My Blog to me is also my personal file. It is where i keep information which I have glean from the net. It is important for me to do so as what ever written is base on facts or could be back up by reports lodge. Here is more on Communism and about it in Malaysia written by various authors

Keeping promises to communists

3 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com&#100&#101&#98&#111&#114&#97&#104&#108&#111&#104 at &#116&#104&#101&#110&#117&#116&#103&#114&#97&#112&#104 dot &#99&#111&#109

IT's not about giving sympathy. It's about honouring an agreement.

As I rode the bus back to Kuala Lumpur from Haadyai after covering Chin Peng's media conference on 30 Nov 2009 in conjunction with the 20th anniversary ceremony of the tripartite Haadyai Peace Agreements, I could not help thinking. I tried to wrap my head around the different sentiments that various groups feel over this controversial man.

Original footage of the signing of the tripartite Peace Agreements on 2 Dec 1989
at the Lee Gardens Hotel in Haadyai. Footage made available to media representatives
by the 21st Century Malaysia Friendship Association, which comprises former CPM
comrades now resettled on both sides of the Thai-Malaysian border

Have sentiments against his return been blown out of proportion? I think they have. But for saying that, I know that I too, will be vilified. After all, I never lived through the Emergency. I don't have relatives in the police or armed forces who fought against the communists. I've never known the pain of losing a loved one to war. I don't walk with shrapnel in my arm or with a limp from stepping on booby traps.

I do try to imagine what the pain of such loss might feel like. I know my feeble attempts will never come close to what those who suffered at the hands of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), of which Chin Peng was secretary-general, have experienced. And I am sure it is not so easy to say, as Chin Peng is asking us to do, "Leave the past behind."

Whose history?

Chin Peng's memoirs So what do I know? I'm just a young journalist who interviewed Chin Peng, now a dying octogenarian. But in covering the peace agreements anniversary, I've had to learn more about Chin Peng's side of the story. The Court of Appeal, in denying his return, said that "Chin Peng's memoirs cannot be accepted as the gospel truth. Anything can be written in the memoirs." But there is also a well-known saying: "History is written by the victors."

I just know that this is probably how the young look at the issue today. If you say that Chin Peng shouldn't be given sympathy, can the same also be said of those who chose to be in the armed forces, who fought against the CPM?

We definitely honour the memory of those who fought against the communists. But unless one is drafted or is a kidnapped child soldier, don't soldiers join armies willingly, knowing the possibility of death on the battlefield? Don't police officers who opt to protect society as a career choose the risk of injury or death in the line of duty?

As a journalist, I know that by choosing this profession, I face the risk of being criticised for my writing. That's nothing compared to detention or death, which is the reality for my counterparts in more repressive countries, or even in a neighbouring country like the Philippines.

Making choices

The point is, we all make our own choices. Chin Peng made a choice — the path of revolution. Personnel from the armed forces and the police also made a choice when they enlisted. And both sides lost lives.

The only one on the Malaysian side today who can openly admit this is former Special Branch director Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor, who led Malaysia's peace negotiations with the CPM.

Chin Peng takes a moment of silence to remember
those who died in the armed conflict "To me in any war, in an armed conflict, big or small, there must be casualties ... If you say the army, police personnel and civilians suffered the most, ask the CPM [and] they would say the same thing: 'What about me and my people?'

"So to me, views expressed by [associations representing] veterans and ex-police [personnel] are just emotional," said Rahim, who later became inspector-general of police.

Honouring agreements

Now you may ask, what about innocent civilians who died needlessly?

All I can say is that the same question is probably asked in every conflict worldwide. Yet, that doesn't stop governments from signing peace treaties to end wars. If all sides to a conflict were to dwell on the question of innocent civilians, no agreements would be signed. If emotions were always allowed to get the better part of arguments, no rational decisions would ever be made.

War sucks. But it happens. I'm lucky not to have lived through it. But should one come to our shores, and if I lived through it, I would hope that the people my government signs a peace treaty with would uphold it to the letter.

The young today may have a weak grasp of history. But values like honesty and honouring promises endure through time.

I hope the young today don't look at the Malaysian government as an example, but will learn instead from figures like Datuk Seri Yuen Yuet Ling. Yuen fought during the Emergency and survived assassination attempts by the communists. But he can still argue for Chin Peng's right of return in his comments on The Nut Graph.

Tan Cheng Lock (Public domain;
Wiki commons) I hope the young will also use leaders back then as role models; like Rahim, who believed in the sanctity of written agreements. And the late Tun Tan Cheng Lock, who sought to make peace with Chin Peng at the 1955 Baling talks, even though he was on the receiving end of a communist hand grenade.

Life is never black or white. People, too, are complex in nature. Rahim is the same police chief who admitted to beating up Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in custody after the deputy prime minister was sacked and detained in 1998. If we were to judge Rahim solely on that incident, we would not discover other sides of his character, such as his principle about keeping a promise.

The pain of memories and personal demons is a private battlefield. But because the larger world is complex and history can be subjective, written agreements are meant to be binding as a way out of the confusion and to restore order. However, they are only as good as the parties that keep them.

---

Deborah Loh ponders the meaning of forgiveness.

The voice of the Malay communists

4 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com&#100&#101&#98&#111&#114&#97&#104&#108&#111&#104 at &#116&#104&#101&#110&#117&#116&#103&#114&#97&#112&#104 dot &#99&#111&#109

Former CPM chairperson Abdullah CD
arriving at the commemorative
ceremony for the 20th anniversary of
the peace accords

THE issue of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) is definitely one that is framed according to the racial lines that divide us as a nation. For example, the prevailing myth is that the CPM was an all-Chinese illegal organisation even though there is enough literature about the party's Malay members and leaders.

At the same time, there is also the perception of selective racial treatment . Former CPM members who are Malay enjoy the right to return to Malaysia, as guaranteed under the 1989 Haadyai Peace Agreements. But the same right is not extended to former CPM secretary-general Chin Peng.

Interestingly enough, despite the Malays being "favoured", not every Malay communist has chosen to return. Not only that, while they are made near invisible by official history and hence not vilified in the same way that Chin Peng is, these former CPM Malay members still have reason to be critical of the Malaysian government.

No conditions

Abdullah (right) receiving an old friend and comrade, Wang
Hai Zhi, at his hotel room in Haadyai during the interview

Former CPM chairperson Abdullah CD is one of them. At 86, he is likely the highest-ranking ex-CPM Malay cadre left alive. He was a signatory to the 1989 peace agreements. But he tells The Nut Graph that soon after signing the treaty, he was not convinced that the Malaysian authorities were sincere about letting senior leaders like him return.

Abdullah was given Thai citizenship and has been living in Kampung Chulaborn 12, Sukhirin, one of the four "peace villages" in southern Thailand where former CPM cadres have resettled after the 1989 peace treaty. He is allowed to enter Malaysia, and has visited Parit, his birthplace in Perak, and Kuala Lumpur.

Abdullah says the Malaysian officers tasked with facilitating the return of ex-guerrillas imposed conditions on their return home.

"Saya kata, kalau soal syarat ini, saya tak mahu lah. Ramai lagi yang balik. Saya tak bersetuju syarat," Abdullah says in an interview in Haadyai on 30 Nov 2009 where he was attending the peace accord's 20th anniversary commemoration.

"Apa syarat yang tak setuju?" The Nut Graph asks him.

"Syarat dia Akta Keselamatan. Saya tak mahu. Apa-apa syarat, saya tak mahu. Syarat-syarat tak ikut perjanjian. Kalau ikut perjanjian, takde soal syarat."

His answers seem to corroborate Chin Peng's own recollection of attempts to make the resettlement process difficult. In Chin Peng's memoirs, Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, he wrote that the CPM suspended the returnee programme until then Special Branch chief, Tan Sri Norian Mai, agreed that asking the ex-guerrillas to sign confessions was unfair.

Additionally, under the peace treaty, the Malaysian government was not to apply the Internal Security Act, or the Akta Keselamatan Abdullah was referring to which allows for indefinite state detention without trial, against former CPM members for past activities.

Malay, Muslim, and communist

Book cover of The Memoirs of
Shamsiah Fakeh: From AWAS to
10th Regiment

History about Abdullah's left-winged beginnings with many prominent Malay leaders before he joined CPM is well-documented in his memoirs which includes his experiences leading the CPM's 10th Regiment. The 10th regiment mainly comprised Malay-Muslim cadres. But even before the Emergency was announced in 1948, many Malays already supported the leftist struggle against the British and Japanese occupations.

"Banyak jugak orang Melayu dalam CPM. Dulu pun dah ramai dalam KMM," Abdullah says in the interview, referring to the Kesatuan Melayu Muda nationalist group.

Abdullah's wife, Suriani Abdullah was also a CPM central committee leader. Another prominent Malay woman leader was Shamsiah Fakeh, who earlier led the women's wing, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya.

Other prominent Malay CPM leaders included Abu Samah Mohamad Kassim, another 10th Regiment leader and CPM central committee member, and Rashid Maidin. Rashid, also a central committee member, was on the negotiating team with Chin Peng at the 1955 Baling peace talks. He was also a signatory to the Haadyai peace accords along with Chin Peng and Abdullah.

Cover for The Finest Hour

Dr Collin Abraham, in his book The Finest Hour: The Malaysian-MCP Peace Accord in Perspective, cites these as examples of how the Chinese-dominated party did take pains to give Malay members important roles to deal with perceptions of racial discrimination in the CPM's rank-and-file.

Abraham also notes how the British used Islam as propaganda to prevent Malays from joining the CPM, when actually, the party viewed religion as a personal choice. When The Nut Graph asks Abdullah how he could be Muslim and a communist, he declares: "Pertama, saya orang Melayu. Bermula di KMM. Kemudian parti komunis. Takde soal, takde soal."

A "false independence"

A relatively unknown CPM story is that of Syed Hamid Ali, 66, the younger brother of Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali. An active student leader at Universiti Malaya in the late 1960s, he became a guerrilla to avoid arrest.

"Because of my activities, my passport was confiscated while I was travelling. There was the threat of the Internal Security Act. I joined the CPM because I had nowhere else to turn to.

"I took up arms first, before officially joining CPM in 1976. I never wanted to be a communist. But there was nowhere else to go at the time," says Syed Hamid who resettled in Malaysia in 1991 and now lives in Batu Pahat. He, too, spoke to The Nut Graph in Haadyai.

Syed Hamid was in the 10th Regiment before being transferred to other units. He says even though Malaysia had already been independent for 19 years when he joined, the CPM considered it a "false independence".

Claude Fenner
(source: rmp.gov.my)Syed Hamid disagrees with the argument, still used against the CPM today, that they continued armed resistance against a sovereign state even after the British left.

"After Merdeka, we continued to rely on British defence and police. Our own police and army worked for and were paid by the British. We inherited their repressive laws like the ISA. The first Inspector-General of Police until 1966 was British, Claude Fenner. Umno continued the policies of the British. What sort of independence is that?"

Discontent

From the perspective of these former CPM members, denying Chin Peng's return is not the Malaysian government's only broken promise according to the 1989 peace treaty. Syed Hamid says the continuing demonisation of CPM by government officials and the media also contravenes the spirit of the peace accords where both Malaysia and CPM agreed not to vilify each other.

It was on this basis that Chin Peng sued the government for defamation in 2005 but lost.

Chin PengIn contrast, the Thai government not only ensured that the CPM's image was not tarnished, it also provided land and resources for former CPM members to resettle in southern Thailand.

With that as a comparison, and considering all that the Malaysian government has done and continues to do, it is clear that if we only understand the CPM issue along racial lines, we would be fooling ourselves. Not only were there Malay Muslim communists in the CPM, these former communists have as much to be discontented about with the Malaysian government as does Chin Peng.

Was Chin Peng played out?

1 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com&#100&#101&#98&#111&#114&#97&#104&#108&#111&#104 at &#116&#104&#101&#110&#117&#116&#103&#114&#97&#112&#104 dot &#99&#111&#109

Chin Peng arriving at a hotel in Haadyai for a press conference

MORE puzzling than the Malaysian government's current myopic reaction against the idea of Chin Peng's return is the sketchy outline of events soon after the Haadyai Peace Accords. The peace treaty was signed on 2 Dec 1989 to end hostilities between Malaysia and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

If Chin Peng's version of events is to be believed, it would appear that he was played out, and quite soon after the ink had dried on the peace agreement.

The government's defiance of the signed agreement today is unsurprising given the political climate. But did Malaysian officials, in the early years after the peace accords were signed, intentionally cause delays in order to frustrate Chin Peng's attempts to return?

Chin Peng now believes he was "tricked" and "played" by the Malaysian government, as he tells Malaysian journalists from the Chinese-language media and The Nut Graph at a press session in Haadyai on 27 Nov 2009. The press conference was called in conjunction with the 20th anniversary commemoration of the peace accord. Chin Peng now lives in Bangkok.

Making peace

When asked why he thought the government signed the peace accords at all if it had no intention of letting him return, Chin Peng, who is no stranger to betrayal, offers a pragmatic view.

"The scenario then forced the government to sign the agreement with us. If they had been unwilling, they would have felt alienated by the people. We were also faced with the same situation," the former CPM secretary-general, whose real name is Ong Boon Hua, tells reporters.

A young Chin Peng (Courtesy of Farish Noor)The decades in between the first failed peace attempt in Baling, 1955, and the Haadyai accords in 1989 was a time of flux for world communism. These global events affected CPM's own direction, Chin Peng recalls in his memoirs Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, published in 2003.

In the later 1980s before Haadyai, Thailand also initiated peace negotiations with the CPM, which was hiding in its southern jungles. Chin Peng recalls that the Thai overtures were coordinated with similar advances for peace from Malaysia. He mentions then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad authorising Malaysian Special Branch contact with CPM representatives for exploratory talks.

Eventually, there were five rounds of private negotiations between CPM and Malaysia, with the Thais as mediators. Chin Peng notes that significantly, during the negotiations, CPM's role was recognised in the independence struggle leading to Merdeka.

Stalling return?

After the peace accords were signed, Chin Peng says he applied in late 1990 to return to Malaysia, but the application was rejected in December 1991.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Norian Mai has a different version. He recently told The Star that during the resettlement process in the three years after the peace accords were signed, Chin Peng never stated his intention to return to Malaysia.

Yet, the Home Ministry has also accused Chin Peng of failing to attend a resettlement interview that was fixed for 31 Oct 1992.

Chin Peng now says he "suspects", although he does not dare to accuse the Malaysian government outright, of intentionally reneging on the agreement. "I don't dare to assume that it was intentional ... [Whether] it happened in 1992 or much earlier, I can't remember exactly. I think I was being tricked to go for an interview. They asked me to go to this place, and then the government side didn't turn up. Then they asked me to go to another place ... from one place to another. As far as I can remember, I was being played by them," he tells reporters in Haadyai.

