I am a Malay, I am a racist. I embrace racism although I do not enjoy the definition of racism as what Oxford and Webster describe. I have work with Non Malays most of the time and I found that it is better to embrace racism then to deny oneself that it does not colour our judgement but by saying that I abhor anything discriminatory associated in being a racist.

I remember when I was working with the circus crew and massaging one of the Americans present ( I was a part time masseur) and during my therapy session with him I remark while kneading his back that (he has a daughter) it is easier to say you are a liberal so and so but what if your daughter is in love with a black man it is not so nice then isn't it. He laugh and he admit so! In United States in the South they still maintain of having two prom nights one for the black and one for the whites. During the recent presidential election 60% of whites still vote for McCain instead of following the National census that shows non whites vote overwhelmingly for Obama, Why? Is that not racism in the highest order.

In Penang a state I considered mine Malays could hardly do business there. Although being the Silicon Valley of Malaysia overwhelmingly most of the vendors of the Multi National Companies are Chinese owned and operated. And if you are qualified, a Malay can't find a decent job as oppose to the Chinese. In job ads across the country Chinese speaking and able to write chinese are put in place making it difficult for the Malays to get the job. This practise was only recently ban in Singapore but not here.

The Chinese call everyone a devil from the whites to the Indians. Gwailo, Malaygwai or Kelinggwai are words describing the non malays uttered by the Chinese. So I embrace racism, I am being practical but I hate the baggage that comes with it. I understand that loving one race is nothing wrong but having said that I detest if it means depriving anyone their rights to live to pray to work and to be educated. Maybe there will come a time when we are colour blind and race blind but for me it is practical for me to embrace them, then to deny. I will then be able to put barriers or walls which I would not transgress and act as my limits in helping my race.

Here is an article written by Karim Raslan although I agree but sad that UMNO should be reduce to that!

Umno’s fortunes — Karim Raslan

MAY 30 — A few weeks ago I wrote about the struggle for Umno's soul — about the tussle between those who viewed the party as a vehicle for exclusivist Malay politics and those who wanted it to be more open, less intolerant — in effect, to steer the party back to the middle ground.
Anyone who's read my column for any length of time will know which direction I want Umno to take.
Interestingly enough, I bumped into an old friend and an active politician from Umno soon after the column was published. Since we were both heading for KLIA on the ERL, we had a fairly intense discussion for the length of the journey.
“Aziz” (not his real name) is a thinking man. However much I've disagreed with him over the years he's always been thoughtful and courteous. He's the sort of fellow who can remain relatively calm, dispassionate and rational even in the midst of fairly heated debate.
Still it was evident from the moment we started talking that he was troubled by what he saw as Umno's diminished state — the internal bickering, the almost universal external criticism and the lack of clear direction. He seemed to alternate between frustration, anger and bewilderment.
"We don't really know what we want or need to do. We aren't clear on our objectives. We've had countless strategy sessions but there hasn't been a firm decision to go in any particular direction."
Still “Aziz” was not the type to be defeatist and whilst his words might have sounded ominous for an opposition activist, I'm sure they resonated amongst the party faithful.
"Karim, losing is not an option. Umno cannot and will not lose. There is too much at stake and the opposition cannot be trusted to look after the position of the Malays."
Whilst I disagreed and told him so, arguing that political parties were more like “vehicles” that needed to shift their principles and strategies to adapt to changing times, I could sense he wasn't convinced especially when I suggested that a spell in opposition might be good for Umno.
"We have to go back to basics. We have to ask ourselves what is the party's core? Who are its base constituents? Obviously, it's the Malays. Then we have to ask ourselves: are we serving them properly, are we truly representing their interests?"
He didn't flinch when I asked him about the corruption within the party and the extent to which it had undermined the party's position nationwide.
"I've been thinking about this. Maybe we need to change the incentive structure within the party? At the moment the party's branch and division leaders are overly-focused on winning internal party elections so that they can then offer themselves as parliamentary or state assembly candidates.
“This means that they'll attend to Umno members before other non-members — be they Malay, Indian or Chinese. If there's an allocation, the money will go to supporters to ensure they'll continue supporting. It's a vicious cycle that makes the party unpopular on the ground.
"Maybe Umno division chiefs should be barred from holding elected office? If this were to happen you'd find that the internal contests wouldn't be so heated and intense. Then the party structure could be re-orientated back to serving the people."
But what about the party's core principles? Here, I noticed an important theme emerging.
"We've lost the non-Malay vote for now. With what's happening in Perak it may be impossible to win them back by the next election. Instead what we've got to do is secure our base — the Malay base. When we have the Malay ground back in our control they'll be no alternative for the non-Malays — they'll have to return to the Barisan Nasional."
Later as I was thinking through his argument I had to concede it made political sense even if I disagreed with it. To my mind, prioritising the Malay agenda at this stage merely reinforces the non-Malay exclusion from the national agenda. Still, Umno has to consolidate around something — even if it is a shrunken Malay base — if it hopes to move forward.
Certainly the intense focus on the internal PAS polls underlines this strategy. It is no secret that the Hadi Awang-Ustaz Nasharuddin faction is far more attached to the Malay dominance rhetoric than the Nik Aziz and Husam Musa group. Whilst their popularity amongst the grassroots is questionable, they've been adept at winning over PAS party apparatchiks so much so that they now look set to carry off the bulk of internal party seats.
Ironically, the possibility that a more pro-Malay/ulama faction might win in PAS presents Umno with a lifeline by steering PAS once again back into the extremist wilderness.
If indeed PAS fails to make the ambitious move to the middle ground the Pakatan's future is shaky and Umno will be able to emerge as a “less extreme” Malay force around which the non-Malays will be forced to coalesce. Remember also that Umno will regain its pre-eminence without having to undergo any reforms.
Of course all this rather denigrates Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's PKR but unless and until he cracks the whip with his own feckless party members, political realists will be focusing on how the two main Malay parties position themselves and a shift to the right somehow seems inevitable. — mysinchew

An article in Malay which is interesting

Di antara Chin Peng, komunisme dan perkauman — Zaid Ibrahim

MEI 29 — Meninjau tindakan pihak polis terhadap orang ramai beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini, saya tidak terkejut kalau ada kedengaran rintihan bahawa Malaysia telah menjadi sebuah negara polis (police state). Antara ciri-ciri sebuah “police state” ialah apabila polis menjadi satu kuasa pengawalan yang ditakuti. Polis mula menyekat kegiatan serta kebebasan orang ramai bersuara, yang merupakan amalan biasa di sesebuah negara bebas dan demokratik. Kita dapat lihat bahawa pasukan polis lebih ditakuti dan bukan dihormati. Bloggers seperti saya juga turut berada dalam pemerhatian mereka. Undang-undang yang digunakan mereka telah menyekat kebebasan rakyat.

Di dalam sebuah “police state”, polis boleh mengambil tindakan atas apa sahaja yang ditafsir atau dianggap berbahaya kapada kerajaan. Ini membolehkan mereka menyekat apa sahaja kegiatan orang awam yang dianggap menjejaskan kententeraman awam. Hari ini rakyat ditangkap kerana memakai baju warna hitam, menjual CD, tidak mahu makan, berkumpul secara aman dan sebagainya.

Rakyat ingin tahu mengapa Menteri yang bertanggungjawab terus-terusan membiarkan polis bertindak sedemikian? Besar kemungkinan Menteri juga sudah tidak mampu atau mempunyai kuasa untuk mempengaruhi pihak polis. Mungkinkah Ketua Polis Negara lebih berkuasa dari Menteri?

Saya masih lagi ingat tentang soal penubuhan IPCMC yang dicadangkan oleh Pak Lah dahulu. IPCMC merupakan satu cadagan baik pada tahun 2004 supaya sebuah suruhanjaya ditubuhkan bagi menyiasat penyalahgunaan kuasa, kepincangan etika dan amalan rasuah yang sering berlaku dalam pasukan polis negara. Cadangan ini merupakan saranan Tun Dzaiddin dan Tun Haniff serta ahli-ahli lain Suruhanjaya DiRaja pada masa itu. Menurut laporan mereka terdapat banyak kepincangan dan kelemahan polis yang ketara. Walaupun Pak Lah berniat baik untuk menubuhkan IPCMC dan merealisasikan saranan Dzaiddin ini, pihak polis telah menolaknya secara terbuka. Saya tidak fikir dalam sebuah negara demokrasi lain seperti Australia atau India, pihak polis mereka berani menentang secara terbuka akan dasar yang diusulkan oleh seorang Perdana Menteri. Namun di Malaysia, begitulah berkuasanya seorang Ketua Polis Negara.

Saya juga teringat tentang kuasa polis dalam isu dadah. Parlimen telah lama menggubal rang undang-undang khas untuk penubuhan Agensi Dadah Kebangsaan. Menurut undang-undang ini, segala isu mengenai dadah, sama ada kawalan siasatan dan rehabilitasi adalah tanggungjawab dan di bawah kuasa agensi ini. Ini sebenarnya telah diamalkan di Negara Filipina dan Amerika Syarikat. Peruntukan berjuta-juta ringgit telah disediakan untuk menggerakkan agensi dengan kakitangan yang cukup. Namun sehingga hari ini, polis masih juga bertanggungjawab dan berkuasa dalam hal “prevention enforcement” dan siasatan kes dadah. Mereka akan membuat keputusan mengenai segala aspek kes dadah dan bukannya Agensi Dadah Kebangsaan. Kononnya agensi yang baru ditubuhkan itu tidak mempunyai pengalaman menjalankan tugas-tugas tersebut. Begitulah berkuasanya Polis DiRaja Malaysia sehinggakan Parlimen atau Perdana Menteri tidak boleh menukar apa sahaja yang mereka tidak restui.

Parlimen sebenarnya memberi kuasa yang luas kepada polis di bawah the Police Act 1967. Maklumlah kita sebuah negara yang masih di bawah pengisytiharan darurat. Kita juga mempunyai sejarah hitam seperti peperangan dengan komunis dan peristiwa 13 Mei. Kuasa luas yang diberikan itu perlu dilaksanakan secara sederhana dan penuh bijaksana mengikut keadaan politik dan keperluan semasa.

