What people expect in this brand new year - 2023.

It may be a new year may but I believe the hopes and expectations of the Rakyat remain the same in principle. 

Firstly, we all want to be able to live a life of dignity and have equal opportunities. Dignity is something essential to all human beings. It means being worthy of respect and honour. The opposite of this clearly means being treated as worthless or being disrespected. A true leader would do his/her utmost to ensure that the citizens have the opportunity to lead dignified lives. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. 

A person’s self-worth and dignity can be lifted or destroyed by government policies and the laws of the land. A child who grows up being discrimination or ostracized from mainstream society simply because of the accident of his/her birth may become unhappy adult who feels oppressed. Only a leader with compassion, good conscience and who truly “fears” God can understand this. Therefore, a compassionate government should ensure that policies and processes exist that provide ample opportunities for those with talent to thrive. Policies should also exist to ensure the less fortunate among us, whether socially or economically, can lift themselves by way of positive assistance. 

Cruel discrimination in the name of race, religion or social status should never be allowed to be part of society, especially in a society that has a majority Muslim population like Malaysia. This is because any policy which is race based is clearly against the teachings of Islam. 

Furthermore, under the heading of “human dignity” are also economic and employment opportunities, positive working conditions, and equitable distribution of resources. I think it is time the government focuses again on small and medium enterprises, and cottage industries. There has been so much focus on mega projects that do not seem to benefit the common rakyat. Development in the country has also been too Klang valley-centric while the rest of Malaysia does not benefit. A proper policy would be able to create employment opportunities outside the Klang valley so that more balanced development can take place in Malaysia. 

Secondly, the government and political leaders should properly understand the provisions of fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution – articles 5 to 13. Citizens themselves should familiarize themselves with these important provisions. You can only protect your rights if you know you have them. 

The Government should ensure that whatever policies that are passed strengthen these fundamental rights and not whittle them away. Parliamentarians should be engaging intelligently in debates and committed in ensuring that whatever bills that the Government passes does not contravene these Constitutional provisions. The Rakyat would be pleased to benefit from positive contributions from the minds of the parliamentarians rather than annoying sounds from their mouths. 

Thirdly, I hope that this Government is serious about and courageous in fostering true national unity. It is very sad that after more than 60 years of being independent we still allow blatantly divisive speeches, statements and politics to flourish in this country. 

I am not only referring to unity between the Malays and the non-Malays but between every Malaysian. And the Government ought to be wary of efforts to divide the Malays themselves for political reasons. They should also be vigilant of the rise of religious extremism which seems to be creeping quietly into Malaysia, posing serious security threats. 

Hence, it is my hope that this government addresses the issue of national unity substantially and designs long term policies that can unite Malaysians in striving for a common Malaysian Dream. Obviously, this effort must begin in the formative periods of Malaysian children. 

Fourthly, there needs to be serious efforts made to halt or reduce corrupt practices in all of our institutions and in all spheres of society. Corruption is not only cruel in the sense that scarce resources are diverted to feed the greedy rather that help the rakyat, but it also increases the costs of living. The negative effects of corruption are well known and I would not want to repeat it here. However, I have to emphasize that if there is real political will and efforts made, corruption can be significantly reduced. 

The Government should establish a task force or a committee with powers to come up with a way to tackle corruption in all institutions in the country. It is no doubt a major task but one that needs to be urgently undertaken. The corruption agency can audit lifestyles of even past political leaders to take back wealth that has been stolen through corrupt practices. If there is will, there is a way. The laws are certainly there.

Lastly, there needs to be continued respect for and upholding of the rule of law. Rule of law is a vast area that includes equality before the law, equal access to the law and so on. Essentially, adherence to the rule of law is the ordinary citizen’s last line of defence against oppression by the privileged or the powerful. Hence, our parliamentarians must ensure that any law approved is just. 

It is also important to ensure that whenever discretionary powers are given, as may be necessary, there are effective checks and balances. This is because, discretionary powers may also result in corruption, abuse and oppression. 

With this, I wish the readers: Happy new Year ! 

Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos.

Smart, visionary leaders committed to mindset change the way forward in Malaysian politics

It is good to note that there are diverse views and debates as to how the Malaysian political scene can bring about a “new Malaysia”.

Former Malaysian diplomat, Dennis Ignatius, had called for older politicians to step aside and make way for younger leaders.

On the other hand, academician Prof Dr Tajuddin Rasdi is of the opinion that “New Malaysia can only come about through the painful birth process of a transition between old and young leaders, as well as Muslim versus Malaysian, leadership”.

Reading Tajuddin’s opinion in a Malaysian daily, he seems to suggest that political changes in the country cannot be achieved if “Malay sensitives” are not addressed.

He gave various examples, which apparently had not gone down well with the Malays – such as the Rome Statute issue – and had brought about the downfall of Pakatan Harapan (PH).

I would opine that the main reason PH fell was because of poor leadership, due to the weak structure within PH itself.

If PH had strong and cohesive leadership, dealing with issues like the Rome Statute and others, would have been a cakewalk.

Tajuddin seems to argue that only someone with “Malay and Muslim credentials” can “change” Malaysia and the Malays.

Under the current political circumstances, only a Malay Muslim can rise to the highest position in this country. That’s a given.

However, when you talk about creating a “new Malaysia”, there are several important factors to consider – other than a Malay Muslim leader.

Firstly, what kind of new Malaysia do you have in mind? Something that is “more Malay and more Islamic”? Whatever that means.

The notion of what kind of “Malay-ness” and what kind of Islam you want to create in the country is important.

This, therefore, will depend on the second factor – the quality of the leader itself.

If the leader is a political animal, we cannot expect substantial changes in society because he may end up being a populist, and a chameleon.

He may not have the moral courage, intellectual strength, and the political will to bring about radical changes needed to move the country forward and improve the people’s general wellbeing in the long run.

A Malay Muslim leader, who is going to forever pander to the so called “Malay Muslim sensitivities” for political expediency, will not bring about a much awaited “new Malaysia”.

Thirdly, we need a Malay Muslim leader with a true vision (and not one who copies someone else’s) which he believes is good for the country.

So, you need someone with brains, not just the academically qualified.

Of course, you will have advisors around you, but you must have the ability to look at things from different perspectives, possess macro-level thinking, even be prophetic, to a certain extent.

For this to happen, one must be a thinker, and as multi-knowledgeable as possible, and humble enough to learn as he/she leads.

I am fully aware and accept that pragmatically, the majority of the polity is Malay Muslim, and hence, you can manipulate them for power’s sake.

However, I am more concerned with the true wellbeing of the nation (the majority included).

Hence, to create a new Malaysia, the majority of the polity needs to be educated.

We have to go for mindset change and recognise leaders who will embark on that change.

We have to recognise the Malay Muslim leaders who want to free the Malay Muslims and other citizens from the shackles of political trickery shrouded in ethnicity and religion.

These are the much-needed characteristics of a Malaysian leader who will make Malaysia great, and its citizens grateful and proud.

Originally appeared in TwentyTwo13

Managing the rakyat’s frustrations.

A PERSON’s capabilities are only seen during times of crisis. The same is true for political leadership.

We do not say that a leader is great because he spends on grandiose projects using the taxpayer’s money to carve out his legacy. We only consider him great when he allocates the country’s resources wisely and thriftily to increase the general welfare of the people.

And when he spends the money to increase the number of educated citizens, in terms of thinking abilities, skills, citizenry, compassionate and humanitarian values, and ensures that every citizen who wants has access to free education up to the tertiary level.

A leader is loved when he strives to raise the dignity of the average citizen regardless of ethnicity, religion or social class. When he allocates budget to ensure that every citizen has access to affordable healthcare, housing, sustainable transportation facilities, employment opportunities, and the basic amenities required to live a life with dignity.

