Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 3: Gradual maturing of the ordinary Muslim hindered?

The politicization of Islam in the country has actually taken away the liberty of the ordinary Muslim citizen to practice the faith peacefully and as he understands it. The demands of politico-Islamisation on the ordinary Muslim is not only onerous but even to the point of being oppressive.

Islam is not a law that can to be imposed by compulsion (I will touch on the effect of fiqh subsequently). Islam may also be looked upon as a “religion”, a faith, a “spirituality”, an all “encompassing way of Life ordained by the Maker”. The foundation of acceptance of Islam is faith and not mere physical submission. . Once there is faith founded on the knowledge from the Maker, that is the Quran, then the person considers himself as a Muslim. This is a stage by stage process that the person will have to go through all his life and not something that can be manufactured overnight like mass producing products from a factory. That is how faith works.

“Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen your heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to you in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually”. (Quran: 25:32)

No laws can make a person believe something that he does not believe. Compelling someone to believe something is indoctrination or the encouragement of hypocrisy and not education of the soul. It may even turn the ignorant, impatient persons away from the faith.

“As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe”. (Quran: 2:6)

Politico-Islamisation requires every State defined Muslim to submit to the State defined religious laws under pain of punishment. In Malaysia, a person is a Muslim as defined by each of the State as “Islam” is a State matter with each of the Malay Ruler as the “Head of Islam”.

Hence, the practice of Islam in Malaysia is not simply a private matter of faith between him and God but a legal matter between him and the State in which he lives. It is for this reason that each State has its own religious authorities to regulate and control “religious behaviour” as provided for by the respective State Syariah enactments. For example, while fasting is one of the important articles of faith in Islam, it is equally an offence for a State defined Muslim to eat in public during the fasting months. The law prohibits a public display of non-fasting and ignores the fact of God’s omnipresence which can only be inculcated through education and faith.

Since Islam in Malaysia is so much identified with law or shariah due to the fact that most of the Islamic scholars in the country are juristic or fiqhi, it is not surprising that there has been very little emphasis on the greater aspects of the Islamic teachings, including its values.

Since the religious laws are passed by Assemblymen who are politicians, politics play a vital role. Politics has to do with the pursuance of power by pandering to the sentiments of the voters. In Malaysia, the voters are largely Malays and who vide Article 160 of the Federal Constitution, are automatically legal Muslims. Malays have high sentiments towards their religion like most others have towards theirs. (In India, the RSS politicizes Hinduism and panders to the Hindu sentiments for votes).

Each State also has its own religious council and this is where the role of the Islamic scholars appointed or employed by the State in the politico-Islamisation process comes into play.

It is important to understand the equation or link between religious laws-politics-Islamic scholars in order to properly analyse the politico-Islamisation process and how it impacts on the Muslim’s personal liberty to practice and profess his faith as he understands it. It is a complex web.

TO be continued….Peace !

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 2

While I understand and accept that every community must have laws to govern the conduct of its members, the question always is:

- which conduct, to what extent, who decides and what mechanism?

This question arises because there is a big difference when you legislate on matters relating to faith and non-faith matters. Let me make this point clear by an example.

If someone tell me to obey the red-yellow-green traffic light system because it facilitates traffic movement and that the Road Transport Act provides for penalties if I transgress it, then it is simply an issue of traffic regulation and the effectiveness of the law. I may evaluate its effectiveness and probably agree it is good or suggest improvements. Either way, I will obey it since I can see for myself it is good and I also want to avoid being penalized.

On the other hand, If someone tells me that the traffic light system of red-yellow-green is ordained by Allah, and if one disputes it, one will go to hell, then it is a matter of faith. If this traffic regulation is further legislated as “syariah law” and the State tells me I have to adhere to it NOT because I am a citizen but a MUSLIM citizen, then my Muslim consciousness gets triggered to verify whether it is indeed ordained by Allah or not. I simply cannot treat what people say in Allah’s name presumptuously, especially when they want to enforce it on me in His name. I have to check it with my Book of guidance, the Quran, and this is what it says:

“And do not accept that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning)”. (Quran: 17:36)

The entire Quran puts a duty on me to verify whatever anyone (no matter how learned they claim to be on earth) says to me in His name with His Book of Gudiance. As a secondary source, I may refer to the Sunnah of the prophet IF there is no clear injunction in the Quran. If there is, there is no onus for me to check with the Sunnah (Today, however, many Muslims seem to refer more to the recorded Sunnah rather than the Quran).

Now assuming that I cannot find anywhere anything in the Quran or the Sunnah to say that the “syariah traffic” light system is not in the Quran and the Sunnah, I should be free to believe as such. However, when the State imposes it on me as a “divine commandment”, then it oppresses my freedom of faith to be the Muslim as I understand. The State “religious laws” become a threat to my faith and compels me to be a hypocrite

When someone, nothing less than an “Islamic scholar” tells me that it is part of the “Islamic fiqh” (Law) that married adulterers are to be stoned, my entire skin jumps out in revulsion and I pray in my heart “Allah please guide us”. I cannot find it in the Quran at all. In fact, in the entire Quran, all the stoning incidents narrated therein are done by pagans. Never by the Muslims.

Of course, many have tried to persuade me to accept the “knowledge” of the “learned ulamaks”. This is a feeble logic of persuasion for many reasons. First, there is a big difference being a person of information and a person of knowledge. Personally, I have known many scholars of being highly informative of the information that they have mastered without understanding or evaluating the basis of those information. Rarely, do you find the evaluative scholar in a discipline where uniformity of thought is highly encouraged for the “well being of the ummah” (sounds like a good excuse to dispense with thinking). Secondly, you only accept the views of anybody whose views are consistent with the Quran and the Sunnah. Thirdly, Allah has warned us to be wary of many unscrupulous and conmen “ulamaks” who cheat people of their wealth and lies in God’s name:

“O you who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of God. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God: announce unto them a most grievous penalty”- (Quran: 9:34)

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God," but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God, and (well) they know”. ( Quran: 3: 78)

To me Surah 3, verse 78 above reminds me constantly to watch for those who try to beguile me with their “knowledge” of Arabic language but what they preach is actually : “sounds like Islam, smells like Islam, looks like Islam but is not Islam!”