Contohnya, walaupun undang-undang memerlukan rakyat memohon permit polis apabila mengadakan perhimpunan lebih dari empat orang, tetapi wajarkah kita mengikut peraturan ini jika perhimpunan mereka itu tidak membahayakan masyarakat? Jika mereka mahu pakai baju hitam dalam perhimpunan itu juga saya rasa tidak berbahaya dan tidak perlu ditangkap. Tetapi begitulah hakikatnya Malaysia pada hari ini. Wakil-wakil rakyat dan penyokong-penyokong mereka ditangkap semata mata berhimpun secara aman dan memasang lilin. Mereka juga ditangkap kerana mereka mahu berlapar selama tiga hari. Ini semua berlaku kerana dalam sebuah “police state”, sesetengah kumpulan orang awam dianggap musuh kapada pihak polis. Apabila musuh berkumpul maka tindakan menangkap mereka akan dilakukan. Namun jika yang berhimpun itu bukan musuh dan tidak mempunyai permit, ia dibenarkan tanpa tangkapan. Malang sekali nasib Malaysia.

Polis sepatutnya tidak memihak kepada sesiapa dan tidak ada musuh dari kalangan rakyat. Polis perlu bertindak secara professional dan adil dalam menjaga keamanan negara. Bukan menjaga Barisan Nasional sahaja.

Polis tidak perlu terlalu mendengar pandangan orang-orang politik. Menurut Rais Yatim dan Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, ada pula musuh baru sekarang ini. Kumpulan yang mahu hidupkan komunisme. Agaknya Pak Menteri membuat kesimpulan begitu kerana ada segelintir orang Cina yang mahukan Chin Peng dibenarkan pulang ke negara ini. Ramai orang bersimpati dengan hasrat Chin Peng mahu kembali dan mati ditanah Malaya. Ini tidak bererti mereka ini mahu hidupkan Komunisme. Jauh bezanya antara mahu menghidupkan Komunisme dengan rasa kemanusiaan yang membenarkan Chin Peng pulang.

Lagipun ramai peguam , di antaranya dari International Bar Association berpendapat Chin Peng ada hak untuk pulang ke tempat lahirnya. Cuma mahkamah kita tidak bersetuju dengan hujah tersebut kerana Chin Peng tidak mempunyai sijil kelahiran. Saya tidak pasti jika Malaya pada waktu itu memberi kemudahan pendaftaran kelahiran anak, terutama sekali di Baling, Kedah.

Berbalik semula kepada isu kononnya terdapat minat orang ramai kepada Komunisme seperti yang disebut oleh Pak Menteri. Orang-orang Cina di Negara China pun telah menjadi kapitalis besar dan selesa. Mereka ini berniaga dalam “free market capitalism”. Ini adalah sama dengan rakyat Malaysia berketurunan Cina. Mereka juga selesa dengan system kapitalis di Malaysia. Tidak masuk akal jika mereka mahu bertukar kepada sistem Komunis. Jadi apakah tujuan ahli-ahli fikir Umno dalam memperbesarkan soal Komunisme hari ini?

Janganlah kita melaga-lagakan rakyat dengan mencipta musuh baru. Tidak cukupkah kita Berjaya memecah-belah rakyat selama ini kerana politik?Jika ada yang bersetuju dengan cadangan supaya Chin Peng pulang ke Malaysia kerana dia hendak menghabiskan sisa-sisa hidupnya di Malaysia, itu tidak bererti bahawa dia adalah Komunis atau mahu menghidupkan ideology Komunis. Dia seorang rakyat Malaya. Usia Chin Peng pun sudah tua. Mustahil dia boleh membuat kekacauan lagi. Pengaruh Komunisme telah lupus. Lagipun pihak polis cekap seperti yang ada sekarang sudah tentu berupaya mengawal keselamatan negara.

Saya terfikir, jika Chin Peng itu seorang Melayu, apakah pendirian dan emosi kita akan sama? Utusan Malaysia berkempen secara agresif agar Chin Peng tidak dibenarkan pulang. Sehubungan itu gambar-gambar veteran tentera keselamatan yang cedera dan kehilangan kaki dipamerkan. Memang benar, Chin Peng dan komunis berperang dengan kerajaan Malaya pada masa itu. Memang Chin Peng dan komunis kejam. Termasuklah Rashid Maidin dan Shamsiah Fakih. Dalam peperangan itu, kedua-dua pihak telah terpaksa melakukan kekejaman. Jepun juga pernah berlaku kejam kepada kita semasa zaman pemerintahannya. Lebih kejam daripada Chin Peng. Namun kita tetap memberi pelukan yang sangat rapat kepada Jepun. Kita juga memberi kontrak besar kapada syarikat milik Jepun kerana Jepun memberi pinjaman wang kepada kita. Kita tidak boleh mengubah apa yang berlaku dalam peperangan melawan British. Yang melawan British ada komunis, ada yang berhaluan kiri (leftist) dan ada juga nasionalis. Ada bermacam-macam kumpulan. Namun mereka semua menetang British dan menuntut kemerdekaan.

Kadangkala sejarah pahit lama hanya akan diterima apabila kita membuang rasa dendam dan digantikan dengan sifat kemanusiaan. Bila kita menyimpan dendam terhadap musuh, ia tidak akan membawa apa-apa keuntungan. Lihatlah di Afrika Selatan. Kerajaan kulit putih dan polis risik kerajaan apartheid telah membunuh dan berlaku kejam terhadapan ratusan ribu rakyat kulit hitam Afrika Selatan. Ramai yang telah hilang dan telah mati dalam penjara. Namun Nelson Mandela tidak mahu berdendam. Sebaliknya beliau menubuhkan badan Reconciliation and Truth. Beliau mahu kedua-dua pihak hitam dan putih bersama-sama mencari kebenaran tentang apa yang berlaku dalam zaman apartheid.

Tujuannya ialah untuk mengajar rakyat supaya bermaaf-maafan dan menghentikan prejudis serta persengketaan antara kaum. Amnesty atau pelepasan dari tindakan undang-undang diberi kapada pihak pihak yang terlibat. Ini supaya mereka tidak lagi berdendam dan menghentikan kekejaman antara satu sama lain. Lima belas tahun dahulu di Rwanda, orang Tutsi dan Hutus berperang saudara. Kedua-duanya rakyat Rwanda. Sejumlah 800,000 rakyat mereka dari kedua-kedua kaum terbunuh dan dalam tempoh lapan bulan iaitu waktu kegilaan memuncak. Presiden baru telah memanggil semua kaum dan mengadakan dialog serta perbincangan tentang apa yang telah berlaku. Mereka menceritakan apa yang menyebabkan mereka benci dan membunuh satu sama lain. Mengapakah puak Tutsi tidak membenarkan Hutus memasuki perkhidmatan kerajaan? Mengapa Hutus tidak banyak mempunyai urusan perniagaan dan sebagainya? Mengapa hanya pasukan tentera Hutus yang layak menduduki jawatan tinggi. Dialog in berjalan tahun demi tahun dan telah menjadi satu penawar yang kuat dan membolehkan negara kecil Rwanda kembali aman. Hari ini Rwanda mengamalkan sistem demokrasi yang baik dan ekonominya kukuh kerana mereka sudah tidak lagi bermusuh. Itulah kelebihan bangsa dan Negara yang tahu serta mempraktikkan nilai kemaanusian. Mereka sanggup bermaafan antara satu sama lain dan bukannya sengaja mencari musuh. Buang yang keruh, ambil yang jernih.

Amatlah sukar bagi Umno untuk berbuat demikian. Mahu minta maaf kepada hakim-hakim yang dipecat pun mereka enggan. Masakan mereka sanggup melupakan Chin Peng? Saya harap sekalipun kerajaan tidak mahu Chin Peng kembali, janganlah sampai menuduh mereka yang bersimpati dengan hasrat Chin Peng mahu mati di Malaya sebagai musuh kerajaan. Biarlah rakyat bersuara dan menunjukkan pendirian mereka sendiri. Jangan terlalu mudah mengkategorikan rakyat dan menganggap golongan Cina sendiri sebagai musuh. Ini semua adalah timbul dari perbezaan pendapat kerana perspektif sejarah yang rumit dan tidak banyak diketahui umum. — myzaidibrahim.com

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim adalah mantan Menteri di Pejabat Perdana Menteri Malaysia dan juga Ahli Parlimen Kota Bharu.

I did post the comment here I wrote to his blog and he was annoyed so just read and judge for yourself who is wrong!

DR NOVANDRI HASAN BASRI said...

Wan Zaharizan,

You wrote "Base on Humintarian ground only let them come back. we must start to have some reconciliation with the past. we must start somewhere. It is long overdue!"

And for same reason, humanitarian ground, we must always leason to the voices of the Malaysian people who have lost their families during the war.

4000 casualties are not small amount & to be put a side just like that.

And luckily, maybe none of your family members were killed during that time. So, it's difficult to feel their grieves. It's easy said than done.

After all, one person called Chin Peng, not a Malaysian citizen, has not much impact to Malaysia but thousands of Malaysian ex. ex-army, civilians including the chinese and their families will definitely feel very hurt by certain people who has nothing better to do but to defend this old man.

And Chin Peng will be very busy in court.

DR NOVANDRI HASAN BASRI said...

Wan Zaharizan,

Communist soldiers are not Merdeka warriors.

The existence of them were to fight the Japanese. That's all.

Their direct orders were from China eventhough they were isolated due to distance & supported by the British.

They were given a chance in Baling to reconcile & be part of the new Malaysian for 1957 but CP refused.

Once he's in the jungle, he's no more so called Merdeka warrior as you claimed. He fought during Merdeka & many years after that.

If he to be called Merdeka warrior, he should be part of the citizen who celebrated Merdeka in 1957 & not in the jungle with the rest of the communist soldiers.

May 29, 2009 11:11 AM

DR NOVANDRI HASAN BASRI said...

Wan Zaharizan,

Communist soldiers are not Merdeka warriors.

The existence of them were to fight the Japanese. That's all.

Their direct orders were from China eventhough they were isolated due to distance & supported by the British.

They were given a chance in Baling to reconcile & be part of the new Malaysian for 1957 but CP refused.

Once he's in the jungle, he's no more so called Merdeka warrior as you claimed. He fought during Merdeka & many years after that.

