Hope lives on in Malaysia: The Hassan Mat Yaacob story.

By Augustine Anthony

Rural folks have many land problems. The safest way to find lasting and meaningful solutions to their problems is to first eliminate all the politicians, bureaucrats and even the office boys who behave like lords of the lands, lording over many of these rural folks who lack confidence to confront them.

Those who had abused the existing laws, particularly the land acquisition legislations with utter disregard for the welfare of the affected people must never forget that their tryst with insidious tyranny has a half life that will soon end.

I say this with confidence not because of the many stirring speeches of great leaders and orators but inspired by the display of resilience by ordinary village folks who are now awakening to a belief system that they can stand up for their rights even as they journey to free themselves from a state of mind that had been shackled by a long train of abuses and usurpations.

One such inspiration is Hassan Mat Yaacob, a padi farmer who refuses to take ‘no for an answer’ to reclaim what was legitimately his.

This padi farmer had only one possession in his life. His padi field. It was cultivated with “padi tabur”. He had the original land title to prove ownership of the padi field. Unknown to him a new land title was issued to a third party even though the original land title is still in valid existence. Soon this “new land owner” prevented Hassan from cultivating padi in his own land.

Hassan believed in the system within the government so much that he thought that it will resolve his weighty problem and bring justice to him but little did he realize that it is this very system that will cause grave injustice to him.

Hassan had lost his land and his one source of income. He confronts the “new land owner” who in turn taunts him because the “new land owner” is well connected. He meets up with the employees of the land office and they ridicule him that he is a kampung man who does not understand law. He makes a police report because someone had “stolen” his land but the department does little or nothing to determine the possible culprits who are responsible for the predicament of Hassan.

Hassan complains to the Anti Corruption Agency (now MACC) but they too display inaction. He thinks his elected representative will help but he is too busy with other matters. Hassan is such a simple man and without the slightest show of anger, says that he can only see the elected representative during election time.

Hassan had lost his land but not hope.

Rural folks are such simple people. Some of them think that meeting the Menteri Besar is like dropping by at the neighbors’ orchard. With this mindset, Hassan goes to the Menteri Besar’s office and personally meets up with the Menteri Besar and pleads for help but the door slams hard on his face.

Next he dares himself to meet the Prime Minister but could only reach as far as the then Biro Pengaduan Awam (Public Complaints Bureau) with no positive outcome. His hopes are near destroyed. Heartbroken it finally hits Hassan that the system within the public sector had failed him miserably.

While this is only a simplified account of his struggle, only Hassan and a few others know how many strange places and how many strange stairs and lifts and corridors this poor farmer had to pass through just to reclaim what was legitimately his. How many lonely nights and how many anxious days, all were his and his alone to shoulder.

Fresh out of the betrayal that he had suffered in the hands of the public sector, he now looks for other avenues with his critically asphyxiated hope. He looks to the private sector now. He had by now heard of the “noble” profession called the legal profession.

But here lies the problem with the legal profession.

It was the 1990’s and a boom time for the private sector including the legal profession. This noble profession was fast turning into a money making ‘business’. Employees from the public sector and a good number of people from other professions including retirees were lured by the sweet songs in the streets that there is plenty of money to be made in the legal profession.

Ridiculous land acquisitions that displaced farmers, fishermen, plantation workers and poor rural folks who lived and toiled in these lands and that were subsequently replaced with luxury hotels, private gated communities, villas and golf courses required lawyers among others to do the job.

The country has turn into a corporation. Profit driven and all else secondary or irrelevant. It is now a Malaysia Incorporated. People who stood in the way of profit driven entities were trampled in this glorious stampede for a photo finish to Vision 2020.

The country was preparing for glory with a perfect vision in 2020. Every man in the street had a vision, so the saying goes. From the tallest building to the longest national flag ( you can even see one concrete flag along the road to Batu Ferringhi), to growing padi on roof tops that would cost 50 sen a grain, to bringing Masai warriors to act as cover for the barren lands carved out from our depleted forests, all things were possible in Malaysia.

Thus, the birth of the catchword, Malaysia Boleh! or the Boleh land.

Hassan Mat Yaacob an innocent rural farmer was caught in this quagmire.

A bitter and heart broken Hassan now readied himself to take on the very system he had trusted all his life. He is now prepared to battle the government in court.
Hassan now turns to lawyers for help. But it requires money, sometimes it takes a lot of money to engage a lawyer. Even if people like Hassan are ready with whatever money that they have to fight on, they need to overcome the next hurdle. The hurdle of whether the lawyer is part of the very system, where he is dependent on the government and quasi government bodies, banks, insurance companies and a whole lot of entities with government interests for the lawyer’s personal survival. Hassan had experienced a good number of lawyers declining to act for him on the basis of conflict of interests.

Do not antagonize the guys who control the system or you will not have enough to maintain your lifestyle, such is the warning.

An insidious tyranny veneered as a guided democracy is now cleverly in place. Its various tentacles of power are ever ready to immobilize unacceptable dissent.
Having crossed the hurdle of engaging a lawyer, Hassan is now in court to take on the government and its well entrenched system that suffocates many ordinary people like him.

Now here lies a strange and interesting twist to the system of governance that had seen much condemnation as being unfriendly and corrupt to the point of its near collapse.

Within this system there are still people who are honest, courageous and dedicated in service to the nation. With a system that is still scattered with good people, there is redemption.

Those witnesses, men in service within the system who took the stand in court and spoke the truth, the witness who courageously announced his faith in Islam and boldly uttered that Islam teaches him to speak against oppression and help the oppressed in a brotherhood, the senior federal counsel who proudly addressed the court that he is in court not to win at all costs but to ascertain the truth, the brave judge who stayed true to his oath of office and pronounced a judgment against the government, are part of this system too.

Hassan has won!

News travelled fast in places where rural folks lived that Hassan had beaten the mighty system in its own killing field. His hope that flickered in all the dark days had now spread across the rural land as a beacon of light bringing optimistic tidings that the end is near for the insidious tyranny masked by sly smile of those thick faced people within the system of governance.

It is this once flickering hope of many people like Hassan that is now the fire that burns in the younger and incisive generation that is demanding change in our decaying system of governance.

Seasons come and go, people live and die but hope lives on in Malaysia and ordinary people like Hassan and the good souls within the system of governance bear testimony that the chain of hope will forever be unbroken and that this nation will one day see the coming of better times.

(NB: In the year 2006 I wrote an article titled “Freedom in Midheaven” seeing Malaysia in the future and spoke of Sdr Lim Guan Eng, Tunku Abdul Aziz, and the Seenivasagam Brothers etc. It was published in The Malaysian Lawyers at Yahoo Group Forum. Some harbored hope while others ridiculed it by saying there is no hope in this country. Then, the 12th General Election in March 2008, the new Chief Minister of Penang and the many changes that are taking place now).

Upholding diversity in Islam

By Deborah Loh
thenutgraph.com

Dr Hamidah Marican

SISTERS in Islam (SIS) has a new executive director, Dr Hamidah Marican, who took over the helm from Zainah Anwar on 6 July 2009.

Over the past 21 years, the outspoken organisation which promotes justice and fairness in the name of Islam, has often been targeted for attacks by those who deem them either too liberal or deviant. They continue to be the subject of criticism at a time when Malaysia is dealing with the issues of syariah whipping for women, moral policing of beer-drinking Muslims, and proposed bans on pop concerts.

And yet, Hamidah notes that old issues such as the lack of justice for wives and children under Islamic family law, and violence against women, remain unresolved.

Hamidah has a doctorate in organisational development and has dealt extensively with workplace diversity and human resources. She has managed diversity issues in Intel, Shell and BP. In an interview with The Nut Graph on 14 Sept 2009 at the SIS office in Petaling Jaya, she talks about her high-flying career in the corporate sector and why she traded all that for a non-governmental organisation job with SIS.

