Thursday, December 24, 2009

Nothing Religious just a statement to all who celebrate!

MERRY CHRISTMAS
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL !
MAY GOOD TIDINGS COME YOUR WAY
AND MAY YOU BE IN GOD'S BOSOM!






Bak kut teh (Hokkien: 肉骨茶) is a Chinese soup popularly served in Malaysia, Singapore, China, Taiwan (where there is a predominant Hoklo and Teochew community) and also, cities of neighbouring countries like Batam of Indonesia and Hat Yai of Thailand. The name literally translates as "meat bone tea", and, at its simplest. It is a complex broth of herbs and spices (including star anise, cinnamon, cloves, dang gui, fennel seeds and garlic) for hours.[1] However, additional ingredients may include offal, varieties of mushroom, choy sum, and pieces of dried tofu or fried tofu puffs. Additional Chinese herbs may include yu zhu (rhizome of Solomon's Seal) and ju zhi (buckthorn fruit), which give the soup a sweeter, slightly stronger flavor. Light and dark soy sauce are also added to the soup during cooking, with varying amounts depending on the variant. Garnishing include chopped coriander or green onions and a sprinkling of fried shallots.
Bak kut teh was believed to have been introduced to Malaya in the 19th century by Chinese workers from either Canton, Chaoshan or Fujian[1][2].
Bak kut teh is usually eaten with rice or noodles (sometimes as a noodle soup), and often served with youtiao (strips of fried dough) for dipping into the soup. Soy sauce (usually light soy sauce, but dark soy sauce is also offered sometimes) is preferred as a condiment, with which chopped chilli padi and minced garlic is taken together. Chinese tea of various kinds (the Tieguanyin variety is especially popular in the Klang Valley area of Malaysia) is also usually served in the belief that it dilutes or dissolves the copious amount of fat consumed in this pork-laden dish. Bak kut teh is typically a famous morning meal. The Hokkien and Teochew are traditionally tea-drinking cultures and this aspect runs deep in their cuisines.

The meaning of Bak Kut Teh is loosely translated as bak = meat, kut = bone, teh = soup which really mean ribcage soup! All meat are bak except poultry. So you can eat rabbit bak or deer bak, the name in chinese would be different though, for Cow it is gu bak or yio bak for goat's meat. Here traditionally Bak Kut Teh is Pork Rib Soup, to me it is tradition that confine the bak to mean pork just like traditionally to the Malays Kari Daging means Cow/Bufallo Curry instead of using the longish and right languge by saying kari Daging Lembu. To a language purist Daging means meat but to Malays it means lembu not even kambing although it is halal to eat kambing. therefore can Bak Kut Teh be halal yes, is it wrong to use halal Bak Kut Teh depends. To me personally no because although Jakim says that the word is not halal making it into a laughing stock but basically their fear that the Malays would not able to distinguish it with traditional bak is real but unfounded.
If Civic classes were emphasis in school maybe they would understand many chinese being buddhist do not eat beef thus Bak Kut Teh would be cook with pork. Another thing they should realise by now many malays would not eat at a chinese shop frequented by non malays so for the Malays to suddenly have a passion for Bak Kut Teh is a fantasy of right winger jock like Dr Ma'mor who insults the intelligence of his race but then Dr Ma'mor is a mamak thus his race is questionable.

To me using halal bak kut teh in promotions is ok as long as it brings economic benefit to Malaysia and Malaysians. So please read the article below and my comments above which again was not publish

My Comment

Yes you are right Rohani, it is not worth debating! For me Bak Kut Teh if it is halal so be it why make a fuss on the language. But Dr Ma'mor, a mamak who has already to me done a cardinal sin by saying IKEA cafateria as non halal making them suffer monetary losses by closing and subjected the area to'samak' procedures then later found out they have all along serve halal food never even apologies for his tirade! He is a GOOD MUSLIM and it also applies to JAKIM who insist the syariah law as revealed law but not inspired law base on the quran and the sunnah is mind boggling and stupid. Tell me where in the Quran tells you how to Samak accept in the hadiths which we know illuminates the idea found in the quran by Mohammad. Mohammad insist many times his word should not be recorded and let men of knowledge find the right path by following the quran and the sunnah, not hadiths, as retold during his last sermon during haj.

So where is it in the quran that says about Bak Kut Teh and why are we taught to hate God creatures for pigs are also his creatures and thus was made for a purporse. They are najis but are not evil or bad. So why are we crusading in demonising the innocent pig, tell me is it not wrong to do evil to god creatures or are pig an exception if so, please show it in the Quran. Languages evolve,usage evolve so what's wrong in halal bak kut teh!


Halal bak kut teh a boiling issue


KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 23 — Beef bacon, turkey ham, halal champagne. These are names that have become part of the Muslim food lexicon in Malaysia.

But the Islamic authorities have drawn the line at halal bak kut teh.

The Malaysian Department of Islamic Development said it would not allow the dish to be certified as halal (permissible to Muslims) if it continues to be called bak kut teh.

Its deputy director Lokman Abdul Rahman told Utusan Malaysia that Muslims might mistakenly believe that the dish in general is now halal as Malaysians know bak kut teh as a herbal soup made with pork ribs.

“My suggestion is that the name be changed to another one, and not be continued to be called bak kut teh for the halal version,” he said.

Halal bak kut teh was introduced for the first time at a food festival co-organised by the Tourism Ministry last weekend.

It was prepared by a Malay hotel chef.

It used chicken, seafood and vegetables as substitutes for pork. It was cooked in the traditional way with Chinese herbs.

The food fest was held soon after the Tourism Ministry launched its food website to promote nasi lemak, laksa and bak kut teh, which it referred to as “meat bone tea”, a direct English translation.