Fourthly, I have yet to met a “learned scholar” who can give me the guarantee that Allah has ordained me to ask from such people when they try to compel their views upon me:

“What is the matter with you? How judge you? Or have you a book through which you learn that you shall have, through it whatever you choose? Or have you Covenants with Us to oath, reaching to the Day of Judgment, (providing) that you shall have whatever you shall demand? Ask you of them, which of them will stand surety/guarantee for that!” (Quran: 68: 36- 40)

With the greatest of respect and with all humility, I dare say that the majority of the Assemblymen who legislate on my behalf do not know the above verses and commandments of Allah in the Quran. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and I apologise. However, this is the impression I am left with after discussing with a bulk of them for more than 20 years! Much of the drafting and “selection” of what is “syariah law” is left to paid “religious” civil servants.

The reader must be clear that the purpose of this article is not to question the syariah laws. The evaluation of whether the existing syariah laws are consistent with the Quran and the Sunnah is another matter that should be dealt with. This article wishes to point out the problems that arise when you legislate faith, which, in essence, is a private and not a public matter.

From the above discussion, the mutation of the Government’s “Islamisation progamme” into politico-Islamisation can be further explained. Due to political expediency and the lack of true interest on behalf of the political law-makers, all drafting and selection of “syariah laws” is left to civil servants. Politics avoids controversy and hence there is a strong inclination and preference to lean towards what is popular and conservative.

Though Islam recognizes diversity of views and paths towards the God Al-Mighty, political expediency and the need for uniformity, control and administration results in one inevitable result – you believe as the State dictates. This is a threat to the Muslim who takes his faith seriously and not simply as a community culture to be adhered to.

Politico-Islamisation also places much power into the hands of politicians and opportunists who position themselves as “champions of Islam”. Not only is there “competition” between politicians but equally among “Islamic scholars” depending on which school of thought you belonged to. This will give rise to immense problems for our country in the future if it is not addressed now. This will be discussed in the next posting, God willing.

Peace !

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 1

Twenty three years ago, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, the well respected social scientist and Muslim thinker, wrote in his book “Islamic resurgence in Malaysia” (Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd, 1987) that the signs of “Islamic resurgence are everywhere”. In this excellent book, he analysed objectively and clearly the primary and secondary causes of the resurgence, the reaction of the political players (primarily PAS and UMNO) and the general reactions of the Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is interesting that he decided to explain in his book why he chose the term “Islamic resurgence”. I will like to quote one of the reasons he cited at page 2:

“…resurgence as a term embodies the notion of challenge, even a threat to those who adhere to other world-views. Many Muslims themselves would regard the espousal of an Islamic alternative as a challenge to the dominant social systems. Groups outside Islam, including those who are being challenged, would similarly perceive the rise of Islam as a threat to the position they hold.”

I recall as a young student in UKM in 1984, I was part of the “Islamic resurgence wave” with the determination that before I graduated I must organize at least one “Islamic programme”. I did manage to organize the first international seminar of its kind organized by a student body in the country then – “Seminar Sistem Kewangan Islam”. A seminar to discuss various “Islamic financial institutions”. That time, “Bank Islam” was still in its infancy and there were hardly any other “Islamic financial institutions”. The event was a success if measured by the attendance of international speakers and it was officiated by YM Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who was then the Finance Minister. ( Of course I never realized then the metamorphosis of such institutions today labeled “Islam”)

I recall too that the main challenge in making the seminar a success was the management of my project committee. In UKM then, the student body was divided into two – one pro-PAS and the other pro-UMNO. The Economics Society was controlled by the pro-UMNO group. Normally, whenever any project is carried out by pro-UMNO, they will only select their own kind. Likewise with pro-PAS, they will also select their own kind. When my proposal for the project was accepted, I had insisted that I had the sole discretion to select my committee without any interference from the Economics Society exco which they agreed.

My committee was made up equally of pro-UMNO, pro-PAS and non-Muslims! Though I am considered to be part of the pro-UMNO group, but I was among the rare ones who could mingle easily with the pro-PAS group. However, in the eyes of the pro-PAS group, I was considered “dangerous” because while my dressing is western (shirt tucked in, belt, long pants and black shoes!) I could debate and argue with them. Those were the days when even UMNO leaders (with the exception of Dr Mahathir) would not dare to argue about Islam with PAS or pro-PAS groups.

Hence, some of the pro-PAS members of my committee were actually trying to scuttle the project. Student leaders like me should not be allowed to succeed because that would give me an “Islamic credential” when in some of their eyes, I do not deserve that. That was my first lesson of “religion being a tool of politics”. Some groups feel that Islam is their sole property and only they can dictate what is and who should talk about it. As a young student of course I was shocked that a “noble intention” and the willingness to work towards the success of the project was insufficient. I had to look and talk like them.

I had to make a decision because there were real sabotages done that could actually derail the seminar. That’s when I decided a few things in my life:

1) I will forever refuse to look like an Islamist (not “Islamic”). I do not live this life for fools/hypocrites who conjecture and treat God’s religion as a club membership. My life is Allah’s.

2) I will maintain the members and will not sack them unless they themselves do not want to be part of the seminar. They will be my test of fairness.

3) The non-Muslim members will remain unless they too do not want to (there was opposition to their inclusion too.) I am a Muslim and no one will convert me into a racist.

Finally, I called a meeting and spoke at length about the importance of the seminar, asked everyone to cooperate, those who want to leave can leave but I prefer them to stay and help. They who want to stay and try to scuttle the project too are also welcome to remain behind because I too want to know what was God’s ultimate plan for the seminar. I told them that I hold no grudges against any of the scuttlers and that they are a test to us and to themselves. I told them each of them are answerable to God, not to me. By the end of the meeting, some of the committee members cried and from that day on, generally, we were “smooth sailing”. Generally.

I read Dr Chandra’s book in 1988 because I was amazed how accurately he analysed the events that I saw then in UKM. He was talking about Malaysia and I was thinking that UKM in 1982 is the future Malaysia. Today, I think I am correct.