TNG: Tell us more about your professional background and how you got involved in diversity work in the corporate sector?

Hamidah: I was a school teacher and then a lecturer before joining the corporate sector where I've spent close to 20 years. In Intel, where I spent seven years, I was chosen to lead a new group on organisational development (OD). Intel was my introduction to diversity in the workplace. Learning this field, which was totally new to me, took a toll as it required a lot of travelling and I had a young daughter. For the record, I've been a single mother for close to 16 years. There's no way I could have done it without support from my parents and siblings.

My training in OD and diversity was on the job, and as I went through it, I was reminded of my growing-up years in the school system. I [am of] mixed heritage with Indian, Pakistani and Malay blood. I went through the system feeling second class. It was when Malaysia was going through transition after 13 May 1969, so affirmative action was in place. I felt like I didn't belong to any group. I didn't look Malay. I wasn't typically Indian [Malaysian] because I was Muslim by faith. I felt neither here nor there and it made me go through school always at loggerheads with somebody or the other.

Over the years I've looked deeper into the larger diversity arena. It's not just about Asians and westerners. I learnt issues surrounding gays and lesbians at the workplace, and ensuring that the systems and processes do not discriminate against them. Initially, I had my own reservations based on the way I was educated. But as I learned more, I began to understand that they [are just] a different group of people, and it really is their preference, and who am I to judge?

Firefighter looks at remains of New York's World Trade
Center after 11 Sept attacks by terrorists
(public domain / wiki commons)

Interacting with people without passing judgement is important in diversity work. Sometimes, it's not the other but it's just you and your personal bias getting in the way. Diversity is about letting people bring their whole self to the workplace.

New dimensions opened up when I joined the oil and gas industry.

Then 9/11 happened. And all of a sudden I, Hamidah, became much sought after because I was a Muslim female who wears the hijab. Everybody wanted to know more about Islam. The oil and gas industry has workers from the Middle East and the last thing we wanted was quarrels and upsets in the workplace.

From here, I learnt a new dimension which was religion in the workplace. I was required to lead conversations with regards to Islam. This also meant I had to relook my early grounding in religion. I had to go back to the text to understand the substance so as to create an environment where people could talk about religion in a non-threatening manner, without labelling.

How do you view SIS's work in today's Malaysia where the lines between religions and even within Islam, are drawn more deeply than ever?

SIS's work is becoming even more important. While we talk about diversity, let's not forget there's also diversity of thought. Islam, from its early days, has always promoted diversity of thought and opinion.

But we hear the same arguments that a group of learned scholars have interpreted the Quran a particular way and that is what everyone should follow, and those who disagree are labelled un-Islamic. What new element could you bring to this argument?

I've always believed in the principle of engagement and dialogue. It means talking with and understanding others. I always remind myself that I could be wrong, and I will not know until I sit down and engage. There is a gentler way to win the war.

Looking at the strong support for Kartika's whipping, do you find that positions are more entrenched and that there is no interest in dialogue?

Kartika's case is a problem where certain behavioural codes or requirements are codified and turned into crimes against the state. Islam is a religion of compassion. There are 107 verses in the Quran that talks about compassion and forgiveness, clearly indicating that God views us as mortal beings who are bound to make mistakes. And He's given us space to reflect and reform.

The syariah maximum sentencing provision of 3-5-6 [three years' jail, RM5,000 fine, and six strokes of the cane], is only a guide and should only kick in if you are a repeat offender who is causing harm to others. There is no evidence that Kartika was causing harm to others, so why the extreme punishment?

The situation that has emerged shows that many Muslims seem to confuse the concept of syariah with the content of syariah. The concept refers to syariah being a "path" or a body of law based on the Quran. The content, however, is the outcome of human interpretation. As such, interpretations will differ as we are mortal beings. Hence we see many schools of thought and law in Islam.

My invitation for dialogue and discourse is to examine this very content. Dialogue must involve all stakeholders, not just ulamak and scholars, using the same rigour and intellect used by earlier ulamak. Dialogue must also keep in view the current constitutional provisions, gender perspective, universal human rights, equality at large and the lived realities of today. We must ensure that we leverage the diversity of thought that has been a common thread in Islam.

What do you think about the challenges facing Muslim women over the years? Are they facing new challenges or old ones that have not been resolved?

The issues are the same but they are becoming more challenging. When laws are codified based on one interpretation, it is problematic. We need to keep engaging and bringing in the lived realities of women. The realities of women today are very different from the time of our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

How do you view PAS? Their recent muktamar passed a resolution to investigate and ban SIS.

I'm convinced they don't really know us. So I invite them to talk to us and know our work. We can have a dialogue without labelling and judging the other.

SIS is perceived by critics as too liberal. You are now the first executive director who wears a tudung. Have you received any comments on that?

I've not heard any. It's also not fully out in the open that I'm the new executive director. But I think it will be a surprise to some. In the past, SIS has been accused of forcing its staff to remove their hijab.

What was your early religious grounding like, since you mentioned that you had to revisit it in the course of your organisational development work?

My late father was a religious man. I had a good balance of religious teaching from school and my father's guidance. The frustration for me when growing up and in my years as a teacher was being told that as a Muslim, you could not do this or that, and these become the yardstick for whether you are a good Muslim. That was a source of conflict for me especially since my father always taught that in Islam there is no compulsion and that things ought to be done in love.

As I did OD work, I also found the difference between what was cultural and what was religious. And when I could differentiate, I was able to read the Quran with a new perspective. There were also certain habits, like how my childhood ustaz said we were not to underline or mark in the Quran at all, but as I grew older, I realised that if I'm going to study the Quran, I'll have to make notes in the text.

Care to share the circumstances of becoming a single mum?

I was in a marriage that wasn't working. If I were unhappy, I would raise an unhappy child. In order for that not to happen, it meant getting out of the marriage. It was my first exposure to how unfair the syariah court system can be.

From Malaya to Malaysia

Contributed by Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi

SEPTEMBER 16 was hardly noticed by Malaysians in the peninsula. It was “Malaysia Day” - the day in 1963 when the Federation of Malaya joined destinies with North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore to constitute the enlarged Federation of Malaysia.

Evolution: The process of conversion from Malaya to Malaysia was by no means trouble free. In favour of reconstituting Malaya were the Resolution of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (1961), the Resolution of the Legislative Council of North Borneo (1962), the Report of the British-Malayan Cobbold Commission (1962) and the Twenty-Points Manifesto of the Sabah Alliance (1962).

In addition, the General Elections held in North Borneo in 1962 and in Sarawak in 1963, pointed to the desire of the people of the Borneo States to join Malaysia on the condition that their special interests were safeguarded in the new federation.

The Governments of the Philippines and Indonesia were, however, vehemently opposed to Malaya’s reconstitution. They rejected the legitimacy of the above self determination processes. A Tripartite Summit was, therefore, held in Manila which invited the UN Secretary-General to ascertain the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak.

The Secretary-General’s mission spent three weeks in Borneo to conduct a survey and released its finding on 15 September 1963 that the Malaysia proposal had the wide backing of the peoples of Borneo States.

Still, the Indonesian and Philippines governments were not appeased. Indonesia resorted to an undeclared war dubbed “the confrontation”. The Philippines laid an international law claim to Sabah.

Within the country the State of Kelantan commenced proceedings in the High Court to declare the Malaysia Agreement null and void. A few days before Malaysia Day it laid two arguments before the court.

First, it argued that it was a founding member of the Federation of Malaya and as such its consent must be obtained before any changes are made that alter drastically the character of the Federation. It complained that bringing Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore into the Federation would reduce the majority Malays into a minority in their own country.

The court rejected this argument. Kelantan had agreed to the1957 Constitution and in that basic charter, the power to amend the Constitution to bring new States into the Federation was a federal power that did not require the consent of the States.