The website makes no reference to pork; it merely described bak kut teh as “meaty ribs simmered in a complex broth of herbs for hours”.

This trivial complaint over a herbal soup reflects the underlying complexities of Malaysia's ethnic relations.

Issues like the consumption of pork and pig farms have become enmeshed with issues of political dominance and cultural purity.

Muslims regard pigs as unclean, and this has become so deeply embedded that even the Malay word for pig — babi — is rarely used in polite company any more. Pork is sold in separate sections in supermarkets, and most non-Malays in Malaysia would not eat pork in the presence of Muslims.

Ma'mor Osman, secretary-general of the Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association, said any move to attach the word “halal” to a product synonymous with pork might cause Muslims to become less wary of it.

“It could confuse Muslims, and it is better to use another name like meat soup, for instance, for halal bak kut teh,” he told The Straits Times.

He said the association had also earlier protested against the inclusion of halal beer — a non-alcoholic malt drink — at the International Halal exhibition in May.

He added that the description of foods like beef bacon should be disallowed.

“Why call it bacon? You can just call it beef,” he said.

But food author Rohani Jelani, who runs a cooking school, said such petty issues should not even warrant a public debate.

“Let's view things in perspective, and not feel threatened by petty things. Malaysians adapt dishes all the time,” she told The Straits Times.

She does it herself. She has adapted bacon-laden Italian recipes to omit pork, and also traditional Malay dishes like mee rebus (a noodle dish in gravy) to omit beef when she runs cooking classes for Buddhists or Hindus.

She said that at one time, many Malays did not eat Chinese food because they were unfamiliar with it and cautious about it.

But as more halal Chinese restaurants open, Chinese food has become very popular with the Malays.

“We should try each other's cuisine; it's one of the best ways to integrate. Food should not divide us,” she said. — The Straits Times

NB

Sometime if you are lucky you could see Dr Ma'mor eating Big Mac Hamburger and maybe have a sip of A & W Root Beer. Go to him and say you are eating pork and drinking Beer Shame on you! (him!)

Labels:

Friday, December 18, 2009

Communist history in Malaysia is something i would devour and read. I start reading about it since i knew my grandfather was part of the movement. I never believe the story told about the Communist party. I agreed they were cruel but they were fighting a war. I was pertube because i could swear that i read somewhere that the Communist Party in Malaysia was founded much earlier than 1930. i read it somewhere about it. This article which came out in the star vindicate my assumption. It was true that CPM was founded in 1930 but it was a name change. The Communist Party in Malaya then was known as Nanyang or South Sea Communist Party. It was establish by Tan Melaka around 1926 or 1928. The Article below put it around 1925 but much earlier than 1930, that is sure! So i am right after all! I am bliss that my belief has been vindicated somewhat so I will republish the article here so it can be a file for me to refer to!


Sunday November 29, 2009

Red star over Malaya

By CHEAH BOON KHENG


A look at how communism took root in Malaya.

COMMUNISM made its way into Peninsular Malaysia in the 1920s through the efforts of Indonesian agents, such as Tan Malaka, Alimin and Musso.

Its ideas were first formally introduced in Asia in 1914, in Dutch-ruled Indonesia, with the founding of the Indies Social Democratic Association (ISDA), led by the Dutch Marxist and trade unionist, Hendricus Sneevliet.

The association later became the Perserikataan Komunist Indonesia, or Indonesian Communist Party, on May 23, 1920 – the first communist party in Asia.

A 1980 communist propaganda poster extolling the Communist Party of Malaya’s 50-year struggle. – File photo

The China Communist Party (CCP) was not founded until May 1921 and the Indian Communist Party, not until December 1925.

Of the Indonesian agents, Tan Malaka was the most outstanding and impressive. He was the South-East Asian representative of the Moscow-based Communist International (Comintern), and operated widely in Bangkok, Manila, Penang and Singapore. As he successfully evaded arrest, his secret activities won the respect and admiration of Western intelligence officials who described him in their reports as, “The Scarlet Pimpernel”.

Tan Malaka’s dismal assessment of communism’s future in Malaya, in a coded message dated Nov 25, 1925, which was intercepted by British Special Branch, said the agents’ work so far had not been successful among Malays and Indians, and any success could only come from the Chinese “whatever sort of movement it may be”.

On his recommendation, CCP agents were invited over to Malaya to win over Chinese workers and to address Chinese schools and night classes. In 1925 they succeeded in forming an “overseas branch of the CCP”, which later became the Nanyang (South Seas) Communist Party under the leadership of Fu Ta Ching.

It was around this time, too, that CCP agents arrived as teachers and spread their wings in Chinese schools in Sarawak, which joined Malaysia in 1963, and where a Chinese-led communist movement grew but was never acknowledged by the Comintern as being in Malaya. (An amorphous body, the Sarawak Communist Organisation, emerged in the 1960s, launched an uprising in 1962 but disbanded itself in 1972-73.)

The Nanyang Communist Party was the forerunner of the Communist Party of Malaya, which was established in 1930 by the Vietnamese Nguyen Ai Quoc (better known as Ho Chi Minh), who had replaced Tan Malaka as the Comintern representative in South-East Asia.

Ho reportedly criticised the poor record of CCP agents in Malaya, especially their failure to make headway in recruiting Malays and Indians, and urged the CPM to resolve the racial question.

Not a registered body, the CPM worked underground. It was constantly harassed by the British police, which raided its meeting places and printing presses and carried out arrests, detentions and banishments (of those who were Chinese nationals) to disrupt their activities.

