I have posted my comment on this article in Malaysian Insider as usual I doubt it will be printed

Rising religiosity, growing rigidity?

File picture of people sitting on top of a train heading to their hometown in Jakarta to celebrate Hari Raya which marks the end of Islam's holiest month of Ramadan. — Reuters pic

JAKARTA, Oct 31 — When the outgoing regional Parliament in Aceh passed a criminal law last month that condemns adulterers to death by stoning, the uproar reached Indonesia's capital and beyond.

In Depok, a West Java town not far from Jakarta, karaoke lounges were ordered to be shut by the end of this week by Mayor Nur Mahmudi Ismail of the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

Then there was the case of Indonesian beauty queen Qori Sandioriva. She won the Miss Indonesia Universe contest last month as a representative of Aceh but was castigated for not wearing the Muslim headscarf.

A growing desire for all things halal, or permissible in Islam, has even prompted the country's brewery Bintang to produce a non-alcoholic beer called Bintang Zero. More such products could hit supermarket shelves if a Bill before Parliament to require more products to be labelled halal gets passed.

Some Indonesians are expressing concern that such developments are signs of a rise in conservatism and intolerance among Muslims in Indonesia. They say they illustrate the growing assertiveness of some Muslims who have spoken up against everything that offends their religious sensitivities.

“Indonesians are becoming more conservative as some of them even want karaoke lounges shut down,” said Dr Syafii Anwar, director of the Jakarta-based International Centre for Islam and Pluralism. “The Depok mayor is over-reacting to complaints by some Muslims that karaoke lounges are bad.”

He also thinks that growing piety among Muslims is pushing the demand for halal products, “hence the timely Bill on halal labelling”.

Zuhairi Misrawi, the head of the Jakarta-based Moderate Muslim Society, said he senses rising intolerance among some of the country's majority Muslim population.

The Depok mayor could have been pressured by Muslim conservatives in West Java to shut down the karaoke lounges, he said. “It's not unusual,” added Zuhairi.

His organisation, which has an English name, seeks to speak on behalf of the moderates and project the face of peaceful Islam in hopes of convincing Muslims to accept pluralism in culturally diverse Indonesia.

“The problem is that we still have small groups of extremist elements among us,” he said.

The stoning law is applicable only in Aceh province, where Islamic syariah law is allowed. But its passage raised concern that Jakarta could allow such a law to be enacted anywhere in a secular country that trumpets its religious tolerance in its Pancasila Bill of Rights.

Opposition to stoning has come not just from human rights groups and people outside the province, but also many Acehnese themselves.

“This stoning Bill only promotes violence in Islam, which is not what Islam teaches us,” said Fitri, a 25-year-old university student in Banda Aceh. She says she did not expect the law to be enforced, or even remain on the books much longer.

Syariah law lecturer Ismail Hasani, of the Jakarta State Islamic University, said the controversial stoning law contradicts the country's Constitution.

“It criminalises women and minority groups,” he said.

Political science professor Bachtiar Effendy expressed another concern. “Why did the Aceh Parliament focus itself on stoning for adulterers when there are other important issues they can champion such as stamping out corruption and promoting people's welfare?” he asked.

Aceh Governor Irwandi Yusuf refused to sign the law, known as Qanun Jinayat, after it was passed but it became law automatically after 30 days.

The governor has directed the new regional Aceh Parliament to review the law, however.

Regional Parliament Speaker Hasbi Abdullah said in Bandar Aceh on Thursday: “The article on stoning needs to be revised most urgently because it is not suitable for the community in Aceh.”

He said the people of Aceh were not ready for such a law because it went against the spirit of basic human rights.

But the debate over which way to lean will continue among Muslims, even among those who frown on hardline interpretations of Islam.

Dr Bachtiar Effendy, who teaches political science at the State Islamic University in Ciputat, Jakarta, does not think that developments like those in Aceh and his own city are evidence that Indonesians are becoming more conservative.

While not a conservative, he supports the move to close down karaoke lounges in the town. “These lounges are a cover for prostitution,” he said.

An indication that perhaps Indonesians are not keen on conservative Islam was reflected in the April general election. Islam-leaning parties such as PKS, National Mandate Party (PAN) and the United Development Party (PPP) suffered a drop in support from 38 per cent in 2004, to less than 26 per cent.

Analysts said voters seemed to be sending a message on the brand of Islam they preferred.

Even in Aceh, voters booted out the Islamic parties in favour of the nationalist Democratic Party of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the Aceh Party, formed by former separatist rebels.

IN KUALA LUMPUR, the man who heads Selangor's branch of the Islamist party PAS wants beer sales banned in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods.

Datuk Dr Hasan Ali also claims that mosque officials in the state will soon have the power to arrest Muslims for selling and storing alcoholic drinks.

Such a hardline stance, among a slew of other Islamic policies, has raised the hackles of Malaysians of other religions, who say such policies infringe on their own rights.

Malaysia's Muslims, by contrast, have said little or nothing to protest against such policies. “The issue is not whether the measures are accepted. They are already accepted,” said Razak Idris, president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, or Abim. “In the Malaysian Muslim society now, the level of awareness and the commitment to Islamic practices have become very high.”

But political infighting over whether or not to press an Islamic agenda is threatening to split PAS itself.

Some are pushing for policies viewed as hardline. Others want PAS to chart a more moderate path in cooperation with the diverse partners that comprise the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) alliance.

Meanwhile, the mass-selling Malay-language Utusan Malaysia daily and the ruling Umno party are trying to take advantage of the challenges facing the opposition. Ramping up the racial and religious rhetoric, they are warning Malays that Islam is under threat from the rise of PR, with the underlying claim that Umno is more Islamic than PAS.

Indeed, the rise of Islamisation can be traced to 1981, when then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the Inculcation of Islamic Values Policy, an attempt to inject Islamic values into the civil service in order to boost efficiency and reduce corruption. Malaysia was promoted as a model Muslim country.

But it was also a political agenda aimed at challenging the increasingly popular opposition PAS.

In 2001, Dr Mahathir said that PAS's calls for an Islamic state were redundant as Malaysia was already one. PAS was no longer the only party seen as working for Islam — and thus began the political tussle to outdo each other on the Islamic agenda.

But caught in the middle are the moderate Muslims. While groups such as Sisters in Islam (SIS), a non-governmental organisation that advocates justice for Muslim women, and former Umno member and Cabinet minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who is now Parti Keadilan Rakyat's latest recruit, have protested against such developments, few others have raised their voices.

Razak believes that this is because most Muslims accepted such moves as necessary to maintain a model Islamic society. “Consuming or selling alcohol contradicts tenets of Islam. The majority of Muslims accept such actions by the government,” he told The Straits Times.

“I am not sure if these measures can be described as increased Islamisation. It is prevention to maintain social harmony among Muslims.”

Others believe it is not that easy to read the prevailing mood. While it is true most Muslim women wear a scarf today — an oddity in the 1970s — some activists feel most remain moderate.

Datuk Marina Mahathir, the daughter of Dr Mahathir who has been outspoken on women's issues, said it is the fear of being seen as un-Islamic that keeps the silent majority from speaking out against hardline policies.

“People are silent due to the fear of being attacked by those who claim to have better religious credentials,” she told The Straits Times. “But we are not questioning Islam; we are questioning man-made laws. If we let it be and don't fight them, they might well win. Even if we seem to be in the minority, we can't keep quiet.”

Marina pointed out that the kind of snoop squads that Terengganu has proposed to spy on couples can be prone to abuse. “You have this in Saudi Arabia, Iran,” she said. “These are hardly examples of moderate Muslim countries, and yet we are trying to portray ourselves as that.”

On a lighter note, political commentator Farish Noor lamented in a recent column that all fun had been stamped out of Hari Rayaï when “mullah-wannabes began to preach from the pulpit about the evils of fun and happiness”. He wrote: “We were told that music was haram (meaning 'forbidden'), that the oil lamps were Hindu, that fireworks were decadent and corrupt.”

Still, such controversies do not really bother Mariam Abdullah, 30, or her friends. She sees herself as a typical middle-class working mother.

She said she wears the scarf only because her mother and husband tell her to. She conceded that there are some Muslims who would be upset by strict Islamic rules, but added: “I don't know them.”

She said: “Most people don't care or mind. The older folk are fine with it, and nobody I know is complaining.” She condemned groups such as the SIS for being “too liberal”, and critics who oppose hudud laws, which prescribe stoning for adulterers and amputation for thieves.

