Pictures of Shamshiah Fakeh and her husband Ibrahim Mahmoud

Today I heard the news of the passing of Shamshiah Fakeh. She died age 84. i was due to meet her but I did not make it and now she is gone forever. I've just finish my Surah yasin and Fatihah for her, it is the best i can do. I do not know her, but she was married to my grandfather briefly. i would like to have meet her. She died this morning at 9 am of old age. My fatihah goes to her and condolences to her family.

Tuesday October 21, 2008
Red leader dies at 84
By MARTIN VENGADESAN
Shamsiah Fakeh
KUALA LUMPUR: Shamsiah Fa­­keh , the communist leader who spent nearly 40 years in exile in China, died at 9am yesterday at her home at Jalan Kuchai Lama here following a lung infection. She was 84.
Her businessman son Jama­luddin Ibrahim, 46, said: "She was in Hospital UKM for more than 20 days and finally she told us she felt it was her time to go and requested a discharge.
Within five days she passed away.
"She made a real contribution to the country before independence and we are proud of her. She was known as a communist, but her basic belief was to fight for a better life for the people.
"Even though she was in poor health, she maintained an interest in Malaysian politics. She still wanted the structure of the country to reform so that a just society could be developed.
"She believed that equality of the races was important for our progress. These were the values that she passed on to her own family.
The past: Shamsiah and Ibrahim posing for photographs at Bei Hai Park in Beijing in 1957.
"She belonged to a dying generation, she was a woman ahead of her time."
An important figure in the struggle before Independence, Shamsiah led the Angkatan Wanita Sedar (better known as Awas, Malaya's first nationalist women's organisation) in the post World War II-era before joining the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya in 1948.
After eight years in the jungle, she was sent to China in 1956 before returning to Malaysia in 1994.
The Kuala Pilah native, whose life was documented in the recent book Shamsiah Fakeh: Dari AWAS ke Rejimen Ke-10, was married five times and her husbands included nationalist leader Ahmad Boes­tamam and fellow CPM leader Ibrahim Mohamad.
Shamsiah was in poor health following a stroke in 1999 and in the years prior to her death was barely able to speak or walk.
She is survived by two sons and four grandchildren.
Shamsiah Fakeh meninggal dunia
KUALA LUMPUR 20 Okt. - Bekas pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM), Shamsiah Fakeh, 84, atau nama sebenarnya Shamsiah Sutan meninggal dunia akibat sakit tua dan jangkitan pada paru-paru, di kediaman anaknya di Kondominium D'Tropicana, Jalan Kuchai Lama di sini.
Beliau yang juga bekas Ketua Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas), sebuah parti politik sayap kiri kepada Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), menghembuskan nafas terakhir pada pukul 9 pagi.
Salah seorang anaknya, Jamaluddin Ibrahim, 46, memberitahu, ibunya sudah dapat merasakan akan pergi buat selama-lamanya dengan meminta dikeluarkan dari Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM) pada Sabtu lalu.
''Beliau memang sudah berpesan kalau boleh mahu meninggal dunia di rumah anaknya daripada di hospital,'' katanya.
Menurutnya lagi, arwah ibunya berada dalam keadaan baik semasa hari pertama di rumah selepas keluar dari hospital semalam.
Jenazah selamat dikebumikan di Tanah Perkuburan Orang Islam Sungai Besi selepas solat asar.
Shamsiah Fakeh dilahirkan pada 1924 di Kuala Pilah dan mendapat pendidikan awal di Sekolah Agama Rahmah Al-Yunusiah, Padang Panjang, Sumatera.
Beliau merupakan antara tokoh perjuangan kemerdekaan yang dilabel dalam golongan kelompok kiri seangkatan dengan Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Muhammad dan Burhanuddin Helmi.
Selepas menubuhkan Awas, pertubuhan parti politik itu diharamkan di bawah Undang-Undang Darurat yang diisytiharkan British pada 20 Jun 1948, telah memaksa beliau melarikan diri ke hutan dan menyertai perjuangan bersenjata PKM.
Kemudian, beliau bersama rakan sekutunya bergerak ke sempadan Malaysia-Thailand pada tahun 1953.
Berkahwin dengan Ibrahim Mohamad pada 1 Jun 1956, beliau dikurniakan tiga orang anak, Shamsuddin, Kamaruddin dan Jamaluddin.
Setelah sekian lama bersama PKM, akhirnya beliau menyerah diri kepada kerajaan Malaysia pada tahun 1980 mengikut jejak langkah bekas Pengerusi PKM, Musa Ahmad.
Beliau pulang ke tanah air pada 1994 bersama suami dan anak-anaknya setelah mendapat kebenaran kerajaan Malaysia.
Former woman communist leader dies