Kelantan’s second contention was that there was a binding constitutional custom that any major amendment requires the consent of the States. The Court ruled that customs are not laws and are not enforceable in the courts. History may prove Kelantan right but the courts cannot allow a custom to block the legal process.

As we all know history did prove Kelantan right within a very short time in relation to Singapore. But Malaysia went on to become a legal and political reality.

Basis for special treatment: In 1963 the Inter-Governmental Committee headed by Lord Lansdowne with Tun Razak as the Deputy Chairman worked out several constitutional arrangements to guarantee the special position of the Borneo States. This was deemed justifiable due to a number of socio-political, economic, geographical and legal factors.

	•	Sabah and Sarawak were culturally and religiously distinct from Peninsular Malaysia.
	•	They were bringing huge territories into the federation. Their combined area of 198,069 sq km exceeded Peninsular Malaysia’s 131,681 sq km. Their combined coastline was 2,607 km compared to the Peninsula’s 2,068km.
	•	They had massive potential resources in fisheries, ports, forests, timber, petroleum, river waters, hydroelectric power and tourism.
	•	Despite these resources they had serious problems of poverty, illiteracy, lack of infrastructure and under-development.
	•	The 1963 pact between the Federation of Malaya, United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore was not merely an internal arrangement but an international treaty.
	•	Many other federations are known to have special provisions for constituent units. In India Kashmir enjoys many special privileges.

More autonomy: Malaysia’s federal model provides for a heavy central bias. But in relation to Sabah and Sarawak the federal government’s powers are not so pronounced. For example, Sabah and Sarawak are excluded from Parliament’s power to pass uniform laws about land and local government: Article 95D. Sabah and Sarawak are also excluded from national plans for land utilization, local government and development: Article 95E.

There are special rules about audits in Sabah and Sarawak (Article 112A).

The power of amending the Constitution which belongs to the federal Parliament is not as extensive in relation to Sabah and Sarawak as it is in relation to the peninsular States. Under Article 161E constitutional amendments affecting the specified rights of the East Malaysian States cannot become law without the consent of the Governors of these States.

The legislative competence of the various States is elaborated in the Federal Constitution’s Schedule 9 Lists II and III. Sabah and Sarawak have a Supplementary State List and a Supplementary Concurrent List conferring on them many legislative powers not allocated to the peninsular States.

Financial powers: Money represents power. The Federal government’s stranglehold over most of the lucrative sources of revenue is not as strong in relation to Sabah and Sarawak as it is in relation to other States. This is partly due to the special needs of these states and partly due to the size and potential resources of these regions.

In three areas Sabah and Sarawak enjoy fiscal privileges that are not available to the peninsular States:

	•	Under Article 112B, these States are allowed to raise loans for their purposes with the consent of Bank Negara.
	•	These States are allocated special grants to meet their needs above and beyond what other States receive: Article 112C and 112D.
	•	Sabah and Sarawak are assigned eight sources of revenue not permitted to other States. These include import and excise duty on petroleum products, export duty on timber and forest produce and, subject to a ceiling, export duty on minerals. Sabah and Sarawak are also entitled to earnings from ports and harbors and State sales tax: Article 112C & Schedule 10, Pt. V.

Other privileges: The Federal Constitution is replete with many other provisions for the special position of Sabah and Sarawak.

	•	Under Article 153, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak enjoy a special position similar to that of the Malays.
	•	Customary courts and native law are given special protection.
	•	The High Court has a special wing for Sabah and Sarawak presided over by a Chief Judge for the region.
	•	In the Dewan Rakyat there are 28 MPs from Sarawak and 20 from Sabah. On a population basis this is very favourable.
	•	These States enjoy special protection in relation to the use of English and native languages: Article 161.
	•	The law on Malay Reserve Land does not apply to these States: Article 161A(5).
	•	The Borneo States have special right to regulate immigration into these States.
	•	Sabah and Sarawak lawyers have exclusive right to practise law in these States and in relation to cases originating in these States.

Forty-six years down the road, not all is well with Sabah-Sarawak’s relationship with the Centre. The influx of illegal immigrants and the alleged “naturalization” of thousands of them are being regarded as a violation of Sabah and Sarawak’s rights over immigration. There are murmurs of discontent about the BN’s choice of MBs and Governors. Labuan’s federalization is a sore point.

In the Peninsula, there are concerns that integration is being hindered because of restrictions on freedom of movement and the requirement of work permits in one’s own land. These are legitimate concerns. But one must also remember that in 1963 some concessions were awarded. They must be honoured. Unity and integration, while laudable goals, must not be forced. They must be achieved within and not outside the solemn pact of 1963.

Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

Hope lives on in Malaysia: The Hassan Mat Yaacob story.

Perak Speak
By Augustine Anthony

Rural folks have many land problems. The safest way to find lasting and meaningful solutions to their problems is to first eliminate all the politicians, bureaucrats and even the office boys who behave like lords of the lands, lording over many of these rural folks who lack confidence to confront them.

Those who had abused the existing laws, particularly the land acquisition legislations with utter disregard for the welfare of the affected people must never forget that their tryst with insidious tyranny has a half life that will soon end.

I say this with confidence not because of the many stirring speeches of great leaders and orators but inspired by the display of resilience by ordinary village folks who are now awakening to a belief system that they can stand up for their rights even as they journey to free themselves from a state of mind that had been shackled by a long train of abuses and usurpations.

One such inspiration is Hassan Mat Yaacob, a padi farmer who refuses to take ‘no for an answer’ to reclaim what was legitimately his.

This padi farmer had only one possession in his life. His padi field. It was cultivated with “padi tabur”. He had the original land title to prove ownership of the padi field. Unknown to him a new land title was issued to a third party even though the original land title is still in valid existence. Soon this “new land owner” prevented Hassan from cultivating padi in his own land.

Hassan believed in the system within the government so much that he thought that it will resolve his weighty problem and bring justice to him but little did he realize that it is this very system that will cause grave injustice to him.

Hassan had lost his land and his one source of income. He confronts the “new land owner” who in turn taunts him because the “new land owner” is well connected. He meets up with the employees of the land office and they ridicule him that he is a kampung man who does not understand law. He makes a police report because someone had “stolen” his land but the department does little or nothing to determine the possible culprits who are responsible for the predicament of Hassan.

Hassan complains to the Anti Corruption Agency (now MACC) but they too display inaction. He thinks his elected representative will help but he is too busy with other matters. Hassan is such a simple man and without the slightest show of anger, says that he can only see the elected representative during election time.

Hassan had lost his land but not hope.

Rural folks are such simple people. Some of them think that meeting the Menteri Besar is like dropping by at the neighbors’ orchard. With this mindset, Hassan goes to the Menteri Besar’s office and personally meets up with the Menteri Besar and pleads for help but the door slams hard on his face.

Next he dares himself to meet the Prime Minister but could only reach as far as the then Biro Pengaduan Awam (Public Complaints Bureau) with no positive outcome. His hopes are near destroyed. Heartbroken it finally hits Hassan that the system within the public sector had failed him miserably.

While this is only a simplified account of his struggle, only Hassan and a few others know how many strange places and how many strange stairs and lifts and corridors this poor farmer had to pass through just to reclaim what was legitimately his. How many lonely nights and how many anxious days, all were his and his alone to shoulder.

Fresh out of the betrayal that he had suffered in the hands of the public sector, he now looks for other avenues with his critically asphyxiated hope. He looks to the private sector now. He had by now heard of the “noble” profession called the legal profession.

But here lies the problem with the legal profession.

It was the 1990’s and a boom time for the private sector including the legal profession. This noble profession was fast turning into a money making ‘business’. Employees from the public sector and a good number of people from other professions including retirees were lured by the sweet songs in the streets that there is plenty of money to be made in the legal profession.