Abim's Razak said it would be unpopular for the government to apply policies that defied Islam these days. The challenge now was “to promote an Islam which is moderate in its values and modern in approach and flexible in its views”.

He added: “It is going to be a challenging task with the current clash between conservative and liberal Islam. But if you compare Malaysia with other Muslim countries, we are more open in our approach.” — Straits Times

My Comment

I am a teetotaler I do not drink but i found it disturbing that we Muslim are engross so much with food and drink. In this hadiths below When Muhammad pbuh was ask about the 7 deadliest sin. Drinking, Screwing or Eating Pork was not describe as part of the 7th in fact Killing one's life, Shirk and even Magic which the Malays love to commit are the top three. Read it here. I wonder why? Although later many Ulamak decided all these 3 are big sin but does that make one infidel (indulging in those 3) i wonder? Yet in Surah Al Ikhlas, which is said it is 3 part of the Quran, it mention only God and about him nothing else. It make me wonder more? Yet when we were extol by Muhmmad to seek knowledge and to do trade i.e. indulge in business Malays Muslim love to sit in a coffee shop and play dam(checkers), is that how Muslims should behave? We reside and take refuge in another country and yet refuse to obey the land of that country whence you take refuge? When the first hijrah was made to Ethiopia by Muslim seeking refuge from persecution from the Quraish, they never tell the Emperor he is wrong but only make known about their religion. All they want to do is to practice their religion and it was granted. Why?, now Muslims believe they have right, when seeking refuge in another country, to ask them they must change their law, although we are the one who come to them uninvited now seek to dictate terms, how ungrateful we are?

About the Ulamak I do not believe them for to me they are men thus tend to make mistake, and like all men their ego is sometimes too big for their feet,why I said so. Here is an example.Well in the olden days slaves(whether male or female) are allowed to see the hair of her master, It was not haram? why two set of rules by the Ulamak? are you saying slaves is less than human then? What about Bilal was he not a slave and when was it permissible for Muslims then that they can keep slaves, even in Malaya debtor slaves still exist until early part of 20th century? To me as far as I know Slaves are abhorrent to Islam so if an Ulamak who is regarded as 'pewaris nabi' concur to this then my foot to them!

Here is the hadiths

There is some difference of opinion among scholars in this regard. Some say these major sins are seven, and in support of their position they quote the tradition: "Avoid the seven noxious things"- and after having said this, the prophet (SAW) mentioned them: "associating anything with Allah; magic; killing one whom Allah has declared inviolate without a just case, consuming the property of an orphan, devouring usury, turning back when the army advances, and slandering chaste women who are believers but indiscreet." (Bukhari and Muslim)

And here's the catch to more puzzlement with the Ulamak. In Acheh death by stoning is for Adulterers but for Homosexuals even caught in the act the sentence is whipping? What gross injustice is that? There is a famous hadiths that quote that Homosexuals are not of my flock!, I leave it at that!! It is certain that infidelity in the Quran the punishment is whipping. It is stated so, stoning only came from the hadiths. I always feel the Quran as the word of God is more valid than hadiths although punishment following the hadiths to me is not wrong but when there is a feeling of injustice being made or done than go to the Al Quran. Hadiths sometime magnify the implementation of just law and since it was prevalent during that time to punish adulterers with that than it was implemented. Now, situation is different, if law could be pass on slaves because it was acceptable than although frown by God than certainly Islamic law must reflect the prevailing circumstances now and the law must reflect the idea of a just society of this time as long as the spirit of the Quran magnified by the hadiths is adhered to!!!

I was to write this article immediately after i wrote to Bakri Musa but was tied up with reading articles worth noting in my blog. I do respect Bakri Musa as a learned Man. He is a surgeon and live in US with I might assume his non Malay wife. You can read his blog here http://www.bakrimusa.com I have no problem with him. In fact the comment were meant for Malaysian Insider and although i try to post it on his blog it was later remove. He don't take too kindly to my harsh word.

This is the trouble with the so call intellectual Malays or the new elites, they don't take kindly to criticism yet they write articles without checking the facts. In Malaysia you must know how the government machinery works before you comment. To be fair his idea of the MTAB board sounds fair(Malaysian Tobacco Alcohol Board) but the implementation of it could never really happen.

Let's talk about Alcohol. As a Doctor and a Malaysian he should understand that we inherit the laws from the English and modified it according to our nation needs. So far it works well. Alcohol is divided in Malaysia into two types. Beverages and Hard Liquor. Selling of Alcoholic Beverages is not control. We still have toddy house run by the Customs in certain places like Klang. Alcoholic beverages like Beer, Samsu Shandy(yes it does contain alcohol you nitwit!)etc is sell openly and any coffee shop could sell it without having any license. Control for the Muslims is by the State Religious Authorities and not the police. So far we don't have any laws regarding it, Alhamdullilah! I hate when personal liberties is curtail!!! As far as i am concern, as a plural society we can't have one religious uniform law for all, it is ridiculous!!!!

Hard liquor is sold if you have the license to sell it. Today in the notice section of Star you can find a notice of a person who has apply for a license from City Hall to sell Liquor. Yes Hard Liquor cannot be sold without the consent of the Licensing and Excise Board of the respective Municipal, Town or City Council. And the License is only open for Non Muslims. Malays being Muslims are not allowed to hold the license and it has been in force for years!!! That is why in Shah Alam you will never have a pub ( or a cinema) because the City council would never approve it unless the Sultan say ok!! The Sultan, God bless him was the one responsible who gave the consent for Holiday Inn (now Quality Hotel) to have a disco thus a liquor license in 1987 if I am not mistaken!!! He says that Disco is good for your health for it provide you lot of exercise!!!! That was the end of no liquor in Shah Alam but only in Hotels!!!! Recently Dr Hassan Ali, the idiot State Assemblyman from who knows where, but he is the State exco for Islam in the State Government, went into crusade trying to shut down 7- eleven and hop it and stopping them for selling Alcoholic Beverages, (a 24 hours retail shop to stop selling Beer or soft liquor). I was stupidfied because Giant and Tesco, big hypermarket chain have to stop selling Beers!! It does not make sense but luckily the Groovy Sultan of Selangor decided to call Hassan Ali to the Istana. The rest is history!!!!

If you read the blog by M Bakri Musa now, he plays the liberal,OMG!!! how vain he is!!! I always quote a hadiths that say Alcohol was one of the 7 biggest sin for Muslims. I was wrong it was not in that hadiths. To Muslims there must be aware that the 'ayat' forbidding Muslims to consume Arak did not come in one commandment. It came gradually in fact there were 3 verses that touch on liquor. The last verse make it a sin for Muslim to consume!!!

Here is the hadiths i was saying which i make a mistake

There is some difference of opinion among scholars in this regard. Some say these major sins are seven, and in support of their position they quote the tradition: "Avoid the seven noxious things"- and after having said this, the propeht (SAW) mentioned them: "associating anything with Allah; magic; killing one whom Allah has declared inviolate without a just case, consuming the property of an orphan, devouring usury, turning back when the army advances, and slandering chaste women who are believers but indiscreet." (Bukhari and Muslim)

Tujuh Dosa-dosa Besar Yang Utama (In Malay)

(matan lihat dalam email)

Intisari:

a. Terdapat 7 dosa besar yang utama sebagaimana berikut:

1. Mensyirikkan Allah
2. Melakukan sihir
3. Membunuh manusia
4. Memakan harta anak yatim
5. Memakan harta riba
6. Melarikan diri daripada peperangan
7. Menuduh perempuan baik melakukan zina.

b. Di antara tujuh kesalahan utama ini, hanya dua sahaja yang jatuh dalam kategori hukuman hudud iaitu
kesalahan mensyirikkan Allah yang boleh membawa kepada hukuman murtad dan kesalahan qazaf iaitu
menuduh orang berzina.

c. Terdapat satu sahaja kesalahan yang boleh dikenakan hukuman qisas iaitu membunuh orang.

d. Semua kesalahan ini dijanjikan Allah dengan balasan neraka dan laknat.

I will try to explian my thoughts and idea why the hadiths does not mention liqour as a big sin but many Ulamak would come to the conclusion that it is a big sin which i shall reserve my comment.
Other scholars cite evidence that Islam's major sins are actually much greater in number.

These religious scholars define major sins as acts which are expressly forbidden in the Qu'an or by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), or for which there is a hadd punishment under Islamic law. A hadd punishment is a punishment specified by Allah in the Qur'an.