Email to friend Print article
Shamsiah Fakeh had spent nearly 40 years in exile in China with her husband, Ibrahim Mohamad, another top CPM leader.
KUALA LUMPUR: Shamsiah Fakeh, the former top woman leader of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), died at her home yesterday after slipping into unconsciousness on Sunday night at her Tropicana Condominium unit in Jalan Kuchai Lama. She was 84.
Shamsiah had told her 46-year-old son, Jamaluddin Ibrahim, that she had wanted to die at home, surrounded by family members. She had said this after being hospitalised for 22 days for lung infection.Jamaluddin told the New Straits Times that Shamsiah was discharged on Friday.Shamsiah, from Kuala Pilah, was buried at the Sungai Besi Muslim cemetery after Azar prayers yesterday.
She is survived by two sons and four grandchildren. Her eldest son had died before her.She had been a member of Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas), Malaya's first nationalist women's organisation, between 1945 and 1946.When the government banned the organisation, Shamsiah and several others hid in the jungles and joined the CPM.Shamsiah had spent nearly 40 years in exile in China with her husband, Ibrahim Mohamad, who was also a top CPM leader. They had been sent by the CPM to China in 1956 to study ways of recruiting more members.However, they were dismissed from the party in 1968 while staying in Beijing. They were given political asylum, without citizenship, by the Chinese government.The couple and their three sons returned to Malaysia in 1994, having spent nine years appealing to be allowed to come home. Shamsiah, whose life was documented in the recent book "Shamsiah Fakeh: Dari AWAS ke Rejimen Ke-10", was married five times.

Who is right who is wrong in my disagreement with JMD. I will leave it to the readers to decide. As I said many a times I never deny Tun's achievement. But for me let Pak Lah go with dignity. He made mistakes thus let him go, we need not go through the mudslinging. Enough is enough! JMD first statement contradict himself. I for once never go for labeling, Islam Hadhari or Islamization! As good Muslims we wear our faith in our action and ideas. We need not resort to labeling. When I was still in college I work for a circus as a handyman. It was tough work, so when the elephant trainer who was an American , complimented for my diligence and honesty, the word he uttered was it must be because of my faith. It make me proud as a Muslim, it was the greatest compliment. He was surprise I did not smoke or drink neither did I gamble, he remark it must be because of my faith, my religion. I say nay, I choose not to but I added my faith is my barometer and it help to strengthen my resolve. As I said we need not resort in labeling be it hadhari or otherwise. I leave it at that.

JMD : Actually, Tunku said this - ‘This country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion’. He did not say, this country is a secular state fullstop. A lot of difference there.

Nevertheless, is Islam Hadhari in itself not a label? I am sometimes confused. At one hand you criticise the ‘labelling’ of islam, but in the comment before this, you applaud Pak Lah for creating Islam Hadhari.

Do you know why Operasi Lalang took place? Polcie did not want another May 13 to happen. Do you know when extremists ran free on the streets inciting hatred among the races, Tunku was too weak to do anything. Why? Because he championed democratic freedom too much. He did not do anything to ones who had pushed the envelope too far. In the end, May 13 occured. Did you know how many people were detained under the ISA at that time? Double the amount of people detained in Operasi Lalang.

Fortunately, no bloodshed occured back in 1987. As the police stamped out extremism before it gets way out of hand. 4 papers were banned at that time, among them was Watan - a malay newspaper with huge following. Like the Star and another chinese daily, it was banned because, naturally, they fought fire with fire. If these papers were not banned, the situation at that time will exacerbate into a nightmare for the country.

Actually, your line of thought contradicts your own conviction. What is it do you want? Separating Islam from governance? Then I think you abhor PAS’ idealogy. But at the same time, you seem to be defensive when concerning the Taliban.

When you say “Let it be separate because moral guidance is subjective and i believe should remain private”, Islam Hadhari says this in its 10 fundamental principles -

• faith and piety in the Almighty;
• a just and trustworthy Government;
• a free and independent people;
• the vigorous pursuit and mastery of knowledge;
• balanced and comprehensive economic development;
• a good quality of life for the people;
• protection of the rights of minority groups and women;
• cultural and moral integrity;
• safeguarding natural resources and the environment; and,
• strong defence capabilities.

Basically, islam and governance cannot be separated. It is infused in our day to day guidance. It is a good guide anyway. Ironically, to me, Islam Hadhari is actually nothing new. Pak Lah just rebranded the whole tenets of good governance in Islam into a package he calls Islam Hadhari.