While I too was very happy with the rise in “Islamic consciousness”, I cannot help worrying about mass hypnosis and indoctrination, preoccupation with form rather than substance and the political “hijacking” of faith which to me is personal. It worried me that we may become a society where there is “religious oppression” and in the process, we are left with the “Law” but the death of “the spirit of Islam” in our society.

In 1984, the wave of “Islamisation” was strong for both the “right and wrong reasons”. The reactions to this wave were both “right and wrong”. My own impression was that the “embracing” of the resurgence was not altogether due to the love of God but other factors too, including the need for identity. However, while everyone was espousing the “Islamic” nature of UKM, I was seeing something else.

I saw that there was a rise of racism under the guise of “Islam”. For instance, until 1985, if I recall correctly, there were no non-Malay students who stood as candidates in the University elections. The logic then (and am sure still now among the conservative quarters) was that non-Muslims cannot be leaders for Muslims. Hence a Muslim should not vote for non-Muslims. You may recall that at one time, PAS was criticizing the Barisan Nasional for working with MCA and MIC. Heavens! This is not the mercy to humankind called “Islam” that I understand.

As a senior student in UKM, when I was put in charge of the campus election machinery, I argued along Quranic principles why we must field non-Muslim candidates too. For the first time, one Chinese and one Indian student stood for elections in UKM. This is Islam as I understand from the Quran. There also I learnt that I will have to prepare myself for the conflict between those conservative groups who want to impose their views on me and my own understanding from the Quran. I am, at the end of the day, accountable to Allah for my deeds. No one will be my advocate.

From UKM in 1984 to this day, “the conservative outlook of Islam” is the dominant outlook in our society. This is largely due to the political positioning and competition between PAS and UMNO as both try very hard to get into the hearts of the Malay voters. This I call the “politico-Islamisation process’ – where political considerations determine the “type of Islam” in the country. Political considerations usually consider what is pragmatic, popular and expedient – not necessarily what is “right and correct”.

The politico-Islamisation process in this country took on a serious evolutionary process because both PAS and UMNO seem to want out to each other with who is more “Islamic”. In the process, the UMNO led government is the one that gave momentum and force to this process, albeit unsuspectingly, by its Islamisation programme in 1982 with the subsequent sprouting of many institutions “Islamic”.

I think somewhere along the way, everything got out of hand. The man or the group of men who started the “Islamisation programme” were not there forever to control or manage it. It began to have a life of its own and began to mutate into something else altogether. Politics and the fight for prominence in matters “Islamic” took precedence over the education, discussion and understanding of Islam by Muslims themselves. The very political structure of our society seem to make the State and its apparatus the sole decider of what is “Islamic and what is not”. For example, there are set syllabuses in primary schools which are compulsory for all Muslim students to attend. All these which involves matters of faith and personal accountability to God are decided by a group of paid civil servants and politicians for the rest of the Muslim populace.

The rest of us will simply have to submit to them. This is a point which I have to return to later.

Peace !

Statistical cruel magic tricks

Let’s take ten of you. 5 years ago you were earning RM1,000.00 a month. So, per month all 10 of you were earning RM10,000.00 per month or RM120,000.00 per year. Taking this 10 only, the national income (GDI) is RM120,000.00

Then what happened was, 4 of you lost your job and the remaining 6 of you got an income increase to RM2,000.00 each. Since the 6 got a doubled pay increase, therefore the GDI has increased to RM 144,000.00 per year.

Now, the politicians and “experts” will boast that the economy has improved! There has been an increase in income in the country of RM24,000.00. The income levels in the economy has improved by 20% !!!

Everyone "forgets" that there are still 4 persons unemployed!

This is called the statistics trick!

Peace !

Remember we have Our own Shariah Laws?

Many people seem to forget that Malaysia has syariah laws in place in every state. I say “forget” because every time the relevant syariah enforcement officers act according to the Syariah enactments in the respective states, quite a number of people raise an alarm and cry “That cannot be done!” But the officers are only acting within the powers given to them by the respective syariah enactments.

Whenever the syariah courts sentence someone according to the provisions of the respective State Syariah laws, even more people protest and start saying that cannot be done. But the syariah courts are only exercising the powers given to them by the respective syariah enactments.

When Hishamuddin Hussein Onn announced that 3 women were caned, some quarters raised an alarm. When Kartika voluntarily subjected herself to the existing syariah law and the presiding Judge sentenced her according to the existing syariah law, many protested.

If it was just the ordinary citizen, then it is understandable. They do not what laws has been passed as “syariah” and when.

What is mind boggling is that the sounds of protest come from those who are in the government, even Minister. It is ironical that Ministers do know or forget that there are Syriah laws in place.

I was shocked long time ago when Tun Dr Mahathir, being Prime Minster then voiced his displeasure when three girls who took part in a beauty pageant was arrested. What? He is the Prime Minister. Why didn’t he start a reform of the syariah laws if he felt strongly about it? He didn’t, therefore it must mean that the Barisan Nasional Government is very happy with the existing syariah laws.

Let me point out some basic facts:

1. Every State has its own Syariah Laws – meaning one offence in one state may not be an offence in another state. Punishments for the same offence may be different.
2. These Syariah laws are passed by the State Assembly of each State – that means the credit for all these laws must go to the Barisan Nasional State Assemblymen because they were mostly in power since merdeka until now.
3. Each ruler of each state is the head of the religion of Islam in the respective State and they must give their assent to the laws passed.
4. Each ruler has advisers on Islam who advise them.
5. Non-Muslims are not subjected to these laws. Muslims, therefore are privileged to be subjected to two laws – the “civil law” and the “syariah laws”.
6. Generally, the Syariah laws regulate how the Muslims in this country must practice their religion. If you are a Muslim citizen, you are bound by it.
I have spoken about the impact, legality, content and importance of the Syariah laws to various MPs, including Ministers over the past 10 years. The impression that I was left with is: they do not understand the true impact of it in the long run. In fact, they do not really want to know as they have the mindset (seems to me), that it is best left to the “experts”. They “fear to touch the subject”. Politics again.

I do not know whether the time will come when concerned Muslims who take their belief seriously will also want to take active part in evaluating the syariah laws to determine if it is consistent with the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah. After all, Muslims believe that each of us will be solely responsible for our own deeds in the hereafter.