Ridiculous land acquisitions that displaced farmers, fishermen, plantation workers and poor rural folks who lived and toiled in these lands and that were subsequently replaced with luxury hotels, private gated communities, villas and golf courses required lawyers among others to do the job.

The country has turn into a corporation. Profit driven and all else secondary or irrelevant. It is now a Malaysia Incorporated. People who stood in the way of profit driven entities were trampled in this glorious stampede for a photo finish to Vision 2020.

The country was preparing for glory with a perfect vision in 2020. Every man in the street had a vision, so the saying goes. From the tallest building to the longest national flag ( you can even see one concrete flag along the road to Batu Ferringhi), to growing padi on roof tops that would cost 50 sen a grain, to bringing Masai warriors to act as cover for the barren lands carved out from our depleted forests, all things were possible in Malaysia.

Thus, the birth of the catchword, Malaysia Boleh! or the Boleh land.

Hassan Mat Yaacob an innocent rural farmer was caught in this quagmire.

A bitter and heart broken Hassan now readied himself to take on the very system he had trusted all his life. He is now prepared to battle the government in court.

Hassan now turns to lawyers for help. But it requires money, sometimes it takes a lot of money to engage a lawyer. Even if people like Hassan are ready with whatever money that they have to fight on, they need to overcome the next hurdle. The hurdle of whether the lawyer is part of the very system, where he is dependent on the government and quasi government bodies, banks, insurance companies and a whole lot of entities with government interests for the lawyer’s personal survival. Hassan had experienced a good number of lawyers declining to act for him on the basis of conflict of interests.

Do not antagonize the guys who control the system or you will not have enough to maintain your lifestyle, such is the warning.

An insidious tyranny veneered as a guided democracy is now cleverly in place. Its various tentacles of power are ever ready to immobilize unacceptable dissent.

Having crossed the hurdle of engaging a lawyer, Hassan is now in court to take on the government and its well entrenched system that suffocates many ordinary people like him.

Now here lies a strange and interesting twist to the system of governance that had seen much condemnation as being unfriendly and corrupt to the point of its near collapse.

Within this system there are still people who are honest, courageous and dedicated in service to the nation. With a system that is still scattered with good people, there is redemption.

Those witnesses, men in service within the system who took the stand in court and spoke the truth, the witness who courageously announced his faith in Islam and boldly uttered that Islam teaches him to speak against oppression and help the oppressed in a brotherhood, the senior federal counsel who proudly addressed the court that he is in court not to win at all costs but to ascertain the truth, the brave judge who stayed true to his oath of office and pronounced a judgment against the government, are part of this system too.

Hassan has won!

News travelled fast in places where rural folks lived that Hassan had beaten the mighty system in its own killing field. His hope that flickered in all the dark days had now spread across the rural land as a beacon of light bringing optimistic tidings that the end is near for the insidious tyranny masked by sly smile of those thick faced people within the system of governance.

It is this once flickering hope of many people like Hassan that is now the fire that burns in the younger and incisive generation that is demanding change in our decaying system of governance.

Seasons come and go, people live and die but hope lives on in Malaysia and ordinary people like Hassan and the good souls within the system of governance bear testimony that the chain of hope will forever be unbroken and that this nation will one day see the coming of better times.


(NB: In the year 2006 I wrote an article titled “Freedom in Midheaven” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE: Freedom In Midheaven. seeing Malaysia in the future and spoke of Sdr Lim Guan Eng, Tunku Abdul Aziz, and the Seenivasagam Brothers etc. It was published in The Malaysian Lawyers at Yahoo Group Forum. Some harbored hope while others ridiculed it by saying there is no hope in this country. Then, the 12th General Election in March 2008, the new Chief Minister of Penang and the many changes that are taking place now).

Melayu + Cina + India = 1 Malaysia?

©The Malaysian Insider
By Uthaya Sankar SB

SEPT 25 — Akhbar-akhbar perdana pada 21 September melaporkan bahawa bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berharap amalan rumah terbuka dapat dijadikan satu budaya yang menyerlahkan semangat 1 Malaysia sebagai gagasan perpaduan rakyat berbilang kaum di negara ini.

Foto-foto yang disiarkan pula secara amat sengaja menunjukkan individu kaum Melayu, Cina dan India sama-sama menganyam ketupat atau makan.

Lalu, bagi sekian kalinya sejak April 2009, saya tertanya-tanya, apakah itu sahaja yang dimaksudkan dengan 1 Malaysia?

Saya selalu menulis mengenai konsep “Bangsa Malaysia” di blog saya kerana konsep itu memang menjadi pegangan dan impian saya.

Malah Kavyan mengangkat serta memartabatkan konsep “Bahasa Malaysia, Bangsa Malaysia” sejak ditubuhkan pada Ogos 1999.

Sebab itulah saya tidak takjub dengan konsep baru yang diperkenalkan oleh PM pada April lalu. Apatah lagi memandangkan PM sendiri menjelaskan pada “Selayang Pandang” blog www.1malaysia.com.my:

“[Blog] 1 Malaysia diwujudkan dengan tujuan untuk menyediakan satu forum yang bebas dan terbuka bagi membincangkan tentang perkara yang benar-benar dekat di hati kita sebagai satu bangsa. Ia menyediakan peluang untuk meluahkan dan menerokai kepelbagaian perspektif masyarakat kita. Apa yang menjadikan Malaysia unik adalah kepelbagaian rakyat kita. Matlamat 1 Malaysia adalah untuk mengekalkan dan meningkatkan perpaduan di dalam kepelbagaian ini yang selama ini menjadi kekuatan kita dan akan kekal sebagai bekalan terbaik kita untuk masa hadapan. Saya berharap agar laman web ini akan menjadi permulaan kepada satu dialog yang penting dan terbuka bagi menerokai identiti, tujuan dan hala tuju kita sebagai rakyat Malaysia. Saya menggalakkan setiap orang daripada anda menyertai saya dalam memberikan takrifan kepada Malaysia kita dan peranan yang perlu kita mainkan untuk masa hadapannya. Setiap kita — di sebalik segala perbezaan kita — berkongsi impian untuk satu masa hadapan yang lebih baik. Setiap kita mahukan peluang, dihormati, persahabatan dan saling memahami.”

Nilai-nilai 1 Malaysia yang cuba diterapkan oleh Perdana Menteri — dan didedahkan sedikit demi sedikit melalui blog beliau — adalah Budaya Kecemerlangan, Ketabahan, Rendah Hati, Penerimaan, Kesetiaan, Meritokrasi, Pendidikan, dan Integriti.

Apabila diundang memperkatakan mengenai 1 Malaysia, saya akan sering bertanya kepada hadirin: unsur manakah yang baru dan belum menjadi amalan?

Begitulah juga, pada 3 Mei, sewaktu membaca akhbar-akhbar harian secara dalam talian, saya mendapat gambaran jelas bahawa konsep “1 Malaysia” (atau saya menggelarnya “Bangsa Malaysia”) masih kurang jelas dalam kalangan Rakyat dan pemimpin (wakil kerajaan).

Masing-masing melakukan serkap jarang dan percakapan retorik.

Semua pihak digesa memberi sokongan padu kepada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak yang mengilhamkan konsep 1u Malaysia kerana konsep itu dikatakan menuntut kerjasama dan penglibatan seluruh rakyat Malaysia.

Ada pula pertubuhan tertentu yang mahu menemui Perdana Menteri berhubung isu 1 Malaysia kerana bagi mereka, isu-isu berkaitan Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak harus dipertikaikan.

Konsep “Satu Belia” turut diperkenalkan bagi membantu mempercepatkan pelaksanaan gagasan 1 Malaysia!

Rasional yang diberikan adalah bahawa konsep 1 Malaysia tidak akan dapat dibina dalam tempoh yang singkat sekiranya golongan belia di negara ini yang berjumlah kira-kira 12 juta daripada 27 juta penduduk negara tidak disatukan.