By the way, when Tunku said ‘This country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion, nation can still be functional as a secular state with Islam as the official religion.”

What does that mean? Was he just stating the obvious?

Read this too - http://www.mushahidhussain.com/articles/MalaysianModel.htm

Thank you.

p.s. - I like your writing on the origins of Negaraku. By the way, too bad I can’t comment in your blog as I do not have a google account! Will make one soon.

wan zaharizan (16:25:55) :

mini cooper, tien chuah share a common friend. I knew Nadia Bamahdaj and Halinah Todd whose son Kamal Bamahdaj were killed in East Timor 1991. I never met him hanya did correspond by email once or twice. I am not a member of PKR or any other parties. During APCET meeting in Kuala Luympur which was held close door under the order of Anwar with the consent of Tun this meeting were disrupted. Syed Hussein was there too, I do not compromise on my principle and never will. Tien Chua knows I disagree with Anwar and drop it please.
Who is right who is wrong in my disagreement with JMD. I will leave it to the readers to decide. As I said many a times I never deny Tun’s achievement. But for me let Pak Lah go with dignity. He made mistakes thus let him go, we need not go through the mudslinging. Enough is enough! JMD first statement contradict himself. I for once never go for labeling, Islam Hadhari or Islamization! As good Muslims we wear our faith in our action and ideas. We need not resort to labeling. When I was still in college I work for a circus as a handyman. It was tough work, so when the elephant trainer who was an American , complimented for my diligence and honesty, the word he uttered was it must be because of my faith. It make me proud as a Muslim, it was the greatest compliment. He was surprise I did not smoke or drink neither did I gamble, he remark it must be because of my faith, my religion. I say nay, I choose not to but I added my faith is my barometer and it help to strengthen my resolve. As I said we need not resort in labeling be it hadhari or otherwise. I leave it at that. Cukup disini saja JMD kita komen atas benda lain.

JMD : Thank you for the comment. Regarding Pak Lah, yes he must be given some form of respect as he is about to leave the scene. I wrote the article that criticised Pak Lah’s loyalists, whom in order to glorify Pak Lah, had belittled Tun Mahathir. I find that disturbing. That is why, I said in this article ‘This pitiful act of glorifying Pak Lah is just an attempt to make him look favourable within the history books in years to come. I would understand or even forgive these attempts by Pak Lah’s lackeys if they did not demonise Tun Dr Mahathir in the process. But what they are doing is wrong.’

If Kalimullah and Zaid Ibrahim want to glorify Pak Lah, please do it based on Pak Lah’s own achievements. There are a few things that Pak Lah can be proud of. They can even promote him as Bapa Kemasyarakatan or whatever. K-ekonomi or modal insan etc. If they want to present him in a favourable light, then do so honourably. Why the need to compare and belittle his predecessor?

Hence the reason for this article in the first place.

As for the labelling of Islam etc, here’s my take of the whole issue;

You said;

- Tun labelled Islam through islamisation process in Malaysia since the 80’s.

- Pak Lah put stop to all these rhetorical labelisation of islam through his Islam Hadhari concept

- You advocate separation of politics and religion

- You think religion is important but it is only the barometer of one’s resolve.

- Malaysia must be secular because mixing religion into politics will only produce bigots in society

As for the APCET meeting. What a brouhaha back then huh?

Thank you.

I wrote below a piece as part of a commentary to an article publish in a bolg i admired. My exchange with the writer is publish below. I am sad but i stand to what I said although the writer was hot around the neck but I wrote what i believe in.

