It had been an extremely busy two weeks for me but I am so glad we all made time to have dinner and teh tarik last night. I am referring to the seven of us who met up last night because of our common interest in the Rapera concept. Two of them actually drove up from Pahang, one from Perak, one from Kelantan and the rest of us from Kuala Lumpur. It was also nicely mixed in terms of age ranging from 20s to 50s so we were able to get different age perspectives on the same issues that we discussed.
For me it was heartening to note that the message of “People Power” is slowly shaping into “People responsibility”. We all agreed that we deserve the leaders that we get either because we voted them in irresponsibly or we were indifferent enough not to vote. In any case, even if most of the population may be indifferent to what is happening in the country, the Raperas must be vigilant and be forever contributive to the extent possible.
We reminded each other that any change can only occur if you are willing to honestly and courageously revisit and rethink current modes of thinking, norms, culture, etc. It seems that technology has advanced drastically into the 21st century but human beings are still stuck in the dark age’s attitude –tribal, parochial, superstitious, feudal, etc.
There still seems to be a major reluctance to evolve into human beings.
Various systems, structure and superstructures are set up by the powerful (political and religious) to ensure that the majority of the citizenry remain primitive in thinking though living in up- to-date physical surroundings. Many of these systems and structures have existed for years to sustain the powerful and the elites and the ordinary citizen has become so used to it.
Being oppressed and being undignified as a human being appears to have become as common as breathing. They have become blind or numbed to the extent that they ignorantly say thanks to the oppressors. Like the cattle that is well-fed and kept at the master’s feet completely unmindful of the slaughter house that awaits it. Even when the cow is led to the slaughter house, the other cows just look the other way thinking that they will be the exception to the fate.
It is Raperas that must continue to educate themselves and others who are willing to listen that we all have the right and responsibility to live as human beings on this earth.
Thanks guys and girl for the “Rapera catching up” last night. We should do that more often.
Syed Akbar Ali in the comments section of his article “India Mari Pula” on his blog replies to one Khairudin in the following manner:
“To answer u straight from the Quran, no there is no evidence in the Quran that the Book is from God. The question u r asking is hinted at and the answer (only) is already given. Here it is from Surah 41:52”
Akbar Ali says that there is NO evidence IN the QURAN that that Book is from God. Then he goes on to quote FROM the Quran the verse 41:52 and alludes that the Quran only HINTS that it is from God.
I had posted on his comment section that there are evidences in the Quran that the Quran is from God and that he should correct his error. This comment of mine was not published (censored) by him. I just called him requesting him on the phone to correct his error (inadvertent, I am sure) and he replied that he did not like my describing it as an error. He is a dear friend of mine and I have known him for more than 10 years. We actually came to know each other because of our respective interest in the Quran.
Friends though we may be, an error of such nature need to be corrected in the spirit of mutual learning and mutual reminders. Hence this article. I am mindful of what Allah says in the Quran:
“And remember God took a covenant from the People of the Book,to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made! (Quran: 3.187)
I will be guilty of hiding the verses from the Quran if I refrain from writing this article in the name of friendship.
Any student of usul-al-fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) will know that generally there are two kinds of dalil (proofs/evidence) internal or textual evidence and external evidence. This means that there are evidence in the Quran (internal) and evidence extrinsic to it (external). For example, when someone asks you the question, is there any evidence from the Quran that the Quran is from God? Our answer is, yes and we can refer him to any one of the following internal or textual evidence from the Quran:
“It is He Who sent down to you (gradually), in truth, the Book, confirmingwhat went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)”.(Quran: 3.3)
“And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that you may warn the motherof cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book),and they are constant in guarding their prayers”. (Quran: 6:92)
“Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who has sent to you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We havegiven the Book, that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth. Never be then ofthose who doubt”. (Quran: 6:114)
“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy” (Quran: 6:155)
There are many more such textual evidence (dalil) IN the Quran that says that the Quran is from God.
Whether a person believes in them or not is a separate matter (which can be addressed) but this is nevertheless evidence from the Quran about itself. Like every other evidence, it can be tested, challenged or cross examined by the doubter or cynic. To me, this possibility of cynicism is addressed by God in the following verse:
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy”. (Quran: 4:82)
There you go. That is another evidence from the Quran requiring the skeptic to examine the Quran. It simply challenges the reader to find contradictions in the Quran. I also understand this verse to mean this: that whatever the Quran says about nature or the world should not contradict the scientific reality. For example, if the Quran says that there is no such thing as gravity or that human beings do not need to eat in order to live – if so, then there are discrepancies. In fact, in my evaluation and assessment of the Quran more than 25 years ago, I even sought to find out, inter alia, if there are any inconsistencies as to what the Quran says about the psyche and what expert findings confirm. I was very interested in human psychology then. To do these things, you have to look at the external evidence or the signs of God. It is a gross error to confuse the internal evidence (or worse, denying its existence) with the external evidence.