At 85 and of poor health, Chin Peng admits to having a patchy memory. He cannot recall dates of the supposed interview with Special Branch. He speaks slowly with long pauses, as if trying to jog his memory.

But he says he kept to the deadline to inform the Malaysian authorities of his intention to return. Under Article 5 of the administrative agreement of the peace accords, CPM members seeking resettlement in Malaysia had one year from the date of the signing of the agreement to notify the Malaysian authorities.

Chin Peng personally wrote to then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on 14 June 2004 to state that he had met the notification deadline. "It is a matter of record that in 1990 I applied under the guarantees of the Peace Accords to resettle in Malaysia. I had sought direction from the Haadyai-based Special Branch officer handling resettlement matters, and was specifically advised to wait in Haadyai for a call to be interviewed. This call never materialised. Subsequently, I received a letter stating my application had been rejected on grounds that I had failed to present myself to an interview."

The letter to Abdullah never received a response. It is among the correspondence by Chin Peng, his lawyers and the government tendered in court during the hearing for his 2005 application to be permitted to enter and live in Malaysia.

Government fudging

His memoirsChin Peng was to be stood up a second time. In his memoirs, he tells of an offer by a Special Branch officer in Yala in 1999 to "apply for a sightseeing tour". Chin Peng agreed to the offer and expressed wishes to pay homage at the graves of his grandfather, parents and siblings at a Chinese cemetery located near Sitiawan, where he was born in 1924.

He continues in his book: "For some reason or other, things have not worked out yet. It has been a frustrating wait."

Chin Peng and his lawyers followed up on the offer with a series of letters, even disclosing travel arrangements, in 2003 and 2004. Two letters were by Chin Peng directly to Abdullah in his capacity both as premier and as then home affairs minister. Other letters were by his lawyers to former Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Omar and then Home Affairs Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, who is today the Election Commission chairperson.

On 25 Oct 2004, Abdul Aziz wrote to Chin Peng's lawyers a letter, without explanation, that their client's request to enter Malaysia was rejected. Chin Peng then began turning to the courts. He lost his final bid in the Federal Court on 30 April 2009.

In the light of these letters, the remarks by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop in June 2009 should be evaluated for accuracy. Abu Seman claims that Chin Peng never resubmitted an application after failing to attend the 31 Oct 1992 interview, and thus violated conditions of the peace deal.

The paper trail of letters culminating in the rejection letter of 25 Oct 2004 suggests otherwise.

Another remark that warrants scrutiny is Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad's statement that it was the CPM, and not Chin Peng himself, which had disarmed, according to conditions under the peace accords.

Explaining in Parliament why Chin Peng was still listed as an enemy of the country, Abdul Latiff was quoted by Bernama: "This is because during the signing of the peace accord with the CPM in 1989, he did not sign the agreement to lay down arms. Only the CPM agreed to do so and not Chin Peng."

Considering that Chin Peng's signature and party position as secretary-general are recorded at the end of the peace accords documents, one wonders what Abdul Latiff means.

A copy of the 1989 administrative agreement to end hostilities signed by Chin Peng on behalf of CPM,
together with then Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor's signature

No regrets

Terrorist to some and freedom fighter to others, Chin Peng seems to care little of how history will remember him. He remains convicted of the CPM's struggle, which, from his perspective, was to free Malaya from colonialists, whether Japanese or British. It wasn't an "emergency", it was a war, he declares in his book. As for the armed struggle after independence in 1957, CPM considered that to be a "false" independence by the British.

"It would be arrogant of me to say how I hope history will judge me. It should be left to the people of Malaysia to decide on what I have done with my life," he tells reporters in Haadyai.

"In politics, we all have our own stand. Those who hate me will certainly not want me to return. But whether they like me or not, I think there is no reason for them to oppose my wanting to pay respects to my ancestors in Sitiawan."

He says he would choose the same path of armed struggles against the colonialists if time were turned back. But he adds: "If we had thought that there would be another way at the time, we would have chosen it."

He remains steadfast in the belief that communist principles can form an egalitarian society with the freedom of self-determination. "I have never wavered in my communist belief. Any movement that can bring change to the world will have to face obstacles. This is nothing strange," Chin Peng tells the press.

Hu Jintao (kremlin.ru; source: Wiki commons) On the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Malaysia, he says, "It is a good thing for China and Malaysia to establish friendly relations."

Determined to return

Chin Peng says he has no regrets except for one: that he was "fooled" into thinking he could resettle in Malaysia. He returns to the topic of going back to Sitiawan repeatedly throughout the press conference, chuckling resignedly at times and even managing to smile.

"I have reluctantly accepted [that I will not be allowed into Malaysia]. It is my fate. But I will still push the government to accept me. I am getting older and older and I want to set foot on my hometown. And if they want to arrest me, let them arrest me, banish me.

"I will try to go back to the land of my birth. I will try every way. Smuggle in also can. I don't know if I will succeed, but I want to try."

Perhaps, just as strong as Chin Peng's desire to return home, is his desire to know that he has dealt with honest men. Mahathir, under whose administration the peace deal was signed, now sides with the political status quo not to let Chin Peng return. Former IGP Tun Haniff Omar now considers Chin Peng to have no legal standing in his 2005 suit against the government for defamation, citing the CPM's illegal status. Yet, it was Haniff who signed on behalf of Malaysia in the 1989 agreement to end hostilities.

In his 14 June 2004 letter to Prime Minister Abdullah, Chin Peng wrote: "I also wish to be reassured, before it is too late, that my signing of the Peace Accords on [2 Dec1989] was not a futile exercise. I still wish to believe that solemn undertakings expressed by Malaysia in international agreements are readily recognised as pledges of honour to be respected and that the injustice done to my 1990 application was a misdeed limited in its culpability."

Chin Peng, sympathy, injustice and sanctity of contract

DEC 8 — The day I had a lunch appointment with a friend at the central business district in Sydney was one of those pleasant summer days.

With blue sky and time aplenty, I walked the distance, which was about a mile or two from my home. As I approached the restaurant, my cell phone beeped. It was a message from the friend. She requested for an hour worth of postponement.

With me already among streams of people crisscrossing the city centre minding their own business, I switched direction and headed toward Hyde Park to visit a prominent war memorial.

Inside, on the wall carved the word Malaysia, along with other places where Australian forces had fought long ago. My mind immediately raced toward a period when communist insurgency was running high in Malaysia. Years have gone and sympathy for communism should be dead by now but it is has not.

The dishonourable path the Malaysian government takes with respect to former communist militants may unnecessarily fuel the fire of communism and the general political left in the country.

Communism is a disagreeable idea that restricts liberty.

Its goals are arguably dreamingly nobly utopian. Its means are not however; its opposition to private property right is enough to demonstrate how communism is anti-liberty. Furthermore, good intentions and goals are never enough. History has shown how communism failed in all four corners of the world.

Wherever it still exists, it is a façade supported by capitalism, it exists side by side a ruined economy, its promises unfulfilled, or it only exists within the framework of democracy that communists in the real world — not mere theoreticians who failed to account for reality — long ago considered as an anathema. Communism simply fails to confront real world problems.

In great contrast, capitalism in one form or another continues to be the best system to ensure prosperity despite all criticism that have been lobbed at it and despite painful crashes that we see every now and then. It has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any form of communist solutions that any communist can realistically hoped for, so far.

A stronger statement is possible: it has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any other system, so far. In the face of this observation, those who still cling to the promises of communism are being hopelessly romantic, bathed in stubborn denial and doomed for ideological failure.

The truth is self-evident yet, former communist militants — more so its former head Chin Peng who is unrepentant of past transgressions and his failed ideology — continue to receive sympathy from far too many individuals in the country.

For all the pain communism had caused all around the world and especially in Malaysia, only those on the political margin should be expressing sympathy to either communism or former communist militants, and not those near the centre. Yet, many close to the political centre do so.

When those near the centre do that, then something is definitely amiss. It is worrisome for such sympathy to blossom in the mainstreams section of our society because such sympathy can sow the seed for future growth of communism.

At the very least, it creates a groundswell for strong support for the general political left in the country. Communism may be a weak movement here in Malaysia but in the future, especially with the proliferation of greater democratic culture, that statement does not have to be true, even if we are living in the age of Fukuyama’s end of history.

It can be the seed because a short-term factor may override dire long-term consequences of communism when individuals consider the issue. That factor is a linchpin for the sympathy former communist militants currently enjoy. That linchpin is injustice. A sense of injustice is the reason why there is sympathy for Chin Peng and other former communist militants.

It is a short-term factor because some time in the near future, the issue will be academic since nobody lives forever. Nevertheless, the refusal of Malaysian government to allow for the former leader of a defunct militant — some would say terrorist — movement to return to the land of his youth will no doubt be an example of injustices communists and communist sympathisers may highlight as part of their populist rhetoric to attract new acolytes for the hive.

It is an injustice because by refusing Chin Peng the right to return, the government is reneging on its obligations arising from the peace treaty signed between it and the communist. That treaty specifically calls upon the government to allow former communist militants to return to the country if the application is made before a deadline, which Chin Peng met.

That turns the matter into an issue of sanctity of contract. As much as communism is an enemy of liberty, the idea of sanctity of contract is a cornerstone of liberal societies.

Indeed, one of the reasons for the establishment of a state in liberal tradition is the need to enforce contracts entered voluntarily, as long as those contracts do not violate individual liberty.

When the state goes back on its words with impunity, it inevitably raises a very serious question regarding the legitimacy of a state. In a more concrete term, it undermines public trust in the Barisan Nasional federal government, which does not have a sterling reputation to start with.

One does not need a lecture on the importance of sanctity of contract in liberal tradition. One does not need to be a liberal to understand the idea of sanctity of contract in wider traditions. Surely, at some point in time, our parents or our teachers have impressed on us on the importance of keeping to our promises. Being true to our words, generally, is good ethics.

Opponents to the act of honoring the agreement among others cite that Chin Peng deserves no forgiveness for all the heinous crimes he committed. Furthermore, Malaysia would have been a very different place if the communists had succeeded. We might as well have been another North Korea. For that and more, Chin Peng may indeed deserve no forgiveness and in fact, continuous denunciations.

Nonetheless, in the words of Tunku ‘Abidin Muhriz of the Malaysia Think Tank in an email exchange regarding this very matter among several libertarians, “the issue of forgiveness and honoring a contract are separate.”

Our refusal to forgive a person should not be the basis of us refusing to fulfil our obligation to the other person as stated in a contract. Therefore, there is a liberal case for allowing Chin Peng to return, unless there is proof that he has violated the 1989 Hatyai Peace Accord.

More importantly, by allowing the former militant leader to return and hence, fulfilling the obligation imposed on the Malaysian government, it removes injustice from the equation. Without injustice as a factor, there is little reason for those close to the political centre to sympathise with Chin Peng and thus, killing the seed for greater support — however small the increase is — for communism and the general political left in Malaysia.

The writer is a fellow at the Malaysian Think Tank.

The issue of Minarets seem to take center stage with the Muslims. It should not. We should not fan the fire for it is not about our faith but our tradition. Minarets came into being 80 years after Mohammad's death and after the end of the 4 democratic elect Caliphs. It was establish during the Ummayad Dynasty. it is not part of faith but part of the assecories of a Mosque or the place where Muslims congregate and pray. It is like the amplifier, it helps the Muezzin but it is not part of faith! A Muezzin do the Adzhan to call the faithful to pray but now with the event of technology, hand phones and watches can be programmed to remind the faithful the time of pray, making the work of Muezzin as a tradition and Minarets as obsolete. If the western world feels the Minarets as threatening so be it, do without them, after all they are not stopping as to pray or to built Mosque only Minarets. We must not offend but try to allay their fears not fan it. In the time of Muhammad one thing the Quraish have against Islam was fear. Fear that their way of life would be destroyed. The tribal chief would be strip of power. Muhammad shows this was not so. He respect the tribal chief and why can't we respect the ignorant Westerners who fear us. Why antagonize them and create more schisms when there is none. That is why my answer in the Malaysian Insider were harsh! Do read please

My Comment dont know publish or not in Malaysian Insider

I do not understand the brouhaha about Minarets by the Muslim. I am a Muslim to me the Minarets came after Mohammad and the 4 rightful caliph. It copies the Church during the byzantine era and also influence by the Parsi religion thus the Minaret should not symbolize Islam. If Farish think so than he is stupid! As far as I am concern be gone with the Minarets even the old mosques of Malaysia does not have a Minaret eg in kelantan. As long as the swiss do not forbid us to have place of worship so be it, the Minarets are just assecories so too is the loudspeaker that blars the azan early in the morning without regards to others! It should be ban like in Singapore!

Everything that is wrong with Europe — Farish A Noor

DEC 4 — The recent ban on the construction of minarets for mosques in Switzerland — passed by a majority of Swiss citizens mind you — is symptomatic of something that is far more disturbing in Western Europe today.

The first decade of this century has witnessed the rise of a new wave of extreme right-wing politicians and political parties across Western Europe, some with scant regard for ideological consistency and coherence, with the sole purpose of mobilising the masses against the perceived ‘threat’ of foreigners in general and Muslims in particular.

But historians will note that these developments are neither new nor unique.

After all, Europe has continually been through such prolonged instances of moral panic and mass hysteria when it had to face the fact that it was and is part of a bigger world where other cultural and religious possibilities exist, and where alterity can one day arrive at your doorstep.

Looking back to the 19th century we recall the bad old days when Western Europeans were panicking at the thought of the dreaded ‘yellow peril’, and where fear of the massive and sudden migration of Asians — notably Chinese — led to a backlash that expressed itself through the stereotypes and cliches of Asians as devious and perfidious Orientals who would stop at nothing to eat up your property and sell opium to your children. Then came the recurrent fear of Indian, Africans and of course Arabs.

The present climate of fear over and about Islam and Muslims is therefore something that comes in the train of a long history of Othering the Other, and casting the other as alien, strange, exotic and sometimes potentially malevolent and dangerous.

Except in this case we are talking about a Western Europe where Muslims have become part of the social fabric and where Muslim settlement dates back to the post-war decades of the 1950s, with the migration of Indians, Africans, West Indians and North Africans to the continent.

For a host of reasons, the success and failure of the various immigrant communities in Europe has been uneven. While some communities have successfully climbed up the social-economic ladder, others have lagged behind. Compounding the difficulties are the prevailing stereotypes that make up the normative structure of racialised capitalism and post-colonial race-relations. Arabs in the West suffer particular abuse and racial stereotyping in this regard, for the media and popular culture continue to present them as ghetto-bound misfits and pathologically violent maladjusted figures who stand out in bold relief against the domesticated background of multicultural society.