Glorifying Pak Lah
13 10 2008
Zaid Ibrahim ranted about Tun Dr Mahathir a couple of days ago while at the same time absolving Pak Lah from any mistakes the premier did since 2004. I think Zaid Ibrahim is so cute when trying very hard to criticise the grand old man while at the same time trying even harder to glorify the slightly younger but lethargic old man.
He is so cute, I am tempted to pinch that chubby cheeks of his. Maybe I’ll visit him at his new office in Merchant Square one day and do just that.
He said, as reported in The Star;
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not be able to institute any crucial reform as Prime Minister as long as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is around, claimed former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.
“The 2004 election manifesto is history,” said Zaid who had been appointed minister specifically to work on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s promise to reform in stitutions of government, improve accountability and transparency, and strengthen the Rule of Law and independence of the Judiciary.
“Najib is smart and articulate but to change the course of Umno, he has to be brave and why would he take such a risk.
“Second, even if he wanted to, he would not be able to do it with Dr Mahathir around,” he said.
Asked whether that was because he thought Dr Mahathir was powerful or had a strong influence on Najib, Zaid - who resigned from the Cabinet recently after journalist Tan Hoon Cheng, Member of Parliament Teresa Kok and news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin were arrested under the Internal Security Act - said:
“He (Dr Mahathir) has a large group of friends, otherwise the Prime Minister (Abdullah) would not have been ‘thrown out’ just like he wanted.”
“Mahathirism was all control, control, control. He has a strong influence on the top Umno leaders who had to choose between doing his bidding or facing his wrath.
“So many in Umno are bound to the old, making it difficult to abandon old values and principles.”
“Especially when if you allow for more democracy, you lose some control.”
Pray tell Datuk, who are Tun’s friends in Umno ever since Pak Lah took over? Is it Nazri Aziz who acted as a hatchet man everytime Tun criticised Pak Lah ? Is it Azalina Othman who can’t think beyond anything but to please Pak Lah? Is it Syed Hamid Albar who led the debacle in cancelling the scenic bridge? Or is it the spineless Datuk Seri Najib who had remained quiet when Tun was attacked left, right and centre by everyone in Umno?
Certainly it is not Johari Baharom, a one time strong apple polisher in Kubang Pasu who was alleged bribing the Umno members there not to vote for Tun as a delegate in 2006 Umno AGM. Is it even Shahberry Cheek, whom minutes after being a first time minister in March 2008, accused Tun of destroying Umno?
It is a FACT that Tun had no friends in Umno ever since Pak Lah took over. Or at most, Tun’s sympathisers in Umno were relegated to the grassroots level. Nobody in the Supreme Council and the cabinet was defending Tun. As we all know, everyone was castrated by the 4th floor boys and became half past six bunch of people in the end.
Zaid Ibrahim is shifting reality in order to justify Pak Lah’s downfall.
Pak Lah was thrown out not because of Tun Mahathir. Tun was only the messenger. Pak Lah was thrown out because he mismanaged this country for the past 5 years! He was thrown out because the country could not afford another day of his drowsy and flip flopping ways.
Most of Umno members do not want Pak Lah. Even a blind man knows how destructive this Prime Minister is. He had backstabbed this nation ever since the day Kalimullah became the boss of NSTP.
To up the ante, Pak Lah gave an interview which appeared on Saturday newspapers.
Saya tidak menyesal menyerahkan kuasa lebih awal - PM
PUTRAJAYA 11 Okt. — Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata beliau tidak menyesal dengan keputusannya melaksanakan pelan peralihan lebih awal dengan menyerahkan kuasa kepada penggantinya, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Keputusan itu tidak mengganggu saya. Satu keputusan telah dilakukan dan saya telah menimbangkannya dengan amat teliti. Saya berasa selesa mengenainya dan itulah sebabnya saya berasa ceria,” katanya dalam satu wawancara eksklusif dengan Bernama sebagai mengulas soalan bagaimana beliau boleh berasa ceria semasa membuat pengumuman pada Rabu lepas kerana ia bermaksud hilang pegangan kuasa penting.
“Saya bersyukur kepada Tuhan kerana telah memudahkan saya membuat keputusan.
Saya rasa apa saya lakukan adalah demi kepentingan negara dan parti,” kata Abdullah, yang memakai Baju Melayu coklat dan kelihatan tenang di kediaman rasminya di Seri Perdana. - Bernama
To strike at a man when he is down is considered quite unbecoming for us civilised people. But I would just like to set the record straight here. If Kalimullah, as his parting shot would lay all blame to Tun Dr Mahathir concerning our current troubles, then I will not stand in silence.
Pak Lah did not step down due to his love for this country or for the party. He steps down because his attempt to stay longer till 2010 did not bear too well with the rest of Umno leaders. Wasn’t Pak Lah the one adamantly wished to stay on indefinitely even after the huge lost of support in the last general election?
Only after constant negotiations with his number 2 that the 2010 transition plan was set up. But that was still not enough. 5 years with him at the top had been really destructive. 2 years of waiting till 2010 is a long wait indeed. I applaud some Supreme Council members for finally finding their long lost balls and realised how this president has got to go soon.
This pitiful act of glorifying Pak Lah is just an attempt to make him look favourable within the history books in years to come. I would understand or even forgive these attempts by Pak Lah’s lackeys if they did not demonise Tun Dr Mahathir in the process. But what they are doing is wrong.
Pak Lah and his gang of misfits must understand that the responsibility and accountability of his leadership since 2004 lies squarely on his shoulder. His inability to control the greed of his son, his inability to control his arrogant son in law, his wrong decisions in taking the wrong advisors into his close circles of friends contribute to his gigantic failure in prospering Malaysia.
Tun Dr Mahathir handed over Malaysia to Pak Lah when Malaysia was stable, united and prosperous. Pak Lah on the other hand, is handing over Malaysia to his successor a disjointed, divided and lacklustre nation.
Pak Lah even had the cheek to tell Najib that the latter’s biggest challenge is national unity! A national unity destroyed because he failed to contain racist extremism in the opposition and BN.
Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon on the other hand even called Pak Lah Bapa Demokrasi. His argument was, criticisms and dissent are tolerated during Pak Lah’s tenureship as Prime Minister. Yeah right. My take is, criticisms and public uproars were prevalent during Pak Lah’s time because he was so corrupt and at the same time unable to cleverly defend his actions and decisions.
Coupled with half past six cabinet ministers who were equally inept to counter all the allegations, it was just a matter of time before everyone in Malaysia was talking about how malevolent the government had become. The government controlled media on the other hand, did not publish any negative views about the nation’s leadership. That was why, the blogosphere became the strong voice of dissent.
An example of how Pak Lah handle criticism of his leadership? Detain bloggers under the Sedition Act or the ISA. That’s democracy alright. When Sabah and Sarawak MPs began to criticise Pak Lah after they did not get enough representatives in the cabinet, Pak Lah gave extra RM1 billion for each state in the form of shady development drive. How to quell the anger of vindictive ex judges? Give them ex gratia money. How to contain a potential mutiny by the grass roots? Give them each a kain pelikat.
Pak Lah do not know anything else except throwing money here and there.
Unlike what Zaid Ibrahim said above, Pak Lah lost control not because he allowed democracy. He lost control because he was crushed under the weight of anti Pak Lah sentiments. His dictatorial style in controlling the media and the balls of his ministers was no longer tolerated.
Pak Lah’s legacy will always be marred by constant examples of high level corruption, hypocrisy and policy flops.
If my words are not strong enough to illustrate and to clarify my contempt about this constant effort in glorifying him in the wrong way, then let me demonstrate this further with a quote from a great leader about Pak Lah;
“All this shows that the he is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond it’s power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man.” -
Abraham Lincoln (January, 1848)
Sorry, apparently Abraham Lincoln was criticising the current President at that time, James K. Polk, not Pak Lah. My mistake. But this historic 160 year old speech can still be applied now.
We are also in the middle of history right now. Lets get the record straight.