Pada waktu yang sama, semua stesen televisyen di Malaysia digesa menerbitkan lebih banyak drama dan program yang berwajahkan 1 Malaysia; di mana stesen televisyen dikatakan perlu memastikan masyarakat sentiasa merasakan mereka juga sebahagian daripada program yang ditayangkan.

Kerajaan — atau wakil kerajaan — juga ketara tampil mengingatkan rakyat supaya tidak terpengaruh dengan usaha beberapa pihak yang khabarnya cuba mengelirukan dan memutarbelitkan konsep 1 Malaysia.

Malah, khabarnya, ramai penulis blog mengemukakan pelbagai pandangan yang kadangkala berunsur negatif serta mampu menggugat kefahaman rakyat terhadap konsep 1 Malaysia.

Wakil kerajaan jugalah yang melaung-laungkan bahawa konsep 1 Malaysia diperkenalkan kepada rakyat sebagai satu strategi baru kerajaan untuk mengeratkan hubungan kaum bagi jangka masa panjang.

Konsep 1 Malaysia dilihat sebagai langkah yang terbaik dan paling relevan bagi masyarakat pelbagai kaum di Malaysia.

Perdana Menteri juga banyak kali menegaskan, gagasan 1 Malaysia adalah konsep yang mempunyai pengisian jitu dan bukannya kenyataan retorik politik semata-mata.

Beliau juga berjanji, konsep berkenaan akan diterjemahkan secara evolusi melalui proses tertentu dan tidak berlaku dalam satu malam sahaja.

Paling penting, semua pihak menerima idea Satu Bangsa (1 Malaysia; Bangsa Malaysia) yang merupakan intipati konsep berkenaan tanpa mengira kepelbagaian etnik, sub-etnik dan kebudayaan.

Bagi meningkatkan kefahaman terhadap istilah Satu Bangsa (1 Malaysia; Bangsa Malaysia), maka rakyat perlu mempunyai keyakinan terhadap sikap saling hormat menghormati dan bersikap menerima antara satu sama lain.

Pada masa yang sama, dicadangkan pula supaya semacam “bank idea rakyat” diperkenalkan bagi mengumpulkan cadangan dan pandangan rakyat dalam memastikan setiap pembangunan dilaksanakan secara berkesan dan memenuhi cita rasa akar umbi.

Cadangan itu dilihat sebagai sejajar dengan gagasan “1 Malaysia, Rakyat Didahulukan, Prestasi Diutamakan” yang sedang giat diterapkan di seluruh negara.

Membaca segala laporan media berhubung tindakan dan kata-kata (gesaan, saranan, cadangan) wakil kerajaan, ternyata konsep serkap jarang dan retorik berbahasa masih menjadi amalan.

Siapa yang boleh membantu menjelaskan secara tuntas mengenai 1 Malaysia?

Lebih menarik, pada 5 Mei, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Mejar-Jeneral (B) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) akan mengeluarkan garis panduan mengenai konsep 1 Malaysia sebagai panduan kepimpinan negara ketika berucap pada satu-satu majlis, bagi mengelak salah tafsiran dan tanggapan negatif masyarakat mengenai konsep itu.

Daripada kata-kata beliau, ternyata kepimpinan negara memerlukan garis panduan khusus mengenai konsep 1 Malaysia supaya apa yang diucapkan dapat difahami rakyat.

Khabarnya, sehingga kini, rakyat belum dapat memahami konsep tersebut secara mendalam kerana matlamat dan gagasan 1 Malaysia sering diputar belit pihak tertentu untuk kepentingan sendiri.

Bernama memetik beliau sebagai berkata: “Sebelum konsep ini dipolemikkan dengan lebih parah oleh pihak-pihak berkepentingan, kita perlu menyediakan panduan supaya gagasan ini dapat diperjelaskan dengan lebih terperinci agar ia berupaya membangunkan agama, bangsa dan negara.”

Berikut pula petikan pandangan Senator Datuk Dr Firdaus Abdullah yang sempat saya baca di akhbar Utusan Malaysia, 7 Mei::

“Untuk meningkatkan kefahaman dan penghayatan terhadap gagasan 1 Malaysia, Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya dan Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu akan mengadakan satu seminar sehari pada 7 Jun.”

Entah berlangsung ataupun tidak seminar berkenaan. Tiada pula laporan yang saya baca mengenai kejayaannya.

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Mejar-Jeneral (B) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom sendiri berpendapat "sehingga kini rakyat belum memahami dengan mendalam konsep 1 Malaysia itu."

Datuk A. Kadir Jasin dalam ruangan blognya, 17 April juga mengaku dan menulis: "Saya kurang yakin yang saya memahami sepenuhnya gagasan ini."

Ahli akademik terkenal, Profesor Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin berkata: "Saya tidak pasti adakah gagasan itu satu 'ideologi politik' (political ideology) atau satu 'strategi tadbir urus' (governance strategy)." Ertinya, Shamsul sendiri juga belum pasti apa sebenarnya yang dimaksudkan dengan gagasan 1 Malaysia.

Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan, Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim telah mengumumkan beberapa langkah yang sedang dan hendak dilaksanakan oleh kementeriannya untuk memasyarakatkan (dan mengoperasikan) gagasan 1 Malaysia.

Selepas saya membentangkan kertas kerja pada Konvensyen Belia Negara 2009 Peringkat Negeri Sembilan pada 9 Mei di Seremban, tidak kurang yang menyatakan bahawa mereka masih tidak faham dengan konsep “1 Malaysia”.

Secara mudah, saya memberitahu salah seorang peserta bahawa jika beliau “tidak faham”, maka itu tanda positif — kerana beliau telah mendengar pembentangan saya dan juga berfikir tentang konsep 1 Malaysia.

Ada juga peserta yang bertanya — secara amat logik — apa gunanya diadakan sebuah konvensyen jika belum ada sesiapa yang benar-benar memahami apa yang dimaksudkan dengan “1 Malaysia”.

Apatah lagi apabila para pemimpin sendiri perlu diberikan “panduan” oleh Jakim sebelum boleh bercakap mengenainya.

Dikemukakan juga cadangan: mengapa tidak kita semua sebagai rakyat yang sebenarnya sudah sedia mengamalkan semangat “1 Malaysia” tampil “mengajar” para pemimpin mengenai konsep sebenar 1 Malaysia.

Lalu saya simpulkan, itulah tujuan sebuah konvensyen: ada pembentangan kertas kerja, ada pandangan peserta dan akhirnya akan ada resolusi yang akan dicapai.

Resolusi itu nanti akan disampaikan kepada pihak berkenaan. Dan saya percaya perkara itu telah dilakukan pada atau sebelum sambutan Hari Belia Negara pada 15 Mei.

Konsep “Satu Belia” diperkenalkan secara rasmi pada 15 Mei sempena sambutan Hari Belia.

Konsep dan pendekatan “Satu Belia” dipercayai akan menaikkan martabat dan kedudukan belia pada tahap yang lebih tinggi.

Mungkin selepas “Satu Belia”, akan ada pula “Satu Wanita”, “Satu Pemuda”, “Satu Putera”, “Satu Kampung”, “Satu Kedai”, “Satu Kereta”, “Satu Sekolah” dan entah apa lagi sebagai sokongan padu terhadap “1 Malaysia” — walaupun kita sebenarnya masih tidak tahu dan tidak diberitahu apa sebenarnya “1 Malaysia”.

Pasti banyak lagi “Satu” yang boleh dikemukakan — berserta alasan dan rasional serta sumbangannya dalam menjayakan “1 Malaysia”.

Misalnya: “Satu Belia” mampu menaikkan martabat dan kedudukan belia pada tahap yang lebih tinggi.

Dalam pada itu, peraduan Foto Satu Malaysia bertema “Perpaduan Melalui Kepelbagaian” menyaksikan pemenang bertemu Perdana Menteri di pejabat beliau di Putrajaya pada 20 Mei untuk menerima hadiah. Laporannya boleh dibaca di blog 1 Malaysia.