Until today, the perception remains that Arabs in particular are prone to violence, domestic abuse, misogyny and a host of social ills that seem to point to the primordial past of Europe that Europeans wish to forget. Cast in that light, Arabs seem to be framed as the figures of defeat and failure, as if the Enlightenment project itself could not go that far and could not ‘rescue’ these people who are beyond redemption, due to their culture and religion.

But hang on... Since when are individuals determined essentially and totally by culture, history or religion? And why is it that in the case of Arab-Muslims in particular there is no latitude given to free will, agency and the potential for self-transformation?

A vicious cycle seems to have been created by this dialectic between stereotypes and limited opportunity structures: Arabs are seen as incompatible with the West and whatever the latter stands for, and as such are less likely to be given the chance to succeed and reinvent themselves. I sadly note that in all the years that I taught in Europe, I did not have a single Arab-Muslim student to supervise at Masters or Phd level. The stereotype has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It is against this context that the ban on minarets and mosques in Switzerland has to be understood. Coming at a time when Dutch politicians like Geert Wilders are calling for a re-think over the place and belonging of Muslims in Holland; all of this bodes ill for Europe’s own perception of itself and its place in the world.

If Arab Muslims in Switzerland (as in Holland, France, Germany and elsewhere) fit in less today, perhaps these politicians ought to ask themselves what they have done — or not done — to give these people the same opportunity structures they expect and demand for themselves?

Europe’s multicultural project seems to be failing, but that is not because European Muslims cannot fit in or refuse to do so.

The one thing that none of these right-wing European politicians want to admit or address is the institutionalised modes of racism and discrimination that have led to the marginalisation of communities that yearned to belong but were told that they did not. Until that is addressed, banning mosques and minarets will do little or nothing to solve Europe’s own troubled conscience as it seeks to define its multicultural project anew. — My sinchew

These are info about Minarets which I glean from the net

History

The earliest mosques were built without minarets, the adhan (call to prayer) was performed elsewhere; hadiths relay that the Muslim community of Madina gave the call to prayer from the roof of the house of Muhammad, which doubled as a place for prayer. Around 80 years after Muhammad's death the first known minarets appeared.^{[citation needed]}

Minarets have been described as the "gate from heaven and earth", and as the Arabic language letter alif (which is a straight vertical line).^{[citation needed]}

The world's tallest minaret, at 210 metres (689ft.) is located at the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, Morocco The world's tallest brick minaret is Qutub Minar located in Delhi, India. There are two 230 metre (755ft.) tall minarets under construction in Tehran, Iran.^{[citation needed]}

In some of the oldest mosques, such as the Great Mosque of Damascus, minarets originally served as illuminated watchtowers (hence the derivation of the word from the Arabic nur, meaning "light").^{[citation needed]}

Culture Monster

All the Arts, All the Time

« Previous Post | Culture Monster Home | Next Post »

The Swiss minaret ban: Anxieties, unveiled

December 1, 2009 | 6:15 pm

When Mutalip Karaademi, a furniture salesman and a Muslim who lives in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal, proposed adding a minaret, or prayer tower, to his local mosque several years ago, he likely had no idea the suggestion would help spark international controversy. After all, the structure he had in mind was only going to be 16 feet tall.

But the plan prompted a backlash among some of Karaademi's non-Muslim neighbors, who said they saw the proposed tower as the symbol of an intolerant religion. And that backlash helped galvanize support for a national referendum, passed on Sunday with 57.5% of the vote, to ban the construction of new minarets across Switzerland.

The new law, which will add a single terse line to the Swiss constitution outlawing the towers -- but says nothing about mosque design more broadly -- has drawn fire from religious leaders and editorial writers alike. ("The irrational fear of Islam has struck once again in Europe," the French paper Liberation said.) But the leaders of the referendum movement are uncowed. One legislator from the right-wing Swiss People's Party, Ulrich Schluer, told The Times after the vote that the minaret "is a political symbol against integration" and represents an effort to establish Sharia, or Islamic law, on European soil.

It's still possible that the Swiss government, concerned that the new constitutional language runs counter to international human rights accords, will work to modify the ban. But one thing is clear: At least for the time being, the minaret has replaced the veil as the dominant symbol of the tense relationship between Islam and the West.

For years, efforts to ban veils or head scarves have roiled European countries, stirring up uncomfortable questions about whether Muslims can -- or want to be -- fully integrated into Western society. Now the focus of that debate has moved to architecture. But the shift marked by the Swiss ban is more than merely a leap from one symbolic realm to another. In attaching their fears of Islamic influence on European culture to the minaret, the Swiss have laid bare the new shape of anti-Muslim anxiety.

If the veil represents a population of Muslim immigrants who strike Europeans as reluctant to fully engage their host countries, or determined to hide their faces behind a blank expression of religious piety, the minaret has prompted a hardened fear: that Muslims are putting down permanent roots in the capitals of old Europe, and marking their presence in ways that strike more than a few voters not just as strange or archaic but threatening.

Clothes are personal and changeable, removable on a whim or change of heart. Architecture, on the other hand -- even in the age of globalism and multiculturalism -- is among the most prominent ways for societies to announce common, immovable values. For many supporters of the ban passed on Sunday, a minaret is a fixed statement of religious attitudes that they have convinced themselves they can't abide.

Though there are just four minarets in all of Switzerland -- which has about 350,000 Muslim residents, most from Turkey and Kosovo -- for supporters of the ban the towers carry heavy architectural and cultural weight. "The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam," another lawmaker from the Swiss People's Party, Oskar Freysinger, told BBC News earlier this year. "The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over." One prominent anti-minaret poster, right, showed a phalanx of black towers rising like missiles from the red field of the Swiss flag.

But building a minaret in a European city is arguably the opposite of a secessionist or defiant act. When it rises among steeples and chalets in a Swiss alpine village, of course, a minaret is an expression of separation from, and maybe defensiveness against, the dominant culture. But it also signals an interest in joining the mixture of building types that make up any cityscape -- in lining up in public view. If a veil steps back and is silent, a minaret steps forward and has something to say.

On top of that, mosque design historically has tended to be a good deal more flexible and open to cultural influence than other forms of religious architecture. According to Islamic tradition all that’s really needed for a building – or a simple prayer room -- to qualify as a mosque is a marker pointing the way toward Mecca. The diversity of mosque architecture -- and minaret design, for that matter -- through the centuries is remarkable, wide enough to include buildings with Middle Eastern, South American and North African roots.

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, many mosque architects in this country and in Europe have responded to the controversy that inevitably surrounds their projects by making sure they offer a blend of Islamic and Western elements. The 2-year-old Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, below, a mosque designed by the American firm Steffian Bradley and the Saudi Arabian architect Sami Angawi, combines a row of peaked arches, an Islamic trademark, with New England-style red brick. If that’s not an assimilation-minded piece of architecture, I’m not sure what is.

Those conciliatory architectural gestures are more common in America than in Europe, and there are certainly examples in both places of Muslim congregations who have been resistant to adjust the design of their mosques to match local taste. In general, though, mosque design has been one of the few places where Western cities have been able to explore the idea of common ground between their traditions and Muslim ones.

That's one of many reasons the vote in Switzerland is disheartening: because it is a misdirected burst of electoral pique in a country that speaks proudly of its reputation for tolerance and openness. By banning minarets outright instead of moving to restrict their size or style -- or, better yet, to open up a broad debate about how a mosque in a Western city ought to look in an age of Islamic fundamentalism and Muslim immigration -- the Swiss have slipped behind their own veil of mute distrust.

-- Christopher Hawthorne

Photo credits: Illuminated minaret in Zurich, top, by EPA/Alessandro Della Bella; anti-minaret poster, middle, EPA/SVP; Islamic Society of Boston, bottom, by Joshua Roberts/Los Angeles Times.

More in: Architecture, Christopher Hawthorne

Minarets: A falsehood about citadel Europe — The Straits Times

DEC 2 — The Swiss are not known to be religious bigots in a Europe which wants to box Islam up in a cultural ghetto. The nation's leaders in mainstream politics, the church and community organisations are therefore at a loss to explain the bizarre referendum at the weekend which outlawed the building of minarets, those elegant cylindrical prayer towers atop mosques. The constitution guarantees freedom of worship, and the building of mosques and other non-Christian houses of worship is permitted. But minarets run counter to a Christian skyline of Baroque spires in the idyllic setting of alpine central Europe, of which Switzerland is the registered trademark. This makes the exclusion of an architectural detail nothing but a shameful act of pettiness, meant to offend. After the vote, the Berne government was at pains to reassure the 400,000 Swiss Muslims (in a 7.5 million population) that the minarets ban was not to be taken as a rejection of their beliefs and culture. With the best will they can summon up, any religious minority will remain to be convinced.

Switzerland cannot plead mitigation in that the referendum was approved by only a minority of the nation (57.5 per cent for and 52.2 per cent opposed, on turnout of 53 per cent.) The right-wing fringe which forced the vote spoke the language of European cultural and ethnic exclusionism in blindly linking Islam and its practices with terrorism, militarism and regressive social mores like honour killings. The hijack of Islamic precepts by fundamentalist groups in Europe, fighting what they call the infidel underworld, has to be countered with moral reasoning and tolerance. The minarets vote will do nothing of the sort; it empowers hate-mongers of all faiths. Bottom line: the Swiss nation will have to dig deep into its reserves of social tolerance and political neutrality to undo the damage to its reputation.

All across Europe where there are Muslim communities of some size, the common space that permits pollination of diverse cultures has shrunk alarmingly. Even Turkey is beginning to tire of knocking on the door of Christian citadel Europe. If Muslims make the mistake now of withdrawing from the continent's civic life, an even more rabid form of Muslim-baiting will arise. The 2005 Danish cartoons which parodied the Prophet Mohammad were defended by European opinion, with tongue firmly in cheek, as freedom of expression. But the Swiss voters who objected to minarets must have misunderstood that the Danes had in mind expression in all spheres. Europe cannot justify cultural exceptionalism. This is a falsehood in the civilisational debate that has to be exposed.

Babylon & Beyond

Observations from Iraq, Iran,
Israel, the Arab world and beyond

« Previous Post | Babylon & Beyond Home

IRAN: Outrage, and a warning, over Swiss vote to ban minarets

December 5, 2009 | 1:07 pm

An East-West clash over a Swiss referendum last week banning the construction of mosque minarets heated up today as Iran's foreign minister warned of unspecified "consequences" if the ban were enforced.

Manouchehr Mottaki spoke on the phone with his Swiss counterpart Micheline Calmy-Rey. Switzerland and Iran generally have good relations. The Swiss serve as Washington's representative in the Iranian capital in the absence of formal relations between America and the Islamic Republic, giving them exalted status in Tehran's diplomatic circles.

But Mottaki had harsh words for Switzerland, saying enforcement of the ban on new minarets was “against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights" and would "damage Switzerland’s image as a pioneer of respecting human rights among Muslims' public opinion," according to a report by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA.

The Swiss ban on minarets, a feature of Islamic mosques, has roiled the Muslim world. The Swiss government has said it would abide by the vote even though the government and parliament had opposed the referendum.

Iran's population is 90% Shiite Muslim. But it permits construction of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, though some Sunni Muslims have complained they have a tough time building houses of worship in some parts of the country.

“Values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others' religions should never be put to referendum,” Mottaki told his Swiss counterpart. He expressed hope that Bern would soon “take necessary steps and find a constitutional way to prevent imposition of the ban.”

An Iranian cleric today also condemned the minaret ban. Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamadani, said the move was "at odds with the protection of Muslim citizens' civil rights and will hurt the feelings of Muslims across the world," according to Iran's state television.

Calmy-Rey told Mottaki her government would "use all its means to support Muslims rights," according to IRNA.

-- Borzou Daragahi in New York

Photo: A minaret stands illuminated over the Khadija mosque in Berlin. Credit: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images

minaret (mĭnərĕt'), tower, used in Islamic architecture, from which the faithful are called to prayer by a muezzin. Most mosques have one or more small towers, which are usually placed at the corners. The earliest structures specifically built as minarets were the four low square towers at the four corners of the Mosque of Amr in Egypt (A.D. 673). The square form remained in use in Syria until the 13th cent. and in the Maghreb until modern times; the minaret of Giralda in Seville (A.D. 1195) is famous. The free-standing conical minaret surrounded by a spiral staircase, probably deriving from the ancient Babylonian ziggurat, was built at Samarra, Iraq, and in Cairo in the second half of the 9th cent. The most typical Egyptian development is seen in the octagonal minarets of the two 15th-century Cairo mosques of El-Azhar and Kait-bey; both have two balconies, the upper smaller than the lower, over projecting friezes of stalactite vaulting and are surmounted by an elongated and bulbous finial. The most distinctly Persian development (see Persian art and architecture) are the two pairs of slim, towering minarets flanking the huge entrance arches of the Isfahan Masjid-i Shah (c.1612); the conical shafts terminate in covered balconies and are entirely encased in brilliant blue tiles. See Islamic art and architecture.

Tower associated with a mosque.

The minaret has been used for centuries by muezzins (Arabic mu'adhdhinun, Muslim criers) for the call to daily prayers, but its original use is unclear. The earliest mosques in Arabia had no minaret, and the first towers in seventh-century Cairo (Egypt) and Damascus (Syria) may not have been built expressly for the call.

Minarets have been designed in many styles over time and space. Early ones were often square or octagonal, some with winding exterior staircases, while the sixteenth-century Ottomans built needle-thin, cylindrical minarets with conical peaks. Today, the muezzin does not always climb the minaret to call for prayers; minarets are often outfitted with loudspeakers.

It is wrong! I am unhappy and saddened by the arbitrarily decision bu our Government. The continue lack of respect to agreement made shows the government of BN would do anything to remain in power.

This shows the schism created by Mahathir runs deep. This is one example his continuous lack of respect for the rule of law during his time lead his successor to forget to govern wisely. Ever since Carcosa was return to Malaysia, lead by Anwar Ibrahim at that point of time, agreement made seems to be broken at whim. They broke agreement when it suits them and funny, when Pak Lah decide to stay on, the old man cries foul, and invoke for all to hear the gentlemen understanding made by both of them whereas Pak Lah would resign soon after to make way for Najib. Yes agreement made and broken when it suits them.

That is why the opposition would never rule, for even though they win the next election BN would by all means cling to power by declaring a state of Emergency! I am sorry, to me the leaders of BN would always move the goalpost when it suits them, This is sad! This is Islamic ala UMNO and PAS! I hope my readers would think and ponder for a while and take a moment pause!

Ku Li: Oil royalty tussle has wider implications

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 29 — Founding Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has insisted the federal government should not interfere with the national oil firm's duty to give 5 per cent oil royalty to oil-producing states.

The Umno veteran said the Najib administration's refusal to pay the fee to Kelantan has cast serious doubt on the Putrajaya's "respect for the sanctity of contracts and the rule of law" and has implications beyond just that state.