my comment

It is easier to blame than to understand. Yes Pak lah made many grave mistakes and he is paying for his mistakes but that does not absolve TDM one bit. JMD as a person who is knowlegeble you must be aware under Tun we lost a bit of our freedom. We gain Economic freedom but civil liberties were trampled. Tun was responsible for creating a vibrant Malay middle class of which I pressume you belong too. But he left divided Malay too! Many Malays fail to appreciate what NEP has achieve. I believe you were born post NEP so you have first hand knowledge of NEP vis a vis the Malays. but it was Tun who hurried the process. In the end we lost some of our soul. We grapple with ourselves the meaning of what malay means, we hide ourself in religion sometime adopting cultures alien to us. Our own culture were discarded and some are regarded as blashphemous. I wonder why? Tun likewise came with the idea of Islamization a political coin word that create a chism among the Malays and the non Malays. Liberal Malays who fought for Malay were shun those who wear sheep clothing but are wolves like Anwar were praise. These were Tun's dong. I wrote in his blog too, it was never publish. I am perhaps from the old school which believe that religion and politics don't mix. I am of Tunku's idea that we are a secular nation. Tun open the pandora box, Pak Lah try to put a lid on it by proposing Islam Hadhari or Civilasation Islam that means what is good of Islamic administration. Thus he tries to nulify the Islamisation process but to no avail. Like Tun he was laugh at, mock at by the islamic group even by Tun.
Tun is perhaps the most brilliant Prime Minister we ever had but surely not the wisest. Even his brilliance is overshadowed by Tun Razak. Whose doer face his son shares. Because of Tun he made the Malays having a superiority complex which sometimes make them unberable bigots. I am rascist like you. To say am not is blasphemy. I do not buy the idea rascism is wrong for a rascist to me is someone who love his race but it does not make me a bigot. Under Tun bigots in race and religion was let loose. But Tun was a strong leader, he brood no disent thus he will always be in control, Pak Lah is weak maybe because of that he thought he could control Pak Lah but he forgot that weakling of a man is besotted with his family thus his children always will be his bane. He made a mistake like he did with Anwar. So Tun do make mistake just like Perwaja and now Putrajaya.
Pak Lah fail because he did not surround himself with inteligent man so he seek his son in law who was an Oxford graduate to help him. He in turn rope in his boys who filled up the fourth floor. They are the one who decide for Pak Lah. Tun lead Pak Lah is lead that is the different. Pak Lah forgot his sahabat thus his mistake quaruple and none can save him but never say to me Tun is a saint he is as guilty Pak Lah for the state of the country.