If he to be called Merdeka warrior, he should be part of the citizen who celebrated Merdeka in 1957 & not in the jungle with the rest of the communist soldiers.

May 29, 2009 11:11 AM

Dr Novandri

Warriors are different than heroes. Communist or communist ideology has reach our shores since 1931.

When MPAJA was set up it was a collaboration effort between the British and the Communist. MCP was founded by Ho Chin Minh and lead by Lei Tak Chinese Vietnamese who is a double agent.

Many historians yang berwibawa agreed That the emergency created by the communist hasten our independence. That cannot be denied. Please baca dan mentelaah. Pejuang kemerdekaan datang dari berbagai bentuk. Puak Kiri dari PKMM adalah merdeka warriors, but they are not heroes. The heroes were tunku and UMNO, that cannot be denied.

What is the use of peace treaty sign in 1989 if we could not reconcile our differences. The young has no baggage. Like you yang masih mentah might not remember the late Tan Sri Samad biasa konfes dalam TV in the late 70's mengaku dia adalah komunis. Bersama sama Dollah Kok Lanas dan lagi satu Dollah mereka disumbat dalam ISA. Tan Sri Samad merupakan kawan arwah Datuk dan Datuk saya patut berterimakasih kerana dia dapat jawatan setiauasha khas di Jabatan Pertanian. Tetapi mereka tetap komunis dari fahaman mereka.

Perjuangan mereka salah tetapi mereka tetap pejuang kemerdekaan tapi bukan heroes. So sehingga kita dapat kemerdekaan pada tahun 1957 mereka adalah pejuang kemerdekaan tapi tamat apabila kita merdeka.

We kill more of them than there us. They have lost what remain is just an old man's tale. I lamented because I know Fahmi Reza and I know what he says is true. The young do not carry any emotional baggage of the past. If Dr Novandri represent the young than we must be able to engage them with intellectual discourse. We must be able to present them our views clearly and not emotionally. They always two sides of a coin, remember we have sign a peace treaty.

Kalau base on your argument we should(the world)ignore the peace sign with the Germans and the Japanese and condemn them for eternity. Jangan jadi budak kecik!(Don't be a small boy), Point is the Government of today has decided period end of discussion. No rhetoric please fact is an old man wants to come back and if the government says no, so be it. They know better!

It is a pity UMNO now is full emptiness and if these continue than forget the next election. You cannot ever present facts clearly and resoundingly. I again do not deny hardship cause by the communist but look at the figures how many of them we have kill vis a vis us. Who suffer the biggest casualties than come and tell me about suffering!

Look at these hideous comment i receive and one even threatened me!!

Anonymous said...

kebodohan selalu datang dari bangsa pendatang di negara ini yang tak pernah berterima kasih atas pengorbanan pasukan keselamatan yang majoriti berbangsa melayu...dan tak lupa KEBODOHAN jugak datangnya dari mult NIK AJIS yang berakal pendek dan kurang sangat kebijaksanaannya...

pakcik saya putus kakinya terkena jerangkap samar komunis semasa bertugas dalam polis hutan dahulu dan tsekarang tinggal di chuping, perlis...itu sebab saya terAMAT geram dengan si NIK AJIS dan semua yang pro-komunis dinegara ini...

May 29, 2009 12:13 PM

Anonymous said...

Wan zaharizan.
Untuk pengetahuan kamu tak semestinya kena merasai dulu siksa zaman komunis baru nak fikir negatif pasal Ching Peng. Kalu nak kira pasal kemanusiaan kenapa tak tuntut dengan chin peng untuk minta maaf ke atas setiap orang yang dia pernah aniaya, yang kena bunuh. Pasal komunios yang kena bunuh, kita fikir logik la kalu dia oarng tak ancam kita saya rasa pasukan keselamatan tak teringin nak bunuh mereka tapi bila dah kena ancaman istilah nie sesuai' dibunuh atau membunuh'. buat la kajian sebelum berkata kerana anda boleh melukakan hati orang lain. Tak kena pada kita tak apa, tapi kalu kena pada kita saya rasa anda la yang kuat menentang.

rimau besi

May 29, 2009 1:00 PM

DR NOVANDRI HASAN BASRI said...

Wan Zaharizan,

You wrote, " Point is the Government of today has decided period end of discussion. No rhetoric please fact is an old man wants to come back and if the government says no, so be it. They know better!"

I've written in my article :-

2. Pada awal tahun 2000, Chin Peng telah memohon untuk kembali ke Malaysia. Kes beliau didengar di Mahkamah Tinggi pada 25hb Mei 2005 yang kemudiannya di tunda pada 25hb Julai 2005. Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak permohonan Chin Peng.

3. Pada Jun 2008, Mahkamah Rayuan juga telah menolak rayuan Chin Peng untuk kembali ke Malaysia di atas alasan Chin Peng gagal menunjukkan dokumen pengenalan beliau sebagai rakyat Malaysia dan lain-lain.

It's very clear here that CP has no place in Malaysia. Our Malaysian law said so & this issue should stop as it is. Period.

No more CP.

May 29, 2009 1:18 PM

Orang kita said...

saudara wan,

kalau ada kelapangan, saya nak jemput saudara wan ke Sungai Manik, Teluk Intan Perak. Kat sana nanti kita boleh sembang panjang apa sumbangan komunis dan chin peng pada orang melayu kita kat sana. Tapi saya tak dapat jamin saudara wan boleh keluar dengan selamat kalau apa yang saudara wan tuliskan disini, saudara ceritakan pada orang lama kat sana.

The young does not carry the emotional baggage from the past, but the past are still living among us to this day.

my Comment to orang kita

Dear Orang kita

Are you threatening me? Is this how a Malay behave? Why Sungai Manik? Were you born during the incident in 1945? In Abdullah CD book he claim it is because of Malay bandits, I do not know for sure but I know Bintang Tiga was involve. There was a massacre there, many were kill, both the chinese and malays. It was the first racial strife to hit Malaya then. Most young only thought about May 13 but even then many of them were not born then.

It was a part of history bloody one no doubt. So you must be about 80 years old now if you leave in that era, I'm sorry i do not fight an old man! Are you the Malay bandit or are you the Bintang Tiga? In law you have committed a murder and murder case are not covered by law of limitation so be careful you might be charge for murder or at least mayhem. Who are you? Why do you hide under Orang kita? Are you a coward? I am Wan Zaharizan Bin Wan Zan, at least please give me your name so I could call you maybe pakcik or datuk. It is a malay thing to give regards to old people.

Now to Anonymous too please give me your name, best I answer you. Hero or Wira is different than Pejuang or Warrior. Our father of independence Tunku in Baling 1955 recognize Chin Peng as such(warrior). That is why( if you have time please read the war records)he was offering an olive branch to Chin Peng. He told Chin Peng that since you and I were fighting for independence and since independence would be given by latest in 3 years time than you should lay down your arms and join us. But Chin Peng refuse because he could not receive the terms of surrender! He wants the party to be recognize as it once was in 1945. He refuse to be rehabilitated. Tunku refuse and that's why it fail.

By doing so many communist lay down their arms and return back to the fold and by 1960, 3 years after independence the Emergency was lifted. The meeting in Baling was oppose by the British and even David Marshall the spherphadic Jew who was at that time the Chief Minister of Singapore. As for death, many of my family died during emergency but it was war then and we accept our lot in life. Wahi Anuar was captured/surrender(depends whom you get it from) in 1951. So if you want to find me leave a note in my blog and your number and I will call you.I am not afraid of Sungai Manik I've been there. Novandri mintak maaf I have to answer them

I just do not understand the hatred that malaysian politician have with Communist. They are our past history, it is time for reconciliation here are articles to that effect please read, i am disgusted with this stupidity.

No place here for communists, says Rais

KUALA LUMPUR, May 25 - The communists have no place in the country because their sins for killing thousands of people in the then Malaya cannot be forgotten, said Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.

He urged leaders who had expressed positive sentiments for the former leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), Chin Peng, to state their stand clearly without hiding behind the cloak of their respective political parties.

"My comment is simple, Chin Peng and his commandos, who had killed many people in the past, certainly do not deserve any consideration from us," he told reporters after delivering a lecture on 1Malaysia to senior officers of his ministry at Angkasapuri, here today.

He had been asked to comment on the call by the Penang Gerakan that Chin Peng be allowed to return to Malaysia on humanitarian grounds.

Rais also called on Malaysians not to be hasty in following and supporting the innovations made by certain groups particularly bloggers who tried to idolise communism.

"The communists had abused this country and we had been shackled through killings and terrible actions committed by them. The thousands who had died at the hands of the communists should be sufficient for us to be remorseful so that we do not issue statements that can make us forget the atrocities committed by the regime then," he said.

Asked whether the government would take action such as those provided under the Internal Security Act (ISA) against those who tried to give a positive picture of the communists, Rais said he would bring the matter up at the Cabinet meeting later.

"The ISA is not under my jurisdiction, but I'm discussing with the minister concerned so that he too would be prepared to look at such a tendency," he said.

Recently, Penang Gerakan chairman Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan asked the government to allow Chin Peng to return to Malaysia on humanitarian grounds as the communist terrorism which was rampant around the 1950's throughout the world, including in China and Russia, had undergone transformation. - Bernama

No entry for Chin Peng, no exit for Mas Selamat

By Neville Spykerman

PUTRAJAYA, May 27 – Mas Selamat Kastari will not be handed over to Singapore and will continue to be detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) because he is considered a security threat to Malaysia as well, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today.

The Jemaah Islamiah (JI) leader had escaped from detention in Singapore but was arrested in Johor Baru on April 1.

Although he was a fugitive from across the Causeway, Malaysia has decided to detain him instead of handing him over to Singapore.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the decision to detain the 48-year-old militant was made by the Home Ministry.

He stressed the decision was not discussed with Singapore although authorities on both sides of the Causeway were in close contact with each other.

“He was a threat to both Singapore and Malaysia.”

On a separate issue Najib said Chin Peng would not be allowed to return to Malaysia.

The secretary-general of the now disbanded Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) has been living in exile since the end of hostilities in 1989.

Najib said that allowing Chin Peng to return would cause unhappiness among the families of victims who were killed during the Emergency.

