Rudyard Kipling"
āWhen you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldierā
General Douglas MacArthur"
āWe are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.ā
āIt is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.ā āOld soldiers never die; they just fade away.
āThe soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.ā
āMay God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .ā āThe object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
āNobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
āIt is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
Can Madani govt assure Act 355 bill won't affect non-Muslims? By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, October 21, 2024
Malaysiakini : Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim just last year in the midst of brewing
the law in Madaniville claimed that PAS bringing up this issue now that
they were in the opposition was just ācheap politicsā.
As reported
in the press - āThatās not Islamic, thatās cheap politics,ā he told the
media when asked to comment about PAS asking Putrajaya when it will
table the amendments to Act 355.
The prime minister is right
though. Why didnāt PAS or Bersatu bring up this issue when they were in
power? Keep in mind that Bersatu was accused of being in DAPās pocket
when they would not touch this issue with a 10-foot pole back in the
day.
In 2017, then-Umno information chief Annuar Musa as reported in the press said
that the failure of Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin in stating the
partyās stand could be because he could be overshadowed by the decision
of the DAP-dominated opposition pact, which openly rejected the bill.
Why stir issue now?
So rational people have to ask themselves why all these religious uber alles agitators did not want to raise this issue when they were in power.
The
answer is simple. They did not want to be in a position of power when
this act blew back against the ruling democratic regime. They did not
want to be in power when the religious apparatus flexed its power and
there was conflict between the civil and religious apparatus of this
country.
The
question then becomes, why would Anwar want to stir this issue up now?
Together with the mufti bill, this only consolidates power with the
religious class, which includes PAS and the far religious elements in
all mainstream Malaysian parties and further diminishes the influence of
the supposedly secular DAP.
And what of the DAP? Lim Guan Eng in
2017 described the ācheap politicsā of Umno and its allies and wondered
why anyone would continue to support Umno after its mass deception with
regard to the political gamesmanship of this Act.
As reported
in the press - āClearly the perks and privileges of government office
are more important than principles. Yet, the non-Umno BN component
parties try to cover up their failure by pinning the blame on DAP.ā
Furthermore, just three years ago, Lim said that Malaysians donāt buy that this Act will not affect non-Muslims.
Religionās conflict with secularism
Just
last year the prime minister made two statements when it came to the
religion of the state and its conflict with secular democratic norms.
The
first was āThere is no issue about complete separation of state and
religion because Islam is the religion of the federation, but it is not a
theocratic state where you can impose Islamic laws on everybody,
including non-Muslims.ā
The second was āThe majority of Muslims have been told that secularism means complete separation of state and religion based on the influence and experience of the Holy Roman Empire.
āNow, thatās not how Muslims should understand it. The state has secular elements but religious values must be embedded.ā
When
anyone talks about āembeddedā in the Malaysian context, we have to be
clear about one thing. What we are talking about is not only legal
measures but also norms and observances by not only the federal
government but also state governments.
What we are talking about
is a bundle of legal, cultural and religious diktats merged with
political narratives that determine policy. This has led to numerous
cases where non-Muslims have been subject to religious laws over the
decades.
Some examples
Here are but a few examples. Non-Muslims have had their children unilaterally converted and kidnapped, with the state security apparatus colluding with the religious bureaucracy to undermine civil law.
Non-Muslims economic livelihoods have been threatened
by religious policy because our business is deemed haram. Non-Muslims
have had religious vigilantes walking around shopping malls demanding we submit to their sensitivities.
Non-Muslim school-going children have been subjected to religious enticement by teachers. Non-Muslim religious texts have been vilified by foreign or local preachers.
Non-Muslim
places of worship have been subjected to the scrutiny of provocateurs
who claim we are secretly converting Muslims. Non-Muslims have had our religions demonised by the political establishment to secure votes.
Non-Muslims have been told to dress decently as though they are, by nature, indecent people and little napoleons hold court in government buildings. Non-Muslims have been told that they are the cause of corruption in this country.
Hence
this farcical idea that laws and religious norms embedded in the
political system will not affect non-Muslims is pure horse manure.
Of
course, the narrative now is that this Act is not the same as when PAS
had advocated for it and apparently non-Muslim stakeholders would be
involved in this process.
So
wait, non-Muslims have been warned not to interfere in the religion of
the state and now we are expected to believe that non-Muslim
stakeholdersā input would be considered?
Godās honest truth is
that the narrative that religious laws will not affect non-Muslims is
merely a talking point. No government will ever give this talking point
legal effect.
Indeed no political coalition will ever guarantee
that religious laws will not affect non-Muslims. Why, because those who
advocate for these kinds of laws understand that religious laws
influence and erode democratic guardrails.
Will DAP support FT Mufti Bill? By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, October 14, 2024
Malaysiakini : The always vocal (why this woman is unelected is, I dare say,
criminal) Siti Kasim, who knows a thing or two about religious
malfeasances and how it affects the majority community, reminded
non-Muslims in this country in a Facebook post.
āDonāt
think youāll escape, for eventually thereās bound to be a domino effect
ā¦ If the bill gets through, itāll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs
in Parliament will take notice by not letting the bill through.ā
Passing the buck, as usual
Communications
Minister Fahmi Fadzil, in defending the legitimacy of this bill, pushed
a disingenuous Madani narrative that needs to be debunked. These four
talking points are typical Madani deflections.
1. The first involves the rather wonky claim that this bill mirrors the Sabah Fatwa enactment.
Notice
how Fahmi does not elaborate on the similarities or the similarities in
civil and religious standings between the proposed bill and the Sabah
fatwa but merely makes a general claim as to the similarity between the
two.
Furthermore, unlike Sabah, religious disruption between the
various communities emanates from the federal government. For example,
the recent backtracking of the mandatory halal certification for non-Muslims came from Putrajaya.
2.
Fahmi claimed - āAt the same time, there is no increase in the muftiās
powers; it remains the same as now. The difference is that we want to
bring it as a parliamentary Act to clarify its jurisdiction, so there
are no claims or disputes about the muftiās authority,ā
The
question we should ask is if the powers of the mufti are the same, then
why is there a need for clarification of jurisdiction? For any rational
person, I think the answer is obvious, right?
So
what the Madani state wants is this - āā¦.the muftiās position will have
more constitutional and legal order in our country,ā which is the
objective of the āGreen Waveā.
3.
āDo not view this matter with prejudice; we need to be legally aware.ā
cautioned Fahmi, which is strange because the personalities offering the
most vocal criticisms are all lawyers.
4. And finally, this gem.
Fahmi also pointed out that the groupās definition of an Islamic state
has a negative connotation, implying a transformation similar to that in
the Middle East or other regions.
Here it is, the charge of
Islamophobia when it comes to dissent against religious laws or agendas.
This is the play of the Madani state and the āGreen Waveā whenever
anyone dares to dissent against the theocratic agendas of power brokers.
It
is not enough that you believe in the position of Islam in the state;
you must be complicit in the strengthening of its scope and powers as
well. Otherwise, you are labelled ignorant or Islamophobic.
Islamisation agenda
I
would argue that this proposed bill is the Madani version of PASā Act
355 bill to enhance syariah punishments, and it is being used by the
Madani state as a test case for how far they can push the stateās
religious agenda.
And what did the DAP think of this proposed Act 355? Well, then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said it best
in 2021 when he stated - āMalaysians remain unconvinced with Idris
Ahmadās assurances in Parliament yesterday that the religious rights of
freedom of non-Muslims will not be affected by the proposed Act 355 and
the bill to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions.ā
So,
when DAPās Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan said, āThe provision relating to a
fatwa in the mufti bill is not novel. Many provisions in state
enactment relating to muftiās fatwa bind Muslims,ā this lends credence
to the idea that this really is a test case for the Madani regime and
how they intend to shape religious policies in the states they run and
on a federal level.
Let
me be very clear. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that the
religion of the state and policies from religious laws do not affect
non-Muslims in this country.
Whenever a religious and racial
bully warns non-Muslims not to trespass into Islamic domains, it is with
the understanding that religious laws do affect non-Muslims. That is
the whole point of the bullying.
Mariam Mokhtar wondered if the
recent controversies involving the Umno youth leader and DAP were merely
bully-boy tactics to subdue opposition to this bill.
Who knows,
which is why the title of this piece is āWill the DAP support the mufti
bill?ā and not āWill the DAP oppose the mufti bill?ā
DAP must stand fast
The
DAP should object to this proposed bill, and they should do it because
the people who vote for them would be affected by this proposed bill.
Keep in mind that the DAP is supposed to have a secular agenda, and it
is hardwired in its partyās constitution.
DAP secretary-general
Anthony Loke not only reaffirmed the partyās secular agenda but also
noted that all parties in the coalition understood this agenda and had
agreed to play nice.