The party established new cells in both urban and rural areas, but its support never extended into the Malay and Indian population, making more headway among Chinese workers and their trade unions. Its documents were usually issued in Chinese.

According to British intelligence, its membership for the period 1934-1940 remained around 1,500 to 1,700 owing to its own stringent conditions. This was the same even for the post-World War II period when membership rose slightly. The ratio of Chinese to Malays in communist-front organisations was said to be 15:1 and as high as 50:1 in the CPM itself.

In 1932 and again in 1935, the CPM suffered schisms, which led to purges. This gave the police an opportunity to plant Lai Tek, a British agent, in the party. A Chinese-speaking Vietnamese, he was passed on to the British Special Branch from the French Surete in Saigon and worked his way up to become secretary-general by a claim of Ho Chi Minh’s friendship and support after the latter’s arrest in Hong Kong in 1932.

Lai Tek secretly passed on information to the police, which allowed them to disrupt the organisation. His collaboration continued until the outbreak of war, when he was captured by the Japanese Army and he collaborated with them as well.

Before Malaya fell, he concluded an anti-Japanese front with the British authorities, under which CPM members were trained, armed and sent out to conduct guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines in the last few weeks of the war.

Fortuitously, the CPM thereby acquired a 7,000-strong guerrilla force, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), during the Japanese Occupation as well as British official recognition of the party.

Although Lai Tek collaborated with the Japanese in an extensive destruction of the CPM, he kept the MPAJA intact to assist the British Army. He was keeping his options open.

After the war the party disbanded the MPAJA, but did not relinquish all its arms, adopted a moderate policy of cooperation with the British, scaled down its goal of a “Malayan People’s Republic” to self-government, and, not surprisingly, did not demand independence due to Lai Tek’s continuing role as British agent.

But in 1947, he was unmasked and ousted. He managed to escape with the party’s funds to Hong Kong, but it eventually tracked him down and he was killed.

Post-war industrial unrest, caused by unemployment, low wages, employers’ intransigence and trade union militancy in which communists were involved, culminated in a series of murders of employers and plantation managers, which were blamed on the CPM.

The British administration, unable to control the situation, declared a State Of Emergency, closed down communist-dominated trade unions and arrested their leaders.

The CPM’s rank-and-file scattered underground, and the party issued a call to them and to former MPAJA comrades to take up arms again and flee to the hills and jungles.

Clearly taken by surprise, the CPM’s decision to revolt was made in panic, accelerated by and partly in response to the severity of government action. A month later, the CPM was proscribed.

The declaration of the State of Emergency had far-reaching unintended consequences. It led to draconian Emergency laws, the rise of communalism, and an initial military regime (under General Sir Gerald Templer) to combat communist subversion and terrorism, ethnic urbanisation, the end of colonial rule and the birth and building of a new nation.

But, until it laid down its arms in 1989, the CPM had by-passed the mainstream of politics, nation-building and major developments in Malaysia. It failed to stop the formation of Malaysia, her rapid social and economic development since the May 13, 1969, riots, and Malaysia’s turn to a non-aligned and neutral foreign policy and rapprochement with Soviet Russia and Communist China, which undermined their support of the CPM’s struggle and which led to its isolation and final disarmament and dissolution.

The writer was professor of history at Universiti Sains Malaysia until his retirement, and until recently was a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. He has written several books, including ‘The Masked Comrades: A Study of the Communist United Front in Malaya’ (1979) and ‘Red Star Over Malaya: Resistance and Social Conflict During and After the Japanese Occupation, 1941-1946’ (1983).

Thursday, December 17, 2009

I read articles and articles decrying BTN. Destroying the reputation of BTN or the National Civic Bureau is not my cup of tea. BTN was set up after 1969 racial riots. Yes, it was a propaganda tool, but it was more than that. It was invented so that the races in Malaysia know the history of the country. It was not meant to brainwash but more to educate. It was meant as a tool for the ruling government to explain her policies and made it more palatable to the rakyat. It is where the government could have a sample of the population thoughts and ideas especially her government employees. It was also meant so that chosen students of higher learning which have been identified understand the vision of the government of the day. It was a noble cause sadly like all noble acts it has been hijack and abuse by those in power.


BTN was the brainchild of Tan Sri Ghazalie Shafie, the doyen and architect of foreign policy for Malaysia and a master of psychological warfare which he horn in force 136. It was not meant to be permanent but temporal that is until the threat to the well being of the nation has been eliminated. It was not just about ketuanan Melayu but it was more to educate not indoctrinate the masses, the unique way Malaysia achieve independence. Ketuanan Melayu is just that a rallying call which is hollow. How are you a Tuan or master when your share of the economic pie was just 2.4% of wealth of the country vis a vis your population of 60% (in 1969). It was meant to make sure that the races understand the sacrifices of the Malays in giving the other races citizenship for before 1957, all the other races were British subject, while the Malays were the subject of the respective Sultan where they reside. And remember we were never colony of the British but British protectorate. In all respect we were sovereign but in truth we were under the British.


The Malays know we could not achieve our independence if we do not accept the other races so we made a pact, an understanding between the elders. It was a gentlemen agreement nothing else. It was not set in stone and never meant to be in perpetuity, it will be dismantle when we are ready but are we?


I never think we are. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are. As long as people fight for one race, one own education system, one own language how then can we say we are ready? When the British and later under Razak report recommended one education system the non Malays bark. How then can we create one Malaysia for even then we keep asking to keep our own language and education system. It is a fact that cannot be disputed that school of one race will be the hotbed for extremism. The communist started in Chinese school and the precursor of CPM was Nanyang Communist party or South Sea establish in 1925-28. Later Hoh Chin Minh would reorganize it to Communist Party of Malaya in 1930 in Kuala Pilah. The idea of the reorganization is to attract the Malays which was non existence in the party.