Under this definition, the list of major sins includes (but is not limited to) the following acts:

• Worshiping others, or associating partners with Allah (shirk)
• Believing in superstition, fortune telling and astrology
• Using magic or sorcery
• Committing murder
• Committing suicide
• Bearing false witness
• Committing adultery or fornication
• Cheating, stealing, and lying
• Charging or paying interest or usury (riba)
• Consuming pork or alcohol
• Consuming the wealth of an orphan
• Not fasting for Ramadan
• Not observing daily prayers
• Not paying zakat (annual charity)
• Gambling
• Oppression and unjust leadership
• Bribery, betraying trusts and breaking contracts
• Backbiting and slandering
• Breaking the ties of kinship
• Disobeying or not honoring one's parents

Minor Sins in Islam

Minor sins are acts which are displeasing to Allah but for which no specific punishment or severe warning has been issued. In this case, a Muslim's conscience and heart help him to know that an act is sinful.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Righteousness is good character, and sin is that which wavers in your heart and which you do not want people to know about." (Muslim)

Minor sins are not, however, to be taken lightly, as disobeying Allah is always a serious matter. Allah says: “You counted it a little thing, while with Allah it was very great.” (Qur'an 24:15)

Minor sins can easily lead someone to commit a major sin, and repeatedly committing a minor sin will change its status to that of a major sin.

Furthermore, habitual sinning causes a Muslim to lose faith and disregard the commandments of Allah. In the Qur'an, Allah says: “Nay, their hearts have been sealed by the sins they have accumulated.” (Qur'an 83:14).

Forgiveness and Expiation in Islam

Scholars agree that while good deeds and extra acts of worship help expiate minor sins, they won't compensate for major sins. Instead, a Muslim must make sincere repentance for major sins by showing genuine remorse, praying for Allah's Mercy and Forgiveness, and avoiding that sin in the future.

Only a person who avoids major sins will have good deeds such as charity, praying, or fasting accepted as expiation for minor sins. Allah says: “If you shun the great sins which you are forbidden, We will do away with your small sins and cause you to enter an honorable place of entering.” (Qur'an 4: 31)

Shirk, however, is the one sin which Allah will not forgive. "Verily, Allah forgives not that partners be set up with Him (in worship) but He forgives other than that to whom He pleases; and whoever sets up partners with Allah (in worship), he has indeed invented an enormous wrong." (Qur'an 4:48)

Remembrance of Allah

A Muslim should strive at all times to remember Allah, as this helps him refrain from sins of the tongue, heart, mind and hands. As Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid advises on Islam-qa.com, "The Muslim should not look at how small or great the sin is, rather he should look at the greatness and might of the One Whom he is disobeying."

For related reading, see Sincere Repentance and Do Muslims Believe in Original Sin?

Sources:

• Islam-qa.com
• Islamonline.net
• Major Sins in Islam, Compiled and Translated into English by Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqi, International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi (1988).

The copyright of the article Major and Minor Sins in Islam in Quran & Hadith Studies is owned by Christine Benlafquih. Permission to republish Major and Minor Sins in Islam in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol

Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)

The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all intoxicating liquor or drug.

The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and (divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork; Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."

Here is an Interview with karim Raslan which appear in Straits Times Singapore

The view from middle Malaysia

By Cheong Suk-Wai

SINGAPORE, Oct 27 — As a young lawyer starting out at the law firm of Skrine & Co in Kuala Lumpur, Karim Raslan helped prepare cases for his colleague Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein, the son of Malaysia’s third premier Tun Hussein Onn and now the Home Minister.

Raslan, now 46, soon found himself having lunch often with Hishamuddin and his family. But he was no stranger to such a rarefied world, being himself the second son of the late Mohammad Raslan Toh Muda Abdullah, Malaysia’s first Accountant-General who, among other achievements, founded Bank Bumiputra (now CIMB Bank) and Pernas International Holdings.

The financier died in a car crash when he was just 40, leaving his English wife, Dorothy, to bring up their three sons. Today, Raslan’s elder brother, Johan, is executive chairman of accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers in Malaysia and his younger brother, Kam, is a writer.

Raslan gave up practising law not long after founding his own law firm, Raslan Loong, in the 1990s.

“I’m not a paperwork person,” he says. “I’m a restless soul.”

That restlessness has seen the Cambridge University alumnus writing weekly columns which are run in Malay, English and Chinese dailies and magazines in Malaysia and the region. He is the only Malaysian columnist with that wide a reach.

His columns have been collected in three books under the banner Ceritalah (Malay for “tell a story”), the latest being Ceritalah 3: Malaysia — A Dream Deferred, which he launched in Singapore in August.

Since 2001, he has divided his time between Kuala Lumpur and Bali and runs a 45-strong regional media and communications consultancy called KRA.

In town recently, he took time to chew the fat with me on the future of Singapore’s neighbours:

The world keeps getting bigger but the minds of Malaysia’s Malays have stayed small, some say. What say you?

This is the logical conclusion of 22 years of Malaysia Boleh under Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad), Melayu Boleh and Melayu Baru. It’s kind of a crass nationalism that Dr Mahathir mediated himself. Also, we are not being well-served by our mainstream Malay language media, which has taken an aggressively extreme path. That is a reflection of how outdated Umno’s way of thinking is.

What happened to Umno’s consensual approach to sharing power with Malaysia’s minorities?

It’s been sidelined.

Why and how so?

Partly because (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) and his Parti Keadilan Rakyat have taken the middle ground. After the March 2008 general election, there was a sense that Umno should take back that ground. But there came an angry refusal from Umno, that it can’t bow to the Chinese and Indians, that it has to strengthen its position first before negotiating with others. All my friends, everybody, went over to that side. So I’m kind of a lone voice here.

Why is Umno persisting on that path?

For so long, they’ve had this idea of the Umno Supreme Council being the centre of power, and the Malaysian Cabinet somehow being second to that.

Well, let’s see.

The Liberal Democratic Party has just lost in Japan, so I’m not particularly upbeat on Umno’s chances.

You criticise Umno a lot, but then you yourself have benefited greatly from Umno’s policies. How do you live that down?

I’ve always been very open about that. I am a product of the elite.

What, to you, would be optimal Malay unity?

The idea of Malay unity is ridiculous... The Malay community now is so diverse, from rural communities in Kelantan to provincial cities to urban Malays. We’re all different. Get over it and start representing our different interests.

But aren’t Malay interests already well-represented?

Good, solid middle-class Malays don’t have access to politics, so they can’t get all the juicy jobs. So they want things as fair as possible, (hence) their interests are becoming more and more aligned with those of the middle class of every race.

So what are you telling their leaders?

I keep telling MPs I meet: “You listen to me. I write for the media... You treat me like dirt, you are treating my readers like dirt.” They don’t like it, but that’s life.

What about your views don’t they like?

They feel that I am maybe too much of an apologist for Umno. And then some in Umno feel I am too critical of them... What I would say is that what I write comes out in the English, Malay and Chinese (media), so I have to write for middle Malaysia. That’s the world I’m from.

No, you’re not.

Maybe I’m not, but that’s who I write for.

Being so privileged, why do you care at all for middle Malaysia?

Privilege comes with responsibility.

Why then have you based yourself in Indonesia?

We’re so used to it being the sick man of South-east Asia... But what emerged from the financial crisis is the importance of critical mass and size. Indonesia has that and investors are realising that they have to be there for future growth.

For example, Research In Motion, which produces the Blackberry, has come under a lot of fire in Indonesia because it’s tried to distribute its products without service centres there. The Indonesian government has said: “No, you open proper service centres here. Why should we have our instruments serviced in Singapore?’ It is also saying to its citizens: “Hey, you, why are (your companies) listed on Singapore’s stock exchange when you are Indonesian?’

So it’s an economic power shift.

A political and diplomatic one, too. Look at the G-20. Indonesia is now there on its own account... You know how Singapore has used its ability to speak for Asean in Washington as part of its diplomatic leverage? That’s going. Totally.

How so?

The relationship between Jakarta and Washington is going to be direct, with Singapore and Malaysia now secondary. Indonesia is (America’s) big, strategic (prize) and... big source of resources. — The Straits Times

An affair with Spencer Tracy

Here is an article worth reading. i despised MP Zulkifli Noordin for the same reason Art Harun wrote this article

Zul Noordin and PKR — the lame and the lamer

OCT 26 — I read with absolute disbelief what the Bandar Baru Kulim MP Zulkifli Noordin had proposed in his private member Bills in Parliament. I am even more astounded — not to mention bitterly angry — that PKR has not seen it fit to read the riot act in full DTS 6.1 mode to Zul Noordin.