As reported in the press - āā¦..the DAP secretary-general said his party need not drop the secular nation agenda and its slogan āMalaysian Malaysiaā merely to reap support from other ethnic groups.ā
Loke
also said - āBefore forming the unity government, all parties agreed
not to touch on each partyās principles and constitutions.ā
So
this is the perfect opportunity to test these ideas. The DAP not only
has to object to this bill but this should not come as a surprise to its
coalition partners.
The state wants its non-Muslim partners to be
complicit in the formation of religious laws. Why? Because it not only
gives a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy but also demonstrates
religious and racial superiority over its partners.
Any kind of religious law - no matter the religion - is, in reality, a suicide pact.
We
are constantly told not to interfere in the affairs of Muslims even
though these issues affect us as Malaysians. Do you think that Muslim
politicians in this country will ever sign a document that pledges that
non-Muslims will not be affected by Islamic law?
They will never
even moot such legislation or debate it; they would instead use the
systemās security apparatus to crack down on such speech or proposals.
What
they will do is create legislation like this proposed bill, which they
say only affects Muslims but has far-reaching consequences for all
Malaysians.
The prime minister has asked the religious minister to
explain this bill, but we have to remember that it is the same minister
who caused problems
within the coalition with his proposed mandatory halal certification
for businesses not serving pork and alcohol, and this reeks of passing
the buck.
If you are a non-Muslim in this country, you only have
to answer one question. Do you believe that laws affecting the majority
will not affect the minority?
MyPCVE initiative is a punchline to tragic joke By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, October 07, 2024
Malaysiakini : Hence, any racial and religious debates are going to fall within
those lines and any attempt to address this situation has been shut
down, even more so in the era of Madani.
These
days, the non-Muslim polity cannot rely on their political power
brokers to dissent against the hegemonic religious and racial policies
because these power brokers belong to a coalition which is grounded in
the Malay uber alles paradigm - which Anwar and his allies at one time rebelled against or at least wanted to reform.
Now,
since the prime minister has said that āthe plan needs to be strictly
implemented and exposed to the people, especially when there are
quarters in the country using racial elements to threaten peaceā -
rational Malaysians have to ask themselves which quarter they belong to.
Understanding the irony
Mainstream
political rhetoric and policy are determined by race and religion and,
more often than not, share many similarities with the extreme ideas the
state claims it wants to constrain.
What we are dealing with is
groups or individuals who think that the state is not going far enough
when it comes to the theocratic state project or, for political reasons,
believe that race and religion are under siege.
We are dealing
with groups or individuals who think that there should only be one R in
the 3R (race, religion and royalty), which is what makes them so
dangerous to the mainstream Malay political establishment.
However,
the problem is that because of the way politics is defined in this
country, what we are left with is ample recruiting grounds in the forms
of polarised universities, unchecked madrasahs and independent preachers
who are coddled by the state and, of course, a political apparatus
which radicalises mainstream politics with race and religion.
Non-Muslims
are told to fear the āGreen Waveā on one hand and the other, have to
accept the theocratic ideas and policies of a supposedly moderate
coalition.
In 2015, Joseph Chinyong Liow wrote a piece
for the Brookings Institute titled āMalaysiaās ISIS conundrumā which is
applicable even today - āā¦rather than extol the virtues and
conciliatory features of Islamās rich tradition, many Malay Muslim
political leaders have instead chosen to use religion to amplify
difference, to reinforce extreme interpretations of Malay Muslim denizen
rights, and to condemn the āotherā (non-Muslims) as a threat to these
rights.
āFor
fear of further erosion of legitimacy and political support, the Malay
Muslim leadership of the country have in their public statements circled
the wagons, allowing vocal right-wing ethno-nationalist and religious
groups to preach incendiary messages against Christians and Hindus with
impunity.
āIn extreme cases, they have even flippantly referred to
fellow Malaysians who are adherents to other religious faiths as
āenemies of Islamā. Even state-sanctioned Friday sermons have
occasionally taken to referring to non-Muslim Malaysians as āenemies of
Islamā.ā
Akmalvs Kok
Keep
in mind that by claiming to defend the motherland, what Umno Youth
chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh is saying is that he believes that DAP MP
Teresa Kok or what she said, goes against the motherland.
Isnāt Malaysia Kokās motherland as well? This is a motherland where Kok does not have the special privileges that Akmal has.
This
is the motherland where the social contract binds the way Kok expresses
herself when it comes to issues deemed sensitive to the majority but is
grounded in democratic first principles. This is the motherland where
the sensibilities of the majority trump everything else, even
utilitarian ideas for the betterment of all.
Remember when PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang claimed that the G25 group were more dangerous than Al Maunah?
Now,
claiming that a retired group of civil servants are more dangerous than
a group of religious extremists who actually murdered Malaysians is indicative of the kind of propaganda used against liberal or moderate Muslims in this country.
The
fact that any kind of progressive movement or ideas are deemed
"deviant" and anti-Malay Muslim should tell us something about how the
state defines "extreme".
Let us break down religious or racial
extremism, for instance. Take the quote that opens this piece. Forget
for a moment that this was coming from the Umno youth leader.
What
would a rational person think, when he or she reads this - āI will
never surrender, let alone apologise. Because I was taught to defend
religion, race and my motherland even if I have to put my life on the
line.ā
Well, a rational person would think that the person who
said this has obviously been indoctrinated and radicalised to wage war
against people, even citizens of his or her own country, in the name of
race and religion, even if it meant martyrdom.
So,
what is this plan actually going to do in terms of combatting the
quarters who are using racial elements to threaten the peace?
Keep
in mind that for the majority, race and religion are not mutually
exclusive. Can the Madani regime give an example of racial and religious
extremism?
These days, fighting for secular or democratic rights
is defined as "extremism", while those fighting to keep the racial and
religious barriers up are defined as following the Constitution.
There
is a disconnect between the state security apparatus (or at least those
who want to do their jobs) and their political masters.
These
committed security personnel who tread where angels dare not, do the
rough work necessary for the rest of us to sleep peacefully in our beds,
have their work hampered by policies of the state and politicians who
have used the religion of the state as a weapon and now find it turned
on them.
The Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH)
scandal is more than just a horrific instance of child sexual abuse but
also how the state security apparatus, the religious bureaucracy, and
the political class, for whatever reasons, allowed this to happen under
their watch.
This is why this programme is a punchline to a tragic joke. The enemy has always been within.
First, it means that these
cops were not going ārogueā but were acting under the instructions of
these āoutside religious groupsā.
Now, why they were following the
order of these outsiders is yet to be determined, but the Global Ikhwan
Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) scandal has exposed the extent
of how religious and political influence is hardwired into the state
security apparatus.
We
know from the Suhakam inquiry into the kidnapping of Amri, for
instance, that his wife, Norhayati Ariffin, had claimed that her husband
was taken by the Special Branch.
It
was because this was relayed to her by Perlis Special Branch officer
Shamzaini Mohd Daud, who later denied revealing any such information.
However,
āā¦the panel accepted Norhayatiās version of events as they had found
the police officerās testimony to be āincongruousā and āfull of
inconsistenciesā.ā
Keep in mind that the Suhakam found that not
only were the two kidnappings similar, but the tradecraft displayed in
both kidnappings were nearly identical.
So, what we can surmise is
this was a professional removal, which is a far cry from how the state
security apparatus treated these two cases of kidnappings.
Furthermore,
Suhakam noted that a Special Branch asset, Saiful Bahari Abdul Aziz,
whose car was present in both cases, has persistently refused to
testify.
But wait. The task force created during the Pakatan
Harapan regime led by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also
a troubling read.
Itās because, as reported in the press, not
only was Saiful a person of interest who needed to be questioned, but 10
other people attended a meeting in October, a month before Amriās
disappearance, which included āPerlis state mufti Mohd Asri Zainul
Abidin and several police officers.ā
The fact that both men were under observation by the Selangor and Perlis state religious boards should tell us something about these kidnappings.
Keep
in mind that the state security apparatus had attempted to paint Kohās
kidnapping as related to a 2017 shootout in Kedah, which the panel
refused to accept because ā āthey had found testimonies on this
operation from the police and former inspector-general of police Khalid
Abu Bakar to be distorted, illogical, and āfull of inconsistencies and
material contradictionsā.ā
Citizens of this country were kidnapped
in a paramilitary style, and all circumstantial evidence points to the
connivance of the state.
At this point, I am less interested in why Koh and Amri were kidnapped, but I am keen to know who ordered it.
While
the former Umno state may be complicit in covering these crimes, what
we have witnessed so far is that because the country was run by an
incompetent kleptocrat, there have been factions within the government
who may have been operating without supervision.
This is what
happens when the machinery of government is used to cover up the alleged
crimes of their political masters, and nobody is interested in minding
the house.