At the end of the day, the budget comes from the rakyat in terms of the taxes that he pays and the national debt that he and the future generation have to carry. It is not the personal resources of the leaders to do as they wish or to enrich themselves and their cronies by carving out the budget among themselves,

Continue reading by clicking on this link The Star/Through Many Windows

Managing diversity in life.

HERE are many truths in life. Most of the time it is ever present before us. However, there are people with vested interests who try to distort the truth and lead us on a road of delusion, far from reality. The road of delusion and denial of reality often ends with misery and sufferings. One such truth that we should remind ourselves and hold on to it steadfastly is the diversity of life.

All we have to do is to simply look at what makes up life. We are familiar with the seven colours of the rainbow. According to researchers, we can see about 1,000 levels of dark-light and about 100 levels each of red-green and yellow-blue. Botanists know the truth about the plant kingdom – there is no single but diverse types of plants that can be categorised in diverse ways.

The same holds true for the animal kingdom and everything else that exists on earth – there is variety and diversity, not homogeneity. If you look at nature, all creatures in nature, plants and animals, do not find diversity a threat to their existence. On the contrary, they accept that diversity is what sustains their survivability and existence on earth. There is no denial.

Humans, however, being the more intelligent being are still grappling with this truth of diversity both in the “secular and religious world views”. We have created various social constructs, ostensibly to assist us to understand human life and human communities better.

Many of these social constructs arise due to the nature of human interaction and the manner in which human beings have evolved over millions of years. Examples of social constructs are ethnicity, religion, languages, culture and so on.

These things exist because we have agreed that they exist. They become the norm and through time are taken to be “normal”. They may not exist in objective reality. For example, the definition or understanding of an “ethnicity” or “race” is clearly a social construct to define a group that has satisfied certain agreed and set criteria.

Is a Chinese baby brought up by Malay parents and embraces Islam and grows up as a Malay, a Malay or Chinese? Likewise what about the Malay baby who grew up as a German in Germany? Asking questions like this will make you understand the concept of objective reality and artificial constructs.

In any event, the moment you understand that there are diverse religions, cultures, languages, and ethnicity in the world, you will be able to peacefully understand and accept the existence of this diversity. You will not make the diversity as a cause for disunity, distrust, stereotyping or hatred. You will be able to see that beyond the clothing of social constructs lies humanity that needs to be awakened and respected.

It is false that all the good people are in one social construct and all the bad are in another social construct. The labels of religion and ethnicity or cultures do not determine superiority, it is the good conduct of human beings. Substance rather than form.

However, we have to be careful of the ignorant but loud and persuasive politicians that lead humans down the road of division and disunity exploiting the artificial social constructs.

These are the kind that sow distrust, hatred and disunity among human beings based on differences of religion and ethnicity. They do this to hold themselves out as champions of one ethnic group against another.

At the end of the day, people will see that these politicians and their own families become enriched to become elites of society at the expense of the divided country. These politicians are often supported by some the religious groups in their societies. Religion can also confer status, power and wealth if properly manipulated.

In Malaysia for example, there are still politicians who play the race card and religious groups who play the religious cards. The abuse of religion sometimes becomes very dangerous in our country where it has bred extremism and even exclusivity.

Shockingly, a decade ago, I have heard a Chinese Muslim academic in this country erroneously argue that Allah has created India for Indians and China for Chinese in allegedly Islamic terms. He was obviously pandering to a Malay crowd to argue that Malaysia is for Malays. These are baseless arguments without any basis in the Quran and Sunnah.

Obviously, this academic has not read the many clear verses in the Quran which teach that our diversity is a blessing and we are required to live peacefully together (Al Hujurat verse 13). That the oppressed in one part of the world have a duty to migrate to another (Surah An Nisa verse 97-100) and that it was Allah’s will to create diversity (Al Maidah Verse 48).

He was obviously equally oblivious to the fact that Allah had also chosen to place the Orang Asli, Kadazan Dusun, Muruts, Bidayuhs, Melanau and 33 other indigenous groups that communicate in over 50 languages and 80 ethic dialects in Sabah. His argument becomes more dangerous because he attempts to frame it in “Islamic” terms. I was too young to rebut then.

If we all take a deep breath and we do not either get drowned in our self-imposed ignorance or in our self-imposed “academic or religious” arrogance, our sense of compassion within each of us will allow us to embrace the rightful place of the other. Let us work towards that instead of being trapped by those who use secular or religious tricks to divide us.

END.

The compassionate face of Islam

MUSLIMS should welcome the announcement by Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of religious affairs, that it will be the government’s policy to promote compassionate Islam.

Actually, I believe there is only an “Islam” whose teachings are primarily compassionate, a blessing and merciful. Anyone who reads the Quran will know that it describes itself as a “healing and a mercy to those who believe” (Al Isra (17) verse 82).

In fact, the Holy Prophet Muhammad himself is described in the Quran as rahmatan lil Alamiin for the whole world and the creations (Al Anbiya (21): verse 107).

Essentially, rahmah means love or affection and is often understood to mean the love of God for mankind and His creations where He has provided everything they need to develop and live on this earth. In other words, the Quran guides mankind to understand and appreciate this rahmah through its guidance.



Dr Mujahid also pointed out the use of state resources to confront “public sins” and “private sins” to show, I believe, that any use of religious enforcement powers must be tampered with common sense and compassion.

I believe real scholars of Islam know that there is an abundance of literature that discourages the deliberate attempt to expose private sins.

For reasons which I cannot understand, Dr Mujahid has been exposed to irrelevant criticisms by some Muslim religious experts implicit within which is the assumption that he is ignorant of the discourse in these matters.


Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/through-many-windows/2018/10/14/the-compassionate-face-of-islam-it-should-never-be-the-states-role-to-merely-punish-the-offender-or#yJmObO1TVuz0wQfl.99

Who does Malaysia belong to?

TO whom does Malaysia belong to may sound like a hilarious question, but do not overestimate the capacity to which the human mind is used.

Experience and observation will tell you that many of us (sometimes me included), often make a choice of not thinking about things based on facts. Instead, we form conclusions based on conjectures and other people’s uninformed opinions.

So who does Malaysia belong to?

There are many ways of approaching this question. As I often tell the audience in my talks about “thinking”, we have to understand the question first before we can even attempt to seek an answer.

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/through-many-windows/2019/04/28/who-does-malaysia-belong-to/#jy0kGLLpmxOFc5XH.99

Apakah masa depan UMNO selepas PRU14?

Sudah pasti soalan ini berlegar didalam minda ahli-ahli UMNO dan terutama pemimpin nya. Malangnya saya percaya, kalau UMNO masih lagi didalam kerangka pemikiran nya sejak beberap dekad yang lalu, saya percaya ia tidak akan temui jawapan yang tepat. Mengapa saya berkata sedemikian?

Ramai berpendapat bahawa strateji tradisi politik UMNO hanya berkisar kepada 3 faktor . Pertama ialah menonjolkan diri nya sebagai penyelamat Melayu. Kedua sebagai “pelindung” Islam dan ketiga sebagai tunjang kerajaan. Factor ketiga ini tidak relevan lagi selepas PRU14.

Pertama, untuk kita temui jawapan yang tepat, soalan itu hendak lah di ajukan dengan Ikhlas untuk mencari jawapan. Jangan lah ajukan soalan jika kita sudah pun membuat kesimpulan mengenai jawapan yang kita kehendaki. UMNO masih lagi dalam “denial mode” dan oleh itu ia sudah pun ada jawapan yang direka sebelum menilai soalan yang perlu di tanya. Kedua, pemimpin UMNO tidak menampakkan kebolehan untuk memisahkan tanggapan didalam minda mereka daripada realiti yang sebenarnya. Walaupun realiti yang sebenarnya menunjukkan bahawa terdapat pelbagai “jenis” dan kelas Melayu, mereka masih salah anggap bahawa kaum Melayu itu adalah homogenous. Maka, mereka gagal menjadi wakil kaum Melayu secara keseluruhan. Tanpa mereka sedari, mereka mengasingkan Melayu-Melayu yang berdikari, profesional dan mempunyai pengaruh dalam masyarakat daripada UMNO.