My Comment

Maybe it is about skin colour or more importantly what Chin Peng represent to his community. He is hero to them he dare fought the British, he was decorated officer awarded a medal by the British after the war but refuse to cow under them. He was a warrior but in later life after we gain our independence he became a nuisance. His became a terrorist to many Malayan. He was no more a hero, he suffered defeat because he was so proud he would not accept the terms given to him by Tunku at Baling 1955. He acknowledge as such because he cannot surrender he cannot retreat, Read his book please. If he has surrender and accept the terms he might stand and participate in the election although not as a communist. Many Communist sympathizers did so among them Boestaman. They founded PRM or later PSRM which was base on the principle of communism. Communism is an idea by Karl Marx and Martin Engles. Das Kapitas was the book written by them in 1896 if i am not mistaken. It is a book on economic theories which opposes the idea of free market but espouch the idea of collective responsibility whereby you work for the states and the states will take care of you from cradle to the grave. It was a fallacy idea and proven unworkable.

It was about class struggle because Man are divided into different class and segment. The have and have not, the rich and poor, the colour of your skin and your intellectual capabilities. That is why it is very appealing but this ideas are fallacy. But many ideas of it are imbued in our system. The welfare state idea comes from this ideology.But having said that these communist believe in militancy and that is a problem.

Chin Peng lost the war. Now Ong Boon Hua wants to return. If he return as Ong Boon Hua so be it. He is old we have sign the treaty but it is still up to the government remember he was never a citizen of Malaya, he was a citizen of British Malaya. We(tunku) only gave citizen out to Chinese and Indian after 1950's. 1 1/2 million citizenships were given by Tunku to fulfill the requirements of gaining our independence. Prior to it all were British subject except the Malays who were both (the Sultan and British subject). He left to fight the war in 1948, the principle of Jus Soli cannot apply because he never submit his citizenship papers. No doubt his IC was taken away but he must prove that he is a citizen. That is difficult because it is 60 years now and impossible to do.

As why he did not apply after hadyai I think that covers it because he knows the fact. I suggest he comes as M2H programme but first he must show he has renounce and not a threat to the nation. Abdullah CD and Rashid Maidin never did come back and Rashid Maidin and kamarulzaman Teh is buried in South Thailand where the ex communist has a village given to them by the Thai's. Abdullah CD is still alive. For me they are old and they might die today next year or the next. Base on Humanitarian ground only let them come back. we must start to have some reconciliation with the past. we must start somewhere. It is long overdue!

Bahaya sentimen Chin Peng, propaganda halus komunisme — Utusan Malaysia

MAY 27 — Kenapa Pengerusi Parti Gerakan, Pulau Pinang, Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan meminta kerajaan membenarkan Chin Peng pulang? Apa kaitan musuh Negara itu dengan gagasan Satu Malaysia?

Kita berasa pelik dengan tindakan beberapa pemimpin bukan Melayu dan penulis blog yang “bersemangat” memperjuangkan Chin Peng @ Ong Boon Hua sejak kebelakangan ini.

Adakah mereka berkongsi ideologi yang sama? Ini yang sedang difikirkan oleh banyak pihak yang pastinya tidak dapat melupakan kekejaman Bintang Tiga pada zaman dua fasa darurat dahulu — dari 1948 hingga 1960 dan 1968 hingga 1984.

Dari semasa ke semasa bagaikan ada satu gerakan untuk terus mencanangkan nama Chin Peng daripada dilupakan oleh rakyat.

Daripada usaha menjadikan pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) itu sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan hinggalah kepada tuntutan untuk membenarkan beliau pulang ke kampungnya di Sitiawan, Perak.

Kerajaan Persekutuan beberapa tahun lalu membuat keputusan tidak membenarkan Chin Peng kembali. Malah Mahkamah Rayuan tahun lalu juga menolak permohonan bekas Setiausaha Agung PKM itu.

Tetapi, nampaknya usaha membawa masuk pemimpin itu digerakkan dari dalam negara pula melalui media cetak dan blog dengan membuat penilaian dan peranan baru terhadap Chin Peng.

Jadi adalah tepat apabila Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim menyifatkan perbuatan pihak tertentu itu sebagai durjana jika cuba menggalakkan kemunculan semula komunis di Malaysia.

Secara mudah, cuba kita bayangkan keadaan dan suasana negara kita hari ini jika PKM berjaya menggulingkan kerajaan pilihan rakyat melalui perjuangan kejamnya.

Komunis ialah musuh kita dan kita berjaya mencapai kestabilan politik dan ekonomi seperti hari ini kerana mengalahkan mereka. Janganlah diungkit-ungkitkan lagi tentang Chin Peng. Apa ruginya kalau kita tidak memberi pujian dan bernolstagia dengan komunisme?

Pihak-pihak yang “memuja” parti politik haram itu patut sedar bahawa Chin Peng bukanlah pejuang kemerdekaan negara ini. Sebaliknya dia seorang penderhaka yang mengetuai sebuah pergerakan yang membunuh ramai orang tidak berdosa.

Chin Peng dan PKM sebenarnya masih berdegil untuk membubarkan pergerakan komunis walaupun mereka telah menandatangani Perjanjian Damai dengan Kerajaan Malaysia di Hatyai pada 1989.

Dalam perjanjian itu mereka cuma setuju untuk memberhentikan perjuangan bersenjata, maknanya ia boleh diteruskan kemudian. Perjuangan PKM sebenarnya adalah perjuangan kejam, tanpa perikemanusiaan dan penuh tragedi berdarah.

Ingatlah kepada para balu, anak-anak dan ibu bapa para anggota keselamatan yang terkorban demi mempertahankan semua rakyat negara tercinta ini.

Ingatlah kepada anggota keselamatan yang cacat anggota tubuh badan akibat perbuatan ganas PKM. Memberi pengiktirafan kepada perjuangan PKM dalam apa bentuk sekalipun adalah satu pengkhianatan terhadap jasa bakti semua pahlawan negara.

Oleh itu tidak perlu pun kita cuba menghidupkan nostalgia Chin Peng.

Kita mengharapkan Kabinet dapat membuat keputusan bagi menamatkan cerita tentang musuh negara itu. Yang penting sesuatu perlu dilakukan bagi menghalang sentimen Chin Peng dan propaganda halus ideologi komunis daripada meresap ke dalam fikiran anak-anak muda.

written by wan zaharizan, May 27, 2009

Inilah realiti! Utusan Malaysia sebagai wadah bangsa sudah ketinggalan. Mengapakah masih kita di tahap lama?, mengungkit pekara yang dah lama? Lihat apa kata pemuda melayu sekarang contohnya Fahmi Reza yang mengatakan bahawa pemuda sekarang tidak bertaut pada emosi dan cerita lama! Mereka do not carry anymore baggage about the past. Sejak tahun 1989 selepas perjanjian damai di Hadyai tidak lagi ada permusuhan dengan MCP. Kegiatan subversifnya telah tamat yang tinggal hanya kenangan orang tua2 yang berumur semuanya sekitar di alam senja.

Jadi Chin Peng nak balik apasalahnya? Betul MCP telah membunuh banyak perajurit tetapi waktu itu ialah waktu perang bagi mereka. Kita juga telah bunuh orang2 mereka yang lebih banyak terkorban. Perang sudah tamat maka mengapa masih beremosional?

Puak puak kiri yang bersimpati degan Komunis adalah seperti Boestaman, Aziz Ishak, Pak Sako dll lagi. Malah Tan Sri Samad Ismail pun dianggap Komunis oleh Lee Kuan Yew. Silalah baca buku dia. Kita boleh terima Musa Ahmad dan Shamshiah Fakeh balik apa tidaknya Chin Peng yang sudah berumur 85 tahun? Apa salahnya dia balik tetapi dengan syarat2 tertentu. Orang sudah tua sebagai orang Islam dan orang melayu kita di ajak bertertib terhadap yang tua. Ini selalu di asuh sekarang ini di media tv. Biarlah dia pulang atas dasar kemuniasaan tapi dengan syarat tertentu.

Kita sudah menang, perjanjian keamanan sudah ditandatangani pada 1989, biarlah orang tua2 in hidup dengan angan2 mereka kerana di kampong mereka di selatan Thai ada masjid ada balai hanya diadiami oleh orang tua. Apakah Utusan dapat dari megabori mata orang melayu, memainkan sentimen yang bodoh. Fahaman Komunis adalah berputik dari fahaman ekonomi yang berprinsipkan kerja untuk negara dan negara berkerja untuk anda dan memperjuangkan class struggle yaani dunia tidak mempunyai kelas penduduk. Nyata prinsip ini telah gagal tapi bibit bibit eknominya telah diterapakan oleh banyak negara moden.

Kini dengan adanya internet anda dapat membaca Das Kapital dan mentelaahnya. Jika pemimpin dan akhbarnya tidak dapat lagi bersemuka dan berdialog dengan penuh bijaksana dengan pemuda yang lebih bijak maka satu hari terkuburlah UMNO!

• +2

I am flabergasted last thursday during the Halaqah talk show on tv. I was stunned for the topic they use were swine influenza or H1N1 influenza which is now a pandemic around the world. As I suspected I got a earful of hearing them bashing the poor pigs! Even one of the speaker remark that the swine has now invaded south thailand and many are sick, last I know only 2 in thai have fallen ill. According to the report these two affected has just return from Mexico.

Two more countries--Thailand and Finland--confirmed their first novel H1N1 cases today, the Australian Associated Press (AAP) reported. Thailand reported two cases in people who had traveled to Mexico, and Finland also confirmed two, though few details were available. The four cases are not included in today's WHO total. [May 12 AAP story]

But it seems the speakers seems to alude and deceive the audience by saying many! This is the type of insensetiveness the reason many non muslim are turn off by Islam. Falsehood are simply regarded as facts. I was also amaze with one speaker by stating the fact that Iman Malik and Al Zuhri belief that what is forbidden is the meat not the skin or the hair! Why bring it up in the first place although to people like me it was something new for me to chew on but why clouded the issue. Pig meat is forbidden for us to consume, to many school of thoughts it is inclusive of everything. Period. Why is it forbidden, wallahualam for only he knows, he is all knowing and all forgiving. We can infer but we do not know why. We thank God that studies have shown that swine meat has certain viruses that cannot be kill by extreme heat. Cooking will not kill the viruses but to say it is because of that it is wrong. It is false. The speaker spoke that Muslim must eat halal and good food(berkhasiat) ie full of goodness that means abhoring junk food. the speaker spoke in Arabic but Pig Meat might be full of goodness after all one of the longest living human are those in Eastern Europe where pig meat are staple even here among the races the chinese live longer so it is wrong to infer pig is not good for your health, how stupid! Do you know the second people who live the shortest are the Afghan people?, Are they not muslim but why?, if they eat halal food do they die young?