Learning from GISBH scandal
What
has the GISBH scandal taught us? It showed us that the state security
apparatus, the religious bureaucracy and the political class, for
whatever reasons, turned a blind eye or were wilfully ignorant of crimes
and abuse going on in a big Muslim enterprise.
Now, you can
either believe that these institutions were staggeringly incompetent (do
not get me wrong, I could make a case for that) or they are elements
within these organisations which were sympathetic to GISBH.
And we have to apply the same kind of thinking to the disappearance of Koh and Amri.
Who had the power (if this allegation is true) to order a tactical squad to kidnap Malaysians for whatever reasons?
Who
had the authority to issue such commands, and who felt secure enough
that their crime would go unsanctioned by any elected government?
And
who had the political influence to concoct such a manoeuvre that
bypassed the traditional state security apparatus and mete out whatever
fate befell these people?
Whoever these people are, they are
confident that the narratives of the state security apparatus would
shield them from whatever repercussions or sanctions of the Madani
regime.
Anwar's dangerous false premise By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
Malaysiakini : What Anwar can point to are organisations, political parties and
individuals who have reacted against the intrusion of Islam into
non-Muslim economic and social spheres, which we were told would not
happen under the so-called social contract or Muslim voices who fear
that the religion of the state would curtail their democratic rights.
Has the prime minister condemned the hate speech of religious extremists who have labelled non-believers ākafirā?
Has Anwar condemned the persecution of non-Muslim businesses by provocateurs from his own coalition?
Has he stood up for progressive Muslims, who stand alone most often against the extremism of the far religious right?
Has
the premier offered a religious narrative which is removed from
hate-filled rhetoric and policies of those on the āother side, who claim
to be the only Islamic partyā?
Snake in the grass
Religious provocations come from the practitioners of the state-sponsored religion and not from minority belief systems.
Such
provocations include threats to burn holy texts, disrespecting
religious symbols or icons, investigations into possible proselytising,
claims against other religions, banning of words, and imposing dress
codes in public institutions.
Unilateral conversions, unlawful
conversions of minors, religious kidnapping in custody cases,
rehabilitation centres, and seditious comments against specific
religions are also part of this.
Two points need to be made about the prime ministerās claim on people who do not want any mention of Islam.
The
first is that this type of strategy is employed by politicians who do
not want any form of pushback against Islamic policies, even if said
policies encroach into non-Muslim rights.
Secondly, when it comes
to the non-Muslim political class, they have bent over backwards in
their attempts to be supportive of such policies, and when it comes to
objecting to such religious intrusions into non-Muslsim rights, they
have to object with one hand tied behind their backs, lest they are
accused of stirring up 3R (race, religion, royalty) issues.
Islamophobia
is something religious political operatives use when attempting to
impose religious policies or restrict free speech.
Non-Muslims hit by ricochet
Mind
you, if there was a strict separation between policies which affect
Muslims and non-Muslims, and there was empirical evidence to support
such a position, then non-Malays would not have a fear of Islam.
Instead,
the rules that apply to Muslims only have always touched non-Muslims
and defined our economic, social and political realities.
Have you noticed that āthe other sideā also uses the same kind of strategy when it comes to religious policy?
These
days, anyone who objects to religious policy encroaching upon their
democratic rights is considered Islamophobic or does not want any
mention of Islam.
If, for example, you object to any Islamic
policy which affects non-Muslim economic interests, are you Islamophobic
and do not want any mention of Islam?
Inter-religious rivalry
Meanwhile, claiming the other side thinks other Muslims not of their tribe are deviant, evil and oppressive misses the point.
We
have religious bureaucracies, state and federal, who are the
gatekeepers of Islam. They are always on the lookout for deviancy and
evil and have been called oppressive in their overreach and
policymaking.
Hence, inter-religious rivalries and schisms for religious dominance are the basis for political power.
The recent Global Ikhwan Service and Business Holding (GISBH) horror story
is an example of how factionalism, schisms, religious personalities and
the religious bureaucracy, coupled with big business, form the central
narrative of religious hegemony.
The
threat has always been the enemies within and not the propaganda that
non-Muslim faiths are a threat to the religion of the state.
Furthermore,
Anwarās other side argument only makes sense if you can point to a
religious narrative that is different from PAS/Perikatan Nasionalās.
Can
the prime minister do this? For example, a religious bureaucracy has
labelled Sisters in Islam as deviant. Has any religious bureaucracy
labelled anything PAS has said or done as deviant within the confines of
the religion of the state?
Sure, you can say that Pakatan Harapan
states are not like PAS-run states, but this is a function of ethnic
democracy and not religious ideology.
Keep in mind that religious
bureaucracies still hold sway in Harapan-controlled states, but they do
not have the overreach they do because they lack the political capital
in terms of vote share to make their presence truly felt.
Anwarās
false premise is self-serving and extremely dangerous because it
conforms to far-right religious narratives and further marginalises
voices that actually want reform.
The factual premise is that the
prime minister, on one hand, wants to strengthen the position of Islam,
and, on the other, claims that Islamophobia is a threat to the religion
of the state.
The reality has always been that religious fascism is a threat to national unity.
GISBH exposes underbelly of M'sian religious enterprise By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, September 16, 2024
Malaysiakini : āIn addition, they were also made to watch other children undergo the same predicament.ā
So,
the question becomes, what exactly was Jakim doing all this time?
Furthermore, it says a lot about how child welfare agencies in this
country were carrying out their duties.
Jakimās
defence that they are not an āenforcement agencyā when it comes to this
issue is laughable because they have made it their mission to be front
and centre when it comes to any kind of perceived trespass into their
religious domains.
Indeed, they have publicly played a central role in everything from the āAllah socksā issue to the recent outrage that Teresa Kok finds herself embroiled in.
Keep
in mind that the IGP has said all this was based on six months of
intelligence gathering before this issue gained traction on social
media. All these conflicting timelines, when children were allegedly
abused, do nothing for the credibility of the state security apparatus
or Jakim.
Also, note where the IGP said, āI urge former GISBH
members who lodged police reports before retracting them to come forward
and help in investigations.ā
Oblivious, passive authorities
We
should ask ourselves why the reports were retracted by these former
members. What exactly is going on when it takes traction in social media
before a case warrants attention by the state security apparatus,
especially where children are abused and the state security apparatus
has to make fait accompli declarations to reassure the public?
What we are talking about here is a federal agency funded to the tune of billions of ringgit,
whose presence is felt in every corner of this country and is a
cornerstone of the current Madani regime. And despite that, in an effort
to consolidate the religious narrative in this country, it was unaware
that children were sodomised and were taught to sodomise by their
caretakers.
Asri, one of the sacred cows of the mainstream
religious establishment, whose task which history has shown is to root
out ādeviancyā in mainstream religious narratives - for him to claim
inaction on the part of Jakim is demonstrative of the kind of internal
machinations and schemes currently going on in the religious mainstream.
This
gives some sort of probative value to what the GISBH CEO said in the
quote that opens this piece and gives weight to what Asri implied. Was
there some sort of leniency that led to inaction, in the name of
religion?
Covering up crime
GISBH CEO
Nasiruddin Mohd Ali claimed there were cases of sodomy but they were
handled internally because āGISBH recognised they constituted a legal
offenceā.
So, in other words, they covered up a criminal offence and, so far, nobody from the state discovered this.
PAS
president Abdul Hadi Awang says his party has regulatory bodies that
can prevent sexual abuse from happening at schools run by the party.
āThe situation in PAS is under control, Insya Allah. We have lajnah-lajnah (committees) led by our leaders to regulate (the institutions).ā
The
situation is under control in PAS? Is Hadi admitting there is a similar
situation but it is under control in PAS? And really, GISBH had its own
mechanism for this kind of situation and it merely meant that criminal
activities were covered up.
Whoās responsible?
Remember the tahfizschool fire in 2017, which killed 21 children and two adults, and later, two 16-year-old boys were charged for starting the fire?
The
same kind of institutional malfunction contributed to the deaths of
these children and adults. The religious school where 21 children and
two adults died was operating illegally and had been warned for safety
violations.
The
manager of the school claimed that he registered his school with the
Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council, which apparently, unlike
the Kuala Lumpur City Hall, did not carry out safety checks.
Two
questions - does an Islamic body trump a civil one and does this mean
because the owner registered with an Islamic body, neither the owner nor
the state religious body in question bears any responsibility for the
deaths that occurred during their watch?
Then-federal territories minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said, āChecks showed
that this particular premise had breached security guidelines, as it
only has one way in and out, which is dangerous in times of an
emergency.ā
But of course, nothing was done about it at the time,
which resulted in the deaths of 21 children and two adults. So it is not
far-fetched to think that when something heinous happens when it comes
to religious enterprises in this country, especially those which are not
regulated, there is some sort of institutional malfeasance.