Ketiga, mereka juga tidak mempunyai hala tuju yang jelas dan berguna didalam mengurus hal ehwal Islam didalam Negara ini. Ia nya telah menyempitkan usahanya pada pemberian dana2 tanpa menilai keberkesanan dan keperluan sasaran yang di berikan dana tersebut. UMNO langsung tidak menunjukkan keberanian didalam mengwujudkan naratif-naratif yang dapat membentuk “Islam” yang benar-benar berkesan didalam kehidupan seharian rakyat Muslim serta rakyat jelata. Mereka ambil langkah mudah dengan berpaut pada “kulit daripada isi”. Istana yang di bina dengan pasir pasti hancur.

Maka, dalam dialog mengenai Islam, kita hanya dengar laungan-laungan yang sudah basi ekoran peredaran masa iaitu “KIta tidak kompromi dalam Hal Islam”, “Kita akan melindungi Islam” “Jangan hina Islam” dan sebagai nya. Semua ini adalah laungan-laungan kosong yang tidak mempunyai sebarang nilai didalam dunia Muslim yang mahu berfikir mahupun didalam dunia akademik Islam. Semua ini di lihat sebagai tindakbalas kumpulan yang tidak mempunyai Ilmu mahupun kebolehan kognitif untuk berhujah secara ilmiah dan intelektual. Ia juga menampakkan sikap kumpulan yang mahu memaksa pendirian mereka keatas orang lain bukan dengan hujah tetapi dengan kuasa dan kedudukan. Orang yang memaksa orang lain dengan kuasa dan kedudukan di anggap sebagai seorang pembuli. Adakah rakyat akan sokong geng buli?

Ini tidak bermakna Muslim tidak harus membela hujah2 Islam mahupun membetulkan salah persepsi terhadap Islam. Saya kira ini wajib bagi seorang Muslim yang mampu melakukannya. Namun ini adalah berbeza dengan dakwaan sombong bahawa kita akan “melindungi” Islam. Allah lah yang akan melindungi Islam dan bukan manusia kerdil yang perlukan hidayah Nya. Maka, bahasa yang kita guna pun kena tepat.

Pemimpin Muslim yang peka kepada kebajikan Muslim dan Muslimah harus berani berhujah untuk merencanakan rupa bentuk Islam yang berguna pada masyarakatnya. Ia mesti rajin dan pandai memilih tafisran “Islam” yang terbaik supaya kehidupan rakyat, samada Muslim atau bukan Muslim menjadi benar2 ringan dan selamat dari semua segi. Baru lah Isalm di lihat sebagai satu Rahmah dan bukan sebagai satu beban atau agama candu yang melahirkan simptom fantasi dalam penganutnya. Fantasi tidak mungkin dapat menjadikan umat Islam sebagai “ummatan hasanah”.

Rakyat, samada Melayu atau bukan Melayu tidak mahu polisi-polisi kepimpinan politik menyusahkan kehidupan mereka samada polisi itu di labelkan sebagai islam atau pun tidak. Kehidupan ini sudah cukup mencabar dan tidak perlu di tambah lagi kesusahan. 

Walaupun tidak di nafikan bahawa masih ramai Melayu dan bumiputra yang berada pada tahap pendapatan amat rendah dan memerlukan bantuan, mereka mengharapkan bantuan yang di berikan itu berkesan untuk membolehkan mereka melepaskan diri daripada cengkaman bantuan selama-lamanya. Beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini bantuan UMNO di Ilhat sebagai berupa “batuk di tepi tangga” serta di berikan lebih kepada Umnoputra. Persepsinya ialah ramai Melayu yang berkebolehan dan memerlukan tidak menerima bantuan kalau mereka bukan Umnoputra. Persepsi ini juga menjauhkan ramai Melayu daripada UMNO yang di lihat sebagai “parti orang kaya baru Melayu segelintir”.

UMNO juga di lihat telah berubah menjadi parti bangsawan dimana cium tangan diwajibkan, pengidolaan pemimpin di galakkan, dan ucapan2 di persidangan UMNO tidak lagi mewakili suara2 rakyat marhain tetapi sesuatu yang dipentaskan. Maka, hilang lah kedudukan UMNO sebagai mewakili rakyat Melayu marhain.

Maka apakah wadah perjuangan UMNO yang dapat meyakinkan Melayu serta bukan Melayu menyokongnya ? Kalau is masih teruskan retorika politik yang lama berkaitan dengan Melayu dan Islam, saya percaya ia akan menjadi lemah ekoran peredaran masa.

Siapa kah pemimpin baru UMNO yang berani hadapi cabaran dan naratif baru yang di perlukan di Zaman ini?

Salam.

NOTA: Saya tidak bertujuan untuk melukakan perasaan sesiapa, maka jangan terlalu sensitif. Harapan saya ialah dalam demokrasi ini, UMNO berjaya menjadi satu barisan pembangkang yang efektif untuk kebaikkan Negara. Salah silap saya mohon maaf terlebih dahulu.

Lawyer Tommy Thomas for Attorney General ???

Does the Attorney general need to be a Malay or a Muslim ? Does he have to advise on Syariah law ?

 by GK Ganesan Kasinathan
[03 June 2018]

The nation is trundling towards a calamitous constitutional misunderstanding. Someone has to do something about it and set matters straight.

Let us identify what is happening.

A debate has begun to rage. It concerns the identity of the person who should be the next Attorney General. It is about constitutional provisions regarding what characteristics the Attorney General should have—and whether the current nominee, Mr. Tommy Thomas has them.

Two conflicting ideas

At the heart of the debate are two conflicting statements: the first is the altruistic proposition that certain quarters ‘have no objection at all to a non-Malay being nominated as AG.’ The second is an opposite argument. It is that the AG should be ‘in a position to advise the palace on Syariah matters.’ And the third proposition, being a conclusionary one, is the argument ‘... that therefore a judge, or a retired judge of the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ought to be appointed as AG.’

These arguments are deeply flawed. Here are the reasons:

These arguments have no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Federal Constitution says the opposite. Why is that?

The rakyat should be allowed to interpret the Constitution

The rakyat should take part in this debate. They should look at the Constitution and inform themselves of the important aspects of this confusion. They should be taught to interpret the Constitution. It is their right. Lawyers should not be the only ones telling people what the law is.

So let us look at the Constitution.

The starting point is Article 145.

Answer to the claim AG ‘must advise on Syariah law.’

The first and most important opposition to the Administration — and Mahathir — comes from the argument that the ‘AG must be able to advise the King on Syariah matters’. This demand contradicts Constitutional provisions.

This is because the Constitution exempts the AG from such a requirement. You will understand this readily, because the relevant part of Article 145(2), states: -

‘145(2): It shall be the duty of the [AG] to advise the [King] or the Cabinet or any Minister upon... legal matters, and to perform... duties of a legal character,... and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

So what it says here is that the AG must discharge the duties that the Constitution asks him to. What power does the Constitution give him? That is explained by Art 145(3). It states: -

‘145(3): The [AG] shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.’

Clause 3 prohibits the AG from dealing with proceedings before Syariah Courts and Military Courts. As far as Syariah matters are concerned the AG has no role.

No one would disagree that the King must have the very best Syariah advisor—an expert. Were previous AGs experts on Syariah Law? Was Gani Patail an expert on Syariah law? Was Apandi? How come no one objected then?