Tengku Razaleigh says the federal government is not respecting its basic obligation to pay oil royalty. — File pic

"Let's not talk about attracting FDI and increasing domestic investment to take our economy to a higher level when we do not respect our basic obligations," the Kelantan prince wrote in his weblog this morning.

This is the second such criticism that the government has reneged on its agreements, the first being for its 20-year-long refusal to allow Communist Party of Malaya chief Chin Peng from returning home under the Hatyai peace accord signed on Dec 2, 1989. The 85-year-old has sued to return home but the courts have ruled against him while the government said it can't forgive him for his war against the state that killed thousands.

The DAP has criticised the ruling Barisan Nasional for the Chin Peng snub, while its Pakatan Rakyat ally, PAS which has ruled Kelantan since 1990, has asked the Gua Musang MP to head a caucus to press for Kelantan to get the oil royalty for oil and gas extracted off its shores. Tengku Razaleigh has yet to decide but his party leaders have cautioned him against doing so.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has said Putrajaya will only offer "compassionate payment" through the Federal Office as the north-eastern state is not eligible for oil royalty because the fossil fuel is extracted beyond the three nautical mile state limits. It had changed the oil royalty to a similar payment for Terengganu when the state fell to the opposition in the 1999 general election.

However, both Sabah and Sarawak get oil royalty as guaranteed under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which Tengku Razaleigh had drafted.

"I helped craft and negotiate the Petroleum Development Act. As chairman of Petronas, I signed separate and identical agreements in respect of these payments with each of the mentris besar of the states.

"I must insist that Petronas is bound by them and that the federal government should not interfere in their fulfilment," said the politician popularly known as Ku Li.

Najib has said Putrajaya will only offer ‘compassionate payment’.

He noted that the government's response "violates the letter and the intent of a solemn agreement signed between each state government and Petronas under the Petroleum Development Act which is written in plain language that even schoolchildren can understand.

"The constitutional rights of the people of Kelantan are denied. However this has implications far beyond Kelantan," he said.

Tengku Razaleigh said Putrajaya's refusal negates an agreement signed between the Kelantan government and Petronas and "by implication, it negates identical agreements signed by Petronas with every other state and deprives the people of their constitutional rights".

"The government's refusal to recognise a straightforward contractual obligation on Petronas's part puts a question mark over the status of oil payments due to the other oil-producing states," he said.

"The states' rights to 5 per cent of profit derived from the extraction of any petroleum resources is based on a quid pro quo according to which the states vested entirely and in perpetuity all their rights and claims to petroleum resources to Petronas.

"In return for this Petronas is legally bound to pay the states the 5 per cent directly," he added.

The former Semangat 46 chief said the state oil firm's recalcitrance to pay under the law will make the states particularly Sabah and Sarawak "now wonder if the corresponding Vesting Deed by which they vested all their rights in their petroleum resources to Petronas remains in force" as the government's response was to replace Petronas's legal obligations under the Petroleum Development Act with an arbitrary "compassionate payment" from Putrajaya.

Oil and gas is extracted in the waters off Kelantan, Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak. The discovery of fossil fuels off the Malay peninsula in the 1970s helped fuel economic growth but critics say the government is spending the petro-ringgit rather than salting it away.

The four states are also among the poorest in the country but Petronas has used its cash pile to build its iconic Petronas Twin Towers headquarters and the Putrajaya administrative capital apart from contributing some 40 per cent of the annual operating expenditure under the Budget.

The oil and gas fields off Kelantan waters are in a jointly-disputed area and is being developed together with Thailand.

razaleigh.com

Tengku Razaleigh’s official weblog

honouring our agreements

with 2 comments

The Government has now responded to Kelantan’s claim to a portion of the profits derived from petroleum resources extracted offshore by PETRONAS.

Its response violates the letter and the intent of a solemn agreement signed between each State Government and PETRONAS under the Petroleum Development Act.

That agreement is made out in language simple enough for a schoolboy to understand, in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.

The Constitutional rights of the people of Kelantan are denied. However this has implications far beyond Kelantan:

1) It negates an agreement signed between the Kelantan Government and PETRONAS. By implication, it negates identical agreements signed by PETRONAS with every other state and deprives the people of their constitutional rights.

2) The Government’s refusal to recognize a straightforward contractual obligation on PETRONAS’s part puts a question mark over the status of oil payments due to the other oil-producing states. The States’ rights to 5% of profit derived from the extraction of any petroleum resources is based on a quid pro quo according to which the States vested entirely and in perpetuity all their rights and claims to petroleum resources to PETRONAS. In return for this PETRONAS is legally bound to pay the states the 5% directly

3) If PETRONAS no longer recognises its legal obligation to pay the States what is due to them under the Petroleum Development Act, the States, and in particular Sabah and Sarawak, will now wonder if the corresponding Vesting Deed by which they vested all their rights in their petroleum resources to PETRONAS remains in force.

4) The Government’s response substitutes for PETRONAS’s legal obligations under the Petroleum Development Act an arbitrary “compassionate payment” from the Federal Government. This casts serious doubt on the Malaysian Government’s respect for the sanctity of contracts and the rule of law. Let’s not talk about spurring investment to take our economy to a higher level if we fail to understand the importance of abiding by contractual obligations.

I helped craft and negotiate the Petroleum Development Act. As Chairman of Petronas, I signed separate and identical agreements in respect of these payments with each of the Mentris Besar of the States. I must insist that PETRONAS is bound by them and that the Federal government should not interfere in their fulfillment.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

Member of Parliament, Gua Musang

–

I will discuss my response to the proposed parliamentary caucus on this issue in my next posting.

I last wrote on the issue of Kelantan’s right to oil payments in my letter to the Mentri Besar of Kelantan in July this year. PETRONAS was formed to unite the country under a single and simple formula for sharing the bounty of our petroleum resources. Any unraveling of this formula could have serious consequences for our Federation.

Freedom lifts us up to where we belong



NOV 24 — I must say I was surprised at how much attention my article Enemies of the State (I owe this title to The Malaysian Insider as my original title was lame in comparison) attracted.



There were many comments at my blog as well as The Malaysian Insider, where my article appeared. Zaidel Baharuddin, a fellow writer with the Malaysian Insider posted a comment and also ran a reply on his blog, Catatan Seekor Lipas. The famous Rocky of Rocky’s Bru also ran a post on the topic which basically pitted my stand against that of Zaidel’s aka the “Lipas Man”.



I must say I am impressed with the passion shown by most of the commentators on either side of the fence. However the debate at Rocky’s Bru had somewhat degenerated into a lawyer bashing event and the issue at hand transformed into: a question of whether lawyers are of any use to the society. And whether a doctor makes a better Prime Minister than a lawyer.



I will of course refrain from wading through such murky water because quite honestly I have a fear of vast, dark and vacuous space.



The article which I wrote was not at all intended to be a polemic on whether a particular system, be it democracy, socialism, communism or anything in between, could ensure more development and progress to the exclusion of other systems. Rather, that article was aimed at taking issue with Dr Mahathir’s apparent stand that “too much democracy” is a hindrance to development and progress.



Dr M’s position is obvious from the comparison which he made, that is between India and China. The former, according to him, was too engrossed in democracy, unlike the latter. And the latter has more progress. I therefore concluded that it is Dr M’s position that a dictatorial system or a less democratic system would be better for development and progress.



Dr M was at pain to show that freedom and liberty as enjoyed by the people, —or at least as demanded by the people — especially in the West are not good for development and progress. With that, I took issue.



What I wish to address here is the argument that human being would prefer to have food on their table or economic progress than freedom, liberty or even democracy in itself. Zaidel encapsulates this position when he commented:



“I’m pretty sure those starving hard working farmers in India who have to fight drought and fertiliser prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression. It is those comfortably well paid lawyers with some extra time on their hands who are more concerned about these things and write about it.”



The problem with that statement is the fact that it is rested on pure assumption.



Human beings are born free. The moment he comes out from the womb, he is freed from the constraints of the womb and thrust into this world a free human being. The first thing which he tastes, apart from the air which he inhales, is freedom and not food or drink.



Freedom of expression is tasted early in his life outside the womb. The first cry which a human being give is an expression, which he is then free to demonstrate. And he moves, his eyes opening up, his limbs moving in no particular pattern and without any specific control. Freedom and liberty are not only what which dignify us as human beings but they are our divine rights.

Zaidel talks of the poor and impoverished farmers in India. What if all the hardworking and starving farmers in India, or elsewhere, were locked up in a cage and fed food and drink to their heart’s content but they were not allowed to speak nor go anywhere at all? Then they are given the choice of leaving the cage, live freely and find their own food and drink. Wouldn’t they leave the cage? I think they would. But of course, like Zaidel, I would be making an assumption.

However, in this day and age, when freedom and liberty are regarded as universal rights of human beings and when they are regarded as part of natural and divine rights, it is a measure of the sorry state that we are in that we are still arguing which is the more basic and primordial need, food and drink or freedom and liberty!

My question is, why can’t we have them all? Especially in a democracy, where we elect our so called leaders to look after our well being as members of a State?

I think in this day and age, it is downright insulting — and not to mention, pathetic — for any leader to say to the people that I will give you food on your table in abundance but you would have to shut up, toe the line and do as I say, all the time and under all circumstances.

For a leader to lay the blame on the people which he or she ruled — for not understanding the limits of democracy — as a reason for his or her failure to achieve development and progress does not speak much of his or her leadership.

A comparison was made with Singapore in one of the comments. It was pointed out Singapore did not have much of a democracy and they progress well. But that does not prove that Singapore progressed well because it was less democratic.

Hasn’t it occurred to any of us that Singapore progressed because of the mentality and work ethics of its leaders?

By the way, Malaysia, during the 22 year reign of DrM had identical benevolent absolutist regime with Singapore. Both Dr M and LKY were the staunchest apologists for what they termed as “Asian values”, which to me was nothing more than a self serving excuse for totalitarianism.

Malaysia had everything which Singapore had in terms of repressive legislation as well as actions. In fact history would show that Malaysia imposed more limits to democracy than Singapore did in the 22 years of Dr M’s rule.

So I am going to ask the obvious question. Why is it that Malaysia had failed to match Singapore’s progress and development during those 22 years? Both had untold limits on democracy. What happened? What were the differences between the two countries?

The thing is this. If we stripped all the deliberate cost overruns (I am being overly generous with my description here); all consultation, introduction and service fees; all middle men; all other “value-not-added services” from all of our projects all those years, I am sure this country would have enough finances and resources to do much more. The money being churned by Petronas alone would be more than enough.

And if only we had put in the right people — instead of some silver-spoon fed children, brothers in law, nephews and what-have-you of the people in power — here they were needed, I am sure this country would have equalled Singapore, if not overtaken it.

As for India, fellow blogger Wenger J Khairy had answered well in his article India, China, Democracy, Communism and RM 50 billion on his blog. I don’t want to add anything.

Whether we like it or not, we are a democratic country. Our leaders should stop asking for more and more powers and start delivering results with whatever powers they already have. Why can’t development and progress be achieved without trampling on the people’s freedom and liberty?

In this cyber age, the people are slowly being empowered. And they wish for emancipation. They wish for development and progress. And they do not wish to give more than they need to, particularly when it comes to their rights, freedom and liberty.

The people now have become an enlightened customers of the politicians. And they have become demanding customers. They want food and drink on their table. And they want their freedom and their liberties in the same breath. Their basic and fundamental rights as human beings. Those very things which give them human dignity and which differentiate them from other animals.
The times they are a-changin, says Bob Dylan, and you’d better start swimming or you’d sink like a stone.

My Comment and i hope it will be publish in the Malaysian Insider

Dear Art

We differ in many ways but we do agree in many things. I believe Zaidel is right although his assumption is flawed. Generally under Maslow theory in Behavioural Science, Man basic instinct is food and shelter before he could think of anything else like freedom and arts. So most poor farmers would always thought about food and shelter and for their love ones and for you to make assumption that Man is predispose to freedom of expression is wrong. Freedom of expressions or actions is manifest in many ways, for me, Man has the habit of building walls where there enjoy this freedom within. I came from a big family thus I have to create my own space for my privacy which again is part and parcel of human needs and rights! So as long as Man can find the freedom within their own 4 walls I think all is fine! So as long as the government of the day does not intrude in his private affairs he will enjoy his freedom of expression by himself and family. That is the reason why I am against Islamic private laws that infringe on personal rights as oppose to public rights. Democracy per say is good but for man to achieve the benefit of democratic freedom man must have the ability to ascertain, respect and understand other people’s right and to honour them. To argue and discourse without using fist, but that in Malaysia and many Asian countries especially Islamic one is a rarity. For many of us violence is the result and rule of law is forgotten.

We have been independent for more than 50 years but we seem to lose the art to argue by not getting emotional about it. Our former leaders would argue but always level headedness wins the day. If any leaders who would resort to fistfights would be banish, please do read about Aziz Ishak and how he was banish from UMNO. He to me was like Zulkifli Noordin whom I believe you too despised. I was lucky that I grew up living in many places in Malaysia. I remember staying in PJ and in Jalan Kelantan KL, in Terengganu I stay at Jalan Dato Amar, Batu Buruk , in Penang in air Itam and later Green Lane. Each places accord me the perspective of living among Malaysians and Malays of which I am. From the ultra sophisticate Malays like you, to those the have nots in Terengganu(before the discovery of oil) and the second class citizen of the Malays in Penang. I am affectionately fond of Penang because of the cosmopolitan view it has. There the Malays are divided between the jawi Peranakans and Malays, now sadly residing in greater numbers in Balik Pulau and Butterworth. Orang Depa and orang kita rings my ear when the mamak describe them and us to me as though these Malays were of lower class. It pains me and it also tickles the hell out of me. These Mamak whose UMNO branches in Pitt Street are conducted in Tamil amuses me because between them there is the dark one and the northern Indian Mamaks.

What is the point I am trying to convey you might ask. You see Art, you come from a middle class background and no doubt you spend your time mostly in PJ where you reside. You are detach from the environs of the Malays as a whole. Their fears and dreams, Malays of yore of whom I know are pleasant people. These people are what Tan Sri Mubin Shepard and even Sir Frank Sweetenham falls in love with. Sadly these characteristic has been long gone. Malay which is known as the Gentlemen of the East has turn to be a vile and detestable monster(not all but many). They have scant regard for sharing and respecting others due to no doubt to Melayu Boleh which was trumpeted during the time of the mamak PM. Yes, the PM whose entrance form to University Malaya under race was stated as Indian is the champion of Malays, what bull!