His rebuttal

JMD : Thank you for the comment. I just would like to know what were your civil liberties that was trampled and what was your freedom that was lost during those times? What did you plan to do during those times that was not allowed?
Vibrant but divided Malays. What a predicament ey?
If the Malays failed to appreciate what the NEP had done to them, then they are of course an ungrateful lot. Bear in mind, the NEP has a life span of 20 years. Of course in order to catch up with the other races which are far ahead from the Malays, they need to run twice as fast to catch up. The Malays can never catch up if they are having the same work rate with somebody ahead of them. What more if they were even slower than the people ahead of them.
If Malays were divided and ungrateful, then it must be the work of other section of Malays which called Umno as infidels and everything that Umno did was not beneficial and should be treated with impunity.
If the Malays lost their soul along the way, then religion is the only way to regain some of that back. Wouldn't you agree? At least there's a balance between spiritual progress and physical progress. It was a good balance. And by the way, Tun did not advocate extreme taliban like islamisation process. Other people did. If you believe religion and politics do not mix, then I would say you are quite wrong in your views. Politics are the subset of Islam. Islam I think encompass all. And of course, Tunku never declared we are secular nation. Where did you get that idea from? The Constitution puts Islam as the federal/official religion while the rights of other religion are also taken care of. We are not a communist country where religion takes a back seat. If that is the case, then not only politics and religion are separated, religion itself will lose its place in the society. In no time, society without religion as its integral part of its being will downspiral itself into apathy and social degradation.
I could not actually comprehend the last two parts of your comments. I am lost at what you are trying to actually say there. I apologise. But I am sure you're made some points through.
Addition : I would say your assertion that "Under Tun bigots in race and religion was let loose" was quite wrong. Remember May 13, 1969 where bigots went on riots? That was under Tunku. And years before that, even before independence, racial clashes occured sporadically under the British. Thus the usual admonition that Malaysia, eventhough is blessed with multi cultural and multi religious citizenry, is also can be a cauldron of ethnic strife and racial tension if the country is not governed correctly and without some form of discipline.
Thank you.

My awnser

To your awnser when did tunku assert his believe that this is a secular nation, than JMD pls refer to the Star in his coloumn As I See It as publish in the paper. One of the reason of the operation lalang 1987 and the closure of the paper Star and Watan was this column. So if you talk about muzzling the press, who was the Home Minister then? was it not Tun. As for Islam, well what type of Islam are you proposing. To the Arabs what they consider islamic is different than the liberal westernised Muslim who resides in the US and western world. To a bosnian Muslim it is different and so to the turks. Their differences show in their perception of life tentang hukum dan hakam(About Laws and Regulations). I am not going to dwell in that to much but sad to say perception plays an important part in human mind. I am againts divisive policy because my faith in my religion is not about pandering to slogans but i believe we have enough fragmentation in our mind between us to futher divide us with religion. Let it be separate because moral guidance is subjective and i believe should remain private. If I am wrong than you cannot blame taliban and the rest of us as unislamic because this is an extention of their faith however misguided they are as your belief predates it. To the taliban and the fundamentalist they are right, to you they are wrong but what justified them to be label as such. Conservatism has envelop the human race from the west to the east, and mixing religion and politics is potent especially in Multi racial Malaysia. This is my belief but promoting faith in any religion is positive to the nation but not labeling it like what Tun has started. I rest my case.

SELAMAT HARI RAYA IDUL FITRI BELATEDLY!

Here is a piece worth keeping and reading!
The bête noire of Malaysia10 10 2008

When everyone is focussing their sights on the impending change in Umno’s leadership, I have just one more article on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that needs to be posted here. I will try my best to state here that this will be the last one on Anwar before we move on to other issues. I foresee that my next few articles will be about KJ, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and probably Datuk Seri Ali Rustam, not necessarily in that order.