As
long as there is no independent oversight when it comes to religious
enterprises in this country, the lives of children will always be in
danger. This is a reality Malaysians are forced to live with.
Weaponising Teresa's discourse on halal cert issue By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, September 09, 2024
Malaysiakini : This Madani problem is solved when it comes to the unnecessary burden
for Muslim businesses in this country, but well, for non-Muslim
businesses, I suppose they can carry this unnecessary burden.
This perhaps points to the deeper policy-making impetus of successive ruling governments.
Bersatuās Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamalās warning
to a sitting MP that her refusal to retract her statement would result
in an avalanche of police reports is merely further evidence that any
form of dissent or objection or differing political perspective when it
comes to the religion of the state has been weaponised.
Wan Fayhsal claimed that what Kok said had touched on the 3R (race, religion and royalty).
Another
recent example of this weaponisation comes from Malaysian Muslim
Lawyers' Association president Muhamad Hisham Marzuki who claimed that
any objections to the report that Jakim officers would be placed in government offices was seditious and reeked of Islamophobia.
"Moves
by certain quarters to continue playing to the propaganda that anything
Islam or syariah has no place in the public sphere in our country, save
for minor ceremonial purposes, reek of Islamophobia, rooted in hatred
towards Muslims and religious bodies in Malaysia,ā he said.
So
what does this make MCA Youth secretary-general Saw Yee Fung who said:
"If Jakim is involved in the policy-making process of various
departments, it means that future governance will be guided by the core
values and principles of a particular religion, which will undoubtedly
compromise the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and fairness that
the government should uphold.ā
In all these situations, Kok, the
Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,
Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) and the MCA Youth were in effect defending
the democratic principles of this country, namely in the preamble of
the Rukun Negara which states -
Achieving a more perfect unity amongst the whole of her society;
Preserving a democratic way of life;
Creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner;
Guaranteeing a liberal approach towards our traditional heritage that is rich and diverse;
Building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology.
So I guess this makes them seditious and Islamophobic or touching on the 3R?
Speakingup for rakyat
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim enabled Kokās detractors when he said that her stance did not reflect Pakatan Harapan's position.
"There
is a problem... regulations are necessary so that Muslims do not feel
apprehensive. But if she (Kok) feels that the regulations are not
necessary in a certain area, discuss it properly," he said.
First off, Kok was voicing concerns about a religious Jakim policy that would affect non-Muslim businesses.
Secondly, she never said that there was no need for Jakim regulations. Kok is a seasoned politician in a ketuanan
(Malay supremacy) paradigm; hence, it is odious to imply that she meant
that regulations for Muslims, which are the purview of Jakim, were
unnecessary.
Lastly, she was right about placing an unnecessary
burden on Malay businesses, which is why the Umno ulama wing made the
suggestion it did.
Indeed, in response to the manufactured
backlash, Kok acknowledged that this country's halal certification was
one of the best in the world and that she supported it.
However,
she was also a representative of all ethnic communities in this country
and thus had to voice concerns that would affect everyone.
But
the most cogent point she made to rebut the prime minister, who claimed
she should have made her concerns known through the proper channels, was
to rightly point out that the de facto religious minister had mentioned
the Jakim proposal in āan open forum without prior engagementā.
So
the question then becomes, why wasnāt there prior engagement with
Harapan partners, and why are ministers suddenly making declarations
without discussing them with coalition partners?
More importantly,
in a public forum, Kok has every right to respond to another minister
without fear of inviting sanctions from the state security apparatus.
Not the first time
And all of this is not new.
In
2016, the Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (Risda)
and the Malaysia Institute of International Islamic Cooperation (Ikiam)
proposed a āhalal certificationā that differentiated between halal
products produced by Muslims and non-Muslims.
Why, you ask? Well,
according to Risda at the time - "The need for another halal logo is to
distinguish products that were produced by Muslims against that of
non-Muslims besides helping Risda smallholding entrepreneurs and Muslim
entrepreneurs make forays into the halal markets locally and abroad."
Of course, Jakim had to issue a reminder.
"If Ikiam and Risda proceed with using a new halal logo for Muslim-made products (without Jakim's approval), it is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (Halal certification and identification) Order," it said.
Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim said:
āThe deep understanding I can think of is that Jakim will make a lot of
money. Already, itās a billion ringgit business, and if the purpose is
to make easy money, say so.ā
Quashing dissent
Non-Muslims
are always warned not to interfere with the religion of the state. We
are told that the religion of the state only affects Muslims.
We
are told that secularism, progressive democratic values and the right to
defend them should not be at the expense of the religion of the state.
Indeed
the Madani regime has created a political climate which is detrimental
to dissent because DAP claimed to be the ones to hold the line against
the creeping Islamisation of this country. Now we are told to be fearful
of the āGreen Waveā.
What are we really talking about here? Well,
it means that non-Muslims standing up for their rights would be going
against the 3R. It means that if you object to a policy based on
religious grounds, you are going against the 3Rs.
The fact that Kok is under investigation
is further evidence that any kind of dissent with regard to a religious
policy which affects non-Muslims would involve state security
intervention.
This, of course, is bad but what is worse is that
all the Madani regime is doing is laying the foundation for when a
theocratic state takes over.
Non-Muslim dissent against religious
extremism or interference has been weaponised. This is one of the first /
principles of a theocratic state.
All this is merely the logical conclusion to the don't spook the Malays mantra.
I
have no idea why anyone would defend policing through licensing or
legislation of social media platforms when the history of the press in
this country is one of self-censorship and clampdowns.
Do social
media companies need to operate in some sort of regulatory framework?
Yes, but in this country, regulatory frameworks are not used to
ameliorate the detrimental excesses of free speech as they do elsewhere.
Instead, itās rather to curtail speech that the state deems offensive.
This is it in a nutshell.
Think about this for a minute. Every
other day we read about how posts on Facebook, Instagram or whatever
have resulted in the arrests and criminal proceedings of someone who
insulted the religion of the state, the royalty, or whatever it is that
spooks the majority. They were arrested and charged using existing laws.
Now
whether this goes against free speech or the principles as espoused by
Harapan is not the point, only that when it comes to acts that
jeopardise the (argued) safety and stability of this country, we have
more than enough laws to handle these problems.
There was a lot of schadenfreude when former prime minister Muhiddin Yassin was charged with insulting the royal institution. Bersatu political operatives bemoan that freedom of speech and expression are going down the drain.
These
people are hypocrites, not to mention architects and enablers of such
laws when in power, so nothing they say about this issue really matters.
However,
I do think that Muhyddin should not have been charged, because I do not
think someone like Fadiah Nadwa Fikri should have been investigated for
sedition for what she said about the royal institution.
In case some folks missed it, Fadiah was investigated
in 2018 for writing an article about the royal institution sparked by
the image of Anwar kissing the hand of the current Agong Sultan Ibrahim
Sultan Iskandar.
As
reported in the press - Fadiahās article questioned Anwarās move to
perpetuate a āfeudal cultureā at a time when monarchies in many other
parts of the world had been rendered supposedly obsolete.
Lest we spook the Malays
What
these laws are used for is not only to stifle discussion but also to
detract from the real issues facing this country. Iāll give you another
example. You know that recent AI-generated āWelcome to Afganuā image which had some political operativesā knickers in a twist? What is the real issue here?
The
real issue is that a state in Malaysia has banned women from competing
in sports events because it went against the syariah-compliant dress
code. The real question is what does the prime minister, who talked
about the freedoms and rights of men and women in India, think about
this?
This
is the issue and not what the PAS Youth wing claims - āDay by day,
those who make fun of Islam are getting worse because they feel they
have strong connections that allow them to hide behind fake accounts.ā
Remember the time PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said the people were confused about the Taliban and that the regime has now changed and is wiser, though still steadfast in its struggle to uphold Islam?
And
what of legitimate criticisms of the Islamic faith by various NGOs like
Sister in Islam, who are always on the receiving end of police reports
for tarnishing or insulting Islam; what about these types of āinsultsā?
Does quoting from religious texts which put religion in a bad light
qualify as an insult to the religion?
Look, we have a mainstream
political dogma that warns against spooking the Malays. We have a
political opposition that warns that the Malays are divided and
susceptible to manipulation by non-Malay political factions which are
detrimental to the well-being of the Malay community.
Less free
speech means that these ideologies will flourish further because we have
a mainstream political ideology that proclaims some are more equal than
others.
Keep this in mind, what this Madani regime is doing by
curbing free speech and expression in the name of safety and stability
is merely enabling the far religious right in this country.
This is not the kind of Merdeka people deserve. Or maybe we do.
Are you sure about
that? Sure, the MCMC can use its bully tactics on local enterprises.
Just last year, a group of veteran media professionals issued a
statement calling for the MCMC to stop acting like big brother and block news sites.