So how can the AG be now compelled to perform a duty — or exercise a power — that the Constitution has taken away from him? Why is the AG now being asked to advise on something that the Constitution tells him is none of his business?

The person to advise the King on Syariah law cannot be a retired judge.

The fifth argument is that the nominee for the AG ‘must be either an existing or a retired Federal Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge; for, that way he can render legal advise on Syariah matters’.
This argument is a non-starter.

Again there is a clear instruction from the Constitution on this.

Apart from informing the AG what matters over which the AG has powers to act on, the Constitution goes one step further. Secular courts are non-Syariah courts: i.e. the Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Courts: [Article 121 defines the secular courts].

The Constitution expressly removes from all secular courts any power that is only a Syariah Court can exercise. Clause (1A) says:-

‘The courts referred to in Clause (1) [read, ‘secular courts’] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.’

The Syariah judicial system works under a different set of laws. They have their own courts, their own judges, and their own lawyers. They are independent of the Judiciary. Therefore if Syariah law advice is needed, their Highnesses have ample Syariah resources at their disposal.

If so, how can candidates be chosen from the retired or existing list of the secular Federal Court or the Court of Appeal judges? From them have been removed the power to deal with Syariah matters. It stands to reason that they, no matter what race or religion they profess, would have had no formal legal training on Syariah law at all. So why ask to choose from a group who possess no Syariah knowledge at all?

So the argument that the AG ‘must be able to advise on Syariah matters’ argument is a red fish! It is simply not true.

What qualities must a candidate for an AG have?

The next question to ask oneself is, who can be appointed as the AG? Article 145(1) answers the question in this way: -

‘145(1): The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the phrase, ‘a person qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court’.

Who is that? That is explained in Article 123.

 It prescribes that a nominee for an AG must be (a) a citizen and (b) for the last 10 years before his appointment he shall have been ‘an advocate’; or ‘a member of the Judicial and Legal service’ (this differs from judges in the Courts - do not confuse them as one), or a mixture of both. It does not mean he must be a Federal Court or Court of Appeal Judge. He must only be one who is ‘qualified to be’ one.

From which pool would you choose your AG, given the choice?

As a matter of choice where would you choose the AG to come from?

Let us examine the pool of resources available to the Prime Minister.

Suppose there are about 1,800 lawyers in the AG’s Chambers [AGC]: that is about right. Suppose we assume that at least 500 AGC lawyers in AGC have crossed the ‘10 year practice’ mark (the numbers could be far lower]. Then at least 500 persons qualify to be the AG.

Now, the Malaysian Bar has ten times more lawyers than the AGC. It had, at the latest count, over 18,000 members. Of that number [I extrapolate] there are over 9,000 lawyers who qualify under this Art 123 — they have crossed the ‘10 years of continued practice’ requirement. They are all citizens.
Go now to the judiciary as a source. If you add the total number of judges in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal that does not cross 45. A great proportion of those judges are from the AG’s Chambers: some say as high as 90%.

As a matter of choice, where would you choose the AG from? From the largest pool of 9,00 members, or a lesser pool of 500 lawyers from AG’s chambers, or from a smaller pool of 45 judges from the Judiciary— the latter of which is already under attack?

Equality of all candidates not matter of race

The sixth point is, the Constitution, which upholds equality as its central core (read Article 8 of the Constitution), does not prevent a non-Malay from being appointed an AG. If our forefathers thought it necessary, they would have inserted that proscription into the Constitution. Had they done it, that would have been against all known conventions of human rights. They have not. Our forebears were reasonable people. They saw this issue and catered for it. The framers of the Constitution were men of great foresight. So why manipulate that intent by specious arguments of non-existent ‘conventions,’ conventions which are against human rights?

So there is no racial restriction in the Constitution. So that argument too goes out of the window.

The King ‘shall appoint’

Clause (1) of Article 145 states that His Majesty the King ‘shall’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint as AG a person proposed by the Prime Minister.

This is what it says: -

‘145(1): The yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the word, ‘shall’. It is mandatory.

The binding nature of the Prime Minister’s proposal is buttressed by an explanatory clause in Art. 40(1A): It says:-

‘In in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.’

The phrase ‘shall accept and act in accordance with such advice’ points to a mandatory requirement. There is a reason for this. The functioning of a valid government cannot be stultified by delay.
The Manifesto Point

The seventh argument is: ‘In appointing a non-Parliamentarian, Mahathir has departed from the Harapan manifesto that the AG shall be an MP.’

Many points answer this vacuous argument. The manifesto point is readily overcome.
Second, I have said elsewhere, the AG ought to be an MP answerable to the people, through parliament. I have suggested that the Constitution ought to be changed to effect that. The Committee for Institutional Reform is engaged in just that. Like the Council of Eminent Persons, they have had no rest. They are burning the candle at both ends. They are inundated with all manner of papers. They will suggest amendments—in good time.

But until that change is done, the law, as it stands, must be complied with. There is no countervailing argument against that. There is, fortunately, a Half-Way House solution. It is embedded into the Constitution. Art. 61 of the Constitution, which states, ‘(2) Either house of parliament may appoint as a member of any of its committees the [AG]... notwithstanding that he is not a member of that house.’ So, through this side-door, Parliament may, after it convenes, ask the AG to be appointed into its committees. The Committees may ask him to answer questions. In this way the current AG can be brought into Parliament’s deliberations. So these concerns are easily alleviated. So any allegation that ‘Harapan has breached its Manifesto’ is really no issue at all.

Parliament has a right to override the King on executive matters.

The King has executive authority over the Federation. That authority is, however, not absolute. It is subject to the dictates of Parliament: this is because Art 39 states:

‘The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the yang di- Pertuan Agong and exercisable... by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, ... but parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons.’

The AG's appointment, under the current law, is an exercise of executive authority. If the King does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Constitution grants another route to Parliament. In matters of governance, the primacy Parliament is constitutionally entrenched. But Parliament has not been convened. That that time is not yet come. It will. But can we wait till then?
The power of the Conference of Rulers

The final argument in the opposition’s quiver is that the Conference of Rulers have an
absolute power to object to any suggestion of the Prime Minister. This is incorrect. True
it is that the Conference of Rulers have certain ‘discretionary’ powers.

Article 38 lays it out in great detail. They have a right to be consulted on certain matters. These are listed with some care: these deal with matters relating the appointment of the King, e.g., include any matter relating to the special position of the Malay rulers, the Islamic religion or the rights of Malays under Article 153 (Reservation of quotas in the services, permits etc. for Malays).

True also it is that that Art. 38(2)(c) states that the Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of consultation by —

‘... consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference’.

Some argue that Clause(6) gives the Conference of Rulers the right of carte blanche— blank cheque; that that it is ‘an absolute right’. This is what the relevant part of Clause(6) says —

‘... the members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say... (c) consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference;

In constitutional theory, the personal prerogative of the monarch is said to contradict democracy.
On a proper reading of Clause 6, this personal power is not absolute. First, much of the strength of these prerogative power are diluted by constitutional principles. Second, other clauses in the Constitution severely limit that power. Third, the ‘right to consultation’ cannot mean an ‘absolute right to refuse.’ That is why the Constitution, with great care, has said, their Highnesses ‘may act in their discretion.’ This discretion is called ‘royal prerogative.’ Blackstone described it as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ So they are are ‘personal prerogatives.’

But the principles underlying the exercise of prerogatives have been uniformly accepted without contradiction across the world. It is for that reason such prerogatives are carefully circumscribed. The way the words in clause 6 are crafted is a call to exercise, in their Highnesses discretion, one of the most fundamental provisions of the Rule of Law: when a constitutional discretion is granted, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. So the exercise of the ‘personal prerogative’ must seek to achieve the equality principle rooted as the basic fabric of the Constitution. It must be subject to transparency and good governance. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It cannot be exploited capriciously. Such a discretion must be exercised in a way that will aid democracy and uphold the Rule of Law. The words must be construed to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and the Will of the People.