He tramples what was sacred but it cannot be deny the Malays burgeoning Middle Class are indebted to him. He turn Malays whom in 1969 owns only 2.4% of the GDP or in other words wealth of the country now share 19% and remember Malays constitute 60% of the population, sadly the share of the cake is not equal to the population percentage breakdown then and even now and futhermore 19% number is dubious, I would say we are close to 30%. But look around you has the wealth benefit the Malays. Has the Malays grow intellectually or has they grow dumber? Most lack social grace and hardly could argue sensibly. Most are unable and are lacking in intellectual capacity to think. Are they ready fro democracy? No. We would end up like France whose rallying cry Equality, Fraternity and Liberty rang when they storm the Bastille in 1784 and then end up having Napoleon as the ruler. Is it worth it? Surely not! How about the mother of Democracy like Rome, where it all started? Did not Julius Ceaser come to rule? I don’t want Malaysia to have Ceasers, nobody wants including you! What we have is a guided democracy which hopefully will prepare as slowly to embrace total democracy. Democracy can and always will be manipulated, do you remember Datuk Ahmad Ismail. He got away with murder!, yet untouchable because as a warlord he carries voting bloc. UMNO has try to arrest that problem recently but trust me warlords will always appear. We all heard of the Zionist Lobby in the states. They are unseen and very strong. So before you high ho about total democracy I for one has to agree with the mamak PM because sadly we are not ready. I for one would like to see my Malay race develop their mind intellectually and able to carry a discourse devoid of emotional outburst then I would embrace total democracy! Thank You

When i first read this article it made me angry! Another issue on Islam oh my! but the article is not true. It is false. it was written by a fellow blogger and send to me, it was edited because at the end of the article the blogger confess it was false. I was glad but it make me think what if this was true? Is it just? It was wrong from day one, it is wrong now as it was then but it does happen because this type of scenario happen to someone i know. He is the brother in law of Datuk Mark Yeoh. he died as a Muslim but before that he was a kafir and has a family. None inherited his wealth, is it right? i do not know? You readers I hope could explain i surely can't!

Subject: Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong Declared a Muslim> > > THIS IS SHOCKING NEWS

Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong Declared a Muslim, Children ‘Disinherited’

Saturday, 31 February 2018
Malaysiakelak.com.my News (used with permission, copyright not protected)By Juslo Satire
(KUANTAN, Friday) – The Syariah Court has today declared that the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong was a Muslim when he passed away more than 10 years ago in 2007. The Syariah Court also ruled that since no non-Muslim is allowed to inherit any part of a Muslim’s assets or wealth, the inheritance of Lim’s assets by his non-Muslim children are invalid and unlawful.
“Therefore, the assets should be immediately returned to Tan Sri Lim’s name, and then redistributed to his Muslim heirs (if any) according to Syariah law. If he has no Muslim heir, then the assets shall be given to the Islamic authorities and they can do whatever they wish. The non-Muslim children are disinherited.” The Syariah Court ruled.
Dato’ Zakaria Lim Abdullah, 35, the late Tan Sri Lim’s only Muslim child and the 20th of his 20 offsprings, would be his sole heir and is now poised to become the Chairman of Genting Group, 1 of Southeast Asia’s richest companies worth RM2 trillion as at press time, after inheriting all the assets. (He would have inherited only 1/20 of Tan Sri Lim’s assets if Tan Sri Lim was not declared a Muslim.) However, he refused to confirm whether he would stop the gambling business of Genting even though it is haram under Islamic law.
“Are you saying that our Hadhari government should refuse to collect taxes from gambling, alcohol, pork and other haram businesses?” Dato’ Zakaria replied, perhaps rhetorically.
Dato’ Zakaria has also said that he shall honor his pledge to donate 1/10 of his newly inherited fortune to Jabatan Agama Islam Pahang and UMNO in equal share if he won the case, made 3 days before the Syariah Court decision.
“Business Reasons”
“My late father wanted to keep his conversion secret because he was a gambling tycoon, and he did not want to jeopardize his gambling empire or make his shareholders lose confidence in Genting,” said Dato’ Zakaria during the hearing in Syariah Court. The Syariah Court felt that “this is most likely true because of the huge business implications. It is very normal for Chinese to do this. We can accept that.”
As to the testimonies of Tan Sri Lim’s 19 other offsprings in the Syariah Court, who unanimously disputed the alleged conversion, the Syariah Court said,
“Even though it is 19 to 1, but because the non-Muslim witnesses refused to swear on the Qur’an before they testified in court, we could not consider their testimonies. In any event, even if they did swear on the Qur’an, the dhimmis… sorry, the non-Muslims would still carry less weight when compared to the testimony of 2 Muslim men. It is not about the number, it is about quality of the witnesses.”
The other witness supporting Dato’ Zakaria’s claim to have witnessed Tan Sri Lim’s conversion is Ustaz Abdul Rahman Ganilan Abdullah, 23 year old. The Ustaz would have been only 13 year old at that time of the conversion, but the Syariah Court said that,
“Being a righteous, God-fearing Muslim, we have no reason to suspect that the Ustaz told any lie. In any event, he has reached the age of puberty at the time (of the conversion) so he was qualified to witness the conversion.”
“Answer To God” – It Depends
The Syariah Court has also ruled that the overwhelming evidence of Tan Sri Lim drinking alcohol, praying to pagan idols, celebrating pagan religious festivals, eating pork and gambling in his own Genting Casino and generally behaving like a non-Muslim all his life until his death was “…irrelevant. Once you have converted, you are a Muslim till you die, no matter what you did before your death. You will answer to God for all your sins.”
However, on the same kind of “answer to God” argument made by the non-Muslim children that:
“By the same logic, the Deceased himself should answer to God for concealing his alleged 'conversion' from his family (and resulting in him not being buried as a Muslim and his assets distributed among his non-Muslim children); it's not up to the Islamic Authority to insist on his assets being inherited under Islamic law if he, had indeed converted but KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT HIS ASSETS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED LIKE AN INFIDEL (AND HE MIGHT BURN IN HELL), still didn’t want to tell his family to bury him as a Muslim and distribute his assets like a Muslim.”
the Syariah Court said “you cannot say he must answer to God for everything. Sometimes he also has to answer to us, the Islamic Authority and Syariah Court. If we say he has to answer to us, then he has to. When it comes to God's law, logic has nothing to do with it. Why is it so difficult to understand?”
“New Conversion Policy” vs New Economic Policy
The case to declare one of the richest Chinese in the world (at his death) as a Muslim was started 2 years ago (8 years after his death), 1 month after another non-Muslim Malaysian tycoon’s Muslim son was able to exclusively inherit his father’s global business empire – worth RM80 billion at that time – by proving in Syariah Court that his father had “converted in secret,” resulting in his mother and all 9 other siblings losing the right to inherit any part of the tycoon’s wealth, leaving him the sole heir to the huge fortune.
There are currently at least 200 more cases of the same nature pending before the Syariah Courts nationwide involving deceased non-Muslims who were wealthy during their lifetime and left behind a huge personal fortune. Rough estimate suggests that 50% of them were started by 1 of the Muslim children of the deceased (99% of them newly converted as Muslims), and the rest by the Islamic Authorities seeking to disinherit all non-Muslim children. Many are now wondering who's next, and bookies all over the country (including those operated by Genting) have now closed the bets on the top 1,000 richest Chinese in Malaysia (both dead and alive) "as they have become hot favourites now," says the representatives from Ladbrokes Malaysia and William Hill Wahid (the Malaysian subsidiary of William Hill, UK).
If all of the cases succeed, it is estimated that the ratio of equity held by Muslims in Malaysia would jump from the meagre 19% as at 1 January 2018 to 76%, a whopping 3-fold increase.
The Perak Mufti, who applauded the Syariah Court’s ruling, said that this wave of after-death declarations of conversions is the new approach taken by the Islamic Authority to bring people to the right path. "We used to focus on the living, now we think we should focus on the dead people too. Under Islam Hadhari, it's never too late to bring them back to the right path so that they can achieve salvation on Judgment Day, even if they are already dead." He added that this would help to speed up the Islamicization of Malaysia, but is also designed to achieve the government’s goal to redistribute wealth among the races which the government could no longer do (and failed repeatedly to do) under the now abolished National Economic Policy.
“By creating real economic incentives for the dhimmis to become a real citizens of the Islamic state, we expect more of them to embrace the true path, and this will mean that we no longer have to rely on the NEP to achieve such noble socio-economic goals of the government. Besides, this is more effective because to take money away from living people will create a lot of noise, but a dead person will not make any noise, right?” He said.
However, it is not clear whether the non-Muslim children would still be able to keep their inheritance if they convert to Islam Hadhari immediately. The Perak Mufti, when consulted on this issue, said,
“If that could bring them to Islam Hadhari, then it would be good, so the Syariah Court should allow that. But then it might be unfair to those children who converted into Islam Hadhari earlier… perhaps we can still allow them to inherit only 30% of what an “early bird” Muslim heir would have been able to get, to provide some “early bird bonus incentives” for them to convert earlier. When we are dealing with Chinese, such bonus incentives are very important, if you know what I mean. Anyway, we’ll think about this in the next National Fatwa Council meeting. But rest assured that we shall continue our struggle and to finish our job – until the Kingdom comes (literally).”
Chinese Beginning to Be Concerned
The Chinese community has now taken this matter very seriously and are brainstorming on the options to overcome this problem. They have also called for an end to the practice of declaring a person’s status as a Muslim after his or her death, a radical change from their usual attitude to shy away from controversial political and religious issues. Analysts believe that this is because this time, it is threatening their economic interests.
Supporters of the now semi-defunct Malaysian Chinese Association, Gerakan and Malaysian Indian Congress (still part of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, though) have called on the top BN leadership to put forward a plan to resolve such controversial and provocative religious issues once and for all and in a manner which is fair to the non-Muslims. An MCA leader who declined to be named told our reporter:
“We fear a backlash. Most NGO and opposition leaders have called on the non-Muslims to boycott BN if no fair solution is put forward before the upcoming general election. These issues have been around since at least the Moorthy controversy in 2005 but still remained unresolved. They are now affecting the basic security and fundamental well-being of the non-Muslims.”

Below is the apologies stated by the Author

Juslo’s clarification:
This is purely a SATIRE. NOTHING in this post is factually true. DEEP APOLOGIES to the family of the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong. Forgive me for using a real, prominent name in order to try to bring out the real, concrete implications of the stupidity, madness and suffering which are happening in Malaysia right now, and hopefully to raise awareness of the people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in order to prevent ABUSE AND MANIPULATION. Let's ensure that the above WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Juslo’s additional clarification on 1 February 2008:
Some have accused me of being 'provocative' and 'inciting hatred.' I want to clarify that these are NOT my intentions -- but I strongly believe that these are what the corpse-snatching evil doers from the 'Islamic Authorities' intended. You cannot blame the victims/their communities for reacting in anger to your provocation because you knew very well that this would cause anger, pain and disharomony, and yet you still chose to go ahead to do it -- you expect your victims/their communities to SMILE AND WELCOME you??
These reactions were dead certain -- you have seen them in the Moorthy case, and many cases before, so don't pretend that you are somehow 'surprised' by the anger this time. Please don't be so SELF-CENTERED, put yourselves into other people's shoes for a change.
Some also accused me of "bashing Islam." Honestly and sincerely, I D-O N-O-T believe that this is ISLAM, and (as someone who was once 'attracted to' and have learned much about Islam) I am sad that people would equate these pain-anger-suffering-causing evil actions as 'Islam.' I hope all those who wish to defend these people think twice before equating them with 'Islam.' And if you think this is just 'islamophobia' or 'lies,' then explain to us where are the safeguards and how and why this kind of abuse and manipulation will never happen. Put our minds at ease. (But please spare us the naive "Muslims will never lie in syariah court" excuses.)
But I hope this much we could agree on:
that Islam should be practised in a FAIR & JUST manner towards non-Muslims;
that good Muslims will continue to speak up against injustices everywhere, ESPECIALLY those committed against non-Muslims in the name of Islam;

that no more suffering n pain would be visited upon non-Muslims in the name of Islam no matter what is the justification;
that Islam will not be manipulated by individual Muslims for their selfish gains.]

It's been awhile since i wrote. I am still away in Penang,and it is difficult to write when you are away. I am not really on holiday but more on force sabatical leave until i can get the monies due to me hopefully by end of this month in penang. i have to postpone a few project or meetings and reschedule it until this thing settle. After this hopefully i am more settle and could plan for my future till then it is touchy.

Here are few articles for my readers to ponder written by others which for me is good to read and ponder

Cleric’s case a test for moderate Malaysia By Farish A. Noor
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 20 — The syariah authorities in Selangor have charged the former mufti of Perlis, Dr Asri Zainul Abidin, with preaching Islam without a permit to do so.For Malaysia-watchers worldwide, this case will be seen as a litmus test for the country, the Najib administration, and the government and syariah authorities of Selangor (now under the control of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat). The outcome of the case will also tell us where Islam is headed in a country that has often been cast as an exemplary model of normative Islam at work. But is it really?Asri's “crime” was to preach Islam without an official permit. But in the past few weeks, the man himself has been vilified by his critics and accused of being — among other things — a Wahhabi Muslim as well.Those who have followed Asri's career would have seen in him an inclination towards rational debate and objective discourse above all else. During the recent controversies that raged over the question of whether yoga was permissible for Muslims, for instance, he noted that the fatwa against it did not make sense. His speeches have been peppered with constant reminders to Muslims to think and behave in a rational manner, and not to be blind in matters of faith.Is this, then, the root cause of the anxiety over the man and his ideas? Asri's critics have labelled him as arrogant and confrontational. But those who have leapt to his defence — including prominent politicians from both sides of the ideological divide — have argued that his polemics have been directed mainly at outdated traditional practices that have for too long been mistakenly assumed to be Islamic.In this respect, Asri (picture) can perhaps be likened to the kaum muda (younger generation) of Muslim progressive intellectuals of the 1920s and 1930s — who likewise challenged the authority of traditional scholars, whom they regarded as being out of touch with the times. Then, as is the case now, any critique of the traditional status quo was seen as an attack on Islam per se, and progressives were likewise called “Wahhabis”. At the heart of the matter is the question of who has the right to speak on Islam and matters Islamic. Islam does not have a clergy or priestly class. Men like Asri emphasise the role of individual reason in the search for faith.Right after he was charged by the Selangor religious court, Asri said: “This will not stop me from delivering the message... They think this is a small matter; they think they can just stop people from teaching but, for me, this case is very significant.”Clearly, the man is prepared to go to court to defend the right of Muslims to think for themselves and to ask serious questions about Islam, rather than to blindly believe whatever their teachers tell them.But perhaps this too is the reason Asri is loathed by so many in the religious establishment, and why he has been seen as a threat by some. Whatever the facts of the case may be, it remains true that Asri is a unique individual in the contemporary Malaysian context: an ulama who is at ease dealing with the real issues of society, and whose appeal transcends ethnic and religious barriers. He has even been seen as a moderate voice among the country's non-Muslims.The outcome of the case will tell us too where Malaysia is headed today, at a time when both the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition and Pakatan Rakyat are desperately trying to carve out a new image and identity for Malaysia as a multicultural and multi-confessional nation.Will the “new Malaysia” dreamt of by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak or the opposition have a place for rational Muslim intellectuals like Asri? Or will he be sacrificed for the sake of realpolitik?Either way, it is Malaysia and Malaysians who will live with the consequences. — The Straits Times man is prepared to go to court to defend the right of Muslims to think for themselves and to ask serious questions about Islam, rather than to blindly believe whatever their teachers tell them.But perhaps this too is the reason Asri is loathed by so many in the religious establishment, and why he has been seen as a threat by some. Whatever the facts of the case may be, it remains true that Asri is a unique individual in the contemporary Malaysian context: an ulama who is at ease dealing with the real issues of society, and whose appeal transcends ethnic and religious barriers. He has even been seen as a moderate voice among the country's non-Muslims.The outcome of the case will tell us too where Malaysia is headed today, at a time when both the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition and Pakatan Rakyat are desperately trying to carve out a new image and identity for Malaysia as a multicultural and multi-confessional nation.Will the “new Malaysia” dreamt of by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak or the opposition have a place for rational Muslim intellectuals like Asri? Or will he be sacrificed for the sake of realpolitik?Either way, it is Malaysia and Malaysians who will live with the consequences. — The Straits Times

I read the news yesterday and i found one that is interesting! To those whom might not know my past well I work in the circus before and believe me it was hard work! Back to the story i read, concerning a runaway elephant and by golly the owner is Doug Terranova who came to Malaysia and i work part time for him helping the Elephants out! Times fly really!!! I remember cleaning the mess made by the elephants 3 of them Judy, Mary and Betty. All ladies but Betty was the leader. She nearly kill me that is after being kick twice slap twice and the last was the killa! Doug later ask me to enter his trailer offered me a drink( I don't accept it) and say welcome to the animal world!