In the meantime, Barisan Nasional MPs and State Assemblymen should not complain about the implementation of the syariah laws that they helped to pass and exist.

Peace !

Benar kah Perkara 153 Perlembagaan tercabar? (Hak Melayu terhakis? – Bab Dua)

Seperkara yang perlu diingat ialah: Perbincangan mengenai Perkara 153 telah dipersembahkan sebagai satu isu yang “sensitif” dan oleh itu tidak harus dibincang seolah-olah rakyat jelata tidak matang dan tidak mampu berfikir. Di satu pihak ada yang melaungkan perkara 153 sebagai “hak Melayu” yang “tidak boleh dicabar” tanpa memahami maksud undang-undang nya. Di pihak yang lain pula ada yang menuduh perkara 153 sebagai “tongkat Melayu” seolah-olah ia sesuatu yang harus di malukan. Kedua-dua pendirian sedemikian tidak membantu kearah memahami perkara 153 mahupun kearah melaksanakan dengan cara yang menguntungkan Negara.

Satu lagi perkara: - Di laman web “Pusat Maklumat Rakyat” Kerajaan, di tulis sedemikian: 

“Kedudukan Istimewa Orang Melayu

Perkara 153 Perlembagaan telah memaktubkan Hak Istemewa Orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak meliputi : -  

- perkhidmatan awam :Perkara 153 (2,3 dan 4)

-  ekonomi : Perkara 153 (6)

-  pelajaran: Perkara 153 (2,3 dan 4)

-  Kedudukan Istimewa orang Melayu yang lain termasuklah peruntukan Perkara 89 dan 90 – berhubung dengan tanah rizab Melayu.

-  Hak-hak ini tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan ia dilindungi di bawah Akta Hasutan 1948 (Pindaan 1971)”.

Saya berpendapat ada beberapa kecacatan dan kesilapan fakta di dalam penerangan diatas.

1)      Perkara 153 menyebut mengenai “kedudukan istimewa” dan bukan “hak istemewa”. Ini adalah dua perkara yang amat berlainan dari segi undang-undang Perlembagaan.

2)       Saya rasa kurang senang dengan keperluan untuk menyatakan bahawa “hak-hak ini tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan ia  dilindungi oleh Akta Hasutan 1948” atas beberapa sebab. Pertamanya, ia berbunyi ugutan daripada penerangan. Keduanya, pertikaian mengenai tafsiran sesuatu perundangan senstiasa berlaku di dalam Mahkamah serta di dalam penulisan undang-undang.

3)      Dalam sistem demokrasi, Rakyat juga mempunyai hak untuk menyuarakan pendapat mereka sekiranya suatu peruntukan perundangan itu disalah tafsir atau di salah guna. Tidak masuk akal sekiranya tafsiran sesuatu undang-undang itu menjadi hak mutlak penjawat awam yang bergaji sahaja – terutama apabila kualiti kebolehan pemikiran mereka sendiri di pertikai. Tindakan sedemikian tidak termasuk sebagai kesalahan di bawah Akta Hasutan. Perkara yang menjadi kesalahan ialah niat serta perbuatan untuk “menghasut”.

4)      Perkara 153 pernah dipinda oleh Parlimen beberapa kali untuk memperjelaskan maksud peruntukan itu.

Sekarang kita akan cuba untuk meneliti peruntukan-peruntukan didalam Perkara 153 satu demi satu. Adalah penting untuk kita memahami peruntukan Perkara 153 supaya kita tidak diperalatkan oleh politikus-politikus yang mahu mempersembahkan diri mereka sebagai “jaguh Melayu” berdasarkan pembohongan dan penyelewengan fakta. Begitu juga, pemahaman perkara 153 juga membolehkan kita berhadapan dengan rasis yang membantah terhadap perkara 153.

1)      Perkara 153(1) memperuntukan bahawa YDPA bertanggung jawap untuk melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu, anak-anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak DAN kaum-kaum lain mengikut peruntukan disitu.

2)      Perkara 153 memberi “kedudukan istimewa” dan bukannya “hak” kepada orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak. “Hak” adalah sesuatu yang dimiliki oleh pemegang hak dan tidak ada orang lain yang boleh mengambil dan mengurangkan hak tersebut kecuali jika dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan. Hanya sipemegang hak sahaja yang mempunyai budibicara samada ia hendak gunakan hak tersebut atau tidak. Orang lain tidak mempunyai budibicara.terhadap penggunaan hak nya (kecuali ada undang-undang yang mungkin menggekang penggunaan hak nya. Sebagai contoh, Akta Fitnah terhadap kebebasan bersuara). Kedudukan istimewa, sebaliknya bergantung kepada budibicara munasabah pihak lain. Dalam konteks Perkara 153, budibicara munasabah ini di jalankan oleh YDPA (tertakluk kepada perkara 40 iaitu nasihat kabinet).

3)      Perkara 153 (2), (3), (4) dan (8A) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda daripada biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

4)      Perkara 153 (2) dan (6) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda sebahagian permit-permit dan lesen-lesen perniagaan untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

5)      Perkara 153 (2), (3) dan (4) memberikuasa kepada YDPA untuk merizabkan perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh baginda sebahagian daripada jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam (selain perkhidmatan awam sesuatu Negeri) untuk orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

6)      Perkara 153 (5) memperuntukan bahawa segala peruntukan dalam Perkara 153 tidak boleh  mengurangkan peruntukan Perkara 136 yang memperuntukan bahawa

“Tertakluk kepada terma-terma dan syarat-syarat pekerjaan mereka, semua orang, walau apa pun rasnya, dalam gred yang sama dalam perkhidmatan Persekutuan hendaklah diberi layanan yang saksama”.

Ini bermakna didalam soal kenaikan pangkat dalam gred yang sama ia nya adalah berdasarkan kebolehan/meritokrasi dan bukannya ras.

7)      Perkara 153 (9) pula memperuntukan bahawa “Tiada apa-apa jua dalam Perkara ini boleh memberi Parlimen kuasa untuk menyekat perniagaan atau pertukangan semata-mata bagi maksud perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak”.  Ini boleh ditafsir bahawa keutamaan Parlimen untuk memastikan perkembangan ekonomi Negara lebih tinggi daripada keperluan untuk merizaban lesen-lesen atau permit-permit bagi orang Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak. Walau apa pun, perizaban tidak boleh menghasilkan penyekatan perniagaan atau pertukangan untuk Rakyat Malaysia yang lain (termasuk Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak yang tidak menikmati perizaban tersebut).

