating assembly member Haniza Talha of PKR for questioning the federal budget allocation for Permata (the movement championed by Rosmah Mansor).
KUALA LUMPUR: The Inspector-General of Police was criticised today for interfering in the political debate about the Sedition Act by posting remarks on Twitter justifying the need to retain the act.
The MP for Padang Serai, N Surendran of PKR, said Khalid’s job as IGP confined him to law enforcement and not to policy or political matters.
His remarks were “a desperate attempt to justify continued usage of the draconian and archaic” law. Khalid had said the Paris attacks killing 12 people at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo showed the need for the Sedition Act in order to protect the country from terrorist attacks.
He said the current debate about whether to retain the act or abolish it, between Barisan Nasional and opposition politicians as well as civil society, was a political matter.
“It is even more disturbing that the IGP has chosen to interfere in the ongoing dispute,” Surendran said. “The IGP, as a top civil servant, has no business to publicly intervene in policy or political matters.”
Surendran said the Sedition Act criminalised legitimate criticism of the government and the authorities, and asked why police were investigating assembly member Haniza Talha of PKR for questioning the federal budget allocation for Permata (the movement championed by Rosmah Mansor).
Church fails to get 9-man bench to hear ‘Allah’ review
The chief justice of Malaysia has turned down a request by the Catholic Church to convene a minimum nine-man panel to deliberate its review application against the ban on the word Allah when the case comes up on January 21.The church was instead informed that only a five-man bench would be constituted to hear the matter.
The decision by Tun Arifin Zakaria was conveyed to the Catholic Church by the special officer to the chief justice, Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab, in a letter dated December 31.
The letter which was sighted by The Malaysian Insider, said that the request for a full bench could not be entertained. There were no reasons given on why the request was dismissed.
On December 23, a lawyer for the church had sent a letter to Arifin, urging for at least nine Muslim and non-Muslim judges to hear its arguments on fundamental constitutional provisions relating to religion.
The letter, which was also sighted by The Malaysian Insider, had said the church wanted a quorum that reflected the multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity of Malaysian society, given the nature of the issues raised.
"This is because fundamental constitutional provisions relating to state religion, freedom of minority religion, freedom of expression, which have far-reaching consequences for Malaysians of all races and religions, will be raised," the letter had said.
In February last year, lawyers for the church had asked for, and given, an unprecedented seven-man bench to hear their leave application which was dismissed in June the same year.
The review application is aimed at setting aside the ruling by the apex court's seven-man bench that upheld the Home Ministry’s ban on the use of the word “Allah” in the Catholic weekly, Herald, and establish a new panel to re-hear the leave application.
Four of the Federal Court judges, who formed the majority, had refused the leave-to-appeal application while three others took the position that leave should be granted.
"It is pertinent to note that each dissenting judge had written his or her own grounds allowing the application for leave,” the letter had said.
It had added that the church, therefore, believed that it was appropriate for at least a nine-man bench
to be formed to hear the review.The letter cited a precedent in India where a 13-man Supreme Court bench sat in 1973 to deliberate on an important constitutional issue in the case of Kesavananda Barati v the Government of Kerala.
The church also drew Arifin's attention to the October 2013 Court of Appeal ruling, which continues to raise serious public concern where parties had used portions of the judgment to seize holy books of Christians even though the majority ruling in the leave application had declared that those portions were mere remarks made in passing.
A copy of the letter was sent to the Attorney-General's Chambers and Messrs Zainul Rijal Talha and Amir, the legal firm that is representing one of the respondents.
On June 23 last year, Arifin was among the majority apex court judges who dismissed the church's application for leave to appeal.
Others were Tan Sri Raus Shariff, Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin and Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar.
The dissenting judges were Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Tan Sri Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha and Datuk Zainun Ali.
All the seven judges as well as Tan Sri Apandi Ali, who was in the Court of Appeal panel that heard the church’s case, but who is now a Federal Court judge, cannot hear the review application.
A five-man bench to hear the review application could still come from the remaining six Federal Court judges but nothing in law prevents Arifin to also scout for members in the Court of Appeal.