āWe
absolutely cannot accept any attempts to use government agencies like
the MCMC to question, censor, or block portals and online news content.
āThe
current government is chosen on the basis of its promise to enable the
free flow of information and to guarantee freedom of the press.
Complaints from media practitioners that their websites are being
blocked are on the rise; this is an unhealthy trend that must be stopped
immediately.ā
What would happen if the state decides to shut down
social media platforms that government agencies rely on to transmit
information to citizens?
What would happen to local businesses that rely on these platforms to generate business and communicate with their customers?
What
would happen to state security services that rely on these platforms to
warn citizens of possible danger or state rescue services that rely on
these platforms to communicate with citizens in danger relief areas?
Facebook
and WhatsApp go off for a couple of hours and the whole country is
plunged into some sort of existential crisis, and the government really
thinks that it could shut down these platforms and there would be no
blowback from the citizenry, but more importantly, how it would affect
essential services from healthcare to security?
All about control
What
the government hopes to do with this licensing scheme is to attempt to
regulate the flow of information in this country. Why? Because the state
understands that the opposition has a far better grasp of social media
tactics than it does.
What
PN has demonstrated, for instance, with its use of social media
influencers and viral memes mocking the government is that they can sway
voters, especially young voters.
The Straits Times under the headline āSocial media censorship in Malaysia surges during PM Anwarās first year in powerā highlighted this exact issue.
āPolitical
content on TikTok is dominated by the opposition alliance Perikatan
Nasional and critics have accused the government of silencing dissent by
targeting content on the popular video-sharing platform.
āPNās
success on TikTok was widely credited for the unexpected gains it made
at the 2022 general election, with both PAS and Bersatu more than
doubling their seat haul from four years earlier.ā
Let me be very
clear. Social media companies are not the victims here. Indeed,
revelations by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen argued that
Facebook prioritises profits over safety.
Her opening remarks before the US Senate are a good indication of how social media platforms operate.
āIām here today because I believe Facebookās products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy.
āThese
problems are solvable. A safer, free-speech-respecting, more enjoyable
social media is possible. But there is one thing that I hope everyone
takes away from these disclosures, it is that Facebook can change but is
clearly not going to do so on its own.ā
However,
this is a separate issue from what is going on here. If Malaysia really
wants to have a discussion with Facebook about its algorithms and how
hate speech and elements detrimental to a secular democracy are in
danger because of the corporate practices of Meta, then, by all means,
have that discussion with Mark Zuckerberg.
But this is really not about defending secular democracy, is it?
Licensing wonāt curb cybercrimes
Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching
as reported in the press said: āā¦that the measure is essential to curb
the rising cases of cybercrimes, particularly sexual crimes against
children and online fraud in Malaysia, which have become increasingly
alarming.ā
I submit there are more than enough laws and personnel
to handle such issues if (and this is a big if) these laws and personnel
were not used by the government to clamp down on every person or
organisation which it views as a threat to their political survival.
As reported in the Straits Times
piece above, āAccording to sources involved in social media in the
public and private sector, these demands for restrictions are continuing
to grow in 2024, with the authorities dedicating personnel to trawl
platforms for offensive content. āA vast majority are political in
nature. Over 90 percent possibly,ā said a person involved in the content
restriction process.ā
Furthermore, when it comes to the issues highlighted, there is no evidence that any such licence would reduce such activities
What
reduces such activities is good, old-fashioned police tradecraft, which
means laws and personnel have to work diligently with these social
media platforms to curb activities and this involves a sustained working
relationship with these platforms.
It
also means engagement with the public but, more importantly, training
personnel in the latest methods to curb such criminal activities, which
would mean of course close relationships with state security personnel
from other countries and learning from them how they deal with such
activities.
Ultimately, what the Madani regime is doing is
building more dictatorial foundations for the theocratic state to
further build on.
To be honest, I donāt think even PN would have
come up with such a gambit because they understand that there are enough
dictatorial tools in the box to handle dissent.
This is another way the Madani state shoots itself in the foot.
Flight Attendants for Islamic Airline Hijackers By Daniel Greenfield
Friday, August 02, 2024
Robert Spencer : Other flight attendants wearing terrorist flag pins were seen on
Spirit and JetBlue: whose flight attendants are represented by AFA-CWA.
JetBlue was accused of āblatant antisemitismā after calling the police on a Jewish passenger after he objected to a terrorist flag pin.
The AFA-CWA may be āground zeroā for the explosion of terrorist flag pins on planes.
Sara Nelson, the president of AFA CWA, had previously weaponized the
union for partisan attacks, but this is the first time a union of flight
attendants is working to help terrorists.
Some of the same Islamic terrorists who butchered flight attendants on September 11.
Hamas, which the AFA CWA is trying to save as part of the so-called
National Labor Network for Ceasefire (NLNC), is an arm of the Muslim
Brotherhood. As was Al Qaeda whose core emerged out of a splinter group
of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the
Brotherhood. Intervening to save Hamas in Gaza is the same thing as
saving Al Qaeda.
The AFA-CWA press release described President Sara Nelson as a āa
consistent social justice supporterā and claimed that the union was
trying to stop Israelās attacks on Hamas because āaviationās first
responders bring people together around the world. Saving lives comes
first.ā
As Americans found out on September 11, saving lives in the air
requires fighting terrorists, not surrendering to them. The AFA-CWAās
attempt to save terrorists will only cost more lives.
Including those of flight attendants.
Unlike the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which is an
independent union that represents American Airlines flight attendants
and maintains a memorial to the heroic flight attendants killed on 9/11, the AFA CWA is an extremist organization linked to the far left.
While the AFA part stands for the Association of Flight Attendants,
the CWA part means that the union is actually a subset of the
Communications Workers of America. The CWA had already issued its own
demand that Israel stop attacking Hamas. As has the AFL-CIO that the CWA
is affiliated with. Rather than representing flight attendants, the
AFA-CWA is part of a larger leftist political machine whose roots are
not in the workplace, but in the government-union complex.
AFA-CWA President Sara Nelson, who was being considered for a ālaborā
cabinet position in the Biden administration, has done quite well at
the expense of actual labor. Records show that while the average flight
attendant earns less than $70,000, Nelson made nearly $180,000.
Nelson is married to fellow union honcho, David Borer, who is the
general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees.
Borerās salary has been estimated at $290,000. Together this āunion householdā pulls down nearly half a million dollars a year.
That may explain how Sara Nelson and David Borerā, whose unions are
both under the AFL-CIO umbrella, can afford to live in Chevy Chase, an
extremely wealthy D.C. area neighborhood where the elite reside and
other political government operatives make their home.
Nelson is an ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders who has repeatedly attacked
Israel for defending itself. And like Sanders, Nelson has learned to
live quite well while shouting about class warfare.
The AFA CWAās efforts to save Islamic terrorists, who murder flight
attendants, show that the union no longer represents flight attendants
or Americans, but a class of radical activists who hate America and
support its enemies. And they want to fly the colors of those enemies.
Flight attendants, like all of us, have a choice. We can be like
Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney who resisted the Islamic terrorists on
September 11, or like Sara Nelson who defends them.
On September 11, Arab Muslim had to hijack planes to fly them into
buildings. But now there are radical flight attendants who donāt even
need to be hijacked to support airline hijackers.
Olympic attire and the propaganda of diversity By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, July 29, 2024
Malaysiakini : Some folks may have missed this but Malaysia recently experienced the
passing of one of our great sportspeople - M Dattaya. He was a
gold-winning hammer thrower and a silver-medal discus thrower at several
international meets.
A gentle giant who left an impression on his
fellow athletes and whose passing reminds us of the complex bonds
non-Malays have for their beloved country. He was also a freelance
journalist in the 1980s for a couple of national publications.
Even in his day, the spectre of racism brought him to rage but he soldiered on.
Pervasive racism in sports
As
reported in the press by the great former sports journalist George Das
in 1973, Dattayaās career suffered a blow - āā¦ the late sprinter
Sabapathy told him the then Malaysian Amateur Athletics Union president
Ghazali Shafie was not happy that the team was made up of all Indians,
calling them the Madras team.ā
Dattaya was so furious that he
brought down the door to his room in Maba House. His brutal punch
knocked the door down, said Das.
Sabapathy wrote in an article
- āAll of us were angry, totally dejected and offended by the racial
labelling. We felt let down and rejected by our own country.ā
Depending
on what you believe, things are supposed to be different now, or are
they? What are we talking about when we talk about diversity? Is
diversity really celebrated here in Malaysia or is it really just
propaganda meant to justify political and social paradigms?
Just last year, football coach B Sathianathan highlighted pervasive racism in sports after the whole conversion to Islam fiasco that was highlighted in the press.
He
said: āSince 10 to 15 years ago, I have been getting complaints from
parents, usually ethnic Indians or Chinese, saying their children are
being sidelined from joining football teams.