8)      Perkara 153 (2) memperuntukan bahawa kuasa yang di jalankan oleh YDPA di bawah Perkara 153 adalah tertakluk kepada Perkara 40. Perkara 40 (1A) memperuntukan bahawa di mana YDPA di kehendaki bertindak mengikut nasihat atau selepas menimbangkan nasihat Jemaah Menteri atau seseorang Menteri yang di berikuasa oleh Jemaah Menteri, baginda WAJIB menerima nasihat tersebut dan WAJIB bertindak menurut nasihat tersebut. Di dalam erti kata yang lain, Jemaah Menteri lah yang membuat keputusan dari segi fakta walaupun dari segi undang-undang Perlembagaan, ia nya di buat oleh YDPA.

9)      Perkara 153 mengunakan ungkapan “suatu kadar perizaban yang difikirkan munasabah oleh YDPA”. Ini bermaksud, keputusan kadar perizaban di buat oleh YDPA (iaitu atas nasihat Jemaah Menteri) dan keputusan ini tidak boleh di cabar. (Kalau pun di bawa ke Mahkamah, saya percaya usaha itu akan gagal). Lain lah sekira nya ungkapan yang di guna adalah “suatu kadar perizaban yang munasabah oleh YDPA”. Jika ungkapan kedua ini di guna, maka besar kemungkinan keputusan kadar perizaban boleh di cabar dalam Mahkamah berkaitan dengan apa itu “munasabah”

Kesimpulan:

(a)    Pada saya amat jelas bahawa Perkara 153 memperuntukan kedudukan istimewa kepada orang Melayu (seperti yang tertakrif dalam Perkara 160) dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak (seperti yang tertakrif dalam Perkara 161A).

(b)    Kedudukan istimewa ini adalah berkaitan kadar perizaban daripada

(i)                  jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam;

(ii)                biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain yang diberikan atau diadakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan;

(iii)               apa-apa permit atau lesen yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan.

(c)    Perkara 153 tidak memberi “hak” tetapi “kedudukan istimewa”. Implikasi nya ialah Melayu atau anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak yang tidak menikmati perizaban tersebut tidak boleh menuntutnya. Sebaliknya, jika ia nya “hak”, semua Melayu dan anak Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak berhak dari segi undang-undang untuk menikmati nya dan mereka yang tidak menikmati nya boleh menuntut nya di dalam Mahkamah.

(d)    Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, Perkara 153 tidak pernah di cabar di dalam Mahkamah, ia nya jelas termaktub dalam Perlembagaan dan ekoran ini, adalah tidak benar jika sesiapa berkata bahawa Perkara 153 di cabar.

(e)    Jika ada pihak yang tidak berpuas hati terhadap implementasi Perkara 153, rungutan, cadangan atau bantahan harus di kemukakan kepada Jemaah Menteri dan bukan nya berucap berapi-api di medan politik dengan dakyah bahawa Perkara 153 di cabar. Itu adalah perbuatan yang sia-sia yang tidak menguntungkan Rakyat langsung, apatah lagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

Demikian lah tafsiran undang-undang saya terhadap Perkara 153 dan saya mengalu-alukan sebarang tafsiran yang berbeza supaya isu ini dapat di bincang dengan sopan dan secara intelek.

Salam.

NEXT: Kualiti Kepimpinan Melayu versus konsep “ketuanan Melayu”.

Hak Melayu terhakis? – Bab Dua.

Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan

Sebelum saya mulakan perbincangan mengenai Perkara 153 yang kita sering dengar hari ini, elok jika saya turunkan keseluruhan peruntukkan itu untuk tatapan dan fikiran pembaca dahulu. Melalui cara ini, mudah untuk pembaca ikuti perbicangan saya nanti.

Berikut adalah penyataan penuh Artikel 153 Perlembagaan Malaysia.

Perkara 153. Perizaban kuota berkenaan dengan perkhidmatan, permit, dsb. bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.
(1) Menjadi tanggungjawab Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain mengikut peruntukan Perkara ini.

(2) Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan ini, tetapi tertakluk kepada peruntukan Perkara 40 dan peruntukan Perkara ini, Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah menjalankan fungsinya di bawah Perlembagaan ini dan undang-undang persekutuan mengikut apa-apa cara yang perlu untuk melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak dan untuk memastikan perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak apa-apa perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong daripada jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam (selain perkhidmatan awam sesuatu Negeri) dan daripada biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain yang diberikan atau diadakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan, apabila apa-apa permit atau lesen dikehendaki oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan, maka, tertakluk kepada peruntukan undang-undang itu dan Perkara ini, daripada permit dan lesen itu.
(3) Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh, bagi memastikan, mengikut Fasal (2), perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak jawatan-jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam dan biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan atau kemudahan khas lain, memberikan apa-apa arahan am yang dikehendaki bagi maksud itu kepada mana-mana Suruhanjaya yang baginya Bahagian X terpakai atau kepada mana-mana pihak berkuasa yang dipertanggungkan dengan tanggungjawab bagi pemberian biasiswa, danasiswa atau keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan atau kemudahan khas lain itu; dan Suruhanjaya atau pihak berkuasa itu hendaklah mematuhi arahan itu dengan sewajarnya.

(4) Pada menjalankan fungsinya di bawah Perlembagaan ini dan undang-undang persekutuan mengikut Fasal (1) hingga (3) Yang di-Pertuan Agong tidak boleh melucutkan mana-mana orang daripada apa-apa jawatan awam yang dipegang olehnya atau daripada terus mendapat biasiswa, danasiswa atau keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan atau kemudahan khas lain yang dinikmati olehnya.

(5) Perkara ini tidaklah mengurangkan peruntukan Perkara 136.