The church is seeking to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeal decision, which had allowed the home minister's appeal to overturn the 2009 High Court's decision that the Herald could use the word “Allah”.
The High Court had declared that the decision by the minister to ban Herald from using the word “Allah” was illegal, null and void.
The church, led by the then Kuala Lumpur Archdiocese Archbishop Emeritus Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam had filed a judicial review application in 2009, naming the minister and the government as respondents.
Lawyer Benjamin Dawson, a member of the church's legal team, had said the review was based on three broad grounds.
The first was that there were certain legal issues central to the leave application but were not considered by the Federal Court, such as the scope of Articles 3 and 11 of the Federal Constitution.
Article 3 states that Islam is the official religion of the federation while Article 11 touches on freedom to practise one's religion.
The church further contended that the minister's decision to prohibit the use of the word “Allah” in the Herald had also taken into account a theological consideration.
Dawson had said that the second ground was that the apex court's majority judgment decided on certain legal issues, which were neither argued nor raised by the parties before the Federal Court or the Court of Appeal, such as the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Anti-Propagation Enactment.
The third ground is that the Herald's case is one of the most important constitutional cases to come before the apex court, especially where minority rights are concerned.
He added that there existed a public-interest factor to support the review application. – January 11, 2015.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/church-fails-to-get-9-man-bench-to-hear-allah-review#sthash.zTayqc4t.dpuf
Malaysia Views Terrorism Threat Seriously - Najib
PEKAN,
Jan 10 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said
Malaysia viewed the threat of terrorism that recently saw certain
countries being targeted for attack, seriously.Noting the latest incident at the office of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday, he said terrorism was no longer an issue that any one country could deal with on its own.
"It is crucial for us to strengthen cooperation with like-minded countries including sharing of intelligence.
"If we know someone to be a potential terrorist, then the enforcement agencies greatly need the information in order to take preventive measures before any incident could happen," he told a media conference here today.
He was at the flood operation centre in Baitul Rahah after visiting the IKBN Paloh Hinai flood evacuation centre and some affected villages around Pekan.
Accompanying him was wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob and Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Dr Ewon Ebin.
The prime minister said other than streamlining the existing laws, a new Act to avert terrorism threats and militant activities would also be proposed in parliament in March.
He said the move was necessary to give more clout to the relevant authorities to take preventive measures on suspected individuals or groups.
Earlier, Najib, with Rosmah joined a 'gotong royong' at Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Serambi before presenting school bags and shoes to the children at the villages.
He was at SK Padang Rumbia for a similar community programme, and also surveyed the flood situation at Kampung Lamir Pekan.
-- BERNAMA
“If someone offends the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him”
Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)
“A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)
“Paris Killer Cherif Kouachi Gave Interview to TV Channel Before He Died,” by Emmanuelle Saliba, NBC News, January 10, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Holed up inside a printing factory outside Paris, Cherif Kouachi spoke by phone to a French television network during a seven-hour standoff on Friday with French security forces.
Kouachi and his brother, Said, were later killed in a raid. One hostage inside the plant was freed.
Here is a partial transcript of the interview between Kouachi and Igor Sahiri, a journalist for France’s BFMTV, as translated by NBC News:
Kouachi: We’re telling you that we are the prophet’s defenders peace and blessings be upon him, and that I, Cherif Kouachi, was sent by Yemen’s Al-Qaeda. OK?
Interviewer: OK, OK.
Kouachi: I went there and it was Anwar Al-Awlaki who financed me.
Interviewer: And how long ago was this?
Kouachi: It was before he was killed.
Interviewer: ok, so you came back to France not long ago ?
Kouachi: No, a long time ago…I know the secret service, don’t worry about it. I know very well how I was able to do things well.
Interviewer: Ok, and now there’s only you and your brother?
Kouachi: That’s not your problem.
Interviewer: But do you have people behind you, or not?
Kouachi: That’s not your problem.
Interviewer: Ok, but do you plan to kill again in the name of Allah or not?
Kouachi: Kill who?
Interviewer: I don’t know, I’m asking you the question.
Kouachi: Did we kill civilians during the two days you’ve been looking for us?
Interviewer: You killed journalists.