Foto oleh Henry Liew menampilkan beberapa kanak-kanak riang memegang Jalur Gemilang mini. Azrul merakamkan beberapa kanak-kanak riang makan di kantin sekolah. Foto oleh Diyana menampilkan tiga remaja — tentu sahaja seorang Melayu, seorang India dan seorang Cina! — memegang Jalur Gemilang.

Maka, itukah yang dimaksudkan dengan “1 Malaysia”? Hal ini memandangkan Perdana Menteri sendiri di blog 1 Malaysia menyatakan, “tiga penyertaan teratas yang memenangi peraduan ini, pada hemat saya, paling menyerlah dalam menjelaskan semangat 1 Malaysia.”

Maknanya, 1 Malaysia melihat pada kepelbagaian kaum, perpaduan dan kesetiaan pada negara.

Ternyata, konsep 1 Malaysia bukan sesuatu yang baru — walau apapun cuba dikatakan oleh para pemimpin. (Dan jangan lupa bahawa para pemimpin sediri mungkin masih menunggu draf teks/panduan daripada Jakim!)

Berbanggalah kerana kita semua sebagai rakyat memang sudah sedia mengamalkan konsep "1 Malaysia" sebelum Perdana Menteri memulakan blog 1 Malaysia.

Bagi saya, konsep “1 Malaysia” sebenarnya bukan sesuatu yang segar-baru-asli. Dan pada masa yang sama, konsep itu juga belum dapat dijelaskan secara tepat oleh mana-mana pihak.

Kita semua masih dalam “pencarian” makna 1 Malaysia — semata-mata kerana kita tidak mahu, tidak rela dan tidak bersedia menerima hakikat keunikan Bangsa Malaysia.

Kita juga masih bercakap mengenai “perpaduan” (unity) dan belum sampai ke tahap memperkatakan mengenai “integrasi” (integration).

Droughts, melts signal climate change quickens - U.N.

Ruxandra Tocito braves a flooded road to head to her nursing job at Emory Hospital from her subdivision, which was cut off due to flooding from heavy rains, in Lawrenceville, Georgia September 22, 2009. REUTERS/Tami ChappellBy Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Droughts from Australia to the U.S. Southwest, acidic ocean water and melting glaciers are signs that the pace of climate change is surpassing the worst-case scenarios scientists predicted in 2007, a U.N. report said on Thursday.

Mountain glaciers in Asia are melting at a rate that could eventually threaten water supplies, irrigation or hydropower for 20 percent to 25 percent of the world's population, the U.N. Environment Program report said.

The Climate Change Science Compendium 2009 report analyzed 400 scientific reports released through peer-reviewed literature, or from research institutions, since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its last report in 2007.

"This is the moral challenge of our generation," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a release.

Global leaders including Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama spoke at a one-day climate change conference at the United Nations this week to try to break a global deadlock on how rich and developing countries will share the burdens of slowing global warming.

Some 190 countries will try to reach an agreement on how to slow global warming at a meeting in Copenhagen in December.

An increase in global greenhouse gas concentrations has raised concern among scientists that a rise of between 1.4 and 4.3 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 7.75 F) above pre-industrial temperatures is likely, the report said.

That is above the range of between 1 to 3 degrees C (2 to 5.4 F), many scientists see as a level that could lead to the end of summer Arctic sea ice and the eventual melting of the Himalayan glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, the report said.

In addition, increased absorption of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by oceans is leading to acidification of sea water faster than expected. For example, water that can corrode a seashell-making substance is "already welling up along the California coast -- decades earlier than existing models predict," the report said.

The acidification of oceans could threaten shellfish and coral reefs, the breeding grounds for many fish species.

Environmentalists hope leaders will pay attention to the UNEP report as the Copenhagen meeting nears but news about how the global recession is affecting emissions may also be a factor. The Paris-based International Energy Agency, said this week the recession has set the stage for the 2.6 percent drop in global carbon dioxide output this year, the sharpest fall in in 40 years.

Still, the UNEP report said that emissions that have already been released into the atmosphere could lead to the loss of ecosystems and increased desertification. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects U.S. emissions to begin rising again next year as the economy improves.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Bill Trott)

© REUTERS 2009

Gadhafi demands equality, Libyan president Moammar Ghadafi says his country is not seen as an equal in the eyes of the United Nations.

Gaddafi attacks major powers ( AL Jazeera)

Gaddafi said that the Security Council should be reformed to make it more representative [EPA] Libya's president has attacked the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council during his first ever address to the UN General Assembly. In a one-and-a-half hour speech in New York on Wednesday, Muammar Gaddafi said the veto-wielding nations of the Security Council were ignoring the views of the full 192 members of the General Assembly and the principles of the UN charter. "The preamble [of the charter] says all nations are equal whether they are small or big," Gaddafi said in his address. But he accused the permanent members of the council of undermining other states. "The veto [held by the five permanent UN members] is against the charter, we do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it," he said. "Veto power should be annulled." In a speech that far exceeded the 15-minute slot he was allocated, Gaddafi read aloud sections from a paperback copy of the UN charter; at one point, he held it up and made a small tear in the cover, signalling his disdain. "The Security Council did not provide us with security but with terror and sanctions," he said. Council members criticised Gaddafi's speech Palestine: Gaddafi called for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, saying Jews and Palestinians should live in a unified democratic state. Maritime piracy: He said: "We [the international community] are the pirates, not the Somalis, for what we have done to their coasts and fishing." Wars and conflict: Gaddafi called for investigations into major wars starting with the Korean War up to the invasion of Iraq. Gaddafi said the council, comprising the US, Britain, France, Russia and China, had failed to prevent or intervene in 65 wars that have taken place since the United Nations was established in 1945. "How can we be happy about the world security if the world is controlled by four or five powers?" he complained. "We are just like a decor." In his opinion, the General Assembly is the "the parliament of the world" - a 192-member body that should be dictating decisions to the Security Council. In the past two decades, emerging economic powers such as Germany, India, Japan, and Brazil have called for reforming the composition of the Security Council and creating additional permanent member seats. Veto power deplored Gaddafi said adding more permanent seats would be counterproductive. Instead, he called on regional federations and organisations, such as the Arab League, Organisation of American States, the African Union, and the Non-Aligned Movement to be given permanent seats at the Security Council. The five permanent members should lose their veto, or the UN should expand the council with additional member states, Gaddafi said. "It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the 'terror council'," he said, adding that the permanent members treat smaller countries as "second class [and] despised" nations. "Now, brothers, there is no respect for the United Nations, no regard for the General Assembly," he said. 'Disaster' for Africa The US senate condemned the celebrations in Tripoli after al-Megrahi's release [Reuters] Mohamed Ben-Madani, editor of the Maghreb Review, told Al Jazeera's that Gaddafi's speech was a "disaster" for the African Union and Arab and Muslim delegations at the General Assembly. "I think the Libyans deserve much better than this. It is a disaster for Arab world opinion. Tearing up the UN charter is shocking, but this should have been expected from the beginning," he said. "He said nothing about Libyan human rights and better education [for Libyans]. He said nothing about climate change or the environment." As Gaddafi spoke, the US senate approved a resolution condemning the "lavish" welcome-home ceremony that Libya gave last month for Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing over a US passenger aircraft over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1989. The US senate demanded that Tripoli apologise for the celebration, which came after Scotland's justice minister released al-Megrahi, a former agent, on compassionate grounds. Libya has a temporary seat on the Security Council until the end of 2010. Compensation urged At one point, Gaddafi proposed a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants streaming from the North African coast to Europe. "World colonial powers took the wealth from Africa, Asia, and Latin America so it is to be expected that the new generation of youth will follow that wealth," he said. "Return that wealth, and you will see illegal immigration drop," he said. He praised Italy for "apologising for its colonialist venture in Libya [in the 1920s]" and building hospitals throughout his country. He called for $7.77 trillion in compensation to be paid to Africa from its past "colonial masters". Obama praised Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, the US president, describing him as a "son of Africa" and a "flash of light in the darkness". He said he fully agreed with Obama's UN speech, describing it as unprecedented from a sitting US president. Gaddafi, who was addressing the General Assembly for the first time since he seized power in his country 40 years ago, appeared to be rambling at times, reading from hand-written notes as he addressed dozens of issues. At one point, he questioned the assassination of John F Kennedy, the US president. "The assassination of Kennedy in 1963 - we want to know, who killed him? Lee Harvey? Why was Harvey killed?" he said, referring to the man who was arrested in connection with Kennedy's murder and shot dead while being transferred between jails.