What about the Muslim extremist which proliferated in sekolah pondok? Shouldn’t this school be control and cease to exist? Yes, they should but because lack of willpower all these school, Chinese and Muslims exist. In many articles in the blogsphere everybody denounce the Chinese and Indian type national school but non touch on the independent Islamic school that exist outside the satu aliran satu bangsa as advocate by them. Islamic School use Arabic as the medium of instruction but yet Jebat Must Die seem not to take that into account. I wonder why?

We have achieve more than 50 years of independence but we have not been united and sadly although the liberals talk about One Race, deep down they are still divided. I don’t see a problem with the government in favouring the Malays in job placement etc because I know in a level playing field the Malays can’t find jobs in a Chinese own companies or if employed usually at a lower salary scale. People talk about the brain drain that happen after 1969, when many Malaysians mostly the non Malays left for greener pasture overseas. They cited the unfair favouring of the Malays but none talk about the brain drain of Penang Malays from Penang since early 70’s to Kuala Lumpur because although Penang than under Chong Eu became the silicon valley of Malaysia, they can’t find employment, I wonder why? Is their qualification not good enough? The non Malays talk about equality but open up the job section, many private firms advertise with the need for Chinese speaking natives, why? The Non Malays say that the vendor programme in Government Linked Companies or GLC favour the Malays and the contract jobs also favour them. But then they forgot to mention that in Companies they owned every vendor created and every contracts favour them. Talk about meritocracy, bull!


Tun Mahathir says it well behind every contractor there lies the non Malays, indirectly they benefit because the suppliers are mostly them so what is wrong? Yes, the price is higher and it is inefficient but then efficiency is not what we should strive for but a level playing field. Malays sadly needs that crutch, it will able for them hopefully to learn so one day they can compete. Equality without economic freedom is not equality. It cannot exist just by slogans and rhetoric it need substance which economic freedom allows. Most Malay bloggers fail to see that, they forget that if not for the crutch given they could not sit down and wrote those things. That ability for them to write was given from the policy which now you decried as unfair. Their forefathers were poor, they own only 2.4% of the wealth so do not forget that!


These wealth imbalances are like a cauldron that is bursting at the seam. The hindraf riots occur because of economic factors. The Indians from the nearby estate whose estate has been earmark for development feel lose. The Indian cake whose people constitute only 8% of the nation holds 1.5% of the wealth (1969) has seen it go down to 1%. Why?, you ask their leader, I have no answer for that. All I can tell you the disparity among the rich Indians and poor are huge. This is the malady that affects the Malays. Although collectively they have manage to expand their wealth but the benefit is not spread.


So is BTN bad, nope, it just a disease that need to be cured. It must change the module to reflect the time we live in. Now many Malays are more astute and many non Malays would not accept things as their fathers did. A revamp is needed because it is where the government can understand the fears and hopes of her citizens. It should not be hijack by right handed jocks of the Malays or the left wings, it must be neutral. It must desist in indoctrination but more in forging ideas and encouraging them. It is time now to start building the idea of Malaysian for Malaysia.


For the non Malays I want them to look at themselves first before frothing out their ideas. Are they willing to forego age old prejudices? Are they willing to share their economic pie? We need baby steps and each step we make hopefully our children can make much more bigger steps till then live in peace and harmony. I remember the words of Robert Kennedy when he gave his rainbow speech


"we breath the same air we share the same space” Yes it is time to let our prejudices go. I am a rascist I am proud of it but I am not a chauvinist and never will be! I do not want to see my race be like Singapore as this article clearly shows!


Dr M transformed BTN to a super-racist agency, says former director

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 9 — Former National Civics Bureau (BTN) director now turn PKR leader Datuk Johari Abdul (picture) claimed that it was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who made the body a full-fledged racist indoctrination agency, contradicting the former premier who has gone all-out to defend BTN and deny that the body was used by Umno to sow racial hatred.
Speaking at a forum organised by PKR tonight, Johari claimed that prior to Dr Mahathir’s ascendancy as the prime minister, the body, not yet called the BTN, was initially used to counter the influence of anti-establishment Islamic movements in universities in the 1970s.
At the time, the body was headed by another former prime minister, Dr Mahathir’s arch-rival, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He was not yet a politician at the time but a government officer.
“And when Abdullah became a full time politician, the body officially became BTN and its purpose was to raise the confidence of Malay students who were doing badly academically by instilling ideas like ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy),” said Johari who is also MP for Sungai Petani.
But when Dr Mahathir became prime minister, Johari said the former premier, whom he described as a “shrewd politician”, made full use of the BTN and turned it into a complete Umno-Barisan Nasional (BN) indoctrination machinery to maintain Malay loyalty to the status quo.
“One of the courses (under him) was that the Malay participants were taught to defend the Umno-BN government at all cost. If the Umno-BN government falls, than the Malays are made to think that the Malays would be enslaved in their own country.”
“And then it got worse when (PKR de facto leader) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked by Dr Mahathir after a fall-out in 1998 and the BTN was then used to demonise all opposition leaders,” he added.
The PKR leader claimed he was speaking from personal experience as a former director of the agency.
And being a former director and also an Umno man, Johari admitted that he too at one point believed in the teachings of the BTN, and its supposed objective to help the Malays but has since “repented.”
“You know within your conscience that there is something wrong somewhere..it is wrong,” he said.
Johari said however that to be fair there was nothing wrong with the agency itself but that it was the syllabus that needed a revamp. He also said that Umno, as a political entity, has the right to do its best to edge out its political rivals.
“But don’t use taxpayers money for that. Finance your own programme,” he said.
The government had allocated RM64 million under the 2010 Federal Budget for BTN and the opposition is currently doing its best in Parliament to get BTN closed.
So far, some influential Umno leaders like Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, and Minister in the Prime Minister Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, have joined in the rising chorus against the agency.
Nazri had also blasted Dr Mahathir as a racist for defending BTN while Razaleigh claimed he too was a victim of the programme when he went against the former premier in the late 1980s.
But the hawks in Umno, through its newspapers like Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia, have come out to defend BTN and blast its critics as attempting to politicise the issue.