Kouachi: But did we kill civilians? Civilians or people during the two days that you looked for us? Or people during the two days you’ve been looking for us?
Interviewer: Wait, wait Cherif, Cherif, did you kill this morning?
Kouachi: We are not killers. We are defenders of the prophet, we don’t kill women. We kill no one. We defend the prophet. If someone offends the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him. We don’t kill women. We are not like you. You are the ones killing women and children in Syria ,Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn’t us. We have an honor code in Islam.
Interviewer: But you just sought revenge here, you killed 12 people.
Kouachi: Yes, because we sought revenge. You just said it well. You said it yourself, we sought revenge….
Gangsta to the roots - Gangsta or civil society?
Civil society has become a prism through which developing countries are evaluated by international agencies: “good” or “bad” governance, or “dictatorship or democracy”. Civil society would be one of the numerous milestones to pass when achieving a complete democratisation.
The growth and vibrancy of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as a main component of civil society, is utilised as an indicator of “progress” and the “quality of the NGOs and their network” has turned into a measure to evaluate the level of democratisation. NGOs have become a gauge of good governance - or at least improved governance.
This definition puts democracy as a system guaranteed and sustained by the existence of a civil society as the strongest and unquestionable bastion against abuse by the state apparatus.
Interestingly the nature of NGOs is rarely challenged except when carrying religious messages, and more specifically towards Islam. Great attention has been paid to Islamic NGOs whose ideological inclinations have raised doubts, even more so in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York.
In Malaysia, most NGOs are understood as occupying the political space in opposition to the ruling party in general, and thus to Umno. In fact, any mention of pro-governmental NGOs remains rare in the analysis of Malaysian politics.
However, there is a division within pro-opposition civil society organisations: between the Islamist on the one hand and the secular or non-religious organisations on the other. Thus when we look at connivance militants we are looking at a large slice of the public sphere that has been totally ignored.
The civil bluff
The independence of NGOs in the public sphere is questionable in Malaysia.
A large number of NGOs in Malaysia are in fact embodying the interest of political parties, in different aspects; such as diffusing the party’s idea, supporting the party’s idea, supporting and/or getting involved in its public actions, initiating political action such as demonstrations or violence serving the party’s interest. Lee Hock Guan (2004) reminds us that the limitations of the concept have not stopped observers, academics, and activists from using the term while being inspired from its western interpretation.
But its definition should rather go along the parameters of the local political context.
Civil society in Malaysia dates back to the pre-independence period, when nationalism and political emancipation from colonial rule and most importantly citizenship rights, were organising forces.
From the 1970s, the number of organisations, mostly crafted along ethnic lines more so than classist division due to deeply entrenched ethnic sentiments, continued to grow but “this growth did not necessarily translate into a democratisation process in all of them” since governments used and implemented a “combination of legal and coercive instruments to exert control” (Lee 2004:12).
Ramasamy (2004) explores an alternative perspective according which: (1) The state and civil society are not antagonistic, but share a relationship in the enforcement of domination; (2) Civil society is divided by pro and opponents to the state; (3) The state seeks to dominate civil society; (4) Civil society is an arena of contestation; the dominant will then own a method for manufacturing consent necessary for political domination; (5) It is an arena for competition and conflict of ideas in which the state may not dominate as non-state forces are participating.
However in Malaysia, the perception of civil society as being in opposition to the state, and the assumption that there exists a deep political divide between the two is still common. This view does not pay much attention to groups, or organisation, in association to the state or to political parties, more specifically to the ruling party. The way the NGO scene has been portrayed in the literature raises a few problems despite the warning by Lee (2004) and Ramasamy (2004).
The concepts of NGO and civil society, as understood in western literature, is inadequate for the Malaysian context for two main reasons: (1) NGO are by definition non-governmental and that implies independence vis-à-vis the state and the government, and (2) the idea that civil society is often described as being an opposition force to governmental or state power.
This simply means that the existence of NGOs that is pro-governmental or in close relationship to political parties, and even sometimes shadow surrogates of the state authority, has been completely ignored.