Najib finds new Indian allies, bypasses the MIC

by cryingvoices

Dear Mr.Thanenthiran, I have nothing against you or your new party which was registered within weeks.. maybe the fasters in the Malaysia Book of Records!, I would like to just comment on some of the facts, because my hands are itchy now, What did u said about Kg.Buah Pala? I was there and i saw and monitor you from the time you came there, the last minute dramas. Any reasonable person would have NOT done what you, Waythamoorty(perak) and Pitchay did on that day! I really cannot understand what you did and why you signed the most unreasonable agreement on earth! after negotiating with the bailiff!

The document supposed to be signed by all the villagers but non of them signed it, remember? Only you, Waythamoorty(Perak) and Pitchay signed it, as a witness. Why? Because the villagers realised that you are doing it without realising the consequences and risks! You just want to gain a name in the issue and postpone the Demolition and claiming you stopped the demolition for the day! Where were you on the 13th Aug 2009 Demolition attempt? You did not even turn up! You said from the beginning that Najib is dealing with you regarding this matter and you will make sure that you can solve the problem in Buah Pala! But what has happened now? You have signed an unreasonable document stated that the villagers agreed to give way and to cooperate with the Developer to demolish the Village on the 1st Sept 2009, you and your allies are the culprit that signed the letter! when the villager realised something is wrong in the letter signed by you! Non of the Villager signed the letter except you and your team! without even thinking about the future of the village and the villagers! So, please do not mention anything about Kg.Buah Pala in your speech and statements! You created more damages to the Villagers than saving them! Don't use them as a bait! They are the victims of all the Political Vultures in Malaysia, Including you!

Rwindraj@cryingvoices.webs.com

http://cryingvoices.webs.com/apps/blog/

DNA trawl shows long history of India's castes

A genetic search of India's diverse populations shows most people have mixtures of European and ancient south Indian genes, and helps illustrate the deep roots of the country's caste system, researchers reported on Wednesday.

It also shows that Indians, much like the Finns and European-origin Jews, may be susceptible to recessive genetic diseases, they report in the journal Nature.

Dr David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues found "strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today".

"One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote.

"Nobody's even close to having all of one or the other," Reich said in a telephone interview. "People in India are almost all a mixture of these two ancestral populations."

And virtually all also carry a risk of genetic mutations that can confer disease, Reich said.

He said his group and others should look in to that, to see if Indians have higher rates of recessive diseases, which can include deadly and incurable cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and Tay-Sachs disease.

Reich's team, including a group at the Broad Institute at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, looked at genetic mutations in people from 25 different Indian groups - a small sampling of the 6,000 or so estimated groups that restrict intermarriage.

Founder effect

What they found, time and again, was the so-called founder effect - large numbers of people descended from what was originally a small group of ancestors. People in Finland and Ashkenazi Jews are other groups marked by the founder effect.

The limits on marrying outside the group can create the risk of recessive diseases - conditions that only occur if people have two mutated genes. Marriage within groups raises this risk.

"Many Indian groups have a pattern of having been founded by a small number of individuals. They have been isolated from other groups since that time by restricted marriage across groups," Reich said.

Some people get tested for recessive genes before having children, and some people also use assisted fertility techniques to test embryos for recessive diseases.

Reich said no one had documented a higher number of recessive diseases among Indians, but it also was not something anyone had looked for. "It probably affects hundreds of millions of people in India today," he said.

While the genes clearly show that the caste system has existed for hundreds of generations, the genes do not line up by caste.

"It is impossible to distinguish castes from tribes using the data," Kumarasamy Thangaraj of the Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

"This supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society."

- Reuters

3 Umno-BN policies which destroyed MIC - Malaysiakini

In the ongoing attack on MIC president S Samy Vellu that he is the sole reason for MIC's debacle in the 2008 general elections and that he has become a liability to Barisan Nasional, we should not forget that the policies implemented by the leadership of Umno and BN were also the key reasons that allowed Samy Vellu to perpetrate his wrongdoings on MIC to the extent that the party's future and relevance is being questioned today.

When we say BN leadership, it must be pointed out that BN was always helmed by the Umno president. Other office-bearers such as deputy chair, secretary-general and the treasurer-general of BN were also always from Umno.

Therefore, BN's policies were largely dictated by Umno. In the recent history of BN, there was only one brief moment where former MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik had to chair a BN meeting just to allow Umno Baru as a coalition member into BN during the Umno turmoil in 1988.

If we look at the past, there were three key policies of Umno and BN followed so religiously that they resulted in MIC's sorry state of affairs today.

Although Samy Vellu cannot be exonerated from his failed leadership and wrongdoings, it is these policies of Umno and BN that gave him a freehand to deal with party matters the way he wanted without any regard for democracy.

Non-interference in internal affairs of component parties

This policy was so strictly followed by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad as BN chairperson and his successors to the extent that even though they knew something was going wrong in MIC they went ahead to condone it in the name of 'non-interference'.

However, this policy was not that strictly followed during the times of Tunku Abdul Rahman or Tun Abdul Razak as BN was then considered one big political family. It was common knowledge that Tun Abdul Razak played a mediating role between VT Sambanthan and V Manickavasagam during their leadership tussle for MIC in 1973, whereby he brokered a deal asking Sambanthan to resign and Manickavasagam to take over the leadership.

There were also several occasions when the BN leadership had interfered in the leadership tussles of MCA.

However, during the reign of Mahathir, this policy of 'non-interference' was followed strictly by him just to ensure that the other component parties do not interfere in the leadership tussles of Umno. Mahathir knew that if the component parties began to take sides in Umno's leadership tussles then BN would be split and the power of Umno as the supreme controlling party in BN would be lost. It was during his time that the most number of leadership tussles took place in Umno resulting in three deputy premiers being changed over a period of 22 years.

For example, in May 1981, Samy Vellu brought a motion in the central working committee (CWC) to expel his deputy S Subramaniam from the party and the BN leadership knowing very well that it would eventually split the party and affect BN, did not do anything about it. The motion was later withdrawn by Samy Vellu after a private chat between him and Subramaniam.

However, a few years later Samy Vellu expelled V Govindaraj who was then a vice-president of the party. Govindraj formed his own political party Democratic Malaysian Indian Party (DMIP) but in later years dismantled it to join back MIC at the invitation of Samy Vellu.

In 1988, Samy Vellu expelled MG Pandithan who was also a vice- president then. He went on to form another political party Indian Progressive Front (IPF) with a substantial number of his followers. The party remains till today but is riddled with political infighting and factionalism.

In 1988 alone, Samy Vellu closed more than 300 branches which resulted in thousands of MIC members kept outside MIC, some of whom although very talented with leadership qualities could not find their political rise even today.

Worse still, proper programmes were not drawn up by the MIC leadership to recruit new and young members even though the young Indian population was growing every year.

The BN leadership was aware of the unhealthy developments in MIC and the Indian community but chose not to do anything because even with all these nonsense, MIC candidates were still winning general elections by contesting in Malay majority seats because Umno was able to deliver the Malay votes en bloc to the MIC candidates.