He was also the person who remark to me i must be good because of my religion!! I still work in the circus but by then I was working with Pamela and Roger Zoppe who are husband and wife chimpanzee trainer. Judy of Daktari TV fame was here and i clean her cages and she was by then huge! It is a different story but that memories still etch in my mind. I have to republish the news and articles about them for my collection!

Circus elephant that escaped and was hit by SUV OK

By MURRAY EVANS

Associated Press Writer

Enid News & Eagle, Billy Hefton

An animal rights group on Friday asked a U.S. Department of Agriculture agency to look into an owner's treatment of a circus elephant that escaped and was hit by a sport utility vehicle on a northwestern Oklahoma highway.

The 29-year-old female elephant, meanwhile, was treated by veterinarians at Oklahoma State University and released to its owner, said university spokesman Gary Shutt. Shutt would only say that the animal's injuries were not major.

The group In Defense of Animals wants the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service "to confiscate two suffering elephants" from Douglas K. Terranova of Kaufman, Texas, the group said in a letter to Robert Gibbens, a regional director for the agency.

Agency spokesman David Sacks said all complaints are taken seriously and that the agency will look into the situation.

"If it holds some weight, we'll address that," he said.

A report filed by Enid police concerning the Wednesday night incident listed Terranova as the elephant's owner. Terranova did not immediately return a phone message left Friday.

Terranova already faces a complaint filed by the USDA concerning alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act from 2005 through 2008. Among other things, the USDA complaint alleges two elephants owned by Terranova escaped from a circus in Kansas in June 2008 after the animals were spooked by strong storms.

It wasn't immediately clear Friday if the elephant involved in the Oklahoma incident also was involved in the Kansas escape, although Deb Robinson, a captive elephant specialist with In Defense of Animals, said the group believes that is the case.

"Incidents such as this are just further demonstration that elephants do not belong in circuses," Robinson said. "It is impossible for their natural needs to be met, and the result is the kind of stress that would cause an elephant to bolt like this one did."

Bill and Denna Carpenter of Enid said they were driving home from church on U.S. Highway 81 when their vehicle sideswiped the elephant, which had escaped from the Family Fun Circus.

Neither of the Carpenters were injured. The 8-foot, 4,500-pound elephant was examined for a broken tusk and a leg wound.

A statement on the circus' Web site said the circus "does not own an elephant" and that the animal was with the circus "for a few weeks."

The circus' statement said the accident "was not the result of any abuse by anyone" and that the elephant will not return to the circus for the balance of the season. It also said the circus had been told by the elephant's owner that the animal was being seen by his regular veterinarian.

Meet the Terranova Kids & Their Amazing Animal Friends

Submitted by Jim Cole on 7/26/2009
Last Modified

For the sixth year in a row, Circus4Youth has traveled to Peru, Indiana for the annual "Circus City Festival" which features the Peru Amateur Youth Circus. While there, we have also visited the "International Circus Hall of Fame" which is located in rural Peru. During the last three visits, there have been professional circus familys with kids performing under the big top at the Circus Hall of Fame. In 2007 we did a feature article on the Cristiani family, and last year we introduced our readers to the Alvarez family. This year, Circus4Youth would like you to meet the Terranova family, and their amazing animals!

11 year old Alexandrea, Doug (their dad) and 7 year old Taylar Terranova.
That's Congo and Kamba, their performing Elephants.

Living and working with circus animals would be a very unique way of life for most kids, but for Alexandrea, Taylar and their 18 month old brother Rayce, it is so very normal. Their father is professional circus animal trainer Doug Terranova, and these kids spend their summers on the road with him. They have a very large family if you include 2 African Elephant, 5 Tigers, a Camel, 2 Zebras, a North American Mountain Lion, a Spider Monkey, and two house cats. With this large assortment of animals, comes a lot of work to make sure they all get the best possible care while traveling from one circus to another. Their dad has 3 hired hands to do much of the work, but the two girls each have chores to do with regard to caring for their animals.

Doug shows Taylar the safe way to pass a watering pan to Shasta the Mountain Lion.
While working with animals like this can be fun, safety is a top priority.

Taylar passes some hay to the elephants, her dad is always close by.

Entering the circus ring atop an elephant.

Left: Alexandrea on Congo, Right: Taylar on Kamba

Doug presents the Tigers, while Alexandrea works the cage door that lets the
Tigers in and out of the "big cage". She must be very careful to make
sure the Tigers are let in and out in the correct order.

But other than their unusual home life, the Terranova girls are quite your everyday kids. They go to school in Texas, and have many friends, both in and out of circus. Alexandrea is in the 6th grade, and says her favorite subject is math. She has a close friend in Texas named Ashley who often comes around when they are home and helps with the animals. When asked about her favorite food, Hot Dogs seem to top the list. She enjoys Rap music and "Twighlight" is her favorite movie.

7 year old Taylar is in the 2nd grade, and she enjoys helping her dad take care of the animals, as does her sister. But when it comes to food, hot dogs just have to go, a good plate of Chinese food sends her back for seconds. She shares her sister's choice however of music and movies.

Taylar and Alexandrea show off their new costumes that
just arrived via UPS!

Left: Alexandrea text messages her friend Ashley who is home in Texas.
Right: The Terranova girls pose with their friends Ariana and
Gianni Alvarez at the Peru Circus Festival.

18 month old Rayce is too young to work with the animals, but he
none the less enjoys being around them. That's his close buddy "Bucky"
the Spider Monkey.

Rayce pays a visit to the Donkeys.

The special transport semi trailer that is designed to provide maximum
comfort for the animals while traveling from city to city.

Alexandrea and Taylar ride high atop the elephants in the
50th annual Peru Circus Parade.

Check out Alexandrea's and Taylar's page on "CircuSpace" send them a greeting, tell them you saw their article on Circus4Youth!

THE END

I have a back log of articles on Asri. I have to republish it here for the readers to read and for me to keep a file on. Without this data i cannot come to a conclusion what ails the Muslims. I would like to stress my opinion concerning my religion comes from long observation and current news past and present that shape my disdain in the rigidity of blind adherents to Ulamak.

Here is the articles concern

Asri slams Jais for stopping non-Muslims entering mosques

Asri has taken another shot at Jais. — File pic

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 — Controversial former Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin continued his campaign against his persecutors, the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais), by calling the agency extremists for not allowing non-Muslims to enter mosques in the state.

He had previously said that Jais should do away with "authorisation" letters for preachers as it goes against the freedom of expression, even within Islam.

This time he picked on Jais director Datuk Mohamed Khusrin Munawi who told Utusan Malaysia that non-Muslims cannot enter mosques as "they are like women with menstruation" after an alleged ceramah by Selangor executive councillor Dr Xavier Jeyakumar in a Klang mosque.

Muslim women who are menstruating usually do not go to mosques to pray.

"This is a shallow and narrow view. This is the kind of statement that repels and alienates non-Muslims from Islam. It gives a wrong and false impression of the religion," Asri told The Malaysian Insider today.

He added that even during the time of Prophet Muhammad, non-Muslims were allowed to enter mosques as this would be the best way for them to experience the religion first hand.

"It will give non-Muslims the opportunity to get to know Islam better and Muslims too can engage them in the spirit of constructive dialogue. Isn't this good for Islam?" commented Asri.

The university lecturer also said that he is certain that Jais will not take his views well and in anticipation of that warned them against labelling him a "Wahabbi" or a follower of a purist sect in Islam not recognised by the country's religious elite.

"Don't call me a Wahabbi simply because I have different views. As I said, even at the time of the great Prophet Muhammad, non-Muslims were allowed to enter mosques," he said.

Asri and Jais have been engaging each other in an ongoing war of words. The progressive views of the former Perlis mufti do not gel with the views of the conservatives which make up the majority of the country's religious elite.

He claimed his views and his rise to prominence have been viewed as a threat to their authority, saying the “war” between them culminated in his arrest last Sunday while he was giving a private talk in Ampang. He was freed on bail and is awaiting charges for lecturing without a “tauliah” or permit.

Jais denied that Asri's arrest was politically motivated.

hah Alam MP says ulamas not above criticism

Khalid raising a question at this morning’s seminar. — Picture by Choo Choy May

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 7 — Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad praised today’s PAS seminar as a key milestone in the party’s history.

He said the seminar shows the party was willing to accept criticism and handle them positively.

Khalid stressed that if PAS wants to become a “mainstream” party then the leadership must be willing to accept criticism.

“If you want to become the Prime Minister or whatever minister you must be willing to face the criticism, you can’t say that he is an ulama so you can’t criticise. Part of the thing is that we want to educate our members,” he told reporters outside the seminar hall in Taman Melewar here.

Khalid hopes the seminar will educate party members that nobody is immune from criticism.

“As I said it is something new so you must expect there to be a mixed reaction. We are not used to having our ulama criticised but we are saying even the Prophet was criticised so it is the education that we have to undergo,” he said.

The seminar today was to discuss PAS's future direction but could well throw up the need for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to decide the fundamental issue of whether to co-operate with Umno to advance Islam and Malay unity or stay with PR and hope to capture federal power in the forthcoming general election.

The seminar is unlikely to resolve the fundamental difference over the issues and which course to take to safeguard the future of PAS — how best to capitalise on the new forces at work in the political system to stay ahead.

PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat wanted a special muktamar to rid the party of leaders whom he described as “problematic” and seen to favour working closely with Umno instead of strengthening PR.

He had named Selangor PAS commissioner Datuk Hasan Ali along with Nasharuddin and secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Alias those who had made the party look inconsistent.

However, PAS central committee members recently unanimously decided not to call for a special muktamar but to hold today's seminar instead.

Agama bukan hak eksklusif ulama — Dr Asri Zainul Abidin

NOV 8 — Temuramah Berita Harian (BH) dengan Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin

BH: Sehari sebelum ditahan Jais, Dr mengeluarkan kenyataan mengenai memorandum PGSM membantah pelantikan Dr sebagai Yang Dipertua Yadim. Dr didakwa ada agenda tersendiri kerana turut mendakwa Perdana Menteri yang mahu membuat pelantikan itu.

Dr Asri: Kalau ada agenda, ertinya saya juga mengerah berpuluh-puluh polis dan pegawai Jais menangkap saya. Dakwaan itu cuma teori kerana di luar kemampuan saya berbuat demikian. Siapa saya untuk membuat agenda membabitkan pihak keselamatan dan seumpamanya, tetapi saya melihat dari sudut lain, ada hikmah untuk saya dan untuk Malaysia; mengenai kebebasan bersuara, hak untuk bercakap.

BH: Dr ditahan kerana disyaki mengajar agama tanpa tauliah. Perlukah Jais mengeluarkan tauliah, terutama kepada pengajar berkelayakan mengajar agama?

Dr Asri: Tidak perlu kerana pertama, ia sedikit sebanyak menjejaskan hak bersuara, itu asasnya. Kedua, dari segi Islam, Nabi Muhammad mengajar “sampaikan daripada aku walaupun satu ayat.” Ertinya rakyat Selangor tidak boleh mempraktikkan hadis ini kecuali ada tauliah. Kalau dengar kuliah agama, hendak cerita kepada kawan di rumah apa yang diajar ustaz tak boleh kerana kena dapatkan tauliah dulu.

BH: Apakah maksud pengajaran agama?

Dr Asri: Perkataan agama amat umum. Sekarang pengajaran agama ialah kalau kita lihat pensyarah universiti mengajar agama di Selangor dan negeri lain. Cikgu nasihatkan anak murid dalam kelas supaya jaga solat, itu pun pengajaran agama... kena tauliah? Jemaah tabligh yang pergi dari masjid ke masjid, ada minta tauliah? Kadangkala orang jual ubat di tepi jalan pesan baca Bismillah sebelum makan ubat, ada unsur ajaran agama. Apa dimaksudkan dengan pengajaran agama? Itu yang Jais kena takrifkan.

BH: Mengapa pula (perlu tauliah) seseorang yang ada ijazah pertama, sarjana bahkan PhD (doktor falsafah) dalam pengajian Islam sepatutnya sudah layak. Sebahagian besar yang ada PhD ialah pensyarah universiti, mengajar orang yang akan keluar dapat sijil (ijazah), bahkan untuk PhD dan sarjana, tiba-tiba kena dapatkan tauliah, bukan saja untuk mengajar di masjid dan surau tetapi di seluruh Selangor.

BH: Tanpa merujuk kepada Dr, ada pihak membidas sikap ahli agama yang menganggap kebal dan tidak perlu tauliah. Mereka menyifatkan itu takbur?