Protean disguise
Since the creation of the Federation of Malaysia in its contemporary geographical boundaries, the expressions of Malay nationalism were mainly to be found in the discourse and actions of the ruling party (Umno) and its Youth Wing (Pemuda Umno). While the Islamist party PAS was (and remains) the traditional ambassador of a more religiously conservative part of the Malay community.
The emergence of new ethno-nationalist groups endorsed by the party’s old guard can be interpreted as a sub-contraction of Umno’s pro-Malay discourse. The rising of these new groups pushing the ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) rhetoric should be seen as the preliminary emergence of a new fringe of civil society.
These new entities were acting as pressure groups on the government by creating a non-party (and non-state) right wing - but until 2008 were not yet seen as constitutive of a coherent movement.
The realities of the political system are a summation of practices, mostly beyond the state’s legal frame, used to perpetuate power. The reality this research exposes is the creation of umbrella entities that were created to institutionalise and thus legalise the relationship between gangs and the ruling party.
The liberalisation of the public sphere and the creation of new spaces of expression such as “civil society;” creates a façade of free expression and development of “independent” bodies outside of the realm of the state - the non-governmental organisations - have set the ground for such institutionalisation.
The very existence, and need, for civil society has indeed favoured the development of this relationship while allowing the political involvement of gangs to be legalised through the creation of umbrella NGOs. This relationship - key to our study - has not been explored fully and the existence of pro-governmental NGO created to support the ruling party has been mostly ignored.
In Malaysia “civil society” is in fact an aggregate of non-governmental organisations whose official purpose is to represent the people’s interests, framed by political and legal fetters that limit their actions. This virtual space should be seen as a civil extension of the political spheres where political parties’ surrogates and/or connivance militants, debate, demonstrate, and fight, arbitrated by the state rules.
In that sense, civil society is a tool to create an official and legal umbrella for gangs and thus institutionalise their relationship with the ruling party.
The institutionalisation of gangs to NGOs has been initiated by the opportunities that arise in the post-Mahathir Mohamad era. These opportunities emerged from exogenous and endogenous factors. First, following the resignation of Mahathir, there emerged a new space for NGOs created by the liberalisation of civil society.
Secondly, in this context of relative liberalisation, the ruling party has had to face growing discontent relayed primarily through the alternative media and a stronger opposition. Some ruling party leaders have had the need for connivance militants. Thirdly, the leadership crisis that occurred at the death of PLB in 2006 precipitates the split of Pekida into several new branches each of which created its own NGO chapters to access the market of political militancy.
Informed observers have not noticed the presence of gangs in the political landscape mostly because these gangs are disguising (travestying) themselves. This potential to adapt to survive in any context has led these entities to adopt a timely form to publicise part of their activity (political militancy) while protecting others (illegal business). The political activities of connivance militants oscillate between the legal and illegal, licit and illicit.
Gangs have travestied into NGOs; traversing the frontier from the underground world to the light of the public sphere in order to offer support to political parties. In a different political, sociological, historical and geographical context, the ideological umbrella could have been leftist, anarchist, or feminist, etc; and the main patron of these movements could have been any other political party in need for support - whether a ruling party or an opposition party.
It is clear that the development of connivance militancy is favoured by a state’s opaqueness; nevertheless connivance militants groups may exist in every context. Their nature and action shaped according to the geographical, political, social and historical singularities.
Gangs are not just used as entrepreneurs of violence, but are part of the process of legitimising authoritarian power, a complex system not limited to Malaysia alone. With the new political challenges facing the ruling party vis-à-vis the rise of the opposition, a need for reinforcing the system emerged. This need explains the reason why the political role of gangs has grown since 2008.
Nevertheless, the empowerment of gangs and the newly gained confidence of their leaders have fostered new ambitions. Some gang leaders, fearing a change of government and in the interest of preserving their access to resources, have turned to the opposition. This change in allegiance shows, as well, that the state system of legitimation has reached its limits, challenged by growing citizen awareness and increased access to alternative political discourse.
Gangs are part of the political system and should not be seen as an ephemeral phenomenon but rather structural entities with relative influence on the political scene, and able to adapt to contextual changes.