āMost of them would
say that teachers only picked Malay students to join the team, even
though their own children have talent and potential.
āSuch issues
did not occur during my childhood. This can be seen in the national
hockey team of the past, which was led by various races. There was even
more non-Malay participation.ā
Was it all just a mirage?
Keep in mind what Yeoh said when she was castigating
the admittedly racial and religiously provocative statements of former
Malaysian badminton player Bong Guang Yik (for which he has apologised).
āI believe that religion has never disturbed the performance of athletes and sports. This has never been a problem in Malaysia.
āI
repeat my position - sports must be free of racism and politics. All
national athletes are a source of inspiration for the country and are
advised to be careful with their social media content.ā
So I ask you, is diversity of any kind a foundational value in this country or is this all merely propaganda?
Now,
of course, this may not always have been the case, as many old timers
like myself like to point to, but are our experiences reflective of the
reality of how things are or were? Was all this diversity just a mirage?
So in a way, this Malaya outfit reflects what Malaysia truly is.
Enflaming brewery donations par for the course for PAS By R Nadeswaran
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Malaysiakini : Why is the issue being resurrected?
For over
30 years, breweries in Malaysia have been raising money for vernacular
schools and charitable organisations without a fuss.
Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh said Tiger Beer raised over RM400 million for Chinese primary schools in that period.
But
last week, the Education Ministry raised a related issue: āThe ministry
takes this seriously, and we wish to remind school administrators to
adhere to existing guidelines when it comes to organising programmes and
receiving donations.
āAnd this covers the prohibition of
receiving donations from gains made through gambling activities,
cigarette manufacturers, alcoholic beverage makers, and its likes as
they could jeopardise our students physically, intellectually.ā
Why
the resurrection after all these years? The practice has been going on
for 30 years without any problems. When religion is intertwined with
politics, the whole issue takes a different and, perhaps, a dangerous
dimension.
What prompted it was a group photograph of a
presentation mock cheque with the brewery company logo on it. Deputy
Housing and Local Government Minister Aiman Athirah Sabu was among the
dozen people in it.
Selangor PAS Youth chief Mohamed Sukri Omar (top pic) took to Facebook to criticise Aiman, calling the matter an embarrassment.
āIf
this is how an Amanah leader is going to behave, Islamās sanctity will
be under threat by liberalisation masked as Islam,ā he said on Facebook.
How does holding a piece of cardboard with a beer logo pose a threat or challenge the purity of a religion?
This
happens when two parties compete to see whose shade of green is
brighter. The party that shouts louder wins, regardless of how illogical
or irrational their conduct is.
Instead of standing on her ground, Aiman issued a condescending apology.
āI
believe people understand the situation and will not fall for the
slander being spread. People make mistakes, and in any case, I apologise
to those who may have been slighted by this,ā Sinar Harian reported her as saying.
Transport Minister Anthony Loke said he would seek the cabinetās view about revising the ministryās guidelines at the cabinet meeting today.
āThe
guideline should not have such restrictions, at least not for Chinese
primary schools,ā he said. However, Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek
ruled out providing exemptions or reviewing guidelines that bar schools
from receiving funds generated from selling tobacco products and
alcoholic beverages.
So, will the issue be discussed and debated
or will the Madani government bow to the wishes of the majority who use
race and religion to pander to the Malay-Muslim electorate?
Will Teoh Beng Hock be a reckoning for MACC? By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, July 22, 2024
Malaysiakini : Harapan to blame for stateās inaction
Teohās
demise is also an indictment against the Harapan alliance and the
political operatives who stood by the former DAP political aideās family
when it was politically profitable but abandoned them when in power.
What
we have to understand is that the questions and possible answers to
Teohās death are political. It should not be but it is just as the
Indira Gandhi case is a religious one, these cases tragically point to
the dysfunction of the investigative services of this country.
It
is not malicious (even though partisans may feel that it is) to recall
the justifications of political operatives for the inactions of those
with power when it came to the closure of the death of their fallen
comrade.
Lim Guan Eng attempted to shift the blame for the failure
to get justice for Teohās family to former prime minister Muhyiddin
Yassin.
This was just another example of how totally ineffectual
Harapan political operatives were in solving long-standing issues that
are important for a certain section of their supporters but also
reframing a system they campaigned on.
Can you see the same pattern today?
The
fact of the matter is that Harapan is to blame for the inaction of the
state when it came to discovering the truth behind Teohās murder.
How
dare Lim peddle the nonsense that it was āagreedā by the cabinet to
reopen the investigation but the then-home minister, Muhyiddin, was not interested in pursuing the case.
Indeed,
linking the inaction on Teohās death to the then-Harapan government
with the political manoeuvrings of the Sheraton Move is extremely
deceitful.
Where were all the high-profile ministers who had no
problem lurking around when it came to attending Teohās memorials, but
suddenly found themselves āvoicelessā in the New Malaysia that we were
promised?
Political malfeasances
It must
have been a spit in the face for Teohās family that the personalities
involved in the death and farcical investigation of his murder seeped
into the Harapan bureaucracy and strutted around as if their sins had
been washed away.
Contrast
this to the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim, who was not
only compensated by the state but whose death remains a mystery only
because the events that led to it are mired in the kind of corporate and
political malfeasances peculiar to Malaysia.
These days, the Madani state and the state security apparatus warn the public when it comes to āspeculatingā on the malfeasances that occur in the countryās administration of law and justice.
The
state is quick to clamp down on news coverage of hot-button issues when
it comes to the bureaucracy, but the reality is that this is the system
that Harapan promised to reform if they managed to claim power.
Mutually beneficial
There
is a connective tissue between the MACC and the political class, and it
is mutually beneficial for the MACC and the political class to be
simpatico.
Mind you, I am not making this claim. In 2020, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad twice warned the MACC to stop harassing his comrades or āā¦we have to be very active in exposing all the wrong things that they carry outā.
It
says a lot about the dysfunction which could be classified as
criminality, when the person who once led the Harapan government can
threaten to expose the alleged malfeasance of the MACC if they continue
harassing his political operatives and ignore the fact that he
supposedly has āevidenceā of wrongdoing, which should have been reported
to the ārelevantā authorities.
And keeping silent when the MACC
is engaging in wrongdoing if they harass your political party means what
exactly? That you keep their sins and omissions to yourself if they
aided your coalition when in power?
It should make rational
Malaysians wonder what the relationship is between the political class
and the MACC at this moment in time.
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail has said that the investigation papers on Teoh have been passed
to the Attorney-Generalās Chambers. He also claimed - āthe Royal
Malaysia Police has called back the witnesses to complete the
investigation papersā¦ā
I hope that Teoh is the reckoning MACC
deserves but the question is, will the Madani state dare spook the
security establishment?
Kok implied that it was Umno
who gave the stand-down orders whingeing - āWhat could we do? We could
not enter the villages; we were chased out. They didnāt want our
presence to be too obvious and we adhered (to the request). This was a
sign of respect to our partners,ā in the context of the criticism by an
Umno veteran.
Does
anyone else see the absurdity in this statement? Firstly, you are a
coalition partner in a federal government. If you are chased out of
villages, what are the federal police and election apparatus doing about
such electoral intimidation?
Secondly, how much influence does
Umno have when it comes to a PKR by-election, which enables them to give
orders to the DAP, with PKR saying nothing?
Kok went on with the
same talking points about how the DAP is a multicultural party and the
propaganda that is used against them has hampered their forays into the
rural Malay heartland.
Look, the DAP has had decades to cultivate a
rural base but the reality is that they concentrated on getting the
urban and semi-urban non-Malay, specifically Chinese votes.
DAP
was more than happy to leave the Malay vote to various Malay-centric
parties, which is why they now have to deal with Madaniās ādonāt spook
the Malay mantraā, and who can forget that the justification for hooking
up with Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
As DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang reminded us,
the basis for hooking up with Mahathir was the rural Malay vote and of
course, Bersatu was different from the Malay-based Umno.
And then
there is the dilemma with Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh, which
is meant as a distraction. Kok said - āHowever when we get into
loggerheads with Umno and Umno Youth like before, the Malays see us as
being rude and racist.ā
Familiar malarkey
First
of all, the Malays have moved on from Umno and the only people who seem
interested in what they have to say are the denizens of Madaniville.
DAP chairperson Lim Guan Eng has no problem talking about the scurrilous attacks by MCA on the police and the home minister but as usual, DAP likes taking on soft targets.
But
then again we have seen all this malarkey before. Remember in that
not-so-great debate between Guan Eng and then-MCA president Choi Soi
Lek, where the former said - āIt is discrimination when Umno tells the Malays they cannot progress without Umno. (I say) We can all progress together.ā
Well,
is anyone in DAP telling this to UMNO now or is DAP still beating a
dead horse with MCA? Wait, donāt answer that. Apparently DAP still
thinks it is better not to confront someone like Akmal because the
Malays will think it is rude even though a majority of them have shifted
their allegiance to Perikatan Nasional/PAS.