Dr Asri: Saya tidak kata kerana orang sudah kenal saya, saya tidak perlu tauliah. Saya kata saya dikenali, boleh tengok laman web. Itu maksudnya orang sudah tahu saya, jadi tak payahlah takut ada ajaran lain. Saya bukan manusia yang baru muncul untuk kita selidik, itu maksud saya. Saya kata tak perlu (tauliah untuk orang berkelayakan) kerana saya tak bersetuju dengan dasar ini daripada asasnya lagi. Kalau seseorang tiada latar
belakang agama, mungkin patut (tauliah). Saya katakan ini untuk semua. Pensyarah universiti ada PhD tak payah disuruh ambil tauliah, cukuplah pengiktirafan universiti yang lebih besar. Yang langsung tiada latar belakang agama, boleh disuruh ambil tauliah.

BH: Dr mendakwa ada tangan ghaib di sebalik kes ditahan Jais. Apa maksudnya dan adakah ia juga berkaitan dengan Yadim. Dr juga dapat publisiti percuma?

Dr Asri: Ini (kes tangkapan) bukan perkara kecil kerana cara mereka jalankan operasi membabitkan berpuluh-puluh polis dan pegawai Jais, mungkin mereka nak gari saya kalau tidak dengan perundingan. Saya tidak tahu (puncanya). Sudahlah ditangkap begitu, pergi ke balai polis, siasatan tak buat, esoknya seluruh negara tunggu, tiba-tiba kata belum ada siasatan dan tuduhan. Bayangkan kalau belum ada siasatan dan tuduhan, takkan ada operasi sebesar itu.
Mengenai publisiti percuma, saya tak promosi diri, tak berani cakap lebih, tetapi al-Quran ingatkan kita, kadang-kadang orang rancang tak elok tetapi Allah rancang lain dan Allah sebaik-baik perancang. Kadang-kadang ada orang rancang nak aniaya orang, tetapi berlaku sebaliknya. Saya harap Allah tolong saya.

BH: Adakah Dr rasa ini usaha untuk menyekat fahaman Wahabi yang dikaitkan dengan Dr?

Dr Asri: Saya rasa mungkin mereka cuba kaitkan saya dengan Wahabi. Cuma saya nak
tanya apa itu Wahabi? Saya kata berulang kali dalam pelbagai media, saya bukan manusia ghaib. Penulisan saya dalam akhbar secara mingguan, ada blog, ceramah dalam televisyen dan ada siaran tetap, saya ada laman web YouTube dalam internet. Boleh ambil dan senaraikan (penulisan dan ceramah) yang dianggap menyanggah prinsip ajaran Islam, jangan buat tuduhan.
Wahabi bukan saja dituduh kepada saya, tetapi juga tokoh pembaharuan sebelum ini. Za’aba pernah dituduh, Prof Hamka juga dituduh dan dalam buku Ayahku, Hamka menceritakan hal ini. Dalam Teguran Suci dan Jujur Terhadap Mufti Johor, Hamka ceritakan tuduhan seperti ini dan menjawab kes suka menuduh orang Wahabi kerana berbeza beberapa amalan.

BH: Berbicara mengenai Wahabi, Dr didakwa menggalakkan jangan baca qunut serta talkin?

Dr Asri: Jika tak mahu baca qunut ketika solat Subuh, adakah dia sesat? Bagaimana orang yang bersembahyang di Masjidil Haram, Masjid Nabi. Bagaimana kawan India Muslim kita yang sembahyang di Masjid India, juga tak baca qunut. Melainkan jika (imam) baca qunut, ada orang lain yang mengikut suruh berhenti, menyebut Subhanallah di belakang, tetapi itu tidak ada, itu (baca qunut) satu hak. Jika nak dijadikan perkara besar, lebih baik besarkan isu mereka yang langsung tak sembahyang Subuh.
Jika saya tengok imam baca qunut, saya akan qunut bersama imam. Jika saya bersolat dalam majoriti makmumnya berqunut, saya berqunut. Saya akui ketika di Perlis tidak ada qunut dalam solat Subuh. Apa yang saya buat menunjukkan keluasan sikap. Adakah Jais nak halang rakyat Selangor sembahyang di Masjidil Haram dan Masjid Nabi?

Talkin pun satu hal. Apa masalah talkin? Macam mana orang yang mati di Madinah dan Makkah yang tak ditalkin. Adakah pernah (di negara kita) orang bertalkin, orang lain pergi ketuk kepala dia, pergi tarik dia, tak ada. Ini satu penyakit kronik sesetengah golongan agama yang pantang ada orang berikan pendapat berbeza, kerakusan membolot bidang kuasa. “Saya ustaz, saya tidak boleh dicabar, jangan tanya masalah dalil saya, penghujahan saya, cukuplah tahu saya ustaz, siapa yang banyak bertanya lemahlah imannya”. Begitulah sikapnya, itu tidak betul.

BH: Apakah yang dikatakan itu jadi ikutan kerana ‘fatwa’ dikeluarkan seorang mufti?

Dr Asri: Jika saya tak cakap pun, generasi moden sekarang dengan beberapa klik saja mereka boleh masuk internet, boleh baca beribu fatwa, siapa nak halang? Adakah Jais, jabatan agama atau mufti mahu kerajaan buat tapisan internet supaya jangan dibaca melainkan kandungan yang mendapat restu mereka. Dalam dunia teknologi maklumat ini orang boleh menilai, boleh baca, biarlah. Ada orang tidak pandai dalam bidang guaman tetapi kerana banyak membaca di internet, dia pandai. Macam mana kita tiba-tiba nak kata, “awak bukan mufti, bukan ustaz... awak tidak akan faham agama, kami saja faham”. Agama tidak eksklusif seperti itu.
Di manakah tempat saya larang orang baca qunut di Selangor? Pada pandangan saya, pendapat lebih kuat ialah Subuh tidak (perlu) qunut, tetapi jika anda ikut imam yang baca qunut, hendaklah qunut. Jika imam tidak qunut, jangan qunut kerana hormati imam. Sebab itu orang kita pergi Makkah kena hormat imam (tidak baca qunut). Ini yang saya kata penyakit kronik, membolot “apa saja yang kami buat tak boleh langsung dipertikaikan”.
Apabila mereka (penguat kuasa agama) tahan orang kerana dituduh khalwat padahal suami isteri dan dibawa ke balai polis, bahkan dikurung dalam lokap kerana tak bawa surat nikah, esoknya dibawa surat nikah dan ditunjukkan, mereka dibebaskan begitu saja. Tidak pula minta maaf, sebabnya “saya ustaz, saya tak boleh minta maaf, awak kena hormat saya.”

BH: Mengenai PGSM mendakwa Dr memperbesarkan cerita memorandum itu kerana apa yang berlaku cuma kesilapan teknikal?

Dr Asri: Apakah kesilapan teknikal jika letak dalam laman web tuduh saya cerca Imam Nawawi, cerca sembahyang hajat menyebabkan kegelisahan seluruh negara. Saya tak tahu sejauh mana saya sebabkan kegelisahan itu kerana apabila ke seluruh negara, Alhamdulillah! Kalau tidak ribuan, ratusan rakyat sambut saya. Jadi, saya tidak tahu kegelisahan apa? Ini semua tuduhan besar dan bukan petisyen yang disimpan di bawah bantal, ia dihantar kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Kemudian (PGSM) kata ini benda kecil, inikah mentality peguam syarie? Saya tahu bukan semua peguam syarie begitu, ramai juga telefon saya menyatakan bantahan terhadap tindakan kurang bertamadun itu.

BH: Dalam hal membabitkan Dr, adakah kerana pertembungan ulama tradisional dan muda?

Dr Asri: Saya menyatakan supaya golongan muda menghormati ulama, tetapi pada masa sama jangan gugurkan hak anda untuk bertanya, minta penjelasan, ulasan dan penghujahan. Ulama juga perlu ada perasaan kasih sayang kepada orang awam, jangan jadikan agama hak mutlak sehingga mereka tidak boleh dipersoal dan ditanya alasan atas apa yang mereka kata dan buat. Agama berdasarkan al-Quran dan sunnah, bukan berdasarkan apa orang kata.
Kalau ulama Pas kata lain, ulama Umno kata lain, ulama PKR kata lain, kita nak pakai yang mana, ulama Perlis kata lain, Perak kata lain.
Walaupun kadang-kadang mereka kata semua sama tetapi banyak benda juga mereka berbeza pandangan. Bukan semua tradisionalis setuju dengan fatwa Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim (Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri) mengenai kes wanita melacur umpamanya.

BH: Apakah pertembungan ulama muda yang lebih terbuka pemikirannya dengan ulama tradisional boleh memecah-belahkan umat Islam?

Dr Asri: Kena takrifkan apa maksud memecah-belah? Pernahkah orang muda pergi tumbuk ulama, adakah ulama muda kacau orang baca kitab? Tidak ada. Pertembungan dalam politik lebih serius dan ramai ulama tradisional ada dalam politik. Saya tidak nampak ada pertembungan. Ia istilah yang selalu dikeluarkan apabila ada orang berbeza pandangan dengan mereka kerana menganggap mereka di pihak atas. Begitu juga dengan tindakan sebahagian pemimpin kerajaan apabila rakyat berbeza pendapat, dikatakan rakyat menderhaka, sedangkan pandangan mereka sebenarnya minoriti, pandangan rakyat adalah majoriti.
Dalam kes saya, saya rasa mereka tidak boleh berkata pandangan pembaharuan ini mewakili minoriti kerana ia kelihatan kalau tidak majoriti pun, suaranya agak sama kuat. Majoriti senyap belum tentu menyokong ulama tradisional, mereka juga mahu perubahan dan mungkin mereka tak bercakap sebelum ini. Saya rasa ramai wanita sokong apabila saya kata tak boleh tangguhkan kes cerai di mahkamah sehingga bertahun-tahun, ia menzalimi mereka. Kakitangan pejabat agama kena hormat apabila pergi sana (mahkamah), tak boleh berkasar walaupun (wanita dalam kes cerai) tak pakai tudung, hormati dia, hormati hak dia menuntut keadilan, jangan lihat pemakaiannya. — Berita Harian

Sunday November 8, 2009

Whither moderation?

SHARING THE NATION
By ZAINAH ANWAR

The arrest of a progressive ulama has plunged many Malay­sians into further despair that this country is hurtling towards an implosion but it may prove a blessing in disguise.

What else needs to happen before our political leaders on both sides of the divide find the will and courage to walk the talk of seeing a plural, diverse Malaysia as a source of strength and not a threat?

That a former mufti who holds progressive views and challenges the conservative religious authorities could be arrested and treated as if he was Noordin Mat Top just shows how far those pushing for an Islamic state and syariah supremacy are willing to go to ensure that their rigid and intolerant understanding of Islam prevails.

That this arrest and attacks on Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin led by the Malaysian Asso­ciation of Syariah Lawyers (PGSM) and its Islamist allies, including Muslim Youth Move­ment of Malaysia (Abim) and Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM), should take place now is clearly a concerted effort to test the strength of the new Prime Minister on matters of religion.

Similarly, these Islamists have also relaunched another round of attacks against Sisters in Islam by reportedly lodging over 50 police reports against the group and holding public forums, this time led by the extremist Hizbur Tahrir, a global Islamist group intent on reviving the Islamic Caliphate.

Little known in Malaysia, but banned or investigated in other countries, the Malaysian branch of Hizbur Tahrir has become more public in its activities, with banners in various neighbourhoods and announcements of events in mosques after Friday prayers.

For years now, the Islamic state ideologues have been pushing the boundaries of the forbidden in Malaysia. They have been relentless in their attacks on those working on women’s rights and fundamental liberties as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and in pushing for the expansion of syariah jurisdiction in Malaysia.

They include areas such as freedom of religion, the right of the non-converting wife and children when a husband converts to Islam, moral policing, book banning, seizure of Bibles written in Bahasa Malaysia, fatwa on kongsi raya, yoga, pluralism, liberalism, to the sprouting of Islamist NGOs under all manner of names signing all kinds of petitions against fundamental liberties.

From matters such as making police reports against progressive groups and individuals, to holding rallies and seminars with inflammatory titles such as “Islam Di Hina”, “Umat Islam diCabar”, “Bahaya Murtad”, “Bahaya Islam Liberal”, the Govern­ment and the opposition have largely failed to support the moderate social forces of Malay­sian society.

While moderate politicians cower in silence in fear of being labelled as anti-God, anti-Islam and anti-syariah, or opportunistic ones shamelessly and dangerously fly the flag of Islam to advance their short-term political agenda, it is Malaysian civil society that has shown courageous civic leadership where political leadership has failed us.

Now that a religious leader from within the establishment has become the target of these intolerant Islamist forces inside and outside government, will the political leadership finally show the courage needed to act?

What kind of Islam does the Prime Minister envi­sage in his 1Malaysia? Certainly not the Islam of the Selangor State Religious Depart­ment (JAIS) and the PGSM who accused Dr Asri of all manner of dastardly insults to Islam as they perceive it.

While the arrest of Dr Asri plunged many Malaysians into further despair that this country is hurtling towards an implosion, I think it is actually a blessing in disguise.

It is obvious that both the JAIS and the PGSM and their Islamist allies have made a tactical error, underestimating the popular support that Dr Asri and his ideas enjoy in this country.

It is time for the silent majority of moderate Muslims in Malaysia to speak out. Certain­ly Dr Asri’s supporters at the Mahkamah Syariah Gombak on Monday stood up to be counted.

While Dr Asri talked of “hidden hands” behind his arrest, neither the federal government nor the Selangor state government claims responsibility for this display of state power against a former mufti.

What could be the motive when a state religious authority combined with federal law and order forces display heavy-handed powers to arrest an Islamic scholar for his progressive ideas that challenge the authoritaria­nism of Islam in Malaysia? Who called the shots? Who really is in control?

For me, this debacle is once again evidence of the unenforceability of the invasive powers of the Syariah Criminal Offence laws of this country. In this instance, the provision that makes it an offence for anyone to teach Islam without certification (tauliah) from the state religious authorities.

When is someone teaching Islam and when is he not? Who has the authority to decide on that? What are the criteria that constitute teaching of Islam? On what basis are some certified to teach Islam, some are not, some are prosecuted while many more others can freely preach hatred, racial ill-will, and miso­gyny in the name of Islam?

Just listen to the ceramahs amplified over loudspeakers for all in the neighbourhood to hear, even when you don’t want to.

Then there is the larger issue of whether this specific provision restricting freedom of speech is against Islamic principles that uphold diversity and differences in Islam and against constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties.

Yet again, the enforcement of this ill-advised, badly drafted syariah law with its wide range of “sins” turned into crimes against the state and restrictions over the exercise of fundamental freedoms has led to public outrage.

There is an obvious disconnect between public opinion and societal values on what constitutes fair and just in Islam, and the intolerant, punitive, misogynistic Islam of those who conveniently use God’s authority to justify despotism in the name of Islam.