This posting was derived after reading this article below at www.dinmerican.wordpress.com;

IS ANWAR AN IMF BOY?
29 August 2008
by Allyn Young (Allyn Young is a pseudonym used by a Cambridge educated economist who lectures at one of the major public universities in the Kuala Lumpur area)
When Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad finally announced the inevitable sacking of his Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Anwar Ibrahim on September 3, 1998 following the introduction of Keynesian-style capital controls a day earlier, a group of anti-imperialists and third world nationalists proclaimed that Mahathir had finally laid to rest the so called neo-liberal malaise that Anwar had purportedly subjected the Malaysian economy to with disastrous results.
Anwar was branded as a puppet of the IMF, who was simply seeking personal glory ‘by choosing to sell the interest of Malaysians to foreigners’. Mahathir – himself considered an authoritarian leader who had destroyed the key institutional instruments of governance in Malaysia to check any credible challenges to his leadership – became an icon among these anti-imperialists the world over.
Using evidence from my advisory role, this commentary is targeted to correct this presumptuous claim. Instead of focusing on the scientific and historical evidence associated with epistemology, the anti-imperialists and pseudo critics of the Washington Consensus( IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury) found a straw man in Anwar and a savior in Mahathir to build this ‘great story’ of how Mahathir saved Malaysia from certain collapse by ‘discontinuing Anwar’s deleterious neoliberal financial policies’.
While I have much to say about the circumstances that faced Malaysia in 1997 which offered the country the option of seeking capital controls when Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines had to go cap in hand to the IMF, I focus on Anwar’s actions as Malaysia’s Finance Minister.
Anwar had time again insisted in some of his meetings that the free flow of capital and the Malaysian ringgit was causing havoc to exchange rates and the stock market. He even lamented once over the massive offshore ringgit kept in Singapore that affected Bank Negara’s capacity to manage monetary policy. He cited that instruments were necessary to provide sufficient control of the ringgit against volatile fluctuations caused by currency traders. What he did not share with Mahathir was his stand on corruption and cronyism.
I remember Anwar saying that all Government linked Companies(GLCs) destabilized by losses should be supported with fresh loans but only after proper audit scrutiny. Now no scholar or sensible politician – whatever their ideological learnings - would support bailouts that arise from losses in consumer benefits through a misallocation of funds to the corrupt and incapable. Anwar was in support of Keynesian style packages but wanted them introduced alongside instruments that would weed out corruption.
Anwar was also serious about fiscal policies to take account of distributive justice in the months between December, 1997 and April, 1998. In fact, he had dismissed a report prepared by a team of IMF-style consultants on measures to rescue the East Asian economies affected by the 1997-98 Financial crisis. He had written on the cover of that report that it must be rewritten to address problems of social justice.
I was approached by his advisors to rewrite the report and took it on eventually after his team headed by Khalid Jaafar agreed to allow me to change it completely. It was unfortunate that Anwar did not manage to present it as he was replaced by Daim Zainuddin and sacked by Mahathir.Yet, there is enough historical evidence to back Anwar’s claim that he is a believer in social justice. After all, mentored by the widely respected social activist and former University of Malaya academic Professor Dr Syed Husin Ali during his undergraduate days, Anwar was arrested and jailed for his role in championing the rights of the poor during the Baling riots and the protests he commandeered as a student union leader at University of Malaya in 1974.
It must be said that the young and brash leader of the 1970s was then a champion of the poor at a time when government policy was very much in line with the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank. However, he had become a mature leader in the 1990s following his apprenticeship as the Finance Minister of Malaysia from 1995 to recognize the need to connect distributive justice with sound economic principles. In addition, in the spirit of intellectual discourse, Anwar had also developed the capacity to exchange views with experts from different schools of economic philosophy in a cordial and constructive manner. As a result, he enjoyed strong friendship with several heads of governments and global organizations.
Anwar remains a strong advocate of the humane economy as articulated in his Malaysian Economic Agenda and reflected in the 2008 Election Manifesto for Pakatan Rakyat, which he again stressed during his ceramahs and meet- the people- sessions during the campaign for the Permatang Pauh by-election. The fact that he won decisively over his UMNO opponent showed that his economic agenda founded on sound economic growth and distributive justice was fully endorsed by voters.
I read the article above with much interest.
With all due respect to the Cambridge educated economist, her/his analysis is vague and bordering generalization.
Firstly, I would like to clarify here that Anwar was not arrested and jailed for his role in championing the rights of the poor during the Baling riots but rather, he was arrested and jailed because he was desecrating the Malaysian and Umno’s flag during the riots.