Part I: Gangsta to the roots - a Gangsta's paradise
Part II: Gangsta to the roots - Gangsta through the years
Part III: Gangsta beyond stereotypes
SOPHIE LEMIÈRE is the Jean Monnet Post-doctoral Fellow at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy. She holds a PhD and a Masters in Comparative Politics from Sciences-Po (France). She is the author of Misplaced Democracy: Malaysian Politics and People. The above first appeared in New Mandala.
Zahid is hoist by his own petard
He may well discover that no species of machismo and the popularity it draws is as fleeting as that bestowed by the Umno elector.
Fifteen months ago, Zahid solidified his position as Umno’s top vice-president with a stance towards criminal suspects that bristled with machismo.
Umno’s electors duly endorsed the hard line stance of its top lawman by re-endorsing him as the No 3 in the party’s hierarchy.
At that time a rash of gangland slayings and the perception it spawned of a spiralling crime rate caused widespread public unease.
Home Minister Zahid, with eye on the approaching party polls, decided to play to the ‘Hit ‘em hard’ gallery by delivering one of the more astonishing speeches on law and order to issue from the mouth of someone in a key position in our criminal justice system.
“I think the best way is that we no longer compromise with them [criminal suspects],” remarked Zahid (left in photo) at a security briefing to scores of community leaders in Malacca in early October last year.Aware of mounting public concern over the spate of executions in what looked like gang drug wars and criminal suspects shootouts with police, Zahid decided to assume the mantle of ‘Dirty Harry’, actor Clint Eastwood’s enactment of the cop with little patience for such niceties as the rights of suspects.
Zahid went on to enunciate the policy of ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’.
He told his audience in Malacca, apropos of the rising crime rate: “There is no need to give them [criminal suspects] any more warning. If [we] get the evidence, [we] shoot first.”
The speech drew plaudits from his audience and erstwhile supporters of the school of thought that when the crime rate goes up, it must be because of permissiveness towards criminals.
Of course, this policy of ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ sent shivers down the spine of human rights watchers and rule of law advocates.
This school warned that the spiral in the number of custodial deaths and incidents of criminal suspects shot to death in encounters with cops were indicative that mafia-like codes were at work and would only engender disrespect for the law and violence.
Scruples more hindrance than help
The home minister decided that such scruples were more hindrance than help; ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ was going to be the morality of the day.
Also, Zahid’s briefing in Malacca was freighted with racist undertones.
In seeking to justify his stance on grounds of concern for the plight of crime’s victims, the minister argued, “What is the situation of robber victims, murder victims during shootings? Most of them are our Malays. Most of them are our race.”
But as exponents of the school of watchful restraint know, an enforcer’s unseemly haste nourishes the seeds of his own destruction.
Now
it seems that Zahid has gone out on a limb and done precisely that: he
wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, vouching for the
bona fides of a criminal suspect, a Malaysian under indictment in the
United States for running a gambling racket during soccer’s World Cup in
June.Zahid sent the letter on his own volition, without consulting Malaysian police nor his ministerial cohort.
By itself the letter was an extraordinary act of vouchsafing for a criminal suspect alleged to have been involved in a transnational triad activities; it was bizarre when it went on to assert that the same person Zahid vouched for has helped the Malaysian state on ‘national security’ issues.
If a Malaysian suspected to have run a billion dollar World Cup gambling racket in the United States during football's quadrennial summit last June has helped the Malaysian government on ‘national security’ issues, can we infer that a long-held suspicion of the nexus between business and politics in the country has arrived at highly toxic levels?
Would the government of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak react the way the Congress Party government in India did in 2005 when its external affairs minister was found by a UN probe in its Iraqi Oil-for-Food (OFF) programme to have been received illicit payments from the scam?
Natwar Singh was forced to resign by the ruling Congress Party when he was named, together with several ministers in other governments involved in the programme, by the UN probe as a beneficiary of the scandal.
His resignation was coerced to prevent the proliferating tentacles of the scandal from besmirching the incumbent government of India.
“India’s foreign minister cannot be an agent of any other government,” said his successor, Manmohan Singh, in justification of the boot for Natwar.
Would Zahid’s boss, Prime Minister Najib, be able to say the same about Zahid and act accordingly in respect of his home minister’s faux pas?