So if you are not an expert remain quiet please, what is agreed is Pig is a dirty animal but it is god creatures. Pigs are just like your roaches and mussels etc. They act as a filtration agent that is why mussels are makruh for us, but I love my "Char Keow Teow" with lot of "kerang" but it must be cook well! Pigs serve that purporses they eat garbage and anything disgusting! For the Muslims it is a comandment of God but it not absolute, you can eat it under certain conditions. It is not a total ban and even then it is not the 7 biggest sin as describe by Mohammad pbuh.

I am not saying it is alright to eat pigs but I am saying eating one make you a fasik, it does not make you an infidel (unbeliever). You did a wrong, a sin and you will be punish for that trangressing act. Having said that kiling or maiming an Animal unnecassary is evil and a sin whether it be a pig or a dog, they are still god creatures. We as Khalifah must at all times show the leadership of a khalifah the guardian that was annointed of this earth thus behave like one. Sadly we don't, I shudder and was very angry when I heard my father's friend talking about hitting the dog that he saw with a car and was happy about it! How could a grown man be happy to hit an innocent animal!, it is not call by muslim to do that, one great hadiths told the story of a Prostitute whose only deeds was she gave a drink to the dog and she went to heaven for it. Than this hadiths reflect that good deeds done by a low person to a low creature in Islam gave her the right to be in heaven than it should have spoke volume to what is needed for the Muslim to behave.Sadly this is not so.

Those two speakers were idiots to touch on issue such as infleunza H1N1 and relate them to pigs. Really how do we achieve IMalaysia then? I must also relate one subuh day opening up the tv to hear the morning sermon I was aghast when I hear a speaker spoke about hadiths that say all kafir are our enemies! Please elaborate it because by saying it are you telling the Chinese and Indians are our enemies?What is meant by the hadiths must be read in the right context, the history being the hadiths must be explain because some of the prophet's friends and families were kafir. Among them were Abu Talib and Waraqah bin Naufal. Both were kafirs and are you telling us that these two were the enemies of Muhammad pbuh? This is why I lament these speakers who might be knowledgeble but lack wisdom (bijaksana) one of Muhammad's pbuh attributes. They will be the bane of the Malay world, really!

I always am a fan of Susan Boyle here she is singing Memories from Cat

Here is a link that the readers should go to www.iias.nl/nl/48/IIAS_NL48_1213.pdf

Chin Peng is caught in the past — Ooi Kee Beng

MAY 23 — The final attempt by the 85-year-old former leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), Chin Peng, to gain the right to return to Malaysia was quashed on April 30 by the Federal Court.

His failure to produce his birth certificate was used as sufficient reason to deny his appeal.

The legal technicalities involved in stopping him from entering the country are interestingly not the most significant theme in this saga. His failure nevertheless injects disturbing elements from the past into contemporary Malaysian consciousness.

Many see no danger in allowing the old man to return from his place of exile in Bangkok to his place of birth in Sitiawan, Perak, where many of his relatives live, but others, including the federal authorities, refuse to forget the violence perpetrated by the MCP during the birth of the nation.

The official stand is taken despite the peace agreement signed between the MCP and government on Dec 2, 1989, stating that party members who were of Malaysian origin should be allowed to settle in the country if they wished to do so.

Chin Peng’s mistake was that he did not take up then Premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on that offer immediately.

Much of the reluctance to allow him to return stem from challenges that are embodied in Chin Peng’s very existence, to official discourses about the origins of Malaysian independence.

Firstly, communists such as Chin Peng (real name Ong Boon Hua) were practically the only Malayans fighting the Japanese invaders during World War II. They did it with material and logistical support from British defenders who had recently so hastily abandoned their colonies in Southeast Asia.

Chin Peng is therefore a reminder of a fractious time when the Japanese were seen as invaders by some but as liberators of Malaya from British control by others.

The portrayal of communists as terrorists was therefore a narrative device that served to depict British colonialists as defenders of decent government, protectors of the public and willing participants in bringing independence to Malaya, in the final days of their empire.

Willing participants in this project where the local population was concerned — once the communists had been dismissed by British commissioner-general in Southeast Asia Malcolm McDonald as “alien forces acting under alien instructions” — were solely conservative parties such as Umno and the MCA.

Indeed, the forming of the MCA in 1949 was a measure deemed necessary by the British and by Chinese Malayan leaders to draw rural support away from the communists after the former decided on guerilla warfare against their erstwhile brothers-in-arms.

Chin Peng’s continued intrusion into Malaysian consciousness also conjure discomforting images of a time when the fire of nationalism throughout the colonised world was inextricably alloyed with the promise of liberation from the colonial yoke and the building of a paradise based on economic equality and social justice without regard for national borders.

AN ALIEN FORCE

Had the communists of pre-independence Malaya not be perceived as aliens with an agenda countervailing against the nationalism of the conservative parties of the alliance — to whom independence was finally given by the British — then the whole understanding of Malaysian history would have to be revised.

That will not doubt make Malaysia’s history more interesting, but that would also challenge the narrower narratives that we have grown contented with.

Admitting the full mix of passions in the twilight years of British might, and the blend of aspirations found among peoples filled with the vision that they could finally escape colonial control, would allow us today to entertain ideas that are not so strongly nationalistic, ethnocentric or parochial.

A proper study of the post-war period would also reveal a high level of economic duress among urban and rural Malayans. This would go some way towards explaining the officially-assumed political disinterest among most non-Malay Malayans of that time in the process of Merdeka.

The race-based nature of Malaysia’s official history is largely a result of the depiction of the MCP as an alien force that carried little significance in the ideological dynamics of Merdeka.

Through a concentration on the racial nature of major parties, which also avoided the fact that non-conservative parties were not included in negotiations with the British, the conceptual space for race politics was advertently enlarged.

Precisely through the branding of class struggle on the national stage as a sideshow, Merdeka basically became an ethnocentric struggle that has informed Malaysian political thought every since.

Permitting Chin Peng to return would amount to an admission by officialdom that he and his buddies were part of the struggles of the immediate post-war period, and that the left-right political dimension that consumed world politics during that age — which was a major motivation for the British to orchestrate their withdrawal from the region the way they did — was also very much a part of Malaysian political thought. — Today

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (13)

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Joebuddy, May 23, 2009

So said, perhaps the communists may well have played a far more significant role in liberating Malaysia from our colonialists, British, Japanese and then British again. Hooray to Chin Peng.

• 
• +4
• 
• 

...
written by swipenter, May 23, 2009

Chin Peng is part and parcel of this country's struggle against the Japanese and British but he believed in a poltical ideology which was different from the British colonial masters and the aspiring ruling elites who were aiming to take over from the colonial masters in the struggle for independence after WW2. These two forces cannot accept Chin Peng's poltical ideology and so began labelling them as evil and "alien force" and all their fight and struggle against the Japanese and then the British colonialists were part and parcel of a larger plot to conquer Malaya for themselves. Times were different then but to paint him as a personification of evil is not correct and an anomaly.

My mother used to tell us stories of WW2 in her small town in Perak and how the Chin Peng and his men and women fought and protected the villagers from the Japanese soldiers and how these men and women were totured and later beheaded when caught by the latter in order to teach the villagers a lesson not go against them. You will never find this kind of stories in our history books.

Chin Peng is not caught in the past. It is those who opposed his return to his country of birth who are caught in the past.

• 
• +7
• 
• 

...
written by Mighty Shocked, May 23, 2009

If anyone in Malaysia and S E Asia are to read the History of the British in Malaya/Singapore during the Japanese Invasions and Occupation of region will realise right way that Chin Peng was a strong ally of the British Armed Forces in MPAJA___The Malayan People 's Anti-Japanese Army of Liberation of de region.Shortly after the WWII with the Japanese Surrender he was awarded the King's Victoria Cross for Valour in Action in Malaysia,with his March Past with clenched fist salute !The MCP position was that the British didn't honor its obligation for them to share in the Malayan Government and that started the Communist Insurgency Warfare where High Commissioner of Britain Henry Gurney was killed as the UK Representative.

Objective History and Justice should have honored his Return to Sitiawan,Perak,after all he has repudiated and recanted his Communist Ideology of Violent Overthrow of Government!
Mighty Shocked to put it mildly if you were a leading participant in the defence of say the White Cliffs of Dover and thereafter you are banned from setting foot into the foothills of Dover is really the height of injustice and tortiously wronged !

GCWHeng
Boston/MA/USA

• 
• +6
• 
• 

...
written by cty, May 23, 2009

MCP as liberators of Malaya, not likely. MCP was formed to bring Malaya into the brotherhood of communism. Malaya, as in Indochina and Latin America were the battlegrounds in the war between capitalism and communalism. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed for an idealogy which disintegrated in the 90s. Their deaths in vain. There are only winners in war and Chin Peng lost. The lost of right to return in life as he wanted to die here, can be compensated in death. His comrades can spread his ashes around Sitiawan. In death he returns.

• 
• -4
• 
• 

...
written by wan zaharizan, May 23, 2009

Many have the believe that the Communist were the heroes of the independence. It is misleading. Being the grandson of Wahi Anuar the idealism of communist during the pre independence were cluttered. The communist party was founded in 1931 but if you read Abdullah CD book and another book written by an Englishman you notice that communist idealogy reach our shore in 1928.

Nobody ask why were the chinese in Malaya embrace communism(although not all) and embrace them wholeheartedly. The point was many Chinese regard themselves as transient migrators. They were transient immigrants thus their adherent were Mother China. These Chinese who live in the suburban and rural Malaya were supporters of Communist China which were then fighting the Koumitang.