(6) Jika menurut undang-undang persekutuan yang sedia ada suatu permit atau lesen dikehendaki bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan, maka Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh menjalankan fungsinya di bawah undang-undang itu mengikut apa-apa cara, atau memberikan apa-apa arahan am kepada mana-mana pihak berkuasa yang dipertanggungkan di bawah undang-undang itu dengan pemberian permit atau lesen itu, sebagaimana yang dikehendaki untuk memastikan perizaban apa-apa perkadaran daripada permit atau lesen itu bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak sebagaimana yang difikirkan munasabah oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong; dan pihak berkuasa itu hendaklaah mematuhi arahan itu dengan sewajarnya.

(7) Tiada apa-apa jua dalam Perkara ini boleh berkuat kuasa untuk melucutkan atau memberi kuasa supaya dilucutkan apa-apa hak, keistimewaan, permit atau lesen mana-mana orang, yang terakru kepada orang itu atau yang dinikmati atau dipegang oleh orang itu atau untuk memberi kuasa untuk menolak pembaharuan mana-mana permit atau lesen mana-mana orang atau untuk menolak pemberian apa-apa permit atau lesen kepada waris, pengganti atau penerima serah hak seseorang jika pembaharuan atau pemberian itu mungkin semunasabahnya dijangkakan mengikut perjalanan biasa keadaan.

(8) Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan ini, jika menurut mana-mana undang-undang persekutuan apa-apa permit atau lesen dikehendaki bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan, maka undang-undang itu boleh membuat peruntukan bagi perizaban apa-apa perkadaran daripada permit atau lesen itu bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak; tetapi tiada undang-undang sedemikian boleh, bagi maksud memastikan perizaban itu-

(a) melucutkan atau memberi kuasa supaya dilucutkan apa-apa hak, keistimewaan, permit atau lesen mana-mana orang, yang terakru kepada orang itu atau yang dinikmati atau dipegang oleh orang itu; atau
(b) memberi kuasa untuk menolak pembaharuan mana-mana permit atau lesen mana-manaa orang atau untuk menolak pemberian apa-apa permit atau lesen kepada waris, pengganti atau penerima serah hak mana-mana orang jika pembaharuan atau pemberian itu mengikut peruntukan yang lain dalam undang-undang itu mungkin semunasabahnya dijangkakan mengikut perjalanan biasa keadaan, atau menghalang mana-mana orang daripada memindahkan hakmilik bersama dengan perniagaannya apa-apa lesen yang boleh dipindahkan hakmiliknya untuk mengendalikan perniagaan itu; atau
(c) jika tiada permit atau lesen dahuluya dikehendaki bagi mengendalikan pertukangan atau perniagaan itu, memberi kuasa untuk menolak pemberian permit atau lesen kepada mana-mana orang bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan yang telah dijalankan olehnya secara bona fide sebaik sebelum undang-undang itu mula berkuat kuasa, atau memberi kuasa untuk menolak pembaharuan kemudiannya mana-mana permit atau lesen mana-mana orang, atau untuk menolak pemberian mana-mana permit atau lesen sedemikian kepada waris, pengganti atau penerima serah hak mana-mana orang itu jika, mengikut peruntukan yang lain dalam undang-undang itu, pembaharuan atau pemberian itu mungkin semunasabahnya dijangkakan mengikut perjalanan biasa keadaan.

(8A) Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan ini, jika di dalam mana-mana Universiti, Kolej dan institusi pendidikan lain yang memberikan pendidikan selepas Malaysian Certificate of Education atau yang setaraf dengannya, bilangan tempat yang ditawarkan oleh pihak berkuasa yang bertanggungjawab bagi pengurusan Universiti, Kolej atau institusi pendidikan itu kepada calon-calon bagi apa-apa kursus pengajian adalah kurang daripada bilangan calon yang layak mendapat tempat-tempat itu, maka adalah sah bagi Yang di-Pertuan Agong menurut kuasa Perkara ini memberikan apa-apa arahan yang perlu kepada pihak berkuasa itu untuk memastikan perizaban apa-apa perkadaran daripada tempat-tempat itu bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak sebagaimana yang difikirkan munasabah oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong; dan pihak berkuasa itu hendaklah mematuhi arahan itu dengan sewajarnya.

(9) Tiada apa-apa jua dalam Perkara ini boleh memberi Parlimen kuasa untuk menyekat perniagaan atau pertukangan semata-mata bagi maksud perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

(9A) Dalam Perkara ini ungkapan “anak negeri” berhubung dengan Negeri Sabah atau Sarawak hendaklah mempunyai erti yang diberikan kepadanya dalam Perkara 161A.

(10) Perlembagaan Negeri yang ber-Raja boleh membuat peruntukan yang bersamaan (dengan ubah suaian yang perlu) dengan peruntukan Perkara ini.

Salam

GONG XI FA CAI !

Chinese New Year graphics comment

Hak Melayu terhakis? – Bhg Satu

Isu yang sering diperkatakan, terutama, sejak March 2008 adalah hakisan dan cabaran terhadap “hak Melayu”.  Cabaran serta hakisan terhadap “hak melayu” in ditonjolkan sebagai datang daripada kumpulan bukan Melayu dan yang seangkatannya iaitu “Melayu liberal”.  Benar kah hak Melayu dicabar dan terhakis? Hak yang mana? Oleh siapa dan bagaimana ia berlaku, jika ia nya berlaku?

Atau adakah semua ini dongeng orang politik yang mahu memperalatkan orang Melayu untuk melanjutkan karier politik mereka?

Ketuanan Melayu

Konsep “ketuanan Melayu” hari ini sudah menjadi celaru dengan pelbagai takrif dan fahaman oleh pelbagai pihak. Pada amnya, yang dimaksudkan ialah dominasi orang Melayu di dalam medan politik.

Kalau dominasi orang Melayu dalam politik yang dimaksudkan sebagai “ketuanan Melayu”, ia bukan sahaja TIDAK terhakis, tetapi menjadi lebih kuat.  Dalam tahun 2009, jumlah penduduk di Malaysia dianggarkan seramai 28.3 juta.

Hakikatnya ialah orang Melayu menjadi majority Negara ini dan dianggarkan akan menjadi hampir 66% dalam 10 tahun nanti. Kalau di masukkan sekali bumiputra, kemungkinan angka nya ialah hampir 70%. Melayu campur bumiputra memang majoriti. Apa implikasi nya?