Just as ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ was never sound policy, so ‘Vouch first, think later’ is an untenable - worse yet - impugnable stance.
TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for more than four decades. A sobering discovery has been that those who protest the loudest tend to replicate the faults they revile in others.
'This is what happens when you insult the Prophet'
According to Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali, the Charlie Hebdo attack in France was the result when people insult Prophet Muhammad, and thus hurt the feelings of Muslims.
"When the French government did not do anything (on the publication of caricatures against the Prophet), those insulted took the law into their own hands.
"Although
we condemn the attack, this is what happens when you insult or get
involved in others' religious affairs," he said in a press conference in
Kuala Lumpur today.
France was on high alert this week after 12 people were killed at the Paris offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a weekly known for lampooning religion and politics.
Two brothers wanted for the bloody attack were killed yesterday when anti-terrorist police stormed their hideout.
Meanwhile, echoing Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar on the need for the Sedition Act, Ibrahim said the attack had proven the relevance of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Sedition Act in Malaysia.
"If there is no Sedition Act then such things will happen in Malaysia. The police need an effective instrument to handle security issues," he said.
'Not targeted because of fake names'
Ibrahim said there were many insults made against Prophet Muhammad on social media and because such people use fake names online, they have not been targeted.
"Imagine if we know who is behind those accounts. And without the Sedition Act, it would not be impossible for such attacks to happen.
"That's why I agree with (Defence Minister) Hishammuddin Hussein," he said.
Hishammuddin yesterday had said that the attack could also happen in the country.
Ibrahim himself came under investigation for sedition when he allegedly called for the burning of Malay bibles, but attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail did not charge him of the crime because the remark "does not fall within the definition of seditious tendency".
According to the attorney-general, Ibrahim had no intention to create religious disharmony and was "defending the sanctity of Islam" when he called for the burning of the bibles.
Meanwhile, on a separate matter, commenting on French researcher Sophie Lemiere who had said that Ibrahim was a "communication genius", the former politician said it was proof that he is "important".
"I'm a nobody. I'm not a minister, not an MP, but I became the focus because I'm the punching bag.
"Even when Gerakan or MCA loses in elections, people say it's Perkasa's fault," said Ibrahim, adding that he is simply misunderstood and a victim of media spin.
"When the French government did not do anything (on the publication of caricatures against the Prophet), those insulted took the law into their own hands.
"Although
we condemn the attack, this is what happens when you insult or get
involved in others' religious affairs," he said in a press conference in
Kuala Lumpur today.France was on high alert this week after 12 people were killed at the Paris offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a weekly known for lampooning religion and politics.
Two brothers wanted for the bloody attack were killed yesterday when anti-terrorist police stormed their hideout.
Meanwhile, echoing Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar on the need for the Sedition Act, Ibrahim said the attack had proven the relevance of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Sedition Act in Malaysia.
"If there is no Sedition Act then such things will happen in Malaysia. The police need an effective instrument to handle security issues," he said.
'Not targeted because of fake names'
Ibrahim said there were many insults made against Prophet Muhammad on social media and because such people use fake names online, they have not been targeted.
"Imagine if we know who is behind those accounts. And without the Sedition Act, it would not be impossible for such attacks to happen.
"That's why I agree with (Defence Minister) Hishammuddin Hussein," he said.
Hishammuddin yesterday had said that the attack could also happen in the country.
Ibrahim himself came under investigation for sedition when he allegedly called for the burning of Malay bibles, but attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail did not charge him of the crime because the remark "does not fall within the definition of seditious tendency".
According to the attorney-general, Ibrahim had no intention to create religious disharmony and was "defending the sanctity of Islam" when he called for the burning of the bibles.
Meanwhile, on a separate matter, commenting on French researcher Sophie Lemiere who had said that Ibrahim was a "communication genius", the former politician said it was proof that he is "important".
"I'm a nobody. I'm not a minister, not an MP, but I became the focus because I'm the punching bag.
"Even when Gerakan or MCA loses in elections, people say it's Perkasa's fault," said Ibrahim, adding that he is simply misunderstood and a victim of media spin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)