Conclusion

Parliament is not in session. Not yet. Yet someone has to carry the burden of the AG. Charges have to be filed. People have to be hauled up before the courts. The Cabinet is busy answering a hundred, perhaps a thousand urgent calls upon its time. This amidst the urgent concern that economic matters should be dealt with alacrity.

Manifesto or no, Mahathir has to stop the haemorrhage. The Cabinet cannot hang about. Time is of the essence. Mahathir has to act now.

Those who delay the appointment of the AG are doing a great disservice to the toils of an elderly patriot trying to right a wayward ship.

These detractors are playing into the hands of the pilferers who have purloined billons from our coffers. They sit pretty, smiling from their strongholds. They think nothing will come upon them so long as they keep raising one constitutional crises after another, and trigger as much unease and delay as possible. That is why they are delaying the appointment of the AG. They wish to feel safe. They think the GE 14 is a pyrrhic victory. They feel they are untouchable.

They must be stopped.

As a nation we cannot sit idly by, while these detractors stultify the rakyat’s hard-won victory.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GK Ganesan Kasinathan is a senior advocate  and solicitor practicing in Kuala Lumpur.

Raperas are more urgently needed now !

I have spoken and written many articles over the years where I tried to provoke the Rakyat into taking responsibility for the well being of the Nation.  I was deeply concerned that the general rakyat who are generally good and decent people were illusioned that they are helpless in shaping the destiny of the Nation.

Whatever the impetus was, I am glad that the Rakyat now know that they can change the government if they are determined to. I hope that this makes the politicians realize that the Rakyat’s mindset has changed. They no longer fear the powers that the politicians wield.

I would like to remind the Rakyat that while the Rakyat’s mindset and imagination with regards to politics may have changed, they must remember one thing - power still has a druggish effect on the politicians and their servants.  Hence, they must not assume that just because the baton has been passed to the member of parliaments and state assemblymen on the other side of the fence, all must necessarily be well - they are still politicians.

Hence, our focus should still remain the same - we want a stable, peaceful country where each of us and our children have the opportunity to prosper based on the efforts that we put into life. Every Malaysian has a right to feel safe, useful, appreciated as a citizen with a sense of belonging and respected as a human being.

While the some or most of the Rakyat may still be caught up with the elections that have ended, the Raperas must put on their thinking caps while being balanced by their compassionate hearts.

While some or most of the Rakyat may think that their responsibility has ended by casting their votes, Raperas must know that duties and responsibilities to ensure that this Nation progresses comprehensively continues. Raperas must be ever vigilant.

Believe me when I say this: most people are unable to free themselves from vested interests that may actually run counter to national interests. Do not for a second think that a change of government automatically means that human nature itself has changed.

While we must give the trust, the benefit of doubt and support the government of the day, the Rapera must be vigilant of the human nature which may only want to act in its own interests.

Let us together unite, as Malaysians, to ensure that the key institutions in our country are strengthened not to act against ordinary citizens but to empower them so that they are protected and assisted in their quest to contribute in making this nation greater.

I pray that we have a great journey ahead.

Peace !

Malaysians Made Political History ! 14th General Elections 9th May 2018

Lest the people think that this was an overnight courage of the Malaysian people to change the government they have been used to for the past 60 years, let us recall briefly a few important milestones that led to this.

Firstly,  the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 and the subsequent sodomy charges against him. This event gave birth to the Reformasi Movement which evolved over almost 18 years now. As I have written before on this blog, Anwar had contributed tremendously in igniting up the imagination of the voters, especially in the following areas; a) courage to openly and bluntly criticise  government and government officials, b) opening up the eyes of the public on the alleged excesses of politicians c) the idea and concept of “People’s sovereignty \” (Ketuanan Rakyat) - this I consider the greatest contribution of Anwar to the beginning of a Malaysian dream d) Many Malay voters began to move away from race based rhetoric and of course f) the people got used to opposition becoming government at the state levels. 

So it was one long arduous journey that began with Anwar and his families personal and political sufferings. 

Secondly, was the fact that when Pak Lah took over, civil societies movements, like Bersih, UNdiMalaysia, SABM and so many others grew and functioned on their own - it became a people’s movement. People like Haris Ibrahim, “the one man army” with his sense of uncomprising principles, Marina Mahathir, Ambiga,  Edmond Bon, and so many others played a major and unselfish role in the evolution of the Malaysian voter’s psyche.  

Thirdly was the fact that UMNO and BN were already being gradually weakened since PAk Lah took over and they encountered challenges which were completely new. However, they attempted to address these challenges using old methods which failed.  This is also evolution of the Malaysian political mindset.

All the above and other factors brought us to today _ Malaysians dared to change government. Obviously hopes are high. However, I am one person who has never been too happy or too depressed about anything.

Whether or not this change will be good in the short term is yet to be seen. The new Pakatan Harapan government must keep its promises and on top of its list should be to empower the minds of the citizens. They must be respected as human beings and we have to move away from racial and religious polarization. 

Allah has given Tun Dr Mahathir a second chance - I pray this chance brings him full circle.

Peace.

Working towards national unity

AUG 22 — I am writing this article from Rio de Janeiro, being here to support our Malaysian badminton team.

While I am happy to note that we become united in our support of the national team, it also reminds me that back home, there is a perception of increasing fractures in national unity among us.

It is clear that in the Games, including badminton, national identity becomes more important than ethnic, cultural or religious identities. A multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan based country presents itself to the world and behaves as a united nation representing all citizens of the respective countries. 

In the Olympics, we work hard and are united in the quest for gold. Is it not overdue that we work hard and are united in achieving the gold for being united as citizens of Malaysia?

The perception that our national unity is fracturing is not completely without basis. 

There are still too many things around us that are calculated to accentuate our differences rather than remind us of our similarities. The insane politics of racism and religious bigotry is still very much alive in this advanced computer and Internet age.

Take, for example, the latest new political kid on the blog, a political party that is going to be premised on Malays only membership. The frightening thing is that this race based party is formed by former members of the Malaysian government. Is this not an admission by themselves that they have failed to instil the spirit and awareness of being Malaysian when they were in power?

I can understand their argument that it is politically expedient to do so and their competition is with Umno and PAS. This, therefore, highlights the very point I have been making for two decades now — political expediency often is the culprit that divides the nation.

Malaysians must move away from condoning political expediency that hurts the nation in the long run.

The perceived fractures of national disunity not only emanate from ethnic differences but also intra and inter-religious differences. There are wrong approaches and unnecessary efforts that seem to divide Malaysians based on religious preferences.

This itself is intrinsically contradictory because religion which is supposed to be spiritual is becoming a factor of division rather than a catalyst for unity, love and compassion between fellow Malaysians. The rakyat and the National Unity Department in the Prime Minister’s Department should be more creative and pro-active in finding ways as to how religion can be a unifying factor and so on.

Likewise, there is also increasing sectarianism within the Malaysian Muslim community which, if we are not careful, may lead us to the kind of sectarian disputes that are taking place in the Middle East. Once again, serious thinking and planning by the National Unity Department, the minister of religious affairs and other stakeholders to address this potential danger should be made urgently.

I have a question to pose to those who have been entrusted to plan our national unity – what common ideals or dreams have you given the average Malaysian?  It appears to me that as a nation we have no common direction, each going in separate and often opposite ways.

There is increasing confusion arising from the quarrels of a secular or Islamic state without any proper, intellectual, civilised and substantive debate or discussion. In this age, we still behave like the primitive cavemen shouting down others instead of advancing our arguments in a coherent and polite fashion.