Dr M challenges Nazri to quit ‘racist’ Umno

“Umno is racist, only for Malays,” says Mahathir. — file pic

By Neville Spykerman
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today hit back at Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz for calling him a racist and urged the minister to instead quit Umno because it was indeed a racist party.
The former premier and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department have been at loggerheads over the need to revamp the National Civics Bureau (BTN), which critics charge with cultivating racism instead of its original purpose of nation building.
Yesterday Nazri called Dr Mahathir a “bloody racist” for defending BTN courses while reasserting the Cabinet’s earlier decision to overhaul the programme in line with the policy of 1 Malaysia mooted by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Nazri says I am a racist, he cannot deny he is not because he knows everything very well,” said Dr Mahathir.
“He belongs to a party that is racist because Umno is meant only for Malays, no one else can join. But he is against racism, so he should resign from the party.”
Nazri yesterday said Dr Mathathir’s postings in his blog were also racist and contrary to his own stand when he was the prime minister.
“When he was prime minister he wanted everyone to support him but now he only talks about the Malays, so I cannot accept his comments,” Nazri had said yesterday.
Dr Mahathir had defended BTN’s training modules and described them as suitable for instilling patriotism in Malaysians.
BTN came under public scrutiny recently, after Pakatan Rakyat-ruled Selangor prohibited state civil servants and students of higher educational institutions owned by the state from attending its courses, claiming that they were an indoctrination process by the Barisan Nasional government and aimed at brainwashing Malaysians into hate opposition parties.
PR leaders and former participants have also claimed that the courses were racist and emphasised the idea of Malay superiority.

Nazri finds another backer in tiff with Dr M

By G Manimaran

Koh (right) says Najib’s 1 Malaysia has no room for racism. — file pic

PETALING JAYA, Dec 8 — Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon has supported Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s stand that the National Civics Bureau (BTN) should be revamped to be in accordance with the spirit and principles of 1 Malaysia.
Koh who is also the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Unity and Performance Management, came forward to defend his colleague Nazri.
“The prime minister is aware and this (revamps) was discussed,” he said.
Koh said the thrust of 1 Malaysia as enunciated by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak encompasses acceptance and appreciation of diversity.
“The principle of nationhood according to our constitution and Rukun Negara, as well as justice and fairness for all.
“As 1 Malaysia is clearly all-inclusive, there is no room for any form of racism, extremism and hatred,” said Koh in a statement released today.
He added this principle should be the basis for the training programme to guide the attitude and behaviour of all members of the civil service and university students.
Surprised by the remarks from the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Koh said that the former prime minister may not be aware of the latest slant in the BTN courses.
Koh himself participated in one such course with other political and corporate leaders in the mid-90s, presided personally by Dr Mahathir.
“The content of the courses emphasised on unity and understanding as well as the need to handle all issues with great care and sensitivity.
“However, recent feedback from participants since last year showed that the BTN course has diverted from its earlier version.
“Participants, including JPA scholars, felt very upset and disheartened,” he said and added that the need to revamp is based on such feedback.
The BTN runs compulsory courses for civil servants and undergraduates and has been accused of promoting hatred and racism by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders.
The PR-led Selangor government recently imposed a ban on its civil servants and students within its state-run educational institutions from attending BTN courses, while Penang — another PR- governed state — is said to be considering similar action.
But the hawks in Umno, through Malay-based dailies like Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia, have moved to defend BTN and attacked its critics as “traitors” who are trying to politicise the issue.
On Sunday Mingguan Malaysia urged the government not to “bow down” to the opposition on BTN.
Nazri had said that BTN training modules would be revamped to better reflect the 1 Malaysia concept introduced by Najib.
However, Dr Mahathir has been defending the BTN courses, saying that the criticism against them has been exaggerated.


I Do Not Want the Malays To Be Like These

Wake-up call for Malay community in Singapore

Singapore’s Malay community needs to address its problems with broken homes. — Reuters pic

SINGAPORE, Dec 7 — After he went missing for a week, a six-year-old Malay boy was found dead last month. A family friend who ferried him to and from school has since been charged with murder.

This tragedy and a few others involving young Malay children from broken homes so distress Minister in Charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim that over the weekend, he cried out to his community to “be worried”.

“My worry is, I don’t see a sense of urgency in the community about this problem,” he said in a candid interview, during which he openly declared that he was embarrassed, even “malu” (ashamed), by the reports of Malay men involved in such heinous crimes

His despair is almost palpable as he described how these tragedies are symptomatic of a deeper sociological problem and spells out the dangers of ignoring this long-standing problem of broken homes in the Malay community, saying it will lead to an underclass.

“Once it emerges... you can never remove it,” he warned, as he expressed his fear of the situation deteriorating and going the way of the blacks and Hispanics in the United States.

He said this in an interview with Malay daily Berita Harian following a meeting with 80 young Malay-Muslim professionals on Saturday to brainstorm ideas to tackle problems facing the community.

Dr Yaacob, who is also Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, made it plain he did not have all the answers.