So it is better for
these Malays to think of DAP as whipping boys rather than a political
party that opposes a theocratic state because God knows, nobody wants to
spook the Malays.
Years of demonising MCA as a ārunning dogā for
the establishment should have been a lesson for DAP, but now they are
slowly learning the cost of doing business with Malay power structures
on a federal level.
Not rocking the boat
When
some non-Malay Pakatan Harapan partisans tell people who demand reform
not to rock the Harapan boat - much like how Lim told non-Malays that
they do not need to ābegā - it is exactly the same position MCA was when
it was balancing expectations in the BN coalition.
DAP never gave MCA the benefit of this excuse, and neither should anyone who believes in any kind of institutional reform.
These
days, the people are left wondering if DAP will cave when it comes to
important policy issues because, with the creation of this coalition
government, all they seem interested in doing is justifying the policies
of the government, even if it goes against their campaign manifesto or
more damning, their so-called principles.
We
are always told that if not this then we have to accept the āGreen
Waveā. I say why make the āGreen Waveāsā job easier? Why lay the
foundation in terms of policy and governmental procedure (or lack of it)
for the āGreen Waveā?
The question is, if DAP is being asked to
keep a low profile in certain elections to not spook the Malays, what
else are they asked to keep a low profile on? Exactly how does keeping a
low profile help the DAP base?
I know it may help the political
elites, their proxies and hangers-on but how exactly does it help the
non-Malays who make up the DAP base?
All this should not surprise
us. Remember what DAP big cheese Anthony Loke said - āSo I wish to put
on record, as I said just now, on November 22, before Anwar Ibrahim went
to Istana Negara, I told him, as long as you can be prime minister, DAP
is willing to sacrifice anything, that is my commitment to Anwar.ā
If past election results are anything to go by, Anwar has yet to make any headway with the Malays.
Ever since he came to power in November 2022, he has tried to woo the Malays with many concessions.
Incredibly,
he shares the unshakeable belief that the non-Malays are dependent on
him and will never betray him because they say, āWho else is there
besides Anwar?ā
Anwar
has bent over backwards to appease the Malays but they still reject
him. At the same time, the non-Malays have also continued to bend over
backwards to āsupportā Anwar, and yet, he continues to disappoint them.
This is political sado-masochism at work. Sadly, the victim in this power frenzy is the rakyat.
Decades-long rivalry
Those who know the history of Umno and PAS will realise that these three men, Mahathir, Anwar, and Hadi, go a long way.
In the late 1970s, PASā domination was on the rise, especially in Mahathirās home state of Kedah.
Divisional Umno heads warned Mahathir about PASā rising threat and urged him to act.
As
Umno deputy chief and deputy prime minister, Mahathir feared that Umno
would lose Malay votes to PAS, which was buoyed by the global Islamic
revival spearheaded by the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the overthrow
of the Iranian monarchy.
Meanwhile, PAS had also accused Umno of not being Islamic enough.
Mahathir
was displeased with the distraction as he was a man in a hurry to
develop and modernise Malaysia. On top of the Islamic agenda, Mahathir
had another local issue.
Student protests to
highlight the plight of poor farmers and their starving families were an
annoying distraction. Mahathir needed to focus on his vision.
Thus,
he killed two birds with one stone by inviting the charismatic student
leader and co-founder of the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (ABIM),
Anwar, to join his government.
As a member of the
establishment, Anwar could no longer lead the student demonstrations,
and with his Islamic credentials, he was a valuable asset to Umno.
Anwar would convince the shallow electorate that Umno was indeed as Islamic as PAS.
He
rolled out policies like the dress code for students and civil
servants, the Bahasa Melayu/Bahasa Bako and the sidelining of non-Malays
in the civil service. Many Malays were duped and the rest is history.
Complacency instead of Reformasi
The
failed bromance of Anwar and Mahathir in the late 1990s and Anwarās
criticism of Mahathirās response to the Asian Financial Crisis was
followed by his sacking and subsequent arrest at the height of the
Reformasi movement.
However, Reformasi
had given ordinary Malaysians much hope for a new type of governance
after the dark years of the Mahathir era. Malaysians liked Anwarās bold
moves for reform and anti-corruption. They vowed to end Umno-Baru rule.
After GE15 and the hastily cobbled coalition government, Malaysians soon became jaded. The promised reforms remain unfulfilled.
Of
course, Malaysians are prepared to give Anwar a chance. It is not as if
he did not have enough preparation time. Didnāt he have a 24-year
apprenticeship?
However, ever since becoming prime minister, there has been poor communication between the top and the grassroots.
With the defeat at Sungai Bakap, Anwarās ministers and his daughter Nurul Izzah have come out with weasel words like āself-reflectionā, āwe will listen moreā, ābahlolā, and ātrust usā.
Havenāt
Malaysians been speaking out about Madaniās failure to listen to the
rakyat all this while? Did it need Sungai Bakap to tell them āWe told
you so?ā
A complacent Anwar probably thought he could
depend on non-Malay votes to win. He was wrong because in Sungai Bakap,
they wanted to punish him and so they stayed at home.
A
complacent Anwar probably thought he could cultivate the Malay vote
with various concessions towards them but this strategy failed and, to
make matters worse, he alienated the non-Malays, his core support base.
A
complacent Anwar may claim that the country has benefited from
increased foreign investments but how does this translate to the
ordinary man in the rural and semi-rural areas, whose lives are
shattered by the cost of living crisis?
Disillusionment sets in
Increasing
numbers of middle-class families are also struggling with price
increases in food, fuel and energy, the deteriorating education of their
children, increasing polarisation in the community and the rise in
religious extremism.
They are dissatisfied with the Madani administration.
One
disillusioned PKR supporter said, āAnwar spends more time on Hamas and
he willingly gave them RM100 million. Back home, his own people are
suffering.
āThen, on his return, heās preoccupied
with enabling house arrest for the convicted felon, Najib Abdul Razak.
He has no time for the rakyat.ā
The March to Tanah Melayu Yin, Letters from Ward 5, T.R.
Murray Hunter : Then came Mahathirās Ketuanan Melayu. āPolitical Islamā followed.
Now
we donāt even sit in the same kopitiam much less at the same table
anymore ā the Malays and the Lain Lain. When we talk, it is superficial
small talk ā never about the elephant in the room, never what is in our
heart. We pretend that all is well; that āMalaysia is Truly Asiaā. Tourists may buy that tag-line but we know better.
In
retrospect, UMNO leaders after Tunku worked against a multi-racial
Malaysia as envisioned in 1957. Their dream was Tanah Melayu, a country
where Malays are the owners and the others āguestsā ā here at the
pleasure of the host race, with little say in how the country is run.
This dream was shared by leaders of other Malay parties even if their
strategies differed. Each tried to āout-Malayā and āout-Islamā the
other.
The Road to Tanah Melayu
Putting the pieces together one can see a well thought out strategy to achieve Tanah Melayu.
A
good farmer first prepares the soil before he sows his seeds. Likewise
a good politician and Mahathir was a politician par excellence. Malays
were told how they are deprived of the fruits of ātheir own landā by the
rapacious Chinese and Indian immigrants. Even when offered citizenship
in return for recognising the āspecial positionā of the Malays ā a sort
of āsocial contractā ā they broke the agreement. Malays were warned
āthey would disappear like the Red Indians of Americaā. The idea that
the Chinese and Indians were untrustworthy was planted in the Malay
psyche. The ground ready, the seeds of āTanah Melayuā was sowed.
Political Spins
1. The most dangerous political spin that has gone largely unchallenged is that the
Malays were generous in allowing the Non-Malays citizenship in 1957 in
exchange for the Non-Malays accepting the āspecial positionā of the
Malays with regard to Article 153 of the Constitution. This
became the imaginary āSocial Contractā dredged up by Malay politicians
whenever there was a dispute concerning their āspecial positionā No
documents were presented to support this claim because none exists.
This
āspecial positionā refers to the socio-economic situation of the Malays
vis a vis the Non-Malays in 1957. The āspecial privilegesā refers to
the affirmative action policies formulated to lift their socio-economic
level to that of the Chinese and Indians. It is not āspecial privilegesā
in the sense of āracial entitlementā, that just because one is a Malay
one is entitled to these āspecial privilegesā in perpetuity. If that
were the case a time limitation clause of 15 years would not have been
written into Article 153. Imagine the Chinese and Indian leaders
condemning future generations of Chinese and Indians to second class
citizenship. This affirmative action āspecial privilegesā was later
extended to āwhen Malays have 30% of the GDPā ā a target set by the
government.