As more foreign scholars and journalists come to Malaysia to study this supposedly model “moderate” Muslim country, they go away surprised at the range of laws, mechanisms and structures in the name of Islam that control and restrict Muslim rights and freedoms.

They are shocked that a modern country like Malaysia could have unprecedented laws that make it a crime if one disobeys a fatwa, that turn moral obligations before God into legal obligations before the state, that turn sins into crimes, that confuse what is haram (forbidden), wajib (obligatory), sunat (recommended), harus (permissible) and makruh (discouraged) in its laws.

That Dr Asri could be accused of being a Wahhabi, at the same time a liberal, a progressive, a radical, is just one measure of that confusion and ignorance in Malaysia.

It is not possible to be liberal or progressive and Wahhabi at the same time. If at all, those who signed the memorandum written by the PGSM are the Wahhabi followers.

The puritanical Wahhabi movement which spread throughout the Muslim world over the past few decades, fuelled by Saudi petro-dollars, negates the diversity and complexity of the Muslim juristic heritage.

Dr Asri’s position on issues such as freedom of religion, differences of opinion in Islam, the imperative for reform, his criticisms of the delays and bias against women in the syariah courts, of khalwat laws and invasion of privacy, book banning and fatwa against yoga and kongsi raya have put him on the wrong side of the conservatives who dominate the religious bureaucracy and the Islamic state ideologues and their supremacist thinking.

Dr Asri is no Wahhabi. And it is obvious who the Wahhabis in the Malaysian political scene are.

The Egyptian legal scholar, Khaled Abou El-Fadl, wrote that while submission to God is at the core of the Islamic creed, this does not mean blind submission to those who claim to represent God’s law.

For too long in this country, those who claim to speak in God’s name have cowed too many into silent submission and perpetual ignorance. For too long, our political leaders have not shown the courage or the will to fully deal with the threat posed by these religious zealots within government and their own parties.

What is desperately needed now is leadership, courage, and vision to stand up for what is right for Malaysia – that there is no place in a country like ours for an Islam that is punitive, cruel, misogynistic, and intolerant.

More than any other country in the world, Malaysia with its historical embrace of all races and religions, its celebration of diversity and pluralism, its gentler and kinder Islam, plus its economic success story and its political stability should be better placed to lead the Muslim world into a modern and prosperous age in the midst of extremism, calamities and despair that beset the ummah.

It is a tragedy that this government has poured hundreds of millions into numerous religious institutions supposedly to enable Malaysia to take the lead as a model moderate Muslim country – only to find its Islamic agenda hijacked by the very ideology that has contributed to the decay of other Muslim countries, where Muslims killing other Muslims for their belief and political affiliation have become the norm.

God forbid that is the future of Malaysia.

As all the political leaders seem to agree that the country is at a turning point, that their party members must change and face difficult realities of a changing and diverse electorate, of a globalised competitive world that waits for no man, of the rise of China and India, can they also please embrace the reality that an Islam of kindness and compassion, of diversity and differences, of equality and justice constitute what it means to be Muslim in the 21st century?

Keep religion from bitter politicking

THE STAR SAYS...

NO sooner had the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers’ Association apologised to former Perlis mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin for complaining about him to the King than the apology was retracted.

The apology had been made with due consideration, particularly since the basis of the complaint is unclear, if not dubious.

The complaint had contributed to the former mufti being arrested, harassed and humiliated, yet the case against him still appears neither proven nor credible.

We understand the association’s subsequent regard for Dr Asri has caused it to withdraw its apology.

Everyone is entitled to retract an apology, but nothing suggests whatever caused the association to act in such an anomalous manner negates the grounds of its duly considered apology.

Dr Asri is now accused of revealing the contents of the association’s memorandum to the King, but if its stand contends the memorandum is defensible, so too is its revelation.

If the contents of the memo are neither incorrect nor improper, there is also nothing there to hide or be ashamed of.

A truce had been negotiated only days ago, reportedly brokered by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom.

All contending parties should respect that occasion by ending all their contentions.

The little that is publicly known of the allegation against Dr Asri so far dwells on questionable speculation that he is of a Wahhabi persuasion.

The case against this sect in most places, including Malaysia, is its narrow dogmatism and evidently, it is not Dr Asri who is so afflicted.

The cloistered chauvinism that we should all guard against comes not with the former mufti’s calls for Muslims to be more open-minded towards non-Muslims in modern multicultural Malaysia.

For many people, it has more to do with elitist attitudes and high-handed approaches which many, including Dr Asri, has suffered from.

The disquiet among his opponents has curiously come at a time when he is about to be appointed head of the Islamic Da’wah Foundation of Malaysia.

We trust that the truth will out, the sooner the better, disentangling legitimate issues of religion from any hidden motives in bitter politicking.

All eyes on the ulama under siege

INSIGHT
By JOCELINE TAN

The boyish-looking Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin shot to fame during his tenure as mufti of Perlis but he is now under siege from Islamic groups who are questioning his standing as an ulama.

WHEN Dr Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin arrived at the house of his friend, known as Pak Ya, at Taman Ukay, Ulu Klang, to give his monthly religious class, he had little inkling that it would be one of the most traumatic nights of his life.

Among those seated around the red-carpeted floor of the living room was Ampang MP Zuraidah Kamaruddin. She had been attending his lectures since 2004, before Dr Asri was appointed mufti of Perlis.

At about 10pm last Sunday, there was a commotion at the gate. A large group of men from the Selangor Religious Affairs department, or Jais, and several policemen said they were there to arrest Dr Asri for preaching in the state without a permit.

A long argument ensued, followed by the Jais officials entering the house and banging on the door of the bedroom where the owner had asked Dr Asri to go.

“His two young children who had come with him were sleeping inside, but these people didn’t care. They were shouting at him to come out, saying things like, ‘You think you are the only graduate? I am from Al-Azhar (University), I am also a graduate.’ It was very shocking and arrogant behaviour,” said Zuraidah.

Dr Asri’s long and terrible night only ended at about 1.30am after he was arrested, released on a police bond and told to be at the Syariah Court by 8.30am.

Friends and supporters waited at the Gombak Timur Lower Syariah Court with him that morning but it was a no-show by Jais. Until today, Dr Asri has not been charged or informed of his fate.

But his life has since been turned upside down.

The long night has turned into a long week and Dr Asri has been battling one accusation after another and struggling to defend his credentials and standing as an ulama.

In fact, he is fighting several fronts.

There is Jais on one front, coming down on him for preaching in Selangor without a tauliah or permit.

On another front, there is Jakim, the Islamic Development Department, which has joined the fray by casting aspersions on his academic credentials from Jordan University.

Another powerful front are the Muslim groups headed by the Syariah Lawyers Association who had opposed his appointment as president of Yadim, the Islamic outreach arm of the Government.

They had written to the King and the Prime Minister last month arguing that he is not fit to head Yadim. It is understood that the appointment is now on hold.

At the heart of all these attacks is the very damaging implication that Dr Asri’s teachings are not in line with that of the traditional scholars and mainstream Muslims in this country.

Progressive Muslim

His detractors claimed his teachings have elements of Wahabbi, which is not quite an accepted school of thought in these parts. He has vigorously denied this charge.

“I am a progressive Muslim; I am not a Wahabbi; I don’t know what a Wahabbi is. Besides, you cannot arrest someone just because he is a Wahabbi. My writing is read by many people of all ages, including politicians from Umno, PAS, PKR. Even Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) reads my work,” he said.

What is it about this baby-faced religious figure that has attracted such intense media interest?

Dr Asri burst into the limelight after being appointed Perlis Mufti when he was only 35. He rattled the old guards from the word go with his unconventional take on Islamic issues.

For instance, he condemned khalwat raids on the grounds that Islam does not condone invading people’s privacy. He has criticised ISA arrests and has claimed that the Islamic state concept only came about after the Iranian revolution.

He has a slot on Astro Oasis called Bahtera Perubahan (Ark of Change), which apparently enjoys quite high ratings.

His chief appeal, it is said, is that he is inclusive and not judgemental. He has said that he is not a liberal but a modernist who wants to bring Muslims to the middle or centre.

In short, he is different; and in a religion that emphasises conformity, that is not always a good thing.

Unsurprisingly, his views do not sit well with traditional scholars. To them, he is a clear and present danger to, as they put it, the unity of the ummah.

In short, Dr Asri is accepted and at the same time rejected by fellow Muslims.

“His views are progressive; they don’t go down well with conservative ulama. He is not a fire and brimstone type of speaker but he is very persuasive. The appeal of his lectures lies in the flow of his logic. Every point he makes is supported by the Holy Quran and Hadith,” said Umno politician and lawyer Datuk Wan Farid Wan Salleh.

Dr Asri’s appeal also cuts across partisan lines. As such, top leaders from both sides of the political divide have questioned his arrest.

It was quite unparalleled having Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim all on the same side but that was what happened over Dr Asri’s predicament.

Both the federal government and the Selangor administration also disassociated themselves from Jais’ action.

Friends as well as foes

Dr Asri has as many detractors as he has admirers.

For instance, Anwar has come out strongly for Dr Asri but Badrul Amin, another popular ulama and a very close associate of Anwar, has openly called the ex-Mufti “bapa setan” or “father of Satan.” A video clip of this has been on YouTube for two years now.

According to Kelantan-based Muslim intellectual Zaidi Hassan, the outpouring of sympathy for Dr Asri does not mean that his teachings are accepted by the larger body of Muslims.

“We don’t agree with the way he was arrested but we have long disagreed with the content and method of his preaching. We would have preferred to take him on intellectually because his ideas are so fragile,” said Zaidi.

On Tuesday, former Perlis Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, who was instrumental in putting him in the mufti’s chair five years ago, returned from London and rushed directly from KLIA to Kangar to lodge police reports against those whom he said had slandered Dr Asri.

The attacks against Dr Asri have become highly personal, with righteous overtones of who is the better defender of the faith.

The controversy surrounding Dr Asri has yet to die down but there are moves behind the scenes to calm things down. As some have pointed out, all this mud-slinging is not good for the dignity of the ulama.

On Thursday, he stirred things up further when he told Malaysiakini that the tauliah, or state-imposed permit to preach, is against Islam because the right to speak is God-given. He also slammed Jais for barring non-Muslims from entering mosques.

Dr Asri may look mild and submissive but it is evident that he intends to fight this all the way. After all, his honour is on the line.

Even under all this pressure, he has continued to fulfil his speaking arrangements. In Penang several nights ago, he impressed reporters with his composure, patiently answering questions on the accusations made against him even though some of the questions had been asked countless times in the past week.

It is well known that both Umno and PAS have been courting him. He was invited to give religious talks at the exclusive Umno retreat in Janda Baik in August. Politicians have seen his broad appeal and they want to tap into him politically.

Last week, he hinted that he might be tempted to go into politics after what had happened.

Dr Asri is an independent-minded ulama and a good orator but even his supporters say he does not really have the X-factor or charisma.

But this controversy, if he survives it, may elevate him into the charismatic class. Persecution and controversy have a way of making a man more extraordinary than he really is.

Meanwhile, this ulama is the man to watch.

Controversy follows ex-mufti

Analysis by JOCELINE TAN

Who are the ‘black hands’ behind the arrest of the charismatic but controversial former Mufti of Perlis?

THERE is little doubt that the controversial religious figure Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin has a following as evidenced by the big group that turned up to support him at the Gombak Syariah Court.

His biggest supporter is Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, the former Perlis Mentri Besar, who is in London. Otherwise he would have been there as well.

Dr Asri, the former Mufti of Perlis, was released on police bond after being detained the night before by the Selangor branch of the religious enforcement unit JAIS.

Testing times: A number of Islamic NGOs is against Dr Asri’s potential appointment as head of Yadim.

He was giving a religious lecture in a private home in Gombak at the time.

He is likely to be charged for preaching without a permit but those in the know said that events behind the scenes had been building up to this moment.

Some are even talking about “black hands” trying to fix up the charismatic preacher who had made waves with his unorthodox views on religious issues and matters the past few years.

They blamed the PAS-controlled religious arm in Selangor for the crackdown on Dr Asri.

Others said the “black hands” belong to those who are out to block Dr Asri’s appointment as head of Yadim or Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia, the prestigious Islamic outreach arm of the Government.

Apparently, Dr Asri was to have been appointed as Yadim head on Nov 1, replacing Datuk Nakhaie Ahmad who has held the post since the 1990s.

It is believed the appointment has not proceeded because of opposition from Islamic groups.

There is no evidence connecting the Yadim appointment to Dr Asri’s Sunday night arrest but 17 Islamic NGOs had sent a letter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Prime Minister protesting the would-be appointment.

News of the protest leaked out when one of the signatories, the Syariah Lawyers Association, posted the letter on its blog; the posting has since been removed.

“There are no black hands or whatever you may call it. The point is that there are Islamic bodies who are very uncomfortable that Dr Asri may be appointed to Yadim,” said former Abim president Yusri Mohamad who was a signatory to the letter.

Shahidan, who remains one of Asri’s closest associates, has slammed the opposition to Dr Asri as the work of selfish people.

“We carry out dakwah (outreach) work without harming people. We are trying to explain Islam to non-Muslims. What is wrong with that?” he said.

Shahidan also asked Dr Asri to reject any offer from Yadim and in a tit-for-tat move, has asked for a thorough audit of the accounts of Yadim.

The soft-spoken and baby-faced Dr Asri is quite glamorous for an ulama. He is acquainted with a number of entertainment celebrities and has been courted by both Umno and PAS.

Earlier this year, there was talk that he was about to join PAS but, according to Shahidan, Dr Asri consulted Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who advised him to stay politically neutral if he wished to be accepted by the general populace.

He also writes a weekly column called Minda Maza or Thoughts of Maza (Maza being the acronym for Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin) in the influential Mingguan Malaysia.

But Islamic intellectuals complain that his views on religion do not reflect that of “mainstream Muslims or the traditional scholars.”

They pointed out that during the recent fasting month, his column had analysed an obscure text by a medieval scholar on the question of performing a major ablution (mandi wajib) after sexual intercourse in an abnormal situation.

“There are so many pressing issues in Islam and he uses his column to talk about that,” said Yusri.

Critics such as Yusri have accused Dr Asri of promoting a body of thought that is harmful to the unity of Muslims in the country.

“He should be aware that by continuing to promote his particular view on Islam outside of Perlis, he is inviting action on himself,” said Yusri.

But Dr Asri’s ideas resonate among a segment of moderate Muslims and non-Muslims. They see him as a modern and progressive ulama.

His supporters find his views refreshing and in tune with modern Malay society and issues.

Among his champions are groups like Sisters in Islam who are drawn to his unconventional views on social issues and women in Islamic society.

But the storm blowing around Dr Asri has yet to subside for as Yusri promised: “We will continue to oppose his appointment to Yadim.”