Highlighting another problem, the declining pass rate of Malay students in mathematics at PSLE level, he said: “I go back to the traditional method (of solving the problem) — give more tuition, give more workbook, and so on. Maybe there is something else. I don’t know.”

The pass rate has slipped in the last three years to 56 per cent now, against the national average of 90 per cent.

But it is the problem of dysfunctional families that worries him most. Often, in such families, one parent is missing or in jail, and teens get pregnant out of wedlock and marry early, if at all.

Though they are in the minority, their problems are complex and intractable.

However, he does not view their behaviour as a lack of morality, saying it is a sociological phenomenon.

“The problem is deeper... My take is this group of people do not live by our standards. They have opted out and have their own cultural understanding, where staying together with a non-married partner is accepted.” This is not Malay culture, this is a subculture, he added.

He fears that should it become rooted, it would go the way of black and Hispanic Americans, where many girls get pregnant to get out of poverty because the state would then take care of them.

He senses it is already happening here and self-help group Mendaki is now doing a study of the issue.

Meanwhile, he made a plea to better-off Malay-Muslims not to turn their backs on these families but “make it their mission in life to think about it, to write about it and explore solutions”.

He added: “We must be worried about this problem, and everyone in the community must be thinking of this problem. I believe it can be tackled but we have to put our minds together.”

Three factors give him optimism: A growing Malay middle class with varied expertise, years of experience in dealing with such social challenges, and that Singapore provides equal opportunity for all.

But should the Malay-Muslim elite shrug off this group, a concern he had raised at a Hari Raya dinner two months ago, the outcome is scary, he said, as the community’s best minds, who have the resources, would not be available to help their own.

Youth worker Irwan Sahrul, 34, shares his worry about the professionals. The executive director of Malay-Muslim welfare organisation Clubilya, which helps youths in trouble, feels more of them should engage such youths in their own neighbourhood and make them feel part of the community.

“They can be mentors, especially if they, too, have a similar family background,” he added.

Association of Muslim Professionals’ chairman Nizam Ismail, 42, believes dysfunctional families will be a very significant national problem as Singapore becomes more competitive.

So, he feels the country needs to review the present approach of relying on community-based welfare groups to help sort out the problem. He said: “The issue should be looked at as a national rather than a community problem. You need national resources and government-led intervention.” — The Straits Times

But Yet I take note of this blunder by UMNO

Umno lifts suspension of Penang’s Ahmad Ismail

By G. Manimaran and Adib Zalkapli
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 — Controversial Penang Umno warlord Datuk Ahmad Ismail, whose membership was suspended for three years last September for uttering a racist remark during a campaign rally, has been reinstated into the party.
Ahmad, who made the remark at a public rally during the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign last year, confirmed the news but said he has yet to be informed officially.
The Malaysian Insider understands that the Umno supreme council decided to end his suspension last Friday as recommended by the party’s management committee.
When contacted, Ahmad told The Malaysian Insider that he was told by his friends on the supreme council that the party leadership had decided to reinstate his membership.
“I was only told by my friends in Majlis Tertinggi (supreme council) that during the Dec 4 meeting, the party decided to accept me back. But no official notification from the party.
“However, I feel grateful and glad that the party’s struggle is back on the normal track. You know, under the party constitution I did not do anything wrong, but I was penalised and accepted that. Now, the party decided to take me back and I feel glad with their decision.
“I would like to express my appreciation to the party president, deputy president for their consideration,” he added.
Ahmad said that the party may have sent him notification, but “I did not go to my office today.”
The lifting of his suspension appears to be a move to appease party members who feel that he should not have been slapped with such a long suspension.
It is not likely to cause any ruffles within Barisan Nasional because the main critics against Ahmad — Gerakan and MCA — are now either on life support or in the throes of infighting.
When contacted, Penang Umno state leaders refused to confirm the news.
Umno executive secretary Datuk Abd Rauf Yusoh, when asked on Ahmad’s status, declined to confirm his reinstatement.
“There has been no official announcement, just wait for the letter,” Rauf told The Malaysian Insider.
Ahmad was suspended from the party following a public outcry after he called the non-Malays “pendatang” (immigrants) during the election campaign, which saw the dramatic return of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to Parliament.
His remark had caused damage to the administration of the then-prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who had lost the support of the non-Malays in Election 2008, just months earlier.
It also led to Penang Umno’s fallout with its leading partner in the state Barisan Nasional (BN), Gerakan.
Meanwhile, Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Abdul Jalil Ariffin said he would find ways to reinstate Ahmad as the division head.
“God willing, we will return the post to him, we will look into the mechanism and also the political situation,” Abdul Jalil told The Malaysian Insider.
Abdul Jalil won the division chief post uncontested at its annual meeting in November last year, two months after Ahmad lost all his party posts following the suspension.
At the division’s first meeting since Ahmad’s suspension, he was given a warrior’s welcome by the Bukit Bendera Umno delegates.
He was also presented with a keris and proclaimed the “Bukit Bendera Warrior”.


Labels:

Thursday, December 10, 2009

The writer of this article is someone whom i have met and whose work i admire. i commented on her writings many times this is the latest. read with an open mind

The sounds of faith
DEC 9 — Part and parcel of living in a multiracial country like Malaysia is that we live among the sounds of faith. On the outset, we look like a model nation: churches, Hindu and Buddhist temples, and mosques. Some churches are also in shophouses!

For my Muslim friends and I, we require the call to prayer to remind ourselves of our duty to Allah — to pray, and also use the five azans to roughly tell us the time (!), and yes, when to break our fast. (Yes, we Muslims do fast when it is not Ramadan but that’s another story for another time. Word limit).