The antics of Zul Noordin are well documented. During one Federal Court hearing, in one of those conversion cases, this guy actually stood up in open court and questioned the "Muslimness" of Malik Imtiaz just because he disagreed with what Imtiaz was saying. Later, he and some thugs were involved in stopping a discourse on conversion to Islam which was going on at the Bar Council auditorium.

This guy fashioned himself as the defender of Islam. I do not have any qualms if anybody wants to defend his marbles and his pussies. It is none of my business. But if by defending Islam it means that he can impose his personal values and beliefs on me, and others, well, I bleeding well have a problem with that!

I believe Zul Noordin was given a show-cause letter by PKR over the Bar Council fracas. What has happened to that show-cause letter? Was there a disciplinary proceeding brought against Zul Noordin? If so, what was the recommendation? Why, may I ask, has there been no action taken by PKR against this guy for having blatantly gone against the principles of the party time and again? Is PKR condoning him? Or tacitly approving what he has been doing? Or is PKR only good at talking and frothing at the mouth with nice little speeches about freedom and constitutionalism?

This is what Zul Noordin is proposing in the Parliament. He is proposing that the Federal Constitution be amended as follows:

Article 3 be amended to include the following words, namely, "Islam is the religion for the Federation, including in terms of the law and syariah."

Article 4 of the Federal Constitution must be amended to add in the words “the Constitution is the primary law of the Federation and except for the Islamic law and syariah, any other law that is passed and that contradicts it must be void for as long as it is contradictory.

Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution on the question of changing the religion for Muslims be amended to include the words "“including changing his/her religion except for Muslims which must comply with the Islamic law and syariah. For the followers of Islam, the question of converting into or abandoning Islam must be determined by the Syariah Court which has absolute power over it”.

Malaysia Today — quoting a Bernama report — quoted Zul as saying that Article 3 must be amended "to ensure that the facts on the position of Islam were not manipulated and misinterpreted by certain groups to give the impression that Malaysia was a secular state." He also was quoted as saying: “The fact is that Malaysia is not a secular state, but a nation that puts Islam as the religion for the federation, thus the amendments to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, as suggested, will clarify the position with regard to the status of the country without any doubt.”

It doesn't take a law professor to tell us the far-reaching consequences of the proposed amendments, if passed. It will practically put Syariah law above the Federal Constitution itself! This is because the proposed Article 4 would only render void any law, OTHER THAN SYARIAH LAW, if such law contradicts the Federal Constitution. What will that make Malaysia? I shall leave it to your imagination.

So, what if one day, after the amendment, MPs, by a majority, decide to have a consultative body (the Islamic Syura Council) to govern this country. It is against the Federal Constitution, of course. But it is not void because Article 4, after the amendment, say that Islamic and Syariah law which contradicts the Federal Constitution is not void. Wouldn't Malaysia then be ruled by the Syura? And mind you, non-Muslims cannot be a member of the Syura. El fantastico!

This lunacy must stop! And I wonder why PKR is not even moving a blinking finger! Is PKR full of nutters?

And I would advise Zul Noordin and his ilk — lest they would repeat their statement that Malaysia is not a secular country like a cheap scratched CD — to at least read our history. And don't just read like a parrot but please understand it as well.

What does our history say about this?

First of all, the Reid Commission considered whether to make Islam the religion of the state. This is because, the Alliance Government — and this means the three main parties, namely, Umno, MIC and MCA — submitted a memorandum to include such provision. If the Alliance, which consists of MCA and MIC unanimously said so in the memorandum, might I ask whether the MCA and MIC would have agreed that Malaysia be made an "Islamic state" rather than a secular country? Go figure! This is what the Reid Commission report says:

"In the memorandum submitted by the Alliance it was stated — “the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religions and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.”

And what was the commission's view on this request? Well, Zul et al, this is its view:

"There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the states with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the Federation by legislation or otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims. The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis."

From the above, it is clear that the Commission initially decided not to mention that Islam shall be the religion of Malaysia in the Constitution. That was because the Federal Constitution, as drafted then, did not affect the position of Islam at all. It is of paramount importance to know what had swayed the commission's decision. This will give a clue:

"The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that counsel for the Rulers said to us — ‘It is Their Highnesses’ considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim faith or Islamic faith be the established religion of the Federation. Their Highnesses are not in favour of such a declaration being inserted and that is a matter of specific instruction in which I myself have played very little part.’ Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid is of opinion that a declaration should be inserted in the Constitution as suggested by the Alliance and his views are set out in his note appended to this Report."

So, here we go. It was the view of the Council of Rulers that there shall be no provision in the Federal Constitution to the effect that Islam shall be the religion of the Federation. Isn't that clear enough as to the status of Malaysia now?

It is clear that the fact that Islam is the official religion wasn't even supposed to be in the Federal Constitution. And who wanted that? None other than the Council of Rulers. Is it possible than to argue that Malaysia is supposed to be a non-secular country or an Islamic state (whatever that may mean!)?

However, what happened was the Reid Commission was not unanimous on this issue. A member of the commission, Mr Justice Abdul Hamid, was of the opinion that the view of the Alliance in their memorandum should be given effect. He therefore wanted that it be mentioned in the Constitution that Islam is the religion of the state. And that was all. He did not suggest that Malaysia was to be a non-secular country. This non-secularity only arose when people like Zul Noordin woke up in the morning after a bad dream and started to be delusional! And the party of which he is a member is lame enough not to do anything to him!

For the sake of clarity — lest I would be accused of being unclear — this is what Mr Justice Abdul Hamid said in his "note of dissent" in the Reid Commission report:

"It has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the state...

“As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted in the Constitution either after Article 2 in Part I or at the beginning of Part XIII.

“Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practise and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim.

“A provision like one suggested above is innocuous. Not less than 15 countries of the world have a provision of this type entrenched in their constitutions."

Mr Justice Abdul Hamid then noted that:

Among the Christian countries, which have such a provision in their constitutions, are Ireland (Art. 6), Norway (Art. 1), Denmark (Art. 3), Spain (Art. 6), Argentina (Art. 2), Bolivia (Art 3), Panama (Art. 1), and Paraguay (Art. 3). Among the Muslim countries are Afghanistan (Art. 1), Iran (Art. 1), Iraq (Art. 13), Jordan (Art. 2), Saudi Arabia (Art. 7), and Syria (Art. 3). Thailand is an instance in which Buddhism has been enjoined to be the religion of the King who is required by the Constitution to uphold that religion (Constitution of Thailand (Art. 7)). If in these countries a religion has been declared to be the religion of the state and that declaration has not been found to have caused hardships to anybody, no harm will ensue if such a declaration is included in the Constitution of Malaya. In fact, in all the constitutions of Malayan states a provision of this type already exists. All that is required to be done is to transplant it from the state constitutions and to embed it in the Federal.

So, YB Zulkifli ibnu Noordin, may I ask since when has Malaysia become a non-secular country?

Do you need further evidence? Well, let me reproduce what a British parliamentarian said when debating the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill (which was later passed and effectively and legally established Malaysia as a sovereign country).

"On religion, the Reid Commission recommended, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) pointed out, that there should be no mention of state religion in the Constitution. It is now inserted in Article 3, but is so watered down by the later Articles that I do not think there can be any real fear of a non-secular state being created. I think the Secretary of State has resisted pressure put on him for the creation of a non-secular state, and the present provisions should satisfy other religious communities, although there is this mention of the state religion." — Mr Graham Page (Crosby).

The Reid Commission later, in its proposal, remarked at paragraph 57 as follows:

"There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular state, and every person will have the right to profess and practise his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by state law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion."

Apart from that, we also have judicial pronouncements by our courts on the matter.

Zul Noordin is a practising lawyer. I would therefore presume that he knows his law. May I bring his attention to what Tun Salleh Abas said in Che Omar bin Che Soh vs PP [1999] 2 CLJ 780:

"For example, the establishment of the Federated Malay States in 1895, with the subsequent establishment of the Council of States and other constitutional developments, further resulted in the weakening of the ruler's plenary power to such an extent that Islam in its public aspect had become nothing more than a mere appendix to the ruler's sovereignty. Because of this, only laws relating to family and inheritance were left to be administered and even this was not considered by the court to have territorial application binding all persons irrespective of religion and race living in the state. The law was only applicable to Muslims as their personal law. 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.