We seem to lack a culture of knowledge and polite discourse. What is even worse, there seems to be no concerted and committed efforts by those entrusted to bring about such an environment. Hence, the citizens think that many at the top are mere seat-warmers with no ideas or vision.

With respect, I am beginning to suspect that those entrusted with the job of bringing about national unity are still grappling for a foundation or basis of national unity. Should the basis be religious? Should it be Islam since Article 3 of the Federal Constitution says that Islam is the official religion of the federation. If Islam, then which “structure” and “how much”? If it is not religious based, then what?

For national unity to come about, there has to be a national identity, national values, a national common vision or goal or dream. These need to be identified.

National unity cannot come about based on religion in a multi-religious society because while there are commonalities, there are also dogmatic differences that cannot be reconciled. However, religious sentiments may be used as one of the motivating sources for unity if we focus on the fact that religions do teach kindness and goodness to one another and that we are created by the same Supreme Being, albeit that we call Him by different names.

However, the extremists in the respective religious circles may not like this as it may offend their notion of exclusivity of their religions.

Even within the same religion, there is a problem of pleasing the sects and sub sects that exist. Hence, these are the problems and challenges that may arise if we use religion as a basis for national unity.

It, therefore, appears that the search for a basis and planning for national unity need to transcend religious boundaries.

So what is it that we can use as a basis for national unity? We need that direction and we need that urgently. We cannot wait for the next Olympics.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

Fix the past, design the future

In politics, if you don’t do the right things for the people, unless you are a devious schizophrenic Machiavelli, events will come back to haunt and hurt you.

Even if you are a devious Machiavelli, events will still haunt you but the fact that you are a sick schizophrenic will shield you from the pain of knowing you are a failed leader. It is important for politicians to understand this and more important for the citizens because they will bear the brunt of failed policies.

Some of our politicians do not seem to show any signs of reducing the play of political games. It is clearly calculated to cause political instability so as to achieve a certain political objective. On the other hand, people-oriented issues such as education, freedom of faith, employment, corruption, cost of living and so on, are not, and have never been championed as passionately by the political leaders. It should open up the eyes of the citizen that nothing excites politicians more than pure political issues, especially ones that directly concern power.

Hence, it falls back on the current government and the national leadership to decide what it wants to do under such turbulent political times. To me, the principle approach is easy but it requires honesty, courage and willingness to follow through to fix the past and progress to the future. There needs to be not only leadership, but visible leadership with a clear direction.

It is impossible to progress if we keep maintaining some of the failed national mindset and systems that have clearly brought us to this national inefficient state of existence.

We have to be courageous and not vindictive to identify the policies and thinking of the past that are preventing us from leaping forward as a successful united nation.

The sliding of Malaysia’s reputation on the world stage began a long time ago when we were accused of practising cronyism, nepotism and indulging in patronising politics in the mid-1980s.

Criticisms were already levelled then at how we have been misusing our newfound oil money on mega projects at the exclusion of building human capital. Home-grown and cottage industries, which are always the fundamental shock absorbers of any nation, were never given the necessary and due attention. Small and medium-sized enterprises were ignored or given lukewarm political attention, never mind the fact that we have an SME Bank. Political handouts to those who were close to the political circle and not to the talented were an open secret.

The judiciary suffered total disrespect locally and abroad and only recovered its image somewhat partly thanks to Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s initiative, when Tun Abdullah Badawi became the prime minister. Racial polarisation, religious egoism and extremism of the worst kind are allowed to rear their ugly head. Political leaders have been blind to the fact these divisive mindsets took decades to grow due to past policies or lack of visionary policies. Understandably, the people were excited when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak introduced the “1Malaysia” vision only to be thwarted by Umno’s powerful old guards who do not want the “old status quo” disturbed. A chance for a powerful reform vehicle to unite the people forward as one nation was watered down by these old guards who still wanted to wield power.

I can go on with many of the past policies that had failed and are still hurting the nation. Abdullah had somewhat tried to implement a reformist government but due to internal Umno politics, his administration was short-lived. He had largely refused to follow the old “Umno way” of doing things. Again, powerful old guards in the party will not allow change and hence, despite everyone saying what a nice man Abdullah is, the disinformation machinery was unleashed to retire him early.

The writer says people want leaders who can fix parts of the past and the future to be planned and identified. — Bernama picThe unfortunate fact of the matter is this: the health of the country is tied very much to the health of Umno. There are many trappings that have been put in place in Umno and there are many powerful old guards who will try to chain the president down. Therefore, even as a president, you either toe the line or risk forced retirement. Only a firm and strong willed president can survive with his way of doing things in Umno. 

There are many things from the past that still persist today that have to be fixed by the present leadership. I repeat, the current leadership has to be courageous to fix the past so that we can move ahead as one nation. For years, Malaysians, especially the Malays, have been programmed not to think about many things. Allow the citizens in general and the Malays in particular the space and liberty to think and debate without having it always turned into a sensitive, political or taboo issue.

The integrity of the institutions that have been undermined over the years have to be restored so the citizens can have a sense of stability, safety and respect. Humanistic and nationalistic narratives ought to be accompanied by humanistic and nationalistic policies and actions. 

Real and holistic economic solutions ought to be designed, implemented and communicated to the people so uncertainty does not result in misinformed rebellion. An efficient leader is one who completely understands uncertainty among the masses is dangerous for the country’s stability. No one likes anxiety resulting from thinking the country has no direction.

The people are resilient but they need to understand and believe they have a leader who can help them pull through difficult times. That’s how people are.

People generally are sick and tired of political games. They now better understand the hypocrisy of the games and they want leaders who can fix parts of the past and the future to be planned and identified.

Floating along without a direction is bad, especially for a nation.

*Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/fix-the-past-design-the-future-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.LjomfqYN.dpuf

Happy Malaysia Day !

I can do no better than reproduce the creative picture made by our beloved Sargent Zulkifli Mohamad Noor of Bandar Utama Police Station.

Peace !

My Wish For Malaysia

Very basic really.

That we all become and behave as human beings with compassion and love first.

That we stop making life difficult for each other in the name of politics, religion, ethnicity and so on.

That we realise that none of us - however learned we claim to be - has the right or authority to play God.

That we allow the diligent to be diligent, the talented to be talented.

That the powerful and rich do not oppress the weak and poor - know that we are mortals who will disintegrate one day.

Let's share a dream together - to make Malaysia our home and us, a Malaysian family.

MALAYSIA

OUR 

HOME!

Peace !

Bagaimanakah nanti Di Perhimpunan Agung UMNO? Fahamkah UMNO apa cabarannya?

Harus Memahami Persepsi2

Sudah lama kita dengar bahawa sudah lama Perhimpunan Agung Umno (PAU) tidak lagi di hiraukan oleh rakyat Malaysia, termasuk orang-orang UMNO sendiri – kecuali orang UMNO yang berkepentingan peribadi. Ada yang berkata ini berlaku kerana dibandingkan dengan zaman Tun Dr Mahathir (TDM), hari ini, pengumuman penting2 sudah pun di maklumkan sebelum PAU dan juga oleh beberapa Menteri2 dan bukan PM sahaja.

Kalau dahulu pengumuman2 penting Negara di buat di PAU, sejak zaman Tun Abdullah (Pak Lah), sudah terdapat perpisahan lebih jelas diantara kerajaan dan parti politik iaitu UMNO.  Maka, pengumuman dibuat juga oleh para Menteri diluar PAU. Samada benar atau tidak, ini adalah satu persepsi yang kuat di pegang oleh ramai orang. Pada saya, setiap PAU masih diperhatikan rakyat bagi mengetahui halatuju UMNO dan polisi UMNO sebagai parti tunggak BN.