One of my fondest memories about the azan, though at that time I almost choked and reprimanded my father, was the time when I lived near a surau with two different bilals. One was Indonesian and I surmised that when I listened to his flaming and smoking ceramah about Jews and Zionists. The other was Malay, and always shouting to the point that his ceramah was incomprehensible. My father listened to all this calmly. After another rant by the Malay bilal/imam, my father came to the conclusion that the man must be an Umno imam because “… imam PAS semua merdu belaka… bila ceramah lembut tapi ada impak…” I was mortified because for all my modernity, there were some things you didn’t do and that was to make fun of your local imams!

However, as we all know, the azan and the call to prayer for Christians, Hindus and our non-Muslim brethren have become a contentious issue among us. Yes, the Muslim “voice” is dominant as there are more of us, hence the siege mentality felt by non Muslims. “Allah” is being battled in court and international watchdogs are watching keenly Malaysia’s impending fundamentalist stance. I am not going to bore you by reminding you of what has been happening religiously; you read the news and you know what is happening.

But my non-Muslim friends who are brave enough to voice out their feelings, whom I have to be thankful for their honesty, will ask: why are your mosques so noisy? Cannot sleep la. Always got some ceramah.

Down where I live is a Hindu temple and across the road is a mosque, and there is always something going on, but I manage to sleep. You try staying in Bali, the temples are always chiming. I once frightened myself silly wondering why the Balinese temple next door kept having prayers at night, but you know what? The moral of the story is this: you learn to adjust. Or put a pillow over your head and go back to sleep.

I cite a few Quranic verses when my non-Muslim friends ask whether Islam encourages compassion for non-Muslims:

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (Chapter 49, Al-Hujurat:13)

And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is man’s foe ... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith. (Chapter 17, Al-Isra:53, 54)

To every people have we appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) "God best knows (the value of) what you do." (Chapter 22, Al-Hajj:67, 68)

Perhaps what we need to do among ourselves is retune our minds to accept and enjoy these “sounds”.

Thich Nhat Hanh, who wrote “Peace Is Every Step”, recounted about his visit to the west and how he had not heard Buddhist bells where he was. Still there were many church bells in Europe. When he gave a lecture, he made use of church bells to remind his students and himself of mindfulness. He went on to say: “We have to learn to really enjoy our church bells and our school bells.”

I was struck by that passage when I read Hanh’s book. All it took was just a change of attitude. A devout monk in a foreign, secular land, missing his temples and bells… and yet he chose to embrace its substitute (church bells) to remind him of the beauty of God and life. Perhaps, and I am sure readers of this article will contest this greatly. For surely, a change of mindset is not the answer to ills in Malaysia? Even though it may not be the answer, it could be the start of positive developments, yes?

A Muslim friend, who goes on a lot of missions, wrote this once in a Facebook debate on minarets: “I loved being in Bosnia... I could hear both the azan and church bells... there were minarets, crosses (both Orthodox and Catholic) and there was also the Star of David. There were separate graves and there were mixed graves.”

If educated and well-travelled Malaysians can ask me how I could love travelling to Bali with the many Hindu “djinns” dancing on the island, and why I appreciated the architecture of medieval European churches, am I being naïve and idealistic to think that magnamity can happen in my country?

Let’s start by being mindful. Unless of course there’ll be a fatwa against mindfulness as it stems from Buddhist teachings.

Note (1): The Yusuf Ali translation of the Holy Quran was referred to for this text.

My Comment

Dina
The report is well balance but sadly it shows how liberal and Chinese hunk lover you are but deep down underneath it still shows you are a Malay. Minarets and adzhan are not part of faith. Minarets are accessories to Mosque and were created 80 years after Muhammad’s death and the 4 rightful Caliph. Adzhan was a call to prayer and the first Muezzin was Bilal. He calls the Adzhan from the rooftop of Muhammad which act as a Mosque too. There was no loudspeaker, no amplifier thus these modern gadgets are now part of the accessories just like Adzhan which is a tradition but not of faith! Thus when Kamal Ataturk decree the adzhan was to be done in Turk was he wrong? I am sorry to digress, no he is not wrong for it is not part of faith just like the doa or supplication which can be done in Malay or any other language the person is happy with, for God hears your doa in whatever language!

I always found that the morning adzhan in my neighbourhood meddlesome because my neighbourhood is consist of many races and I was taught by my religion to mindful of others. In this tech world we live in the faithful could programme his clock, his handphone or even the TV to remind him of his obligation to pray making the call to the faithful as obsolete but a tradition thus do you need to have the volume full blast! Why can’t we be mindful!, why do you believe Dina that Malays need to show and parade their faith but are not to me faithful afherents to God? I try to fulfil my obligation to God, Im lucky that I could, like clockwork wake up before Adzhan Subuh yet I am mindful to others because my religion taught me too! Why can’t you? Malays like me are an anomaly, for you have the Conservatives and the liberal like Art, but yet none dapat mengupas the meaning of Muslim without getting into rhetoric.

One is not a Muslim by what you can see but what you cannot see. A Muslim is a Muslim by his deeds and action without forgetting his obligation to his maker outwardly and inwardly. So Dina let’s go out together and discover the joy of me! By the way please go to my blog as I commented on the Minarets!

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

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

Keeping promises to communists

3 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

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

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

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


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

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

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

Whose history?


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

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

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

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

Making choices

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

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


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

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

Honouring agreements

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Deborah Loh ponders the meaning of forgiveness.

The voice of the Malay communists

4 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

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


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

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

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

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

No conditions


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

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

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

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

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

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

quote

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

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

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

Malay, Muslim, and communist


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

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

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

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

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


Cover for The Finest Hour

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

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

A "false independence"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discontent

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

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

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

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

Was Chin Peng played out?