“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."

Later, Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, in Saravanan Thangathoray vs Subshini and Another [2007] 2 CLJ 451, after referring to the above passage, said:

"It follows from the dichotomous approach adverted to by Lord President Salleh Abas that our constitutional jurisprudence is secular..."

The position is very clear. Malaysia is a secular country. It is not an Islamic state. The Reid Commission said it. The British Parliament in its debate said it. Our courts said it. Which part of the word "secular" does Zul Noordin have problem understanding?

Now, accepting that that is what the Federal Constitution provides, would it be too far-fetched to say that all of us reasonable minded Malaysians would want this country to remain what it is?

If so, why is Zul Noordin and some high priests in PAS so enthusiastic in pursuing this Islamic state agenda? And why, for heaven’s sake hasn't PKR done anything to this guy?

Lame, if you asked me!

Spencer Tracy was an actor I greatly admired. He was a character actor and people like him comes few between. Today the matinee shows the film Guess who's coming to dinner. it was his last film, 3 weeks after the film was completed he die age 67 in 1967. i was just 6. Guess who's Coming to Dinner has been one of my perennial favourites. It tackles racism and in 1967 it is a big deal. Even now the movie is relevant. Here's the trailer










The lyrics to Glory of Love


You've got to give a little, take a little
And let your poor heart break a little
That's the story of,
That's the glory of love

You've got to laugh a little, cry a little
Until the clouds roll by a little
That's the story of,
That's the glory of love

As long as there's the two of us
We've got the world and all its charms
And when the world is through with us
We've got each other's arms

You've got to win a little, lose a little
Yes, and always have the blues a little
That's the story of,
That's the glory of love

That's the story of,
That's the glory of love

His great love was Katherine Hepburn. They never marry because Tracy was a Catholic and was already married. She never remarried after her affair with Spencer. They live together until he breath his last for 26 long years.Katherine Hepburn died in 2003 after staring in another great film On Golden Pond. I dedicate this article to Aisya may she find true love and never give up.

His wonderful monologue in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner 1967

This is a piece written by Tengku Razaleigh. Compare to Malays now his past should be read and remembered. This is the Malay of Tunku cloth not Tun Mahathir. We wish this type of Malay would return but sadly his life and thoughts would be just memories of past and future unfulfilled.

A Constitution of Consensus*

with 2 comments

I am honoured that you have asked me to address you today. I am not a scholar. All I can offer today are the personal views of a Malaysian who has seen a little of the history of this marvelous country, and tried to play my part in it.

I say a marvelous country, because Malaysia, for all its frustrations and perils, is truly special, truly beautiful. We are a coming together of communities, cultures, traditions and religions unlike anything anywhere else. It is not in political sloganeering or in tourist jingos that we find our special nature. We recover it only by paying attention to the concrete details of our everyday life and our particular history. Wonder is found in the details.

Remembering our stories

Let me tell you a story:

I grew up in Kota Bharu. My father was fond of Western cuisine and had a Hainanese cook who prepared the dishes he enjoyed.

One day, while the cook was feeding the tigers in our home, a piece of meat got stuck in between the bars of the cage. – I should explain that we had a mini zoo in our home. My father was fond of animals and we shared a home with tigers, a bear, crocodiles and other creatures in the compound. The animals were very fond of my father. The tigers would come up to him to have their backs stroked. The bear would accompany him on his walks around the garden. The crocodiles made their escape in one of Kota Bharu’s annual floods, which I always remember as a happy time because of the water sports it made possible. My father sent us out to look for them. What he expected us to do when we found them I am not sure. –

To return to my story, one day the cook was feeding the tigers, and a piece of meat got stuck between the bars of the cage. The cook tried to dislodge it. As he did so, he failed to notice the tiger. The tiger swatted his hand. Within twenty four hours, our poor cook was dead from the infection caused by the wound.

Our family was in grief. He was dear to us all. He had no known relatives. So my father took it upon himself to arrange a full Chinese funeral for the cook, complete with a brass band and procession, and invited all the cook’s friends. We children followed in respect as the process wove its way through the town.

Your own stories, if you recall the actual details, will be no less strange than my own. Some of the details here might scandalize people in these supposedly more enlightened times. They don’t fit into the trimmed down, sloganized narratives of who we are and how we came to be. This is over the years we have allowed politics to tell us who we are and how we should remember ourselves. We have let political indoctrination, jingoism, and a rising tide of bad taste overcome our memory of ourselves. We have let newspapers, textbooks and even university courses paint a crude picture of who we are, what we fear and what we hope for. This depletes our culture, but there is also a political consequence:

The picture that our current politics paints of us is devoid of wonder, and therefore of possibility.

Our politics has become an enemy of our sense of wonder. Instead it has sown doubt, uncertainty and fear. These are disabling emotions. It is not by accident that authoritarian regimes everywhere begin their subjugation of people by cutting them off from their past. Systematically, they replace the richly textured memories of a community that make people independent, inquisitive and open with prefabricated tales that weaken them into subjugation through fear and anxiety. They destroy the markers of memory, the checks and balances of tradition and institution, and replace them with a manufactured set of images all pointing to a centralized power.

Our path to the recovery of a sense of nationhood is not through an equally crude reaction, but through a retrieval of our personal and collective memory of living in this blessed land and sharing it each other. The work done by the contributors to this volume are part of a civilizing project to bring to light the fine detail of who we are, against the politicised and commercialised caricatures that have made our racialised politics seem natural and inevitable.

Our own stories, individually and as a country, are full of curious processions, walking bears, and escaped crocodiles. We should begin to wonder again at this amazing country we find ourselves sharing. In that wonder we shall recover what it is we love about being who we are, who we are amongst, and we shall more fiercely defend not just our own, but each others’ freedoms.

A Constitution of Consensus

One place for us to begin this process together is our Federal Constitution.

The spirit in which Malaysia came to be is captured in our Constitution. At the moment of our independence, Malaysia possessed firm foundations in the rule of law and was permeated with a spirit of constitutionalism.

The pledge contained within the proclamation of Independence says that “…with God’s blessing [Malaysia] shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent State founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of a just peace among all nations.”

The Constitution is the ultimate safeguard of our fundamental liberties. These are liberties which cannot be taken away.

One view put out by those who are impatient with these safeguards is that our Constitution is an external and Western imposition upon us, that it is the final instrument of colonialism. People have drawn on this view to subject the Constitution to some higher or prior principle, be it race, religion or royalty. Of course, the proponents of such views tend to identify themselves with these higher principles in order to claim extra-constitutional powers. These are transparent attempts at revisionism which erode the supremacy of the Constitution. We should have the confidence to reject such moves politely but firmly, whoever advocates them, whatever their social or religious status.

The truth is that our Constitution was built by a deliberately consultative process aimed at achieving consensus. The Reid Commission was proposed by a constitutional conference in London attended by four representatives of the Malay Rulers, the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman and three other ministers, and also by the British High Commissioner in Malaya and his advisers. This conference proposed the appointment of an independent commission to devise a constitution for a fully self-governing and independent Federation of Malaya. Their proposal was accepted by the Malay Rulers and Queen Elizabeth.

The Reid Commission met 118 times in Kuala Lumpur between June and October 1956, and received 131 memoranda from various individuals and organisations. The commission submitted its working draft on 21 February 1957, which was scrutinised by a Working Committee. The Working Committee consisted of four representatives from the Malay rulers, another four from the Alliance government, the British High Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, and the Attorney General.

On the basis of their recommendations, the new Federal Constitution was passed by the Federal Legislative Council on August 15, 1957, and the Constitution took effect on August 27.

As you can tell from this narrative, the Commission solicited the views of all sections of our society and had, throughout, the support and participation of the Malay Rulers and the Alliance government. The process preserved the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers

The resulting document, like all things man-made, remains perfectible, but most certainly it is ours. It brought our nation into being, and it is our document.

The question of whether the Federation should be an islamic state, for example, was considered and rejected by the Rulers and by the representatives of the people. Had we wanted to be ruled by syariah, the option was on the shelf, so to speak, and could easily have been taken, because prior to this the states were ruled by the Sultans according to syariah law. The fact that we have a constitution governed by common law is not an accident nor an external imposition. We chose to found our nation on a secular constitution after consultation and deliberation.