This target was reached by 2015 according to Dr Lim
Teck Ghee which the government denied but would not reveal government
data or its methodology when challenged. It would seem that the
government intend Malay privileges to continue in perpetuity.
The socio-economic environment and demography of the country at that time:
At
independence the āMalays were mainly rice growers and planters of
coconuts and other agricultural produce. They also served in the army,
police and civil service.
The Chinese were the mainstay
of the tin mines, were market-gardeners, artisans, shopkeepers,
contractors, clerks and financiers.
The Indians ā beyond
the rubber plantation; Indians were recruited for public works and
railway. They were in the hospitals, police and the bureaucracy.ā
The
British were the colonial rulers. They also hold the major share of the
economy ā the big plantations and tin mines were British owned. The
major trading houses and agencies were British.
(Total Malays ā 3125.5 Total Non-Malays ā 3153.3).
At
the time of independence Malays were in the minority (relative to the
rest) even including large numbers of immigrants from Sumatra and Java
especially during the first four decades of the 20th Century who were classified as Malays. In other words, the number of local Malays was even less than as stated above.
Can
you imagine the British not granting citizenship to those Non-Malays
who want it (whether the Malays liked it or not) when the economy
depended on the[I1] m.
Britain was just coming out of WW2 and colonies like Malaya were vital
to the economy of Britain which still had a huge economic stake in
Malaya even after 1957. Britain could not risk its cash cow when money
was needed to rebuild a war-ravaged country.
The British are realists. Without the Chinese and Indians the new nation of Malaya would not have been viable.
If
the Chinese and Indians (who arrived in large numbers about the same
time as the Javanese and Sumatrans in the early 1900s) were granted
citizenship, so were the Sumatrans, Javanese and others who were not
local born. So why the fuss about the Chinese and Indians getting
citizenship?
On a more practical level how could the new country
function without the Chinese and Indians? Malays were averse to the
back-breaking work and risks which the Chinese and Indians were prepared
to undertake. That is why the British brought in the Chinese and
Indians, to work the mines and rubber estates. They also constructed
roads and railways and other infrastructure. They ran small businesses
to service the community. There would not have been independence if this
matter was not resolved because Malaya would not have been functional
as an economy.
The Chinese and Indians are not here because of the
generosity of the Malays; they are here because they served an economic
purpose. They have paid for their citizenship with their blood, sweat
and tears. There is no argument that the towns and infrastructure were
built by them. They have given their lives fighting for the country,
they have sweated to make the country prosperous. They owe no one
anything; they have paid their way many times over . . . and are still
doing! Even today, the minority Malaysians are carrying the majority
according to Mahathir.
Hence acceptance of the āspecial positionā
of the Malays by the Non-Malays is not in exchange for citizenship.
Unfortunately, that like Goebelās lies, told over years this narrative
has taken on the guise of truth.
On the other hand, acceptance of
the Malay āspecial positionā as per Article 153 which conceded to
Malays certain āspecial privilegesā (time-limited) by the Chinese and
Indians was necessary and pragmatic because without it the country would
not work. It is impossible for half the population to be economically
disadvantaged and not expect discontent. The Malays must be lifted up to
the socio-economic level of the others. Article 153 is an āaffirmative
actionā legislation which the Non-Malays accepted. It is not a
legislation for āMalay exclusivityā which demanded privileges in
perpetuity.
2. Indigeneity
Indigeneity
as a basis for Malay claim to āspecial privilegesā is a false claim.
Fact is Malays are not indigenous to Malaya. They were early settlers on
the land for sure. While ethnic Malays came from Rhiau and Deli in
Sumatera others came from Java and other islands in the archipelago.
What is the difference? except the Chinese came from China and the
Indians from India. We are all immigrants albeit some came earlier. The
real indigenes are the Sengois, Semais, Jakuns, Negritos and other
tribes, that is why they are called Orang Asli. In East Malaysia it
would be the Dayaks, Kadazan-Dusuns, Muruts, Bidayuhs etc.
Also
at the time of Merdeka many āMalaysā are not ethnically Malays but
Pakistanis, Indians etc who fit the constitutional definition of āMalayā
e.g. Mahathir Mohammed. These ācelup Malaysā have even less claim to
āspecial privilegesā.
If the claim of indigeneity is the basis for
āspecial privilegesā why are the Orang Asli at the bottom of the
socio-economic heap?
It is worth reminding ourself that the
international convention of citizenship does not allow for āspecial
positionā because of indigeneity. Once acquired, citizenship confers the
same rights and responsibilities on all citizens. There are no
different classes of citizenship based on colour or creed.
In short, the āspecial positionā of the Malays derives from its weaker economic position ā not its claim to indigeneity,
Strategies for Tanah Melayu
Irrespective of the above, the purveyors of the dream persisted.
1.
From schools to mosques and government institutions the narrative for
Tanah Melayu was spun. A ārewrittenā history skewed to emphasise the
Malay position was taught in schools. The Biro Tata Negara diminished
the contributions of the Non-Malays to nation building while
exaggerating that of Malays. Mosques warned that Christians were out to
convert Muslims. Every measure was taken to remove Christian symbols and
practices, many Arabic words and phrases were forbidden to Non-Malays.
All this in order not to confuse the Malays.
2. Perhaps if
everyone āmasuk Melayuā the issue of race (and religion) would be
resolved. To this end the government introduced āthe Malaysian Culture
Policy 1971ā where only Malay, Islamic and Indigenous Cultures were
recognised as āMalaysianā. Indian and Chinese cultures were not allowed
in public. Children were not allowed to perform cultural dances of their
respective race in school performances.
The multi-racial,
multi-cultural Malaysia as envisaged in 1957 would have vanished with
one stroke of the pen except that the Chinese and Indians protested.
Every Chinese Guild and Indian Association, Independent Vernacular
Schools, Cultural Clubs etc rose in unison. MCA, MIC and Gerakan,
subservient junior partners in the BN Government, had no choice but to
speak up for their respective communities. DAP which had been calling
for a Malaysian Malaysia could not resist the opportunity to score
political points.
3. The rejection of the Malaysian Culture
Policy did not blunt the push for Tanah Melayu. If one way failed, try
another way. . . In a master stroke, a Christian majority Sabah became a
Muslim majority state overnight by the issuance of blue identity cards
to illegal immigrant Muslim Filipinos in the thousands.
Sarawak saw what happened and took measures to protect itself from the Malay Islamic invasion.
4.
Article 153 was hijacked by Malay leaders who ignored all provisions to
protect the legitimate interests of the Non-Malays as required in the
legislation. Chinese businesses were forced to close because their
licences were not renewed. In other cases, Chinese businesses were
forced to give up a substantial percentage of their shares to Malays.
Government owned businesses like MAS were virtually given away and
bought back at a loss or bailed out with public funds when they failed.
A Malay mercantile class was created overnight what took the Chinese generations to build.
5.
āOperasi Penuh Isiā an UMNO plan to fill all government positions with
Malays was carried out. Government services were overwhelmingly Malays ā
way above their percentage of the population. Today the executive
branch of government and government owned or linked companies are almost
entirely Malay.
With banking, insurance, ports, imports of
essentials, rice milling, energy, the automobile industry in the hands
of Malays. Malays control a huge percentage if not the majority of the
economy. With Malays controlling every lever of government and Malay
making up the overwhelming majority of government employees, the Malay
Agenda cannot fail. Is Ismail Sabriās declaration of a āMalay
Governmentā an announcement of the arrival of āTanah Melayuā?
Almost but not quite. Anwar Ibrahim still needed DAP and the other
multi-racial parties in East Malaysia to keep him in power in the Unity
Government against the ambitions of other Malay leaders.
But
Anwar is no less a racial and religious chauvinist. Despite his show of
being a tolerant liberal Malay, his true colours emerge in less guarded
moments. Jakim the department responsible for the development of Islam
has a bigger budget than many ministries which served all sectors. Anwar
has remained conspicuously silent in the face of protests by
Non-Muslims across the country on the illegal conversion of Non-Malay
minors. While he made it clear that under him affirmative action will be
needs based yet rich Malays continue to enjoy special privileges while
poor Non-Malays do not. He promised to help SMEs irrespective of race
yet he did not open APs to Non-Malay companies like he did Malay SMEs.
Anwar
is no less a Malay chauvinist than his former mentor Mahathir or any of
the other Malay leaders. His Islamic credentials carried over from his
ABIM days remain intact.
If the multi-racial Malaya/Malaysia we
signed up for is to survive, the current state of affairs cannot remain
unchallenged. The challenge has to come from all stakeholders - Dayaks,
Kadazan-Dusuns, Muruts ā all Sarawakians and Sabahans - the Aslis,
Chinese and Indians of Malaya but especially Malays who believe in and
will fight for the Malaysia our fathers agreed on.
Are we witnessing the end of a dream and the beginning of a nightmare?