Pertamanya ialah, mereka lah yang akan menjadi penentu utama dalam menentukan budaya politik serta halatuju politik dlam Negara ini. Perkara ini jelas sejak merdeka di mana didalam Alliance dan kemudiannya Barisan Nasional, parti politik dominan ialah UMNO iaitu parti Melayu.  Parti politik yang kedua terbesar yang menjadi Pembangkang juga didominasi oleh Melayu iaitu PAS. Pemain utama didalam politik nasional sentiasa orang Melayu dan dari perspektif ini, ungkapan ketuanan Melayu ialah satu slogan kosong orang politik untuk memperalatkan orang Melayu. The main players in national politics have always been Malays and hence, from this perspective, the issue of ketuanan Melayu is a mere slogan, a tool for the politicians to manipulate the Malays.

Begitu juga kalau kita lihat sejak penubuhan UMNO baru dan Semangat 46, politik orang Melayu semakin matang dimana mereka sudah berani untuk mengasingkan diri daripada UMNO. Saya katakan matang kerana didalam arena politik, orang Melayu sudah berani untuk mencuba pendekatan selain daripada pendekatan UMNO (pertamanya ialah dengan  dengan penubuhan PAS).

Hari ini, kita lihat orang-orang Melayu berada di dalam hampir semua parti-parti politik – UMNO, PAS, DAP, PKR dan lain-lain. Orang Melayu seolah-olah “tuan” atau pemimpin di dalam arena politik. Zaman di mana orang Melayu hanya bergantung kepada UMNO sudah berlalu. Di dalam politik, orang-orang Melayu mempunyai kepelbagaian pandangan dan kaedah untuk berkhidmat kepada Negara atau memperjuangkan suatu isu. Saya percaya trend ini akan meningkat. Maka isu “ketuanan Melayu” dalam konteks ini tidak berasas dan sudah tidak lagi relevan kerana sememangya orang Melayu lah yang mendominasi arena politik dan akan terus mendominansi arena politik.

Saya percaya orang bukan Melayu juga telah menerima hakikat ini (realiti terpaksa diakur) dan kita akan sampai pada satu keadaan dimana mereka akan melihat kepada parti-parti politik yang boleh bersikap adil dan saksama kepada semua rakyat Malaysia tanpa melihat kepada keturunan atau darjat.

Begitu juga dengan orang Melayu sendiri. Mereka telah lihat apa yang berlaku didalam Negara ini sejak merdeka -52 tahun!. Siapa yang telah kaya-raya, siapa yang masih miskin, kawasan mana yang dibangun, kawasan mana yang masih mundur, siapa yang rasuah, siapa yang menindas dan sebagainya. 

Saya juga percaya ramai orang-orang Melayu yang miskin  tidak percaya bahawa kemiskinan mereka adalah akibat “perampasan” kedudukan “tuan” mereka oleh orang bukan Melayu. Mereka masih miskin kerana kegagalan polisi untuk menangani kemisikinan. Begitu juga dengan Melayu yang berada didalam tahap pendapatan rendah mahupun kelas menengah yang mengempas pulas mencari rezeki. Mereka sedar bahawa peluang mencari rezeki yang semakin sempit bukan ekoran orang bukan Melayu yang merancang untuk merampas hak pekerjaan mereka. Ia adalah ekoran polisi ekonomi yang tidak mantap, tidak menyeluruh serta tidak bersifat jangka panjang.

Saya tertarik dengan Kota Baru dimana terdapat banyak kedai-kedai rakyat tempatan yang berniaga. Ekonomi tempatan masih tidak dirogol oleh “multi-nasional corporations” seperti Tesco, Jusco, Ikea dan sebagainya. Oleh yang demikian, rakyat tempatan Kelantan masih boleh mencari rezeki secara terhormat, serta industri tempatan boleh berkembang. Kebajikan rakyat tempatan didahulukan dan bukannya "keuntugan tersembunyi" oleh pihak memberi kelulusan, yang juga terdiri daripada orang Melayu elitis.

Didalam perhimpunan mengenai “ketuanan Melayu” yang pernah dan akan dianjurkan oleh pihak politik (ada yang berselindung disebalik NGO), berapa ramai di antara lebih kurang 14,000,000 Melayu di Malaysia ini yang hadir dan mengambil bahagian? 20,000? 10,000? 5,000? Kalau 30,000 pun itu baru merupakan 0.2% jumlah penduduk Melayu!  Kalau 100,000 pun, itu baru 0.7% daripada jumlah penduduk Melayu di Negara ini. Ini lah permainan politik licik dimana “orang Melayu” diperalatkan oleh politkus Melayu untuk melanjutkan karieir politik mereka atau mengalihkan perhatian daripada isu-isu sebenar yang di hadapi oleh semua Rakyat, termasuk orang Melayu.

Ini lah keadaan sebenarnya dan beberapa kerat di dalam arena politik dan beberapa kerat orang di Bandar terperangkap dengan politik permainan ini. Tujuan nya hanya lah politik dan tidak berkaitan dengan kebajikan orang Melayu amnya.

Salam.

NEXT: Benar kah Perkara 153 Perlembagaan tercabar?

NAJIB: Do not question anyone's citizenship.

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that the Nasir episode should be a lesson to everyone to be racially sensitive. He and the government has distanced themselves from any of the statements made by Nasir. This is a welcomed response.

The NewStraitsTimes reports the Prime Minister saying:

“The citizenship of a Malaysian is clearly defended in the Federal Constitution and it cannot be questioned by anyone.

“I have issued a statement on this but I would like to say it again that what was said is not my view nor is it the stand of the government".

So, 1Malaysia is on track!

Peace !

1Malaysia and Saboteurs - Will it happen again and again????

Such nonsense WITHIN the government must stop. I purposely use the word “within the government” because if you are part of the government, then you have to toe the government policy. If you are not within the government, then you can have a dissenting view. You can say the opposite of what the government says. This is democracy. Of course, if you are within the government and you dissent very strongly on an important government policy, then you should simply resign. Unfortunately, such a principled stance has never really been part of our general political culture. Largely because, politics in this country is a periuk nasi issue rather than service to the Nation and the Rakyat.