Our country was built on the sophisticated and secure foundation of a Constitution that we formed for ourselves. For us to continue to grow up as a country we need to own, understand and defend it.

Sadly part of the memory we have lost is of our Constitution and of the nature of that Constitution. Today, in the aftermath of the scene-shifting election results of March 2008, people are restless and uneasy about the ethnic relations, and about their future. There is a sense of anxiety about our nation that is often translated into fear of ethnic conflict.

I think we should not fear. On an inviolable foundation of equal citizenship, the rights of each and every community are protected. These protections are guaranteed in the Constitution. What we should be uneasy about is not so much ethnic discord, which is often manufactured for political ends and has little basis in the daily experience of our citizens, but the subversion of our Constitution. Such subversion is only possible if we forget that this Constitution belongs to us, protects us all, and underwrites our nationhood and we fail to defend it.

Our country had a happy beginning in being built on firm foundations in the rule of law. A strong spirit of constitutionalism guided our early decades. The components of that spirit are respect and understanding for the rule of law, and the upholding of justice and liberty. That spirits is antithetical to communal bickering and small-minded squabbling over fixed pie notions of education, economy or whatever. That spirit has declined and with it has come all kinds of unease. It is time we recovered it. With its recovery will come our confidence as a nation once more.

The political framework of this country cries out for reform. But reform is not about the blind embrace of the new. That would be to fly from disorder to confusion. Our path to reform must come from a recovery of the “old” living spirit of Constitutionalism, and the “old” values of freedom and justice, and the “old” memories each of us carries in themselves of what is good about our nation.

So far I have spoken more generally about principles. I want to turn now to some examples of how these can work out in pursuing particular reforms.

National reform must begin with reform of our party system. This is because one of the chief reasons this nation is sick is that we have a diseased party system. A diagnosis of the disease of the party system finds that the parties are sick because they have strayed from from the Constitutional principles that govern them (they are subject to the Societies Act). In doing so they have become undemocratic. In becoming undemocratic they have lost legitimacy. In losing legitimacy they have lost public support and the ability to rejuvenate themselves. The cure, surely is for them to conform themselves again to constitutional principles.

I have warned that Umno, like any other political party that has been in power for so long, must reform, or it will be tossed out by the people. The people themselves have had a taste of the power of their free vote. They know that parties and governments answer to the people, and not vice versa, they want a repeal of draconian laws, and they have lost patience with corruption. They seek accountability, justice and rule of law. The people are ahead of the government of the day, but the principles they want to see applied are universal, and they are enshrined in our Constitution.
It is not just Umno that needs to reform. The entire political system needs to change, to be in greater conformity with our Constitution and in the spirit of the Rukun Negara, which says from these diverse elements of our population, we are dedicated to the achievement of a united nation in which loyalty and dedication to the nation shall over-ride all other loyalties.’”

We should not expect our political parties to reform of their own accord. Leaders who owe their position to undemocratic rules and practices are the last people to accept reform. The people must demand it. I say we need a movement embraced by people at all levels and from every quarter of our rakyat, to establish a national consensus on how our political parties should conduct themselves from now on. In the spirit of the Rukun Negara, That consensus should be based on a set of principles such as the following:

1. All political parties are required to include in their constitutional objectives the equality of citizenship as provided for in the Federal Constitution.

2. An economic and political policy that political parties propagate must not discriminate against any citizen.

3. All parties shall include and uphold constitutional democracy and the separation of powers as a fundamental principle.

4. It shall be the duty of all political parties to adhere to the objectives of public service and refrain from involvement in business, and ensure the separation of business from political parties.

5. It shall be the duty of all political parties to ensure and respect the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process.

6. All parties shall ensure that the party election system will adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and also ensure that the elections are free of corrupt practices. Legislation should be considered to provide funding of political parties.

7. It shall be the duty of all parties to ensure that all political dialogues and statements will not create racial or religious animosity.

8. All parties undertake not to use racial and communal agitation as political policies.

9. To remove and eradicate all barriers that hinder national unity and Malaysian identity.

10. To uphold the Federal and State Constitutions and its democratic intent and spirit, the Rule of Law, and the fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Malaysian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What we need now is the rise of an empowered public. Democracy in Malaysia is fragile so long as public opinion remains weak. Our hope for a more democratic future depends on our ability to build a strong public opinion. It’s good news that a vigorous body of public opinion, aided by information and communication technologies, is in making on the internet. I myself rely on it through my blog. If not for my blog, what I say would scarcely get out in the mainstream media. We need a freedom of information act, and I call for the repeal of the Printing Presses Act. It is silly that we limit the number of newspapers while every person with a blog or a twitter account can publish to the world. In limiting the printed media we have only succeeded in dumbing it down, so that those who rely only on the printed mass media and the terrestrial broadcast channels are actually the poorer for it.

Race and hope

Let end by returning to the theme of racial harmony. I repeat: the constitutional guarantees are ironclad. We ought to feel secure in the Constitution’s protections of our rights. A free people must be a secure people.

Another story:

In 1962, when I was a delegate to the United Nations, the Late Tun Ismail and I went out one evening to a posh restaurant on New York’s East Side. The maitre d’ turned us away firmly. No, he said, the restaurant was closed for a private function. We could see clearly that the restaurant was open. We understood that we were being denied entry because were “coloured”. This is despite the fact that our reservation had been made UN’s offices.

Today, in 2009, an African American man is President of the United States. He has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. In 46 years, and well within my lifetime, how far things have come. Had you told me in 1962, after that incident, that a black man would be president in my life time, I would not have believed you. This change did not happen without struggle.

From Leo Tolstoy to Henry Thoreau to Ghandi to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, we see a thread of conviction about the overriding ethical claim of our common humanity. It is more important that we are alike in being sons and daughters of God than that we are different. This is also the thread of a spirit and method of resistance. Where all reasonable persuasion fails, the final “No” to wrongdoing, the place at which the citizen stands up to defend something fundamental, is through peaceful resistance. I allude to this only as a reminder of the final redoubt of the free citizen. Things may or may not have come to such a bad state that we must rise in this fashion, but let us be conscious of the power we hold in knowing just who we are and what we are capable of as ordinary citizens.
If the authorities do what is unjust, ride roughshod over constitutional rights and deny the sovereignty of the rakyat and the primacy of our constitution, we rest secure in the knowledge that history shows us that the just cause, defended stoutly, persistently and peacefully, will prevail. And sooner than we might expect.

–

Keynote speech on the launch of the book, Multi-ethnic Malaysia

UCSI University, Cheras, October 16, 2009

Yesterday our Prime Minister declare Malaysia day a holiday. I think it was political reason that drove the prime Minister to declare that day as a holiday. To me if a day should be declare a holiday call it Unity Day or Race Harmonious Day. We need it.Malaysia day is alright for it take the wind off the opposition. I have been reading on the net many who has call for us to celebrate Malaysia Day instead of Merdeka Day. I am sad. When US achieve her independence on July 4th 1776 only thirteen states made up the country.The original thirteen states (in chronological order of their ratification of the United States Constitution: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island),later this states would break into 18 instead of the original 13. The last state to join was Hawaii, The state was admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959. Its capital is Honolulu on the island of Oʻahu. It was also debated that the 51st state of the Union is Israel as her economy is totally depended from the support of United States and her budget continuously aided by US. The US also has territories or insular areas which to me may become another state like Hawaii. They are

• American Samoa (officially unorganized, although self-governing under authority of the U.S. Department of the Interior)
• Guam (organized under Organic Act of 1950)
• Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth, organized under 1977 Covenant)
• Puerto Rico (territory with commonwealth status, organized under terms of Puerto Rico-Federal Relations Act)
• United States Virgin Islands (organized under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
• Wake Island (unorganized)

We will disregard the US politics aside the point is never one of them celebrate their independence on the date they join the Union. They celebrate it when the Union was establish. Please refer to Jebat Must die blog for a thorough essay on it. Here is a snippet from it that Najib need to do some explaining

In 2008, Najib Tun Razak said this:

NAJIB: Gov’t does not agree to Sept 16 being made public holiday

The federal government is not agreeable to the suggestion by Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that Sept 16 be made a public holiday in the five states under Pakatan Rakyat.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said there should only be one National Day for the country.

“We have chosen the date as our independence day. Having another date will give rise to all kinds of interpretation, polemic and this is not healthy to national integration.

“This is our stand; we give importance to unity and national integration,” he told reporters after launching the Chery multi-purpose vehicle here today.