Further, the Quran itself requires the person to inquire, analyse, verify and understand the facts before accepting them. This is lucidly clear from the following verse:
“And follow not 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)
Once again, you examine the signs of God (external evidence) and what the Quran says and try to arrive at a conclusion as objectively as possible. In this regard, Syed Akbar Ali correctly quoted a verse from the Quran that asks us to look at the external evidence or the signs of God.
"We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth.* Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?" (Quran: 41:53).
In conclusion, it is my understanding (and I believe the understanding of learned jurists) that there is evidence IN the Quran that the Book is from God.
If I have erred in my understanding or reasoning, please point it out. I have absolutely no problems in accepting an error that I may have made. More important than me or Syed Akbar Ali is the true verses of Allah.
(Syed Akbar Ali, I hope this will bring our friendship closer to the love of Allah).
I think it is just bad taste to keep on criticizing those politicians in power. Serving the People's interest is not easy. The leaders have to sacrifice a lot in terms of their time, money and family. In fact if not for the People's contribution, it would have been impossible for these political powerful leaders to even support their family because they do not have the time to earn a living like you and me.
At least we have our family members and relatives who are clerks, officers in civil service, even some lawyers and doctors...but they....none whatsoever. It is so difficult even for their capable relatives to become successful businessmen due to the fear that People may misunderstand that all their relatives made it because they were in power.
This is the reason why most of their immediate families and close relatives are just middle income like you and me. Anyway to prove my case that our politicians in power are a self-sacrificing lot, I will list below just 25 names as starters:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That is how I have always thought of you, my friend and my professor. I know that you never considered yourself as anyone’s teacher and always cautioned me to think for my self.
I knew the inevitable moment will come and it did in the form of your daughter’s sms on 6.3.2010 saying that “Pak Lah meninggal jam 11.05pm”. The only thought that came to my mind at that moment was the fact that I could not bear to see you in the weak state that you were in when I last met you. I am just too used to listening to what you have to say. I always have to listen to every single word that you utter because it was too important for me. I am not used to seeing you silent.
I will always remember you as the true professor who professes faith based on reason and knowledge. Your life long dedication to the study and discussion of Quran has touched many people’s lives. You were the first to convincingly demonstrate to me the practical and applicative nature of the Quran in every sphere and aspect of life.
You have always maintained that a truly God-fearing person is a thinking person and that the Setan will always persuade humans to look upon thinking as a burden or an obstacle to faith.
I have learnt so much from you and much more that I wish I could have learnt from you. Your mastery of logic and thought processes baffles me considering the fact that you never went to university. I have met and discussed with many learned academics and as I have told the late Professor Syed Hussein Al-Attas, you are still number one as a thinker. You are proof that formal education is but a myth and academic qualifications are no guarantee of a person’s ability to think deeply. You are a genius Pak Lah and I could never tell you that personally because you told me that praises can be the devil’s workshop.
You have been very generous with your life, meeting many young people, academics, politicians and just about anybody who wants to share your knowledge and you gave it willingly. You shared great knowledge without charging a single cent while I know of many who pretend to teach and yet charge hefty fees. It did not even bother you that many academics took your ideas and did not even acknowledge you. I know Pak Lah, you have taught me that true knowledge belongs to God and it is never for sale. Everyone who is willing can partake of it.
So many things that I have learnt from you rushes through my mind and I just do not know which to focus on at this moment. You so accurately distinguished between the “collectuals” and the intellectuals. One who collects information and the other who thinks. Though it does not matter to you at all, I cannot help but feel sad that society has never bestowed upon you the honour that you truly deserve when lesser mortals are held up in high esteem. We live in a society that only recognises superficialities, paper qualifications and honorary titles.
I have always admired how you use the Malay language so precisely and I will remember that the choice and proper use of words is very important for clarity of thought. You have often pointed out that much of the confusion in people’s minds emanates from the misuse and careless use of words.
I suppose you were a great thinker because you felt it was a divine duty and gift to think and was not trapped by man-made parameters which many academics and people have trapped themselves into. You had no one to serve except God. This I remember Pak Lah and I have been trying hard to emulate. I also learnt from you never to impose our own views on others even though we are passionate about ours. You were a living example of what “redha” means though you never ceased to be active till your last day.
I have always been humbled by your humility and the one other thinker who humbles me with his humility is the Late Prof Syed Hussein Al-Attas. I love both of you very much though I have never expressed it in in the normal way that normal people do. Now, I no longer have the luxury of “harassing” two great thinkers and friends who will oblige me late into the wee hours of the morning. I feel emptiness and I cannot help it. I just do not know with whom I can talk to anymore. In this very mundane, almost predictable and repetitious life, both of you were my strength and source of joyous “entertainment”. I felt alive.
Now I feel I have no one. You have retired from life and I should feel happy for you…but I still feel choked. I would have felt lost if not for your constant reminder that as long as we are alive, that means that our work on earth is not done.
I am eternally grateful to my dear friend, Ramlan for having introduced you to me. That first meeting with you changed my life dramatically. I was stunned by your brilliance, sincerity in pursuit of knowledge and your remarkable clarity of thought.
As you have pointed out, all people die one day but ideas live on. It is your ideas that make me feel that you are still alive. You have lived a path of righteousness and now you have returned to your Maker.