1 Dec 09 : 8.00AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

Making peace

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

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


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

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

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

Stalling return?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Government fudging


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

No regrets

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

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

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

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

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


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

Determined to return

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

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

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

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

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

Chin Peng, sympathy, injustice and sanctity of contract

DEC 8 — The day I had a lunch appointment with a friend at the central business district in Sydney was one of those pleasant summer days.
With blue sky and time aplenty, I walked the distance, which was about a mile or two from my home. As I approached the restaurant, my cell phone beeped. It was a message from the friend. She requested for an hour worth of postponement.
With me already among streams of people crisscrossing the city centre minding their own business, I switched direction and headed toward Hyde Park to visit a prominent war memorial.
Inside, on the wall carved the word Malaysia, along with other places where Australian forces had fought long ago. My mind immediately raced toward a period when communist insurgency was running high in Malaysia. Years have gone and sympathy for communism should be dead by now but it is has not.
The dishonourable path the Malaysian government takes with respect to former communist militants may unnecessarily fuel the fire of communism and the general political left in the country.
Communism is a disagreeable idea that restricts liberty.
Its goals are arguably dreamingly nobly utopian. Its means are not however; its opposition to private property right is enough to demonstrate how communism is anti-liberty. Furthermore, good intentions and goals are never enough. History has shown how communism failed in all four corners of the world.
Wherever it still exists, it is a façade supported by capitalism, it exists side by side a ruined economy, its promises unfulfilled, or it only exists within the framework of democracy that communists in the real world — not mere theoreticians who failed to account for reality — long ago considered as an anathema. Communism simply fails to confront real world problems.
In great contrast, capitalism in one form or another continues to be the best system to ensure prosperity despite all criticism that have been lobbed at it and despite painful crashes that we see every now and then. It has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any form of communist solutions that any communist can realistically hoped for, so far.
A stronger statement is possible: it has been performing better at delivering prosperity than any other system, so far. In the face of this observation, those who still cling to the promises of communism are being hopelessly romantic, bathed in stubborn denial and doomed for ideological failure.
The truth is self-evident yet, former communist militants — more so its former head Chin Peng who is unrepentant of past transgressions and his failed ideology — continue to receive sympathy from far too many individuals in the country.
For all the pain communism had caused all around the world and especially in Malaysia, only those on the political margin should be expressing sympathy to either communism or former communist militants, and not those near the centre. Yet, many close to the political centre do so.
When those near the centre do that, then something is definitely amiss. It is worrisome for such sympathy to blossom in the mainstreams section of our society because such sympathy can sow the seed for future growth of communism.
At the very least, it creates a groundswell for strong support for the general political left in the country. Communism may be a weak movement here in Malaysia but in the future, especially with the proliferation of greater democratic culture, that statement does not have to be true, even if we are living in the age of Fukuyama’s end of history.
It can be the seed because a short-term factor may override dire long-term consequences of communism when individuals consider the issue. That factor is a linchpin for the sympathy former communist militants currently enjoy. That linchpin is injustice. A sense of injustice is the reason why there is sympathy for Chin Peng and other former communist militants.
It is a short-term factor because some time in the near future, the issue will be academic since nobody lives forever. Nevertheless, the refusal of Malaysian government to allow for the former leader of a defunct militant — some would say terrorist — movement to return to the land of his youth will no doubt be an example of injustices communists and communist sympathisers may highlight as part of their populist rhetoric to attract new acolytes for the hive.
It is an injustice because by refusing Chin Peng the right to return, the government is reneging on its obligations arising from the peace treaty signed between it and the communist. That treaty specifically calls upon the government to allow former communist militants to return to the country if the application is made before a deadline, which Chin Peng met.
That turns the matter into an issue of sanctity of contract. As much as communism is an enemy of liberty, the idea of sanctity of contract is a cornerstone of liberal societies.
Indeed, one of the reasons for the establishment of a state in liberal tradition is the need to enforce contracts entered voluntarily, as long as those contracts do not violate individual liberty.
When the state goes back on its words with impunity, it inevitably raises a very serious question regarding the legitimacy of a state. In a more concrete term, it undermines public trust in the Barisan Nasional federal government, which does not have a sterling reputation to start with.
One does not need a lecture on the importance of sanctity of contract in liberal tradition. One does not need to be a liberal to understand the idea of sanctity of contract in wider traditions. Surely, at some point in time, our parents or our teachers have impressed on us on the importance of keeping to our promises. Being true to our words, generally, is good ethics.
Opponents to the act of honoring the agreement among others cite that Chin Peng deserves no forgiveness for all the heinous crimes he committed. Furthermore, Malaysia would have been a very different place if the communists had succeeded. We might as well have been another North Korea. For that and more, Chin Peng may indeed deserve no forgiveness and in fact, continuous denunciations.
Nonetheless, in the words of Tunku ‘Abidin Muhriz of the Malaysia Think Tank in an email exchange regarding this very matter among several libertarians, “the issue of forgiveness and honoring a contract are separate.”
Our refusal to forgive a person should not be the basis of us refusing to fulfil our obligation to the other person as stated in a contract. Therefore, there is a liberal case for allowing Chin Peng to return, unless there is proof that he has violated the 1989 Hatyai Peace Accord.
More importantly, by allowing the former militant leader to return and hence, fulfilling the obligation imposed on the Malaysian government, it removes injustice from the equation. Without injustice as a factor, there is little reason for those close to the political centre to sympathise with Chin Peng and thus, killing the seed for greater support — however small the increase is — for communism and the general political left in Malaysia.
The writer is a fellow at the Malaysian Think Tank.