Chin Peng receive his indoctrination about communism from Chinese School and until now the Chinese School are where many leftist idea develop. Do please read the book by Chin Peng. No doubt there are Malays who join the party unwittingly but as my grandfather say they fought a common enemy and it is their hatred to the British that drove many of the Malays to join forces with the Communist. No doubt among them manage to be converted but many were just pure leftist.

Just like the MPAJA was a fighting unit created by the British where the infantry's comprise mostly communist and lead by Chin Peng we can see and deduce even then that Communist were hell bent in arm insurgence and therefore can be regarded as terrorist just like Al Qaeda, IRA or even Japanese Red Army where government must change by force and not democratic means. This was their Mantra and clearly amplified after the Baling talk 1955.

It might pain the writer to acknowledge as such but that is the truth and I maintain they have no idea on how to run a country like Malaya and until the Hadyai agreement they still receive instruction from Communist China and we could safely say the party is just a wing of the Communist Party of China!

But I do maintain that they were Merdeka warriors but definitely not their heroes. And because of humanitarian ground alone he should be given the right to return to his country of birth.

• 
• +10
• 
• 

...
written by AliBaba, May 23, 2009

As a Malaysian Citizen, he should be allowed to return. But he should face justice for the crimes he commited against other malaysians.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by rage against the machine, May 23, 2009

he didnt fought for his country he fought for his idealogy

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Col Zaki Raine (Rtd), May 23, 2009

I still remember the peace agreement and CPM agreed to " layoff arm struggle"
held at Garden Hotel, Hadyai , Thailand in 1989. One must remember, CPM only agreed "layoff arm struggle" but not their political belief. In the Red Book by Chairman Mao said that Communist Political Struggle and Belief never end and TIME will come. There are families of few thousand innocent civilian been murdered by CPM and hundreds of soldiers been killed by CPM still fresh in their mind. I myself lost quite a number fellow officers and soldiers during Communist Insurgency Operations. 350,000 Ex Service Men will not be happy and retaliation is imminent.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by superyoga, May 23, 2009

If the terrorist held under ISA can be released why not Chin Peng?

He is an old man and communist are no more a threat to Malaysia.No one will support Uncle Chin Peng because we do not believe in Communism. it is the Political Masters UMNO who wants to punish the Chinese and Uncle Chin Peng is a Chinese - to tell the Malaysian Chinese not to play with fire and this is the countries for the Malays.

Do not get me wrong, I have Malay friends but I hat UMNO and their cronies for misuing the power and yet praying to Allah every Friday. How hypocritical!!!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by tanmankuan, May 23, 2009

Leaving aside the politics of the merits and demerits of Chin Peng's past, his "request" to return to his homeland should be based on what was agreed at the peace agreement signed between the government and Chin Peng. In this case the Malaysian government has reneged on its commitment to allow him to return home. Not being able to produce his birth certificate ( It was confiscated by the government anyway) to prove that he was born in Malaya is one very lame excuse to deny him his rights to return.In this case Chin Peng has been very obviously played out and betrayed by the Malaysian government.

For those who feel that he should not be allowed to return because of their relatives and friends who were killed or maimed during the war, they are just being emotional. While that may be understandable, they should also not forget the casualties and brutalities suffered by those on the other side or alleged to be on the other side as well. Sadly, which armed conflict is without its casualties and victims? It is what was agreed after the conflict that matters. Lets be fair, even if we cannot be forgiving.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by watever, May 23, 2009

For humanitarian reason for those fighters who lost their lives, family members, friends fighting CMP, CP is better of where he is now..

For those who sympathize with CP, I think you better weight in more your sympathies to those who suffer for CMP atrocities.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Abdul 'Afuw, May 23, 2009

Remember the nenek who was trapped in Korea for so many decades? She, too, didn't have birth certificate or any document to prove that she was Malaysian. Of course, her children could vouch for her. But so can Chin Peng's relatives, I would think. Our Foreign Ministry granted the nenek special dispensation in respect of the documents and Puteri Umno rushed to Korea to see her.

My point is, if the govt says that a person who can's produce documents to prove his Malaysian citizenship cannot be allowed to 'return', they are lying because in the case of the nenek in Korea, the government very clearly showed that it can allow it to happen if it WANTS to. So, stop hiding behind the 'law' and tell the truth that the government does not allow former communist party members to return. But then, the government will still face a problem because it allowed Shamsiah Fakeh and her China-born and bred children to return as citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I think the nenek should certainly be allowed to return. In fact, she should be helped in this matter. As for Shamsiah Fakeh's children, her son Jamaluddin Ibrahim sounds like a very pleasant, sensible and intelligent man. The ideas he expresses concerning Malaysia are very refreshing and we should all be proud that he is a Malaysian.

• 
• +0

Here is another bu in Malay to those who might be interested in the history of Communist in Malaya.
http://matamin.blogspot.com/

This is an article which has found a way to my heart. I always maintain that the country is secular and must remain so. But that does not mean that the law formulated cannot be islamic or comply to Islam. As long as the law is fair and just it is islamic law but whhether it is syariah than let the expert debate. As Tantawi say as long as the country is rule by Muslim and there is fair and just we can call ourselve as an Islamic nation. I agreed but we are not an Islamic state.

Malaysia is a secular country — Fahri Azzat

MAY 22 — There is a swelling momentum recently by the more extreme Islamist sections of the Malay community in spreading the widespread misguided belief that Malaysia is an Islamic nation. They base their claims on Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which provides as follows:

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

Is there any basis to their claim? In a word, no. Let me explain.

Article 3(1) has actually be conclusively and judiciously considered and interpreted in the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55 comprised of a five-man bench: Tun Salleh Abas LP, Wan Suleiman SCJ, George Seah SCJ, Hashim Yeop A. Sani SCJ and Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ (SCJ is short for Supreme Court Justices). The decision was unanimous (or as they say in Malay, sebulat suara) and Salleh himself delivered the judgment and here are the good bits:

“The first point to consider here is the meaning which could be given to the expression ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic religion’ in Article 3 of the Constitution. If the religion of Islam in the context means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies, the argument has no basis whatsoever. On the other hand, if the religion of Islam or Islam itself is an all-embracing concept, as is normally understood which consists not only the ritualistic aspect but also a comprehensive system of life, including its jurisprudence and moral standard, then the submission has a great implication in that every law has to be tested according to this yardstick.

“There can be no doubt that Islam is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities, may they be private or public, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial. This way of ordering the life with all the precepts and moral standards is based on divine guidance through his prophets and the last of such guidance is the Quran and the last messenger is Mohammad S.A.W. whose conduct and utterances are revered. (See S. Abdul A’la Maududi, The Islamic Law and Constitution, 7th Ed., March 1980)

“The question here is this: Was this the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitution? For this purpose, it is necessary to trace the history of Islam in this country after the British intervention in the affairs of the Malay States at the close of the last century.

… [tedious bits of history] …

“… Thus, it can be seen that during the British colonial period, through their system of indirect rule and establishment of secular institutions, Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law of marriage, divorce and inheritance only. (See M.B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-East Asia, 1984)

“In our view, it is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word ‘Islam’ in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter.

… [yawn] …

“It is the contention of Mr Ramdas Tikamdas that because Islam is the religion of the Federation, the law passed by Parliament must be imbued with Islamic and religious principles and Mr Mura Raju, in addition, submitted that, because Syariah law is the existing law at the time of Merdeka, any law of general application in this country must conform to Syariah law. Needless to say that this submission, in our view, will be contrary to the constitutional and legal history of the Federation and also to the Civil Law Act which provides for the reception of English common law in this country.

… [huh? whodat?] …

“We thank counsel for the efforts in making researches into the subject, which enabled them to put the submissions before us. We are particularly impressed in view of the fact that they are not Muslim. However, we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law. Perhaps that argument should be addressed at other forums or at seminars and perhaps, to politicians and Parliament. Until the law and the system are changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.”

It is an excellent decision and one of Salleh’ best decisions. Let us also not forget that it was unanimous. And this decision makes it manifestly clear that our Constitution is secular and not Islamic. Since we have a thoroughly secular Constitution, the effect of this is that we are a secular country. So if any politician tells you otherwise, I hope you take the trouble to correct them. The last person you should consult about the law is a pure politician (by this I mean someone prior to his successful election spent the bulk of his time politicking instead of devoting themselves to honest, hard work). And any comment by them should be treated with the utmost suspicion if not utter contempt, when found to be wanting.

After all, one does not consult an ass about the nature of a baboon.

And now let’s consider the entire first part of that phrase a little more carefully. A highly relevant Federal Court decision is that of Kesultanan Pahang v Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 513, particularly the following passage by Mohd Azmi FCJ (i.e. Federal Court Judge):

“Moreover, for the purposes of the Enactment, s 2(a) defines ‘Malay’ as a person belonging to any Malayan race who habitually speaks the Malay language or any malayan language and professes the Muslim religion. Section 2(b) goes on to state that every Malay born within the State of Pahang shall be deemed to be the subject of the Ruler of Pahang. Therefore, in the context of s 2, an artificial legal person, as opposed to a natural person, cannot be a ‘Malay’ and become subject of the Ruler of Pahang. This is because a corporation cannot speak Malay or any Malayan language and cannot profess Islam. Moreover, since it cannot be born in Pahang, it cannot be deemed to be a non-Malay subject of the Ruler of Pahang. Again, in view of a clear definition of the word ‘Malay’ and the deeming provision in the Enactment, the word ‘persons’ in the expression ‘persons not being Malay subjects of the said Ruler must refer to natural persons (see pp 563 H-I and 564 A)."

And a little more recently, the High Court decision of the irrepressible Justice Hishamuddin Yunus in the decision of Sime Bank Bhd v Tetuan Projek Kota Langkawi Sdn Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 307 where his Lordship wrote the following:

“… On examining the definition of ‘Malay’ in s. 2 of the Kedah enactment, it is my view that the definition only refers to natural persons and not to artifical legal persons such as the defendant.”

What these decisions demonstrate is that a religion such as Islam cannot be ‘held’ by an artificial entity. Islam can only be held by natural persons. This makes sense. An artificial entity is merely a concept given legal force but does not actually exist. I mean just think about it — can XYZ Sdn Bhd be admitted into heaven or even hell for that matter?