Malaysia celebrates its National Day on Aug 31 every year.

Anwar had suggested that Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor and Kelantan — all of which are under Pakatan Rakyat — declare Sept 16 each year as a public holiday to commemorate the formation of Malaysia.

Penang and Kelantan had accepted the proposal while the three other states were still considering it.

Yes the qoute from Najib need to be explain. I will leave it up to him. As i said it is better to declare it as Unity day or race harmonious day like Singapore instead of Malaysia Day. Or you could say that Malaysia Day is created to celebrate One Malaysia concept and ideals. Than perhaps it make sence. I do not believe in kowtowing to the opposition and i believe their wish to declare Malaysia day is mischievous. Well with a smirk Tun Mahathir and I am disgusted with the many holidays that exist in Malaysia but since we live an country that is polygot both in faith and race than this is what we must expect. I believe all religious holiday should be limit to one day official holiday be it Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Hari Gawai. You can take extra holiday off at your expenses. But I don't think this goes down well with Malay Chinese or Tun Mahathir!!! We should have more Malaysian Holiday that can unite the people like Merdeka and Malaysia Day(!) and our Agong Birthday. These is the day that all races could celebrate without having the priest or mullah declaring it wrong for us to celebrate. No more dispute about kongsi Raya or Deepa Raya. It would mute all the Mullahs from calling the Muslims who celebrate the festival of others as apostate.

Another sore point that has been burning inside me is that when we achieve independence on 31st August 1957 the official name of the country was Perseketuan Tanah Melayu and the correct interpretation of it is the Federation of Malay Land not Malaya. This shows the other races accept that the country belongs to Malay and Malaya should have form on 31st August 1963 if not from the opposition of Philippines and Indonesia that year to the United Nation.

In 1963, Malaya along with the then-British crown colonies of Sabah (British North Borneo), Sarawak and Singapore, formed Malaysia. The Sultanate of Brunei, though initially expressing interest in joining the Federation, withdrew from the planned merger due to opposition from certain segments of its population as well as arguments over the payment of oil royalties and the status of the Sultan in the planned merger.^[31][32] The actual proposed date for the formation of Malaysia was 31 August 1963, to coincide with the independence day of Malaya and the British giving self-rule to Sarawak and Sabah. However, the date was delayed by opposition from the Indonesian government led by Sukarno and also attempts by the Sarawak United People's Party to delay the formation of Malaysia. Due to these factors, an 8-member United Nations team has to be formed to re-ascertain whether Sabah and Sarawak truly wanted to join Malaysia.[33)

Friday, Sep. 06, 1963

Malaysia: Tunku Yes, Sukarno No

In steamy, palm-shaded Kuching, capital of Sarawak, the day's biggest excitement is the firing of the 8 p.m. cannon on the lawn of government house. "What a dull place," said a United Nations official. "I don't know how we're going to survive three weeks here." At the insistence of Indonesia's President Sukarno, an eight-member U.N. team is present to "ascertain" whether Sarawak and North Borneo really want to join the Federation of Malaysia, which Sukarno bitterly opposes. As the U.N. ascertainers began to sample opinions around Sarawak, they were nearly stoned, not bored, to death.

In the Chinese-dominated town of Sibu, the Red-infiltrated Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) staged a demonstration that turned into a 90-minute, stone-throwing riot. Only after police fired warning shots to disperse the mob could the U.N. team sit down —amidst broken glass in a Methodist schoolhouse—to interview local councilors. In Miri, Sarawak's oil-refining center, 3,000 Chinese-SUPPorted youths, wielding stones and bottles, screamed anti-Malaysia slogans until the police opened fire, wounding two, and tear gas forced them to scatter.

Date Set. Such outbursts will slightly delay but not derail the formation of Malaysia, originally scheduled for Aug. 31. In last summer's general elections, voters in both Sarawak and North Borneo decisively defeated anti-federation parties. Although Indonesia's shadow looms large, the Borneo people know they have nothing to gain from Djakarta but economic chaos and demagoguery. Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys, who hastily flew to the scene, last week set Sept. 16 as the new birth date for the federation —two days after the U.N. mission's findings will be made public. Both are sure that the U.N. will find a clear majority in favor of Malaysia, but they insist that the federation will come into being regardless of the report. The British last week also turned over internal self-government to Borneo and Sarawak.

In a wrangle over details with the British, Indonesia failed to send observers to the U.N. mission, thus giving Sukarno an excuse to question the U.N. findings later. But faced with British determination to defend Malaysia by force, if necessary, Sukarno said: "If the Borneo peoples agree to join Malaysia, we will have to bow our heads and obey." But, added Sukarno, in an unbowed postscript: "Indonesia maintains its opposition to Malaysia."

Book Learning. An Indonesian guerrilla campaign against Borneo and Sarawak may well continue, since Djakarta always needs a foreign diversion to draw attention from domestic difficulties. In Indonesian Borneo, which adjoins Sarawak, Sukarno has set up guerrilla camps along 200 miles of border, and is training 1,000 Red-lining Chinese from Sarawak, following the guidelines of Indonesian Defense Minister General Abdul Haris Nasution, an expert on guerrilla warfare who has written his own book on the subject. Bands of his guerrillas pushed across the border to raid Dyak villages, clashed with patrols of British-led Gurkhas and Sarawak police. In a fire fight ten miles inside Sarawak, the Indonesians killed a British lieutenant and wounded several Gurkhas before being routed with heavy losses. Meanwhile, British officers are studying Nasution's book for clues to stop further Indonesian incursions.

So far, Indonesian terrorist attacks have only served to create a surge of pro-Malaysia feeling in Borneo and Sarawak. Almost nightly, the Indonesian embassy in North Borneo is plastered with slogans reading "Tunku Yes, Sukarno No." Although his people stopped head-hunting years ago, one Dyak chief told the U.N. fact finders that "if any more Indonesian bandits come into our territory, they may lose their heads."

Friday, Sep. 20, 1963

Malaysia: Hurray for Harry

When pretty Catherine Loh was elected Miss Malaysia last April, the pert beauty from the oil-rich British protectorate of Brunei fully expected to preside over the independence ceremonies of the newly formed Federation of Malaysia. But that was before Brunei withdrew from the planned federation in a state of pique, leaving Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo to go it alone. Brunei's defection not only left this week's joyous celebrations without a beauty queen but it also took Malaysia out of the running for the Miss Universe contest.

The beauty queen flap was low on the list of last-minute labor pains attending the long-awaited birth of Malaysia. At the insistence of Indonesia's belligerent President Sukarno, who bitterly opposes the federation, Malaysia's independence had been postponed two weeks beyond the original Aug. 31 starting date, while a United Nations team investigated whether or not North Borneo and Sarawak really wanted to join. Hoping to influence opinion against federation, Sukarno began moving paratroopers into Indonesian Borneo along his 900-mile-long border with the two territories. Some Indonesian guerrillas even sneaked through the jungles into Sarawak to stir up trouble; they were relentlessly hunted down by tough little British army Gurkhas, aided by half-naked Iban tribesmen, who hung up at least one Indonesian head in the rafters of their longhouses.

Fearful that Indonesia might extract further delays out of Malaya's easygoing Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, the architect of the federation, Singapore's brilliant, shifty Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who regards Sukarno as "an international blackmailer," swung into action. Flying to Sarawak and North Borneo, "Harry" Lee picked up the chief ministers of both territories and brought them back to Kuala Lumpur to stiffen up the Tunku. Britain's Commonwealth Secretary Duncan Sandys was also on hand, working hard to get agreement. Threatening to declare Singapore an independent state, Lee pressured Abdul Rahman into holding firm for the federation's Sept. 16 deadline.

Last week the final obstacle to independence was cleared away when the U.N.'s Malaysia team reported that both North Borneo and Sarawak favored the federation. As the new nation prepared to unfurl its red-and-white-striped flag, Harry Lee was quick to capitalize on the occasion. With his popularity at its zenith for his major role in bringing the federation about, he scheduled immediate elections in Singapore.

Friday, Dec. 21, 1962

Malaysia: Fighting the Federation

For months the bush telegraph of Brunei had flashed the warning that deep inside the Delaware-size oil-rich British protectorate on the north coast of Borneo, a secret rebel army was rehearsing a revolt against the Sultan. Repeatedly, government officials dismissed the story as "another jungle rumor." But last week, in a brief, bloody rebellion, rumor materialized into fact, bringing the threat of a long, nasty guerrilla war in the steaming swamps and forests of the protectorate, and imperiling the prospects of the Malaysian Federation.