Very much like how Lim Kit Siang in 1969, was desecrating the flag in front of Datuk Harun Idris’ house in Kampung Baru just prior to the May 13 incident. He then spent about 18 months in the ISA.
Anyway, is Anwar a believer in social justice? Is he a strong advocate of humane economy? Those were the questions the author above wanted Anwar to be favourably remembered as.
The IMF encouraged Anwar to lift the prices of controlled food items and increase the banking interest rates. Is that humane to us Malaysians?
Read here in the news at that time.
I’m surprised the writer chose not to remember this. This, and among other destructive measures were the ones that made us Malaysians suffered in our lifestyle.
If not for the strong intervention by the government, we could end up with economic strife like Thailand and Indonesia at that time.
The fact that the writer said Anwar made a stand against cronyism and corruption ring hollow to my ears when in June 1998 at that time, Anwar and his family members as well as his cronies were on top of the list of those who received government contracts.
And during his tenure as the Finance Minister, he was the sole signatory for the approval of contracts under the ‘Program Kontraktor Wibawa’. We had to be really naive to believe that certain percentage of the said projects did not go to his cronies or perhaps *gasp* himself.
Is there no reasonable doubt in this instance?
Instead of pursuing capital controls, Anwar had foolishly urged BNM to cushion the impact of the fallen ringgit with currency speculation.
As the result, BNM lost billions of ringgit in early 1998. This move was even criticised by Lim Kit Siang in Parliament.
He was also the strong supporter of ‘creative destruction’ of the economy.
Which would have a devastating effect if he allowed the huge GLCs, with thousands upon thousand of workers to go bust just because he would want the foreign hands to have an easier dip into our national wealth.
Should we at that time let globalization (in reality, economic colonization) engulf us like how Indonesia and Thailand suffered? Most of their strategic business entities are controlled by the Americans.
Therein lies the conundrum of surrendering your sovereignty, or remaining steadfast in the face of challenging global environment.
We had to survive at that time. But we wanted to survive within our own terms. Why should we let others dictate us?
The assumption that other countries that were helped by IMF becoming stronger than us is also erroneous.
In his speech in Singapore in 2007, Anwar tried to debunk his apparent mistake by justifying that the said countries (South Korea and Singapore) fared well in relations to having small budget surplus in 2003 and 2004 whereas Malaysia is still having deficit in budget.
But he failed to mention that Singapore was not aided by IMF while South Korea had to have budget surpluses due to the condition set by the IMF itself. What had South Korea sacrificed? Its foreign exchange reserves is lower when compared to Malaysia (only USD 9 billion in 1998 - 2000). Plus, in order to achieve budget surpluses, South Korea had to sacrifice a lot of allocation meant for national development.
As the result, the USD58 Billion package deal was finally paid off in 2001.
Anwar also failed to mention that South Korea is already on the brink of being a developed nation in late 90’s if not already.
That is why, they could bounce back quickly as compared to Thailand and Indonesia.
If Malaysia had taken the same route like South Korea, we may not end up like South Korea, but instead like Indonesia. Furthermore, like I said earlier, our economic independence would have been greatly compromised.
Remember the austerity package Anwar introduced in 97/98? That shows how shallow his comprehension in economy. When a nation is suffering from an economic crisis like the currency crisis we experienced in 1997/98, an austerity package will further cripple the economy.
Instead of spending, he wanted the government to save. In an economy where source of wealth is accumulated by trade, further generation of economic activity is a must in order to overcome an impending credit crunch.
When the private sector had curtailed their spending in lieu to the fear of the unknown, then it is up to the government to spend in order for the economy not to stall. If the government also tries to save, then nobody will earn money. Thus, economy will become stagnant and fall.
But what he did was exactly that - increase the interest rates on loans so that it would be difficult to do business, shorten the NPL tenure to 3 months resulting in bad credit for businesses, cutting development projects for the people that could actually drive the economy forward.
He probably was naive in believing that the IMF prescription could work. In the current era where the US is also subscribing to similar measures much like our own, it is indeed ironic that we need to compel ourselves to view Anwar and the IMF as our fallen saviour in 1998.
It’s only natural that the writer tries to expunge Anwar from being portrayed as the IMF boy. With the premiership probably within his grasp, it is good to have a hatchet man that could expound any ‘misperception’ about the PM in waiting.
But the truth is, Anwar cannot escape all the misjudgments he made and all the erroneous decisions which had further derailed the economic strength of the society at that time - the very society he is trying to ’save’.
Hopefully, this society will not see him as the fallen saviour in 1998, but rather as the bringer of ’social injustice’ and advocate of ‘inhumane economy’.
I offer another side of view for the crisis in 1998 and how Anwar had a hand in it.
For more reading material, please read here.
I may be wrong in this analysis. If I am, please enlighten me. After all, I was not trained in Cambridge or Oxford.