Now if a company is seen as an artificial entity — what more a Federation? The Federation is defined in Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution and it is defined as comprising of the following states: Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu. So a Federation is made up of states — again, artificial entities.

So, in law, is there really any meaning to the phrase, “Islam is the religion of the Federation”? If you think you know please tell me. I am all ears. But only to legal or historical arguments. — loyarburok

Syariah Cases in Malaysia sentences against the non Muslim leave much to be desired. What I wrote and comment may not sit well with the readers but I must state my case. I stand corrected if any I said is wrong. In Malaysia Islam and Islamic Courts are under the purview of the Malay Rulers and if the States have no Ruler than it comes under the King thus the Syariah Law within each state can mete different sentences and different rulings or laws can be pass making it a wee bit ridiculous. On top of the un-uniformity of the law, it also suffer from lack of continuity. Sentences by the judges(Kadi ) is not taken as precedent thus new judges has to make or can make new sentences without referring to the past judgment. Thus in Penang when the judge make a ruling for a convert right to go back to her religion was later quash by an appeal base on his (new judge) conviction without referring to the former. This is sad. I also like to refer to certain cases, which I know personally, where one convert just to have a right over their children. This has to stop. The news below shows you a story like it.
This is an article that I comment on. Happy reading the comment and the articles in question.

Carpenter fights wife over baby’s conversion to Islam

KUALA LUMPUR, March 5 — An ethnic Chinese man is challenging the conversion of his baby daughter to Islam by his estranged wife, a lawyer said today the latest interreligious dispute to rock mainly Muslim Malaysia.

Hoo Ying Soon, a 28-year-old carpenter, was shocked when he received a notice two days ago from the Islamic Shariah court granting temporary custody of their 15-month-old daughter to his wife, said his lawyer Tang Jay Son.

He was told that his wife, Chew Yin Yin, 23, embraced Islam on 28 Jan while his daughter was converted on 3 Feb, Tang said.

The couple, both Buddhists, wedded Feb 2007 in southern Negeri Sembilan state but their marriage broke down in Sept, he said.

“Hoo will challenge the conversion of his daughter in the High Court because it was done unilaterally by the mother without the consent of the father. They are not divorced yet,” Tang told The Associated Press.

Religious issues are extremely sensitive in Malaysia, where about 60 per cent of the 27 million people are Muslims. Buddhist, Christian and Hindu minorities have accepted Islam’s dominance but in recent years voiced fears that courts are unfairly asserting the supremacy of Islam, which is Malaysia’s official religion.

Malaysia has a dual court system. Muslims are governed by the Islamic Shariah courts and non-Muslims, civil courts. But interreligious disputes almost always end up in Shariah courts, and end in favour of Muslims.

Tang said Hoo’s wife, who has adopted the name Siti Zubaidah Chew Abdullah, has filed for divorce in the Islamic court with a hearing due later today.

Hoo will seek an injunction in the Shariah court to prevent his wife from taking custody of their child, he said.

He has filed a suit in the High Court to question his daughter’s conversion and to seek guardianship over their child, and wants the Islamic court to wait for the civil court’s decision, he said. The high court has set 10 March for hearing.

“He has no problems with his wife converting to Islam but he feels it is unfair to convert their daughter,” Tang said.

Hoo also is concerned that their child, Hoo Joey, has been renamed Nurul Syuhada Chew Abdullah, which doesn’t carry his surname, he added.

In a high profile case in 2007, an ethnic Hindu woman failed to persuade the civil court to ban her husband, who had embraced Islam, from converting their sons. — AP

The case of Indira Gandhi and Rizuan Abdullah

MAY 7 — Much has been said about this case. I have been quoted twice.

The first quote agrees with the shariah court’s decision, the second does not. Confusion? Most definitely, but not on my part, I hope!

Given the intricacies of the case, the confusion is quite understandable.

However first I need to clarify, the shariah court’s judgement or decision was never discussed. When I was first quoted saying I agreed, I objected. I was then quoted as having said I disagreed! I objected as it was never specifically discussed or referred to. As such agreement or disagreement was never the issue. Anyway, the problem runs deeper than that.

The problem lies in a situation where the two court systems do not talk to one another as though they exist in two different worlds.

Problems involving a Muslim and a non-Muslim are then heard separately and two pronouncements are achieved, each then vying for supremacy. Is there a problem for these two institutions to talk to one another and coordinate in the interests of justice? Are we living in two different worlds or two different countries thousands of miles apart?

I for one do not see the problem for interaction and I definitely see the need.

Even in the times of the Prophet (MPBUH) the Prophet himself would meet with the Jewish scholars in Medina and discussed with them issues of theology and law. Said Ramadan in his book, ‘Islamic Law – Its scope and Equity’ wrote, “Ibn Hisham recorded that the Bayt Al-Midras was an active educational centre for the Jews of Medina during the lifetime of the Prophet. He even used to visit it and answered many questions on Islam.

“When a Jew and Jewess were brought before him in a case of adultery, he called on the Rabbis of the Bayt Al-Midras to consult their knowledge of the Torah for the punishment applicable in the case”.

Living under one leadership it was impossible for there not to be any form of interaction between the two communities. Yet here in Malaysia, under the leadership of Umno/BN, we have a dual system but the two do not talk to one another. It maybe alright if there are no common issues but surely cases like this has happened frequently enough for us to understand the need for such interaction. I am sure the learned personalities who head these institutions are more than capable of finding a just solution if given the chance.

The problem, I believe, is that the Umno/BN government is unwilling to allow such interaction. Believing in their own misconceptions, particularly about Islam and Islamic law, they assume that no common solution can be found and as such have taken it upon themselves to decide for everyone.

A decision by the Cabinet denies the courts, be it shariah or civil, its rightful role. It denied at least one parent his or her right and by so doing, denies the children their rights as well. I disagree with the decision by the Cabinet for these reasons. It short-circuits the process and like all short circuits, gives rise to bigger problems.

In dealing with this issue and those like it, which is not as numerous as some may think given the publicity accorded to it and it’s sensitive nature, we should return to basic principles. The first basic principle is the principle of justice.

The Principle of Justice

As a Muslim, I know that the Islamic courts are supposed to judge justly between the parties concerned, even if one party is Muslim and the other non-Muslim.

Justice is a pivotal principle in the message of Islam. The Quran says in Surah An-Nisaa’ or ‘The Women’ verse 58 : “….and when you judge between men, judge with justice…”.

The Arabic word used is ‘An-Naas’ or men or more correctly ‘people’ and it includes both Muslims and non-Muslims as well as male and female.

Also in Surah Al-Maidah (The Tablespread), in verse 8 Allah says : “…be steadfast for the sake of Allah, being witnesses for justice. And let not your enmity towards a people lead you to act unjustly. Be just as it is closer to being God-fearing…”

Here the warning against being unjust against any particular community, be they Muslim or otherwise is clear. Clearer still is the equating of justice to being God-fearing.

Given the above, the Islamic courts are expected to act justly by acknowledging the rights of both parents over the children. These rights are not recognised by the Cabinet short-circuit which cancels all claims by the parent who converts. Does conversion mean the nullification of these rights? I don’t think so. No, I know it doesn’t..

Islamic law recognises the rights of both parents and although a divorce occurs, plus a conversion, these rights are still intact. The Islamic courts are then to find a judgement which would recognise the rights of both parties and give justice to them both.

The second basic principle is that religion is a matter of belief and conviction resulting from divine guidance. In Islam we call this divine guidance “Hedayah”.

The question of Hedayah

The Quran says in Surah Yunus or Jonah verse 99;

“And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely all who are on the earth would have believed (in Islam) together. Will you then use force on men (An-Naas) in order that they become believers? And no soul can believe except by the permission of Allah and He casts humiliation upon those who do not use their powers of reasoning.”

Those who do not use their powers of reasoning also include those who wish to forcefully convert other people.

Given that religion is a question of Hedayah or Divine Guidance and cannot be forced unto an individual, the best that one can do is to present one’s religion as convincingly as is possible so as to influence the other party. The rest is in the hands of God.

Even the Holy Prophet (MPBUH) adhered to this principle when he had to surrender Abu Jandal to the non-believers of Mecca due to an agreement signed prior to Abu Jandal’s migration to Medina. The Prophet said, “Oh Abu Jandal, persevere and put trust in Allah! Allah will surely find a way out for you and those who are oppressed like you. We have signed a peace treaty with the Quraish. It is imperative that we fulfil the terms of the agreement which was made in the name of Allah and we cannot commit treachery towards them!”

It was a difficult decision but one based on the belief that faith cannot be forced unto someone nor can one be forced into disbelief.

The surrender of Abu Jandal was even more difficult as Abu Jandal was an adult Muslim, converting out of his own free will but such were the circumstances then. And as it turned out Abu Jandal persevered and remained a Muslim even though he was tortured by the Meccans.

The need for Ijtihad

It should be clear to all who study Islam or wish to understand Islam that Islamic law is made up of laws which are divine and as such permanent as well as laws which are opinions expoused by learned jurists. The jurists differ on matters which are of the second category, thus the reason for the existence of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

An example of a difference of opinion between the companions of the Prophet is quoted by Said Ramadan in the above mentioned book. A case was judged by Ali and Zaid, both senior companions of the Prophet (MPBUH). Umar asked the litigant on the judgement given. When the man told him Umar said, “Had I been the judge, I would have decided differently”.

The man then asked, “Why then do you not enforce your decision, you being the Caliph?”. Umar answered, “Had it been a decision based on a specific ordinance of the Quran or the ‘Sunnah’ (The sayings and deeds of the Holy Prophet) I would do so but here it is a matter of opinion and thus we are all equal”.

‘Opinion’ is derived by a process termed according to Islamic juristic terminology as ‘Ijtihad’ or the striving for a solution or decision based on principles derived from the Quran and the Sunnah.

The justification for its use is the discussion between the Prophet and Muadh Bin Jabal on the eve of the latter’s departure to Yemen where he was assigned as a judge. The Prophet asked Muadh, “What will you judge by?” Muadh replied “According to the Quran”.