Major cause of the revolt, it seemed, was the federation plan itself. Brunei's dominant, fiercely independent People's Party was dead against the alignment of the state with Malaya, Singapore, and the neighboring British possessions of Sarawak and North Borneo. Instead, People's Party Leader A. M. Azahari. 34, a goateed veterinarian, was determined to weld Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo into a single independent nation. But the British-backed Sultan of Brunei, Sir Omar Ali Saifuddin. wanted to join Malaysia, for Brunei's oil resources, which yield him $40 million annually, promised him influence in the federation disproportionate to his country's size and minuscule population (85,000). Stymied by the Sultan, Azahari's rebels finally attacked.

In the predawn darkness, the ragtag irregulars set up roadblocks, sabotaged communications lines, and overran police stations all over the country. In the town of Seria, Shell Oil's Brunei headquarters, the rebels rounded up 55 hostages, formed them into a human shield, and marched them to a nearby police barracks. But when the police fired on the shield, both prisoners and rebels broke and ran.

Message from Manila. Caught by surprise, colonial authorities flashed word of the emergency to British headquarters in Singapore, sent messengers canoeing up jungle streams with sticks bearing red feathers—a traditional appeal for armed assistance from loyal warriors of the interior. Eluding rebel kidnapers, and nervously fingering a Sterling submachine gun, the Sultan escaped to a police station.

The shooting had hardly begun when Rebel Chieftain Azahari turned up in Manila, of all places, to make sure the world press got the full story. Amid a blizzard of statements, he proclaimed himself Prime Minister of the "unitary state of North Borneo," and demanded support for his rebellion from world leaders. The only encouragement came from Indonesia's Sukarno, who has long coveted Brunei's oilfields and would like nothing more than to absorb the protectorate into Indonesian Borneo.

But the end was near for the rebels, for British troops began pouring into Brunei by air. Hawker Hunter jets of the R.A.F. buzzed low over rebel emplacements firing blank 20-mm. cannon shells; many rebel troops fled in terror because they had never before heard the shriek of a jet engine. Other rebels fought on, inflicted substantial casualties on Britain's tough little Gurkha troops. The Gurkhas retaliated by lopping off a few rebel heads. Finally British numbers began to tell and the rebels faded away into the jungle.

Trouble Ahead. Britain's fear is that they will fight on in the thickets. Worse, the rebels' action has encouraged the scattered anti-federation forces in many parts of the area that is to be Malaysia. In Singapore, trouble is expected from pro-Communist Chinese elements who are opposed to alignment with Malaya, Southeast Asia's sturdiest anti-Communist state, and keystone of the Malaysia scheme. In any case, the fighting could break out again at any time. As one rebel ominously put it: "We were beaten this time. Next time we will get more arms and maybe we won't be beaten."

So to me anyone who call this country were not Malay were wrong dead wrong! And to reflect the bigger area and different polygot of a bigger malaya a name change were introduce in 1963 Malaysia. These name change is just that, and to insinuate anything else than that is very insensitive. Here is the remark made by Tun and by the way when he mention FTA I fully agreed on it but let's leave it at different forum.

Dr M has a laugh over Najib’s Malaysia Day holiday

Dr Mahathir says ‘we should have more holidays’. — File pic

By Debra Chong

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 19 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's move today in declaring Sept 16 a public holiday — to mark the day Malaysia was formed, 46 years after the fact — was met with laughter by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

“We should have more holidays,” Dr Mahathir told reporters at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here in an immediate reaction to the announcement made in Parliament earlier.

“Work is not important. Holiday is important,” the 84-year-old added, wearing his trademark smirk.

Dr Mahathir said he did not want to criticise Najib's effort, but pointed out that he was often described as a “workaholic”.

“But now, I'm on a long holiday. I'm not working for anybody,” he said, smiling from ear to ear.

Najib declared Sept 16, which is Malaysia Day, as a national holiday from next year, in his latest move to portray his administration as inclusive.

By making Malaysia Day a holiday he was indicating the importance of the Sabah and Sarawak vote given the balance of politics between Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

The move to finally declare Sept 16 a holiday appears aimed at giving Sabah and Sarawak due recognition as part of the country.

Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963, and it has always been a sore point with Sabah and Sarawak that the day they joined the federation was never recognised officially as a holiday. The holiday declaration also takes away a perennial campaign complain by opposition parties.

Successive BN governments have ignored calls to make Malaysia Day a holiday. Najib’s administration is now acknowledging the significance of the votes from Sabah and Sarawak.

Dr M tells Malays to reject borderless world

By Debra Chong

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 19 – Beating his anti-colonialism drum again, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (picture), today warned the Malays that they stood to be “conquered” anew by the Western powers if they blindly embraced globalisation and pushed for free trade agreements.

“We live in a Euro-centric world,” Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister said in his speech titled: “Strategic Positioning of Malays in the Borderless World” at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here this morning.

“Europeans are aggressive people; people who like war and who like to acquire what belongs to other people.

“When they suggest a borderless world, perhaps their intent is to conquer us by using economic force,” Dr Mahathir told an audience of 150 alumni from Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) before launching their society website.

In his address lasting well over an hour, the man who drove a “Look East” campaign to counter the onslaught of Western culture pointed out that Malaysia, which had previously been subjugated by military might, now faced a new threat in the form of economic pressure and “values-systems”.

Dr Mahathir noted that free trade agreements (FTA) were among the new weapons used by the West to push for covert conquests.

The 84-year-old, who also controlled Malaysia’s purse-strings as finance minister in the latter half of his 22-year rule, reminded his audience how the country nearly became a victim of Western conquest through a deliberate weakening of its currency in the not-too-distant past.

“We must remember this process. People who are weak will lose their land. It may happen again,” he warned.

“In order to face this, we must understand the definition of a borderless world,” the former premier said.

“We don’t want a borderless world,” he stressed.

“They do not invent a policy for our benefit. Whatever the West invents is for them. That’s their intent,” he added.

He pointed to Singapore, a free port which is often held up as an economic role model for the rest of the region to follow.

But he stressed that Malaysia is not like Singapore, which does not have anything to lose in inking FTAs with the US.

“We in Malaysia will have to give up many things if we want to have FTA with America,” Dr Mahathir said, and added: “because Malaysia is multi-racial.”

He insisted that the federal government needs to keep its economic blocks in place “so that we are not controlled by foreigners”, and cautioned that when a country’s economy “is conquered, then politics will soon follow.”

The veteran politician claimed that countries in Central America which had turned into “banana republics” had lost their freedom to decide their heads of state as a result.

“They (the Western powers) will try to determine who is the nest head of government. The president is their choice. Claim that it happened in the banana republics in Central America.

In his younger days, Dr Mahathir had courted much controversy over his harsh criticism of the Malay race in his book, The Malay Dilemma.

“We have to admit the Malays in Malaysia are quite weak. Because of that, it is important to have a government that can protect the Malays,” he reminded his Malay-majority audience.

He warned that if two-thirds of Parliament were made up of people who are not sympathetic to the Malays, then Malay policies will be “threatened”, naming the government’s affirmative action policies like the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the Bumiputra-only admission into UiTM as examples.

Dr Mahathir said that without political clout, it would be impossible to come with a strategy to strengthen the position of Malays.

“Many people say the Malays are lazy,” he said, and recounted a personal story in which he failed to excite interest among Malays in the retail business sector.

He had created a scheme to get Malays to enter the field but observed that of the 3,000 who applied, only 300 turned up and 30 actually tried it out but only one could be considered a success.

He concluded that Malays disliked taking up retail “because it takes too long to become a billionaire.”

Despite his rant for Malays to reject the Western concept, Dr Mahathir said it should not be struck out roundly.

He noted that the FTA had its strengths and weaknesses and called on the Malays to “be wise to decide what to accept and what to reject”.

In his exchange with the floor later, Dr Mahahtir explained that the Malays were prone to act based on their emotions instead of being guided by rational thought.

He pointed out that the same was true of most Muslims, including the Arabs.

The answer, he said, was to first recognise the problem and understand what was at stake and then applying the mind to pick and choose the next course of action to follow.

“If we can overcome challenges, be it nafsu (referring to the Malay word for intense desire or lust) or the physical, then, we can be strong,” he marked.

“If we do not understand what is to come, then we cannot protect and empower ourselves,” he concluded.