If you say things that are contrary to the government policy, then the credibility of the government is affected.  Rakyat gets confused. The Rakyat will think your policy is only lip service. The more discerning Rakyat will note that the government is confused. It does not know that the left hand and the right hand are not synchronized.  Or maybe the head cannot control what the rest of the body does. Biologically, that may be acceptable. You have to go to the toilet when you have to go to the toilet. But in politics and governance, the head must be in control or at least appear to be in control. This translates to mean that when someone significant in the government makes a statement or does something contrary to government policy, the head must deal with him severely. The head cannot afford another and another such incident. Nip in the bud. Make an example.

UP to date, I believe that Najib is serious with his 1Malaysia policy, though I get the feeling that the policy is not being articulated well. I am now not even sure that the policy has been explained properly to the civil servants, who unfortunately are in charge of the “delivery system”. It boggles my mind that these civil servants who went through so many slogans all their life, including Islam Hadhari (what happened to it?) are actually expected to embrace and PROMOTE something new like this. Can they understand it in the first place? I forgot – Malaysians can set aside prejudices, baggages and embrace logic and reason in a jiffy! (I have been lambasted by a friend I came to know within the past one year just  for insisting that one must use reason all the time!)

So, back to 1Malaysia. As I have written before, it is a powerful policy if properly executed and defined. And I say it again: it is a double-edged sword that cut both ways. It can destroy trust in the government if it is not implemented judiciously. You have raised so much hope and trust and such things hurt if you renegade on them.

But I have digressed. I was going to write about the nonsense that must be stopped. The latest being the controversy surrounding the statement by the special assistant in the Prime Minister’s office. When I first heard about it – I did not believe. It is simply too preposterous and plain stupid politically for someone from the PM’s office to say that..and at a 1Malaysia function!  Morally, it is cruel and wrong. Any Muslim who truly believes in Allah should know that. Constitutionally, it is moronic and exposes the level of grey matter the speaker has.  Legally, there are so many penal code offences that may be preferred in the light of such statements.

Personally, I have got no problems. You simply cannot stop the horse from being a horse, a donkey from being a donkey, a lembu from being a lembu or a monkey from being a monkey. It is a choice each makes. If you worry too much about it, you will die of grief as Allah says in the Quran. In the Quran, Allah says that in some occasions, some human beings are at a level lower than the animals. While both animals and human beings have ears, eyes, brains, these certain human beings do not want to use their ears, eyes and brains. Many actually have been trained to think that Allah created brains simply for decoration and not for use!

Back to the nonsense. This guy is in the PRIME MINISTER”S department! How many more are there??? And he goes public with sick views completely contrary to the 1Malaysia spirit. Why? Is he a saboteur? I want to know because I think 1malaysia should be the way forward.

Even Tun Mahthir felt this was important to comment. The StarOnline reports:

”The citizenship of non-Malays in the country should never be questioned, said former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He said there was a provision in the Federal Constitution stating that while Malays were the indigenous people, non-Malays had their right to citizenship.
“That should not be questioned. We cannot banish our citizens now. The Constitution provides that you cannot take away citizenships,” he told reporters after opening the Malaysian Liver Foundation building at Ara Damansara here on Wednesday”.

Really, really Sir Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak…you must never allow such things to ever happen again in your government, your party and most of all in your department. 1Malaysia must be allowed to evolve (?).

With this guy……how are you going to deal with him? Surely 1Malaysia is too sacred for it to be derailed by irresponsible quarters?

Peace !

 

Pakatan Rakyat in shambles?

Anyone following the political events in the Pakatan Rakyat for the past one year cannot be faulted from concluding that PR is in a state of total crisis. Even Lim Kit Siang in July 2009, wrote on his blog that : “Pakatan Rakyat is facing a second crisis of confidence and efforts must be made to resolve it".

This was the Kedah PR crisis. The Kedah DAP State Committee then had decided to pull out of the Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government, subject to the final decision of the DAP Central Executive Committee.

It appears that what held back the pullout was the fear of the repercussions nationwide on the Pakatan Rakyat. 

Then there was the unfulfilled September 16, 2008 promise of PR forming the Federal Government. This event has left PR and certain leaders in the PR with a major credibility and ethical issues.  Ethical issue because the idea of political frogs jumping into PR was hailed as the “democratic and victorious”. Someone caught on to this idea spurned first from the PR leader and some frogged out of the Perak PR becoming independents with the Perak State now in the hands of BN.

Recently with the advent of 2010, the Pulau Pinang saw political fireworks between DAP and PKR involving the Chief Minister of Pulau Pinang, YB Lim Guan Eng which started when PKR’s Bayan Baru MP Datuk Seri Zahrain Hashim called Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng a “dictator” and “communist-minded.” To understand the extent of the crisis, it must be noted that Zahrain is none other that the (former?) Chairman of Penang PKR.  Even the Ni­­bong Tebal MP Tan Tee Beng has thrown his support behind fellow PKR member Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohd Has­­him in his spat with Penang Chief Minis­ter Lim Guan Eng.

Then you have the YB Khalid Samad and the other PKR MP fiasco which led to the other PKR MP making a police report against YB Khalid for his alleged statements relating to certain reforms of the Selangor State Syariah laws . Now, both been have asked to appear before the disciplinary committee.

Turning to PAS, TheStarOnline also reports that:

“Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad has been suspended for six months as Shah Alam PAS chief and member of the party’s political bureau by the PAS discipline committee. The committee also decided to issue a written warning to Selangor PAS commissioner Datuk Dr Hassan Ali”.

Then you have the feud within PKR between Zaid Ibrahim and the other MP with Zaid criticizing PKR leadership for inaction against the other MP.  Now, both MPs apparently have been hauled before the PKR disciplinary committee! And Zahrain too.

Not along ago in October last year, you have PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who urged for the holding of a special muktamar because he feels that:

“This time, I strongly believe that there is a need to replace the main players occupying the national PAS leadership posts,” said the Kelantan Mentri Besar.

 And until today, Pakatan Rakyat is not a registered entity.

These events make voters wonder how PR is ever going to position itself as the alternative government with one crisis after another within and between themselves.

Maybe all these will spring political surprises by the middle of next month???

Peace!