Scenario Politik kini tidak sama dengan zaman TDM

Pandangan lain juga mengatakan bahawa UMNO masih tidak dapat “adjust” atau sesuaikan diri dengan iklim dan suasana politik yang amat berbeza berbanding dengan zaman TDM.  UMNO sudah seolah-olah biasa dengan retorika “perjuangan kaum Melayu” dan “agama” terutamanya yang di juruskan untuk menunjukkan bahawa UMNO lebih Islam daripada PAS. Ini sebabnya mungkin beberapa pemimpin yang cuba memainkan “isu Melayu” pada zaman Pak Lah sudah bertukar skrip ucapan mereka kearah yang berlainan sekali.

TDM tidak berhadapan dengan begitu banyak pemuda-pemudi Melayu yang tidak berminat dengan retorik perkauman.  Masa beliau media sosial tidak begitu berkembang maka rakyat terpaksa bergantung sebahagian besar kepada media rasmi yang kebanyakkan dikuasai oleh kerajaan. Pemikiran, pola politik dunia, tahap ekonomi dan pendidikan juga amat berbeza. Maka kaedah2, perbincangan dan pemikiran politik zaman TDM memang tidak boleh di aplikasi pada zaman ini. Pergerakkan civil society di zaman Tun juga tidak sehebat kini.

Disamping itu, sejak 1998, ramai Melayu sudah mula berani mempersoalkan polisi kerajaan dan mengkritik pemimpin Melayu secara terbuka. Semakin ramai pemuda Melayu (dan juga ayah2 mereka yang di pengaruhi pemuda pemudi ini) sudah mula mendesak sikap keterbukaan atau transparensi dalam banyak hal. Golongan ini yang semakin meningkat gagal dipujuk untuk menutup mata kepada sebarang “irregularity” atas alasan ianya adalah untuk membantu Melayu.

Maka pemimpin atas UMNO yang mewarisi pemimpin-pemimpin zaman TDM “meraba-raba” mencari kaedah dan pendekatan yang sesuai dengan zaman ini.

Retorika Perkauman serta Melayu yang mana?

Namun dalam UMNO, tarikan untuk menengahkan bicara dalam bahasa perkauman masih menjadi tarikan yang kuat - walaupun isu yang sama boleh diketengahkan dengan lebih efisien dalam bahasa bukan perkauman. Mungkin ini lah antara sebabnya polisi 1Malaysia yang di bawa oleh Dato Seri Najib menjadi sesuatu yang ditentang kerana ia seolah-olah mencabar politik dan retorika perkauman yang beberapa pemimpin UMNO sudah biasa.

Ia menjadi satu kehairanan kenapa masih ada dinasor tua atau dinasor muda yang telah dilatih masih tidak faham bahawa isu “kemelayuan” yang di balut dalam retorika perkauman akan gagal kerana satu sebab yang utama – iaitu Melayu sudah ada dimana2 dan bukan sahaja di pangkuan UMNO. Sememangnya landasan politik dan civil society dipimpin dan disokong oleh Melayu dalam Negara ink.

Dalam UMNO, kebanyakkannya Melayu. DI PAS, semuanya Melayu. DI PKR, DAP dan lain-lain parti politik sudah ada banyak Melayu. Di dalam NGO2 yang bukan pro UMNO, pemimpin yang ke hadapan biasanya Melayu. Orang yang memperjuangkan “Asalkan Bukan UMNO”  adalah Melayu. Di pihak civil society atau gerakkan sibil, banyak yang Melayu. Pendekata, pemimpin2 Melayu daripada pelbagai parti politik, NGO dan individu yang berdebat, berlawan hujah dan mengutarakan pandangan yang berlawanan adalah Melayu.

Musuh ketat politik UMNO adalah PAS dan sejak kebelakangan adalah PKR yang juga dipimpin oleh Melayu. Ketiga-tiga parti ini berlumba pengaruhi undi Melayu. Jelas sekali UMNO sekali lagi terjerat dalam bicara politiknya – jika UMNO mahu memperjuangkan Melayu, maka secara logiknya ia juga memperjuangkan kebajikan ahli-ahli Melayu PAS, PKR, dan DAP yang jelas menolaknya!

PAS secara terbuka bukan sahaja menolak UMNO tetapi pernah mengisytiharkan UMNO sebagai parti sesat , parti asobiyah, serta jahil agama. PAS pernah beberapa kali mengatakan bahawa ia lebih rela berkerjasama dengan DAP yang UMNO capkan sebagai parti chauvinis Cina.

UMNO menghadapi kepayahan untuk menghadapi PAS yang juga keahliannya terdiri daripada Melayu. Ini adalah kerana UMNO tidak tahu atau tidak berani menghadapi alat politik mujarab yang digunakan oleh PAS iaitu agama. UMNO masih tidak dapat membezakan diantara Islam dan agama, diantara politik dan Islam.  Maka, ia selalu masuk kedalam perangkap PAS (dibincang lebih mendalam dibawah).

PKR pula dilihat sebagai parti yang tidak berasaskan perkauman serta parti yang memperjuangkan isu-isu Negara seperti korupsi, transparensi, dan lain-lain. Persepsi politik juga adalah bahawa PKR lah yang telah membawa masuk “kewujudan” masyarakat peribumi didalam perbicangan politik di semenanjung Malaysia. Sebelum 1998, jelas bahawa hampir kesemua ucapan politik hanya merujuk kepada “Melayu, Cina dan India” dan jarang atau tiada kita dengar “Iban, Kadazan, Murut” dan sebagai nya. UMNO lah yang sepatutnya memulakannya dahulu kerana UMNO lah dahulunya mengiktiraf mereka ini sebagai ahli UMNO.  Saya percaya perkara ini juga tidak difikirkan oleh “pemikir-pemikir” politik UMNO yang sudah ada one track mind over the years.

Dalam konteks perbincangan diatas, maka jelas monopoli UMNO terhadap minda Melayu semakin dicabar - samada dari segi politik mahupun dari segi agama.

Saya kira common sense akan menginsafkan UMNO bahawa dalam suasana sedemikian, retorika berasaskan kaum Melayu sahaja yang dibalut dalam bahasa perkauman tidak akan berjaya dalam jangka panjang. Maka mengapa masih ada dinasor-dinasor yang masih mahu berhujah sedemikian sehingga 1Malaysia Najib dilihat sudah tersasar daripada membina satu gagasan yang berpotensi?

Saya antara yang terdahulu yang menyokong polisi 1Malaysia PM Najib yang saya kira dapat dijadikan satu wawasan bagi Rakyat Malaysia. Sememangnya amat radikal wawasan ini dicetuskan oleh Presiden UMNO. Ianya dapat dijadikan dan diusahakan sebagai polisi rasmi kerajaan dengan segala kesungguhan. Kalau inilah scenarionya, maka tidak akan menjadi sesuatu yang janggal bagi Najib sebagai Presiden UMNO untuk memperjuangkan yang hak bagi Melayu yang memerlukan. Malangnya, 1Malaysia dilihat sebagai terpaksa mengambil “backseat” dan label itu telah mutate menjadi sesuatu yang lain.

Kesimpulan nya ialah: dalam suasana dimana Melayu akan berhadapan dengan Melayu dalam membicarakan suatu isu daripada fahaman dan pandangan yang berbeza, Melayu manakah yang UMNO dikatakan mewakili? Ini lah persoalan yang semakin timbul dan yang masih belum di jawab oleh UMNO.

Retorika “Islam” dalam politik UMNO?