“What if you do not find it therein?” asked the Prophet. “Then according to the Sunnah of the Prophet”, replied Muadh. “And if you do not find it therein”, asked the Prophet again. “Then I will do Ijtihad (exert myself to form an own judgement which conforms to the objectives of the two initial sources)”, replied Muadh. Thereupon the Prophet said : “Praise be to God who has guided the messenger of His Prophet to that which pleases His Prophet.”

There is a tendency for the Islamic Court to simplify the problem of giving judgement by refering to judgements made from another era and implement it lock, stock and barrel, in our times. This may be acceptable in some of the cases but definitely not all.

This comes from their unwillingness to partake in ‘Ijtihad’ whereas even in the case of the Shafiite school of Islamic Jurisprudence, it is acknowledged by the master himself, meaning Imam Shafii (May God be pleased with him), that juristic opinion can change due to different circumstances and conditions.

This is evident from the existence of his ‘Qaul Qadim’ or ‘early opinion’ and ‘Qaul Jadid’ or new opinion.

When asked about the two Shafii clarified saying that the earlier opinion was based on what he saw then and the new opinion is based on what he sees now.

It is my humble opinion that judgements made in the times of the Abbassid Caliphate, though just and prudent at its time, should not be ‘copied’ without first confirming that the justice intended by its pronouncement is still achieved under our current circumstances when such judgement is implemented.

In other words, our Islamic Jurists of today should not shun nor fear the practice of Ijtihad but should on the contrary revive its practice and fulfill the basic objectives of the Shariah, namely justice.

Conclusion

Based on the two very basic principles and the principle of Ijtihad above, I would venture to say that the case should be handled as follows.

The question of custody be decided in the manner it is decided in any other case. The religion of both parents is put aside when making this decision.

The rights of both parents to teach their children their respective religion is acknowledged and the court is to ensure that both parents are to provide their fullest cooperation in this matter.

The children then decide for themselves their religion of choice when they come of age.

I hasten to add that this is my personal opinion and am willing to stand corrected should what is proposed contradicts the two basic principles mentioned earlier. I am the first to acknowledge that I am not qualified to undertake such a decision but I present the above so as to initiate the necessary discussion on the matter.

For Muslims who wish to see the day when Islamic Law becomes the law of the land, as I do, our ability to prove the justness of the Islamic legal system, especially towards non-Muslims is of utmost importance.

Otherwise why would they wish or allow the Islamic legal system to take precedence? As such, this basic nature of Islamic law, that which emphasises justice for all, needs to be shown and highlighted at all times.

Islamic law should not be seen as a law which discriminates in favour of the Muslims as if that is the perception, then we would have done Islam a great disservice irrespective of the short term ‘gains’ some consider we would have made.

Allah knows best.

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (8)

Show/Hide comments

...

...
written by samuel sing, May 07, 2009

Dear Yb Khaled,

You have put forward a very good argument on behalf of the religion, unfortunately the practical side of syariah law in Malaysia is quite something else. the issue at hand is not and never was the religion but sense of justice and fairness.

Please look at the state of Malaysian syariah laws. Each state has its own, we don't even have a standardised laws in all Malaysian states, just because the Sultans is head of religion, each state then passes laws accordingly.

Secondly please look into the state of women divorced by men. The laws in one state cannot be enforced in another state. Until today there's no women syariah judges, why? To ensure male hegemoney??? How many muslim women who suffer financial difficulties because of the men have run to another state and refuse to pay?

In Malaysia today , the state determines the religion of Muslims, the case of Lina Joy clearly exeplifies the situation. Why is that so, very simple, to ensure there sufficient Muslims vote bank in the country. Syariah laws clearly states that the syariah courts shall detrmine if Muslim can leave his faith. I find this utterly ridiculuos, even in Indonesia they have no such laws.

Furthermore, you fail to mention, the situation where a muslim convert is not obliged in any manner to pay for the maintenance for ex-marital partner or share any property during their marriage. Islamic laws also prohibit non muslims receive any financial compensation in any manner from the muslim.

Until and unless these issues are resolved for the non muslim partner, the question of trusting syariah courts to get fair deal is somewhat elusive to the non muslim. Until today, no syariah court has ordered a muslim convert to pay alimony and wealth distribution and child maintenance to his ex-non muslim partner.

Please correct me if i am wrong on the above matter.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by Penangite, May 07, 2009

Khalid,
How can you have 2 divorced parents teaching their children to follow different religions? Hinduism teaches you about Ahimsa (non-injury), reincarnation, sanskrit mantras and so on. Islam teaches you, among other things, that Hindus are kafirs. If you do that to the children, will you not be confusing the children? How do you expect them to grow up as balanced adults?

Second, as a non-Muslim, why should Indira Gandhi go to a syariah court - when she does not understand the Syariah law? Hypothetically, if the shoe was on the other foot, how would a Muslim like to go to a Jewish or Christian "court"? Even if the Jews/Christians were to tell the Muslim that they would be fair? This suggestion of yours sounds very strange to me.

Here is my view:
The parents entered a contract when they got married. If the man decides to become a Muslim, that's fine, but it is unreasonable to confuse the children with Islam when they have been brought up as Hindus in the first place. Let the children continue to be brought up as Hindus. Let the father continue to have visitation rights (as agreed by civil law). When the children turn say 18 or 21, then the father can speak to his children about Islam. If the children wish to convert at that point, then thats a decision the children make as adults.

This is my view for all combinations of religions - just just for Hindus converting to Islam.

It appears to me that in this case, the guy is using his conversion to Islam to get at his wife for their disagreements. I'm not sure this is due to his love for Islam. And I am not sure Muslims should allow Islam to be "used" in this manner.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by usaid, May 07, 2009

YB Khalid,
Islamic law is something which only confined with provision in Hudud and Qisas, and it's also not only laws for the malays, as islam is universal. The main objective of it is serving justice. In my oppinion our existing laws which can be found in our Statutes can be considered as Islamic, as long as it not contradict with Al-Quran and al-Sunnah. The problem is, our community do not understand this. they only things that islamic law only cutting hand, and stoning ppl to death.Actually it is not the essence of Islamic Law.

YB,
i think it is our duty to make people discover the beauty and 'hikmah' of Islamic system. We are the one to be blame if people keep saying that islam shall be separated from the system. People object to it, because there is no clear example for it. Only if we can show them how peaceful Islam controlled the world in the past..

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by wan zaharizan, May 08, 2009

Let's debate Khalid on Islamic Law as I gather that you should be well verse with it since being a member of the Islamic Party. Is Syariah God's Law, her own words or Inspired by the religion? Tell me Khalid deep within your heart an honest answer. To me it is inspired from the religion thus it is promulgated by people. It's procedures are all man made. Yes. There are God commands on stealing ,adultery, killing a life but others on drinking, fornication, whoring and homosexuality it remain quiet on the sentences. You can find more on how the law was set from the hadiths, yet I maintain it is one's idea of right that make up the syariah law. The evidence law and the commercial law in the Syariah law are terribly outdated and this is a fact.

When we make laws we must rip apart sentimental values that is always a bane with the Malays. They romanticize too much, no wonder the ladies are falling for Shah Rukh khan from Bangladesh for that is the Syche of the Malays. Give them Engleberk Humperdick anytime and they go gaga. Give them a Malay who could recite some verses of the Quran and these people are holy and if they come from Arabia then they become Syed because the malays are foolish and Khalid compare to your brother Sharil you are no where.

Having said that aren't we ask to emulate the Prophet? Do we emulate his persona or his attribute? Where is the hadanah , bijaksana, tawaduk, humilty that we should emulate yet it is the garb that we seek to adorn ourselves with, forgetting it is an Arab Dress. Let's talk about his action in proscribing laws. Some of the law were harsh but it was that time. He was a Muslim leader, he was maasum yet he remind us not to forget he is human. He would cringe in his bed with the maulud festivities because he detest idolism and he ask his followers many times not to worship him but God. Thus he was a man and he was an Arab dispensing laws which in Arab land is fair but not so now. Look at how he dispense justice, remember the lady who committed adultery? She came three times to Muhammad and ask to be punish and each time was ask to go back until the third time. They dug a hole and she was covered up waist high and people start throwing stones at her, she can't stand the pain and she manage to free herself and she ran for her life. The Mob was angry and was going to give chase but stop by the prophet and what did he uttered 'enough she will receive punishment by God let her be'.

Do you understand Khalid that the law must be forgiving and not meant to destroy and be unfair to others and tell me when has the Syariah Law in Malaysia has been fair? From Subhashini case, to Sharmala now Indira and who could forget Moorthy case. Who has a right over a dead body, A widow who took care of her husband selflessly or the Ummah whom after embracing him as a Muslim never ever told the wife and left him to be hindoo and pray to Siva. We might have save his soul but surely we have no right on the vassal who we have neglected!! Has justice been serve or denied. Yet the Muslim would say we cannot burn the body,it is against Islam, who says that!!! Idiots these Malays are for they have forgotten in times of plague we are allowed to burn (jadi harus) so it can be done. After all we do not need the body to pray to our brothers ada sembahyang ghaib!! ingattu Khalid justice was not serve then and do you remember the Chinese Man who was invalid due to a stroke, with a master stroke of the pen his son who is our saudara decided to save him by converting him at his deathbed, and he did not have to recite and not even sign the converting papers, it was only a thumbprint. Yet the Shariah declare he is a Muslim. Why thumbprint is accepted but not DNA?

That is the law of evidence in Islam. What the Cabinet did was fair. It decided for the courts to be impartial because time and again when the judge is Muslim presiding over the case justice seem not be fair. Humans are after all emotional and especially the Malays when it comes to religious judgment can be seen unfair to others, especially concerning religion. Remember our former Lord President Tun Suffian whose wife Bunny died of Cancer. She was Christian, she willed that her body be cremated but when she died her body was taken away by Suffian's brother who claim she has been converted by him and buried against her wishes. In the 70's the people manning the National Mosque were progressive in fact according to RPK they advice him, his wife need not convert but not now. Suffian was from the 70's, he was left in tatters and died not back in Kuala Kangsar but in Kuala Lumpur at someone house. Where was the justice in this case? Tell me Khalid can I trust the man in robe in Malaysia, not at all! Don't be an apologist be a reformist!

• 
• +9