From Allah we come, to Allah we all must surely return.
I bid your farewell and May God bless you, my friend, my professor.
In the last posting, I concluded by stating that it is important to understand the link between the religious laws – politics – Islamic scholars. Each of these factors need in-depth study and analysis in order to fully understand how it impacts on the personal liberty of the Muslim citizen to practice and profess his faith of Islam.
Briefly on the issue of “religious laws” – questions such as why certain laws are passed (in the light of the diverse opinion on these laws in Islamic jurisprudence and opinion of scholars), why the diversity of sentences, is there unanimity of consensus on these laws, how is unanimity defined and the basis thereof, how does it impact on personal accountability principle enshrined in the Quran, are they consistent with the principles in the Quran and authentic Sunnah or are they customized Arabian and Persian laws derived from their respective law makers or jurists, etc, etc. All these questions and more need to be asked.
Briefly on the political aspect – should political parties be allowed to claim for themselves to be the champions of Islam and hence position themselves as the sole interpreter of Islam, should Islam be politicized at all or would a “secular situation” be more feasible for a Muslim to practice his faith without political interference, does the political climate favour a “certain flavour of Islam” as opposed to another, are we not concerned that “political Islam” will, one day create the kind of “intra-religious tensions” that is seen happening in the Middle East, Pakistan and elsewhere, etc etc
Briefly on the “Islamic scholars” – Should Islamic scholars opinions be regarded as infallible and hence cast in stone, which school of thought does the scholar belong to and does the ordinary citizen have the constitutional right to evaluate which scholar he agrees with, political participation of Islamic scholars and their objectivity, “competition” between Islamic scholars of differing views, “Non-Islamic” scholars are allowed to express their views in any State in their respective field of study, does the Islamic scholar has this same right, etc, etc.
As I had observed earlier, it is indeed a complex web beyond the imagination of the ordinary Muslim citizen who unsuspectingly often accepts matters at face value, especially those that are deemed “official” or “normal”.
The web becomes more complex to the point of being confusing to many because of other factors. In this politico-Islamisation process, there are also other “political” units involved as shown in the diagram below. Each of them impact upon the Muslim citizen’s right to practice and profess his faith. If you study the diagram, you will see clearly that the political framework in Malaysia is designed to exert control over the Muslim citizen in a way that that does not affect the Non-Muslim citizens.
Politico-Islamisation Process in Malaysia
!
Politicians & Ngos 2. State Religious Council 3.Federal “IslamicInstitutions 4.. State ReligiousAuthorities 5. Religious Scholars 6.????
Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.
Since a Muslim citizen is subjected to the many units discussed above, it would appear that Article 11(1) is not available to the Muslim citizen. This is because the right of the Muslim citizen to practice and profess his faith is subjected to the control of the above units. These units have the force of law and hence, Muslim citizens’ rights to avail themselves of the right provided under Article 11(a) are illusory. His faith is therefore curbed by man-made laws.
It is a also a sad fact that many Judges, nothing less than Federal Court Judges have shyed away from their responsibility to interpret Article 11(1) vis-à-vis the Muslim citizen’s right though they had ample opportunity. This is something they have to answer to their own conscience and to the Maker when they ultimately face Him. When such judges refuse to undertake their responsibility in matters that concerns one’s faith, how difficult it will be for a Muslim to respect such judges (not all of them)? If my reasoning is correct (and I stand to be corrected), they are part of the oppression of faith.
As it stands, realistically Article 11(1) is not applicable to the Muslim citizen while it is applicable to the non-Muslim citizen. This brings about another constitutional discrimination against the Muslim citizen.
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution provides that:
8(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
8(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
In the light of the political structure of our country in terms of the religious institutions, not all persons are equal before the law. Since, Article 11(1) is available to the non-Muslim citizen and not the Muslim citizen; it would appear that the non-Muslims have more rights than the non-Muslims with regards to how they practice their faith.
Furthermore, it is arguable that the Muslims are being discriminated against in contravention of Article 8(2) because there is nothing in the constitution that allows any authority to curb the freedom of a Muslim to practice and profess his faith.
Article 11 (4) states the following:
“State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”.
Article11(4), on the face of it applies to every citizen, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This means that laws can be enacted to curb the Muslim’s duty to “propagate” Islam to others, including his own family. This article may be troublesome, unless properly clarified, because there are just too many injunctions in the Quran that places a divine duty to share Allah’s message with anyone who is willing. One such verse is very clear as follows:
"Call them to the path of your Lord through wisdom and good advice and argue with them in the best manner. God knows well about those who stray from His path and those who seek guidance". (Quran 16:125)
How does a Muslim call others to the path of Allah if his divine right and duty to share the verses from the Quran (and his understanding thereof) can be curbed by law? This is a serious matter which the law-makers must address.
I believe everyone, when they are alone, knows the answer. God “speaks” to all and has given each a conscience – but politics has become god.
END.
Peace.
[I appreciate alternative views and comments as my concern is sincere]
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 153tidak 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”.
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 melindungikedudukan istimewa orang Melayudan 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.
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.