Dalam aspek memperjuangkan Islam melalui politik, UMNO juga dilihat  tidak begitu berkesan dari segi kacamata politik. Didalam minda Melayu, persepsinya ialah PAS adalah pejuang Islam. Bukan kah namanya itu sendiri “Parti SeIslam Malaysia”? UMNO tidak ada Islam atau Muslim pada namanya. Nama UMNO berasaskan kepada kaum iaitu “Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu”. Maka, UMNO dilihat sebagai parti perkauman dan PAS sebagai parti agama. Perkara ini pun sering diceramahkan oleh pemimpin2 parti PAS iaitu Melayu PAS mengatakan Melayu UMNO amalkan “asobiyah” atau perkauman ! Bukan kaum lain yang cakap. Ini pun satu cabaran yang saya percaya UMNO tidak tahu bagaimana hendak hadapi.

Selanjutnya, Melayu berpendidikan hari ini sedar bahawa undang2 syariah diluluskan di Dewan Undangan Negeri dimana sekian lama ianya di monopoli oleh pemimpin2 UMNO. Baik atau buruknya undang2 yang digubal dan diluluskan sebagai "syariah" akan memberi kesan kepada kewibawaan, kebolehan dan kebertanggungjawaban adun2 UMNO.  Rakyat Muslim akan menilai. Saya percaya adun2 UMNO tidak bersedia untuk menghadapi pelbagai cabaran baru yang saya lihat akan timbul dimasa hadapan didalam hal ini. Ini adalah kerana sehingga kini pun selain daripada menyanyikan lagi konservatif yang dipinjam daripada penasihat agama mereka, pemimpin UMNO tidak fokus langsung akan hal ini.

Didalam isu berkaitan dengan “Islam”, UMNO sudah tidak dilihat sebagai satu parti politik yang memberikan fahaman atau bentuk Islam yang berbeza dengan fahaman PAS. Sejak bersaranya TDM, tidak ada perbincangan segar mengenai Islam dalam arena politik. Dalam konteks ini, masa zaman TDM, kita dapat juga kelainan fahaman dan hujah berkaitan dengan Islam oleh TDM – lain daripada PAS sehingga ada kalanya PAS diletakkan dalam keadaan defensif.

Sejak zaman Pak Lah pula, saya lihat UMNO diletakkan dalam keadaan defensif apabila PAS timbulkan isu2 agama walaupun isu2 yang amat remeh.  Sejak itu, strategi UMNO berkaitan dengan Islam, tanpa disedari oleh UMNO lebih menguntungkan PAS.  Bukan itu sahaja, UMNO seolah-olah buta atau tidak sedar bahawa permainan politik agama ini akan merosakkan perpaduan Melayu dan menggugat keselamatan Negara dijangka panjang. Di samping itu, UMNO juga tidak sedar bahawa ia akan terima “backlash” daripada penggundi nanti.

Mengapa perkara ini boleh berlaku? Pandangan peribadi saya ialah berbanding dengan TDM yang berani dan merendah diri mahu membaca dan memahami Al-Quran dan memikirkan mengenai hal2 agama, pemimpin sesudahnya sudah tidak lagi berbuat demikian. Saya mengatakan perkara ini kerana dalam kesibukan TDM sebagai PM, beliau sanggup meluangkan masa untuk berbincang mengenai isi kandungan Al-Quran. TDM juga amat rajin dalam membaca dan mengkaji buku2 yang diberikan kepada beliau dan kemudian berbincang pula mengenainya! Pengalaman peribadi saya ialah TDM mempunyai minda intellectual yang kuat dan kerendahan diri untuk mengkaji dan belajar walaupun ketika itu beliau adalah seorang PM.

 Pemimpin UMNO hari ini bergantung sepenuhnya kepada penasihat2 agama tanpa sedar bahawa penasihat2 ini keluar daripada Universiti yang sama dengan penasihat2 agama PAS! Dalam situasi seperti ini, sudah tentu PAS lah yang akan untung dari segi politik. Akhrnya, penasihat2 agama menjadi boss kepada pemimpin politik dalam hal agama !

Maka, dalam hal2 agama, pemimpin politik UMNO kini bergantung seratus peratus kepada fahaman dan tafsiran apa itu Islam daripada penasihat2 mereka tanpa berfikir secara mendalam atau mengambil kira fahaman dan tafsiran yang berlainan. Pemimpin UMNO kurang faham bahawa tafsiran penasihat mereka sendiri lebih kurang sama dengan PAS. Saya harian mengapa pemimpin-pemimpin politik ini tidak sedar bahawa mereka diperalatkan oleh beberapa penasihat2 agama mereka untuk agenda peribadi? Walaupun nasihat pemimpin agama ini kadangkala boleh merosakkan Negara atau memberi gambaran negatif kepada Islam, pemimpin politik membenarkannya kerana mereka sendiri jahil dan takut.

Satu perkara yang sering terlepas pandang oleh pemimpin UMNO ialah ini: - perbuatan, ucapan dan polisi ajensi-ajensi agama akan dianggap sebagai direstui oleh pucuk pimpinan UMNO. Jika tidak pun, apabila pucuk pimpinan UMNO berdiam diri, ianya dianggap direstui oleh mereka. Walaupun faktanya ialah ianya dibawah Negeri, namun Rakyat tahu siapa yang menguasai pentadbiran iaitu kerajaan. Oleh sebab pemimpin politik UMNO terlepas pandang, maka tidak ada sebarang pemantaun atau strategi digubal untuk menilai kesan politiknya.

Banyak isu2 agama atau isu2 yang diagamakan yang tercetus kebelakagan ini memberi kesan kepada UMNO sebagai parti utama dalam kerajaan BN. Ini adalah perkara2 yang akan diingati oleh pengundi menjelang pilihanraya. Kegagalan kerajaan membendung fahaman dan tindakan eksremis sehingga ada anak muda yang memasuki dalam ISIS juga menimbulkan tanda tanya berkaitan dengan kurikulum agama disekolah2 dan siaran agama dalam media yang rakyat anggap sebagai dibawah kawalan kerajaan.

Perkara yang anih ialah ini – UMNO sejak selepas TDM dilihat telah menjadi PAS zaman dulu dengan fahaman konservatif agamanya ! Sebaliknya dalam beberapa ketika, PAS pula dilihat sebagai semakin kembali kepada AL-Quran dan sunnah sahih. Ini adalah persepsi yang perlu dihadapi dan fahami.

Maka berlaku lah kecelaruan dikalangan Melayu dari aspek apa itu “Islam” yang semakin lama dimonopoli oleh fahaman satu kelompok dengan izin pemimpin politik yang dilihat sebagai jahil agama.  Dalam aspek ini, UMNO dilihat sebagai gagal selepas TDM. Dari segi politik pula, pengaruh PAS semakin meluas walaupun ada pelbagai spinning di laman maya yang semakin hari semakin tidak dipercayai oleh pembaca.

Semua ini akan mengurangkan kerelevanan UMNO dijangka panjang dan akan menjauhkan UMNO daripada orang Melayu dijangka pendek dari segi undi JIKA UMNO masih lagi berada dalam “comfort zone” dan kotak pemikiran kini. Adakah UMNO berani menghadapi isu-isu agama secara berilmiah dan terbuka? Saya kira tidak setakat ini.

Yang paling dikhuatiri ialah jika Melayu hanya di sogokkan dengan bicara “kemelayuan” dan fahaman “agama” sempit sahaja dalam hidup mereka, seluruh dunia akan maju dan kita akan tinggal dalam dunia syok sendiri kita yang lambat laun akan di telan oleh masa menurut Sunnah Allah.

“Tetapi jika kamu berpaling, aku telah menyampaikan kepada kamu apa yang aku diutus dengannya kepada kamu, dan Pemeliharaku akan mengantikan kamu dengan satu kaum yang selain daripada kamu, dan kamu pula tidak akan memudaratkan-Nya sedikit pun. Pemeliharaku Penjaga atas segala sesuatu." (Quran 11:57)

Salam.