Adding to the problems in MIC were the woes of Maika Holdings' shareholders. Since 1984 so many things, including the hijacking of nine million Telekom shares, went wrong but again the BN leadership (which means Mahathir) only chose to remain a silent witness to all the atrocities that were perpetrated.

Today, Maika Holdings remains a skeleton. The only jewel in the crown - Oriental Capital Assurance Bhd - has been put up for sale only to be blocked by an injunction by Nesa Cooperative and some other shareholders. Again the BN leadership did not 'interfere' although they knew that the controversial issues surrounding Maika Holdings were affecting the sentiments of Indian voters to vote in favour of MIC or BN.

By 2008, the Indian voters outside of MIC and the families of Maika Holdings' shareholders who had lost their hard-earned investments in the company had ballooned to a sizeable number and eventually they became anti-MIC and anti-BN. The only problem was that during all these years there was no alternative political platform available for the Indian voters to switch their allegiance away from BN.

However, when that political platform was formulated and presented by Anwar Ibrahim coupled with the developments in respect of Hindraf, the Indian voters ditched BN and went ahead to vote for the opposition front. When a substantial portion of Malay voters too decided to vote for the opposition, it was a disaster for MIC candidates who had always been contesting in the Malay majority seats which also had a sizeable number of Indian voters.

Therefore, it was this policy of 'non-interference' by Umno and BN that encouraged Samy Vellu to do all that he wanted to do which had resulted in MIC facing its worst crisis today.

Even after the 2008 general election debacle when every party in BN including Umno was undergoing leadership transitions, the BN leadership under Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak did not do anything when Samy Vellu announced he would seek re-election as president again in May 2009. Samy Vellu even announced that he would continue as president until 2012 and the BN leadership again remained silent in the name of 'non- interference'.

With all the damage having been done and only after the recent critical views of Mahathir on Samy Vellu, Najib came forward to announce that he would discuss with Samy Vellu about his leadership transition plans.

Now, is not 'discussing MIC's leadership transition' with its party president interference into the affairs of another political party?

Listening only to the president

The BN leadership always followed the policy of listening only to the party presidents of the component parties and acted as though the views of other leaders in the party were irrelevant.

For example, in the 1990 general election, Samy Vellu chose to drop Subramaniam and P Pathmanaban as candidates, who were then the party's duly elected deputy president and vice-president respectively. They were also popular in the party and the Indian community. It was Mahathir as prime minister and BN chairperson who consented to Samy Vellu's unfair decision of dropping these two leaders as candidates in the general election.

However, Mahathir must also be credited for taking a firm stand after the 1990 general election by not allowing Samy Vellu to nominate candidates of his choice as deputy ministers. Instead Mahathir insisted and succeeded in bringing back Subramaniam as deputy minister again, a decision which gave the space for Subramaniam to gain back his deputy president's position again in the party in the following years.

Again in 2004 general election Samy Vellu dropped a bombshell by not nominating Subramaniam as a candidate for Parliament even though he was the duly elected deputy president. This time it was Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as prime minister and BN chair who consented. The overwhelming success of BN in the 2004 general election silenced the outcry over Subramaniam's exclusion as a parliamentary candidate.

Indian academics and community leaders alike always had reservations about building a separate university for Indians who formed only about eight percent of the population. However, Samy Vellu began building the Aimst University and it is estimated that to date the government would have channeled about RM300 million towards the university just because of listening only to the party president.

If the RM300 million had been properly utilised for the benefit of the Indian community many dire needs of the Indian community such as the plight of Tamil schools and financial assistance for needy students could have been solved. However the BN leadership just listened to Samy Vellu as party president without any consideration whether the funds that are given by the government were being used for the real needs of the Indian community.

Not allowing another Indian political party into BN

Word has it that when Pandithan was heading IPF, he submitted an application to join BN which was brought up in one of the BN supreme council meetings chaired by Mahathir. In that meeting Samy Vellu voiced his objections for IPF's entry into BN and even said “that MIC will remain outside BN if IPF is admitted.”

Needless to say there were no further deliberations on the matter and since then BN had never considered bringing another Indian-based political party into BN. So there was a situation where the number of Indians unable to join MIC and remaining outside the party continued to grow and even if they were supporters of BN there was no other Indian party in BN through which they could serve and support BN.

That is how the bulk of them ended up supporting Pakatan Rakyat parties like DAP and PKR to the extent that there is even a PAS Indian supporters club today.

Some may argue that the Indians wanting to support BN could have joined other multi-racial parties like Gerakan or PPP.

The Indians, due to historical reasons always had some form of attachment towards MIC and were not in favour of joining or supporting other multi-racial parties in BN. As for Gerakan, except in recent times, the party was always behaving as an alternative Chinese party to MCA and not as a true multi-racial party and therefore the Indians were reluctant to join Gerakan.

When M Kayveas took over as PPP president, there were widespread hopes that the party even though termed multi-racial could turn into an alternative force to MIC within BN. However, to the dismay of many, the leadership of Kayveas was no better than that of Samy Vellu and some MIC members who had flocked to PPP deserting MIC later left PPP complaining "Samy Vellu's leadership looks better than that of Kayveas."

What the BN leadership should have done over the years is to harness the support of the Indians outside MIC by allowing another Indian political party into BN which would have acted as a check and balance on MIC simultaneously avoiding erosion of support for BN from the Indian community.

Furthermore, the competition between two Indian-based political parties within BN would have only increased the participation and voice of Indians in the BN. With alternative or contradicting views from both factions a better formulae to really help the Indian community could have been achieved.

With a second political party in BN the Indian community may not have gone behind a movement like Hindraf as they would have found an alternative political forum.

Only when Indian voters have gone to the opposition for good, is the BN leadership coming forward to mend fences by making direct contact with the Indian community. Najib's visit to Batu Caves and his grant of RM1 million to the Sri Murugan Centre which conducts tuition centers for Indian students are examples of how the new BN leadership operates by sidestepping MIC in addressing issues concerning the Indian community. It must be pointed out that in both the above functions Samy Vellu was conspicuously absent.

Is there a solution now?

If the BN wants to get back the support of the Indian community there is one solution. Allow one or even two Indian-based political parties into BN.

In this regard Najib could learn from what his father did in the 1970's. Tun Razak even brought opposition parties like PAS, PPP and Gerakan into the BN fold, which only strengthened BN to win back the people's support in the 1974 general election.

Since MIC was united and strong in the 1970's, probably there was no need to admit another Indian party into BN. It is also doubtful whether any other Indian political party existed then.

What Najib needs to do today is not to bring back opposition parties into BN or only talk to PAS for the sake of Malay unity but to bring the various Indian factions supporting BN directly into BN through other Indian-based political parties. However small this support may be, it will only go to strengthen BN in garnering the Indian voters.

Najib should implement this reform in BN even if MIC threatens to leave BN as by doing so MIC would only be performing 'harakiri' (suicide) at this stage.

The time has come for parties like MIC and MCA to realise that when they contest in the general election they contest under the BN symbol and not their own symbols and therefore interests and views of the larger section of the community must also be considered. MCA and MIC in claiming to represent their respective communities should act like true representatives of their community with mutual consideration for other popular leaders within their party and those outside the party.

Even if the leadership of MIC changes today it is doubtful whether the Indian political factions outside MIC would come forward to support the new leadership of MIC under (current number two and heir apparent) G Palanivel. Even within the party it must be remembered that a large number of delegates voted against Palanivel in the contest for deputy president.

Therefore, the only way out for the BN leadership is to embrace the Indian voters outside MIC by channeling their support through a second political party in BN.

Even if the BN leadership is able to achieve this gigantic task, they should not continue to follow the old policies of 'non-interference' and 'listening only to the president'.
_______________________________

RPK Speaks His Mind - ISA and Solitary Confinement

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin