OPEN REPLY TO TUN DR MAHATHIR “ WHY DID I CRITICISE THE PRIME MINISTER”

I have read your letter dated 21st October 2006 addressed to the “citizens of Malaysia”. It is not often a commoner writes a letter addressed to ALL Malaysians. But then you are different, I suppose. Since I am a recipient of your letter permit me to reply.

For a start, your letter seem to be cast a picture of a man who believes that he has been victimized and finds all his avenues to seek justice has been closed. Believe me, many Malaysians have experenced this. At least you have the internet as an avenue all thanks to the Instrument Of Guarantee signed by your administration guaranteeing no censorship of the internet. Malaysians can read about your plight. Many Malaysians never had this opportunity.

I note that you have signed off the letter as a Malaysian citizen and a Commoner. But judging from your regular tirades and ripostes against the present administration it gives the impression that you either have difficulty accepting the fact that you are no more the prime minister or you continue to believe that you are omnipotent.

You have had the luck and privilege of being chosen as the Prime Minister of Malaysia. For 22 years you lead Malaysia. You have been credited for engineering Malaysia’s rapid modernization. Malaysia’s physical transformation is obvious. After all you presided over a period of phenomenal growth and at the end of your tenure, Malaysia bristled with concrete symbols from a gleaming airport to an impressive skyline.

Internationally, for 22 years you made your voice heard and the world was your stage. Your acerbic comments made you a spokesman for the third world and your tirades against the West meant that Muslim countries could not have found a better friend than you.

Now, it is for the people and history to judge your legacy and the present political climate do allows the people to judge and freely express the opinion. There are many policies of your administration which have benefited Malaysia and Malaysians. Similarly there have been many policies and action of yours which Malaysians found to be despicable and reprehensible and pray it never happen again.

Reading your letter, it would seem that your main grouse and as clearly stated in your letter is that “the questions and issues raised have not been answered”.

Having acknowledged that you are a “commoner”, it is then well worth remembering that that the government of the day owes no duty to respond to your demands for explanation. At least this was what your 22 years in office had taught the common citizens.

You claim that a climate of fear has enveloped this country and allegedly Malaysia has become a police state. All because supposedly in your opinion no one is allowed and dares to criticise the prime-minister. You claim that the main-stream media are not allowed to admonish the prime-minister and functions that may involve criticizing the prime-minister are harassed, threatened by police and government leaders. Wasn’t this the hallmark of your 22 years administration ?

Surely you have not forgotten the reason why Tun Musa Hitam left office. Remember the pliant media which became your hatchetmen when during the tussle for the UMNO presidency it highlighted the headgear worn by Tengku Razaleigh (never mind you had worn a similar headgear in the past). Remember how easily you got offended and roused a national anger simply because the then Australian prime minister Paul Keating criticized and called you a recalcitrant.

You allege that under the present administration people are being detained and interrogated repeatedly. Lest you forget, October 27 was the nineteenth anniversary of the infamous Operation Lallang ? Remember the Anwar Ibrahim “black-eye” incident which you diagnosed the injury as self inflicted ?. Yet you have the temerity to call Pak Lah’s administration “police state”!

You demand the right to speak and require space and forum to criticize and more importantly demand that the present administration answers your questions. This is strange coming from a person who used all available apparatus to silence dissent. The willful silence by the majority of the population to comment, criticize or oppose you was because of the climate of fear you had created. The heavy price paid by the brave who stood up to you made many to keep quiet and apolitical.

Now that you have retired as Prime Minister, no one is asking you to just fade away. Having acknowledged that you are a commoner, live and experience life of a commoner. Only then you will realize what life for a commoner was for 22 years when questions were aplenty but answers were never forthcoming.

By the way you have yet to answer my 17 questions. ( See Malaysiakini)

FAUZI MUSTAFFA – POISONING MALAYSIAN UNITY

Today is Deepavali. To all Hindu friends and readers Happy Deepavali.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his Deepavali Message said ” it is my hope that the unique practice of celebrating the festivals together in peace and harmony will be continued. Deepavali is a holy day for Hindus and celebrated together with other Malaysians of all backgrounds, had become one of the major festivals of this country. It was a day of merriment which should be celebrated with friends including those of different faiths and culture”.

That is not how Malaysian Islamic insurance company, Takaful Malaysia Head of Shariah Department Mohd Fauzi Mustaffa apparently views Deepavali. In a circular in the form of email circulated on October 3, 2006 to all 2000 staff it stated ” Takaful Malaysia’s corporate culture that is rooted in the Shariah totally forbids greetings involving the gods of Hindu clients or of other religions. Muslims who have inadvertently wished Hindus a Happy Deepavali, Happy Durga Pooja and Happy Lakhsmi Pooja must immediately repent and not repeat it in the future”.

Naturally it sparked such a furor and anger. Minister-in the Prime Minister’s Department Abdullah Mohamed Zin must be commended for coming out quickly and scoffing Fauzi’s view saying that such a view was based on a narrow understanding of Islam. The Minister said that saying pleasantries were important for racial harmony and wishing someone Happy Deepavali does not mean that you have embraced his beliefs and religion. The Mufti of Perak Datuk Harussani Zakaria clarified that Muslims are permitted to extend greetings to those of other faiths in conjunction with their respective festivals. Finally, Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM) Director General Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas, called for Mohd Fauzi’s sacking and that he should repent for his arrogance in thinking that he has knowledge on the matter.

Having come under fire and following the outcry, Fauzi capitulated and on October 17, apologized saying that this was his personal opinion and did not reflect the views of the company. Well, Fauzi you can stick your apology up where the sun don’t shine, you bigot !. Takaful Nasional ( who had first stood by the comments claiming that they had first taken advice from religious experts on the issue) realizing the ground swell, placed a full page Deepavali greeting to Hindus in the newspapers. What a turn around from a company who has no qualms about accepting non –muslim customer’s money but not their friendship).

With the apology and the advertisement, the issue now may have been laid to rest but there is no denying that damage has already been done. If each Takaful Malaysia staff has an average family of five members, it can be safely assumed that Fauzi’s email has now poisoned 10,000 minds.

Lest we shrug off this incident as an isolated issue, it must be remembered that similar incidents had occurred in the past. In 2004, the government organized a national-level Christmas celebration but then imposed an unofficial ban on all Christian religious symbols and hymns that specifically mention Jesus Christ as it was to be televised on TV. In a strongly worded letter to the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), Rev. Father O.C Lim formally complained that “ the presence of the King and his wife, the Sultan of Selangor, the prime minister and other cabinet ministers “can never take place the absent of the birthday boy (Jesus) in what purports to be His birthday celebration. To call it a cultural event (as rationalized by Christian politicians than Christians) is to downgrade Jesus to a cultural sage like Confucius”.

CFM, the government’s liaison partner in organizing the event tried to pander the government by saying that sensitivities of a certain community must be respected especially in a government sponsored public event. Arts and Culture and Heritage Minister Dr Rais Yatim later “denied” that there was any such ban.

Malaysia with a multiracial population, it is inevitable that most of the festivals celebrated have religious connotation. These gatherings which are devoid of religious rituals are occasions when working colleagues, relatives and friends gather celebrating friendship. Alas for Fauzi, pluralism and diversity is objectionable and instead align his views with the Wahhabi fatwa circulating worldwide for years which declared that celebrating the religious festival of others is tantamount to approving their religious faith.

Malaysians and particularly non-muslims are alarmed at how fast Malaysia is regressing and is concerned with rise of religious polarization and alienation. There is a growing force becoming emboldened and turning into public their private prejudices. Professor Clive Kessler writing in Asian Analysis wrote that there is a long march towards desecularisation of the Malaysian life. His prescient analysis could not be wrong

Zainah Anwar writing in NST October 20, 2006 said “perhaps Fauzi’s position and his actions are symptomatic of where we have gone with our understanding of Islam, our education system, our socialization process, our politicization, and our sense of citizenship within a multi ethnic and multi religious society, that he today not only shows no love nor respect for fellow citizens of a different race and religion but also feels he has a right to turn his dogmatic personal piety into an office directive for all to obey”.

Zainah Anwar summed it up rightfully when she said “The mode out there is very clear. It is this hate ideology that posses a clear and present danger to the Malaysia that we know and love. It comes not from those who believe in upholding the Federal Constitution and the rule of law but those bent on forcing a rewriting of the Constitution and shifting the consensus for civil and political order in Malaysia”.

It is a warning well worth reflecting. Lebanon is a sober reminder.

Happy Deepavali.

“We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions-bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality. Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities. Whoever seeks to set one race against another seeks to enslave all races. Whoever seeks to set one religion against another, seeks to destroy all religion.”- Franklin D. Roosevelt.

CONTORTED LOGIC FROM THE PULPIT.

Though I am a Catholic, one magazine I enjoy reading without fail is AL-ISLAM, a monthly current affairs magazine which allows me not only to have a better understanding of Islam but also to obtain the Islamic perspective on various issues. Being a magazine for Muslims it is only natural that the magazine takes an Islamic slant. I have got no complaints with that.

What caught my attention in the October edition of AL-ISLAM was an article at page 29 by by M. Hifzuddin Ikhsan Di Nek Kamal. The title:-

Yahudi dan Nasrani
BANGSA PEROSAK

How’s that for a title which does no good for race relations and inter-religious tolerance in Malaysia ? It wasn’t too long ago when The Sarawak Tribune had its licence revoked while number of newspapers were either censured or suspended for having published an insulting cartoons deemed insulting to Muslims.

I am not a racist or a religious bigot. Again it is not the title of the topic I found distressing but the contents of the article. The article carried extracts of a khutbah given on the 18th August 2006 at Masjid Wilayah Persekutuan, Jalan Duta Kuala Lumpur by Imam Haji Mohammad Mohd Zin.

While the crux of the khutbah was on the holy month of Rejab and the event of Israk and Mikraj, what distressed me was the Imam’s diatribe against the Jews and the Christians. The Imam said and I quote

“ Di dalam al-Quran, berulang kali dinyatakan bahawa bangsa ini merupakan golongan yang ganas dan kerjanya hanya mengajak serta mengajar manusia melanggar ajaran Allah. Tindakan ini di lakukan kerana Yahudi dan Nasrani mahukan kebebasan mutlak dan gemar mengikut hawa nafsu mereka sahaja.”

Di sebabkan itu mereka sanggup membunuh dan membuat kerosakan tanpa ditegur oleh sesiapapun. Oleh itu, hari ini kita melihat keganasan Yahudi serta Nasrani di bumi Palestin dan Lebanon berleluasa dengan mereka terus membunuh kaum wanita dan anak kecil sewenang-wenangnya.

Dengan menjahanamkan Palestine serta Lebanon mereka berharap dapat menundukkan umat Islam dan membangkitkan kebencian dunia kepada kita. Kekejaman serta kerosakan yang dilakukan oleh Yahudi dan Nasrani sejak dulu kini dan selamanya adalah bukti kebenaran al-Quran. Sikap dan akhlak buruk mereka tidak pernah berubah walaupun diutus banyak para anbia pada bangsa mereka.”


Reading the article which is clearly calculated to denigrate and insult Jews and Christians, I cannot but help make comparasion with the Muslim reaction when the Pope quoted a conversation while giving a lecture to Catholic theologians. That quote was deemed offensive and was sufficient to set off fire-storm in the Muslim world. In Malaysia there were groups continuing to protest even after the Pope had apologised.

But here in a multi-racial and multi religious country we have an Imam making an open declaration of hatred. There are only two possibilities to the Imam’s hyper-bole, either it did not occur to the Imam that his Khutbah or extracts of it would be reported or it did not matter to him if others (particularly Christians in Malaysia) would be offended by his khutbah.

Reading the article, it becomes amply clear that the Imam ‘s view is not only offensive and seditious but his contorted logic displays religious bigotry.

For a start the title of the article itself is offensive. It is a flippant and callous statement clearly made with the intention to denigrate the Jews and the Christians. Remember how Muslims get terribly upset when western media potrays Islam and Muslims negatively, tarnishing the whole community simply because of the action of a few. Taking the cue and a similar standpoint, would it be fair if Jews and Christians also equate all Muslims with violence simply because of the actions of 9-11 terrorist, the Bali Bombers, Hamas, Talebans, Laskhar-al-Thoiba, or nearer home Jemaah Islamiah. Definitely not.

I am firmly of the believe that there is no such thing as a destructive race as claimed by the Imam. However in every race and religion and Islam including, there are fringe elements who are evil and destructive and who commits acts of violence in the name of race and religion,

I am also perplexed and stunned by the Imam’s revealation that the holy Quran declares that Jews and Christians are “golongan yang ganas” and that “kerjanya hanya mengajak serta mengajar manusia melanggar ajaran Allah”. This is definitely something I did not know and being a former student in Diploma in Shariah Law and Practice at I.I.U.M, I wonder how come my lecturers like Prof. Qaruffa, Prof Saedon or even the late Prof Ahmad Ibrahim hid this fact from me(if there is).

The good Imam ought to know that it isnt too difficult and doesn’t take too much for one to denigrate another’s religion. Anyone and that includes religious leaders can easily justify their “view” by claiming reference to and quoting from some book or persons that the others religion is viiolent and its faithful adherents evil. One qustion comes to mind, just what benefit would one derive by desecrating or insulting another’s religion.

The Imam’s contorted logic gets darker when he alleges that the Jews and the Christians “ sanggup membunuh dan membuat kerosakan tanpa dapat ditegur oleh sesiapapun”. Such certitude.


If Jews and Christian are ready kilers then what about the Palestinians who equally have a long history of violence against the innocent. What about Palestinians who massacred innocent Jewish athletes, what about the Saudi hijackers who crashed and killed a planeload of innocents passengers ? what about the actions of the Janjawids in Sudan who carried about a systematic killings and massacre against the southern Christians and animist ? what about the Sunnis and the Shiahs in Pakistan and Iraq who are in open conflict and have no qualms about killing each other ?

Syed Akbar Ali in his book To Digress A Little gives a narration about the cycle of violence between the Sunnis and Shiahs in Pakistan. In Iraq the sanctity of the holy month of Ramadan does not deter the Sunnis and the Shiahs from continuing to kill each other. The Sunnis and Shiahs in Pakistan and Iraq to quote the Imam ”sanggup bunuh” and even “tanpa dapat di tegur”. Thus it no surprise that former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir is quoted as saying that many Muslim nation spent time and energy planning and fighting each other. I am sure Dr Mahathir was refering to the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war and the cycle of violence in Afganistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. Muslims against Muslims.

It must be recognised that killing and evil doing are not the characteristic and exclusive domain of any particular religion as wrongly implied by the Imam. But there are many who commit violence in the name of religion and justifies their actions based on their holy book.

Then there is the disparaging assertion that “hari ini keganasan Yahudi serta Nasrani di bumi Palestine dan Lebanon berleluasa.” Admitedly the Israelis and the Palestinians are in open conflict but acts of “keganasan” have been pepertrated by both parties against each other. “Keganasan” have been committed by all parties. Israelis against Palestinians and Palestinians against Israelis. Israelis have shot dead Palestinians and Palestinians have bombed crowded Israeli cafes. In fact there are also ‘keganasan” between the Palestinians themselves .

In Lebanon, the country for long period of time has been wrecked by sectarian violence and killings. The Amal militias, Druze Muslims, Christian Phalangist and even Hamas all have committed acts of violence against one another at one time or another. In the recent conflict in Lebanon, even the Christians were not spared from violence and destruction from the Israelis.

Thus to claim that the Jews and the Christians are solely responsible for the violence is not only misconceived but a calculated lie.

Malaysia a country where all major religions are represented have in recent years seen an accelerated regression. Instead of seeing inter-religious understanding and tolerance, there is now a growing religious polarisation. Religious intolerance is on the rise and it does not help when religious leaders of all people wedge discord by brazenly declaring that another religion or people evil.

Religious leaders and particularly in Malaysia must realise that their position comes with a responsibility and they have an important role to play. They should use the pulpit to preach religious tolerance and understanding and not use their position to sow hatred with their myopic views and contorted logic.

Remember we reap what we sow.

SUNDAY REFLECTION - THREE TREES

Once there were three trees on a hill in the woods. As they were discussing their hopes and dreams, the first tree said : "Some day I hope to be a treasure chest. I can be filled with gold, silver and precious gems. I can be decorated with intricate carvings and everyone will see my beauty."
Then the second tree said : "Some day I will be a mighty ship. I will take kings and queens across the waters and sail to the corners of the world. Everyone will feel safe in me because of the strength of my hull."
Finally, the third tree said : "I want to grow to be the tallest and straightest tree in the forest. People who see me at the top of the hill will look up to my branches, and think of the heavens and God, and how close I am to them. I will be the greatest tree of all time and people will always remember me."
A few years after that, a group of woodsmen came upon the trees. One of them looked at the first tree and said : "This look like a strong tree ... I should be able to sell its wood to a carpenter." He began to cut it down. The tree was happy because he knew that the carpenter would turn him into a treasure chest.
At the second tree, the woodsman said : "This look like a strong tree; I should be able to sell it to the shipyard." The second tree was happy because he knew he was on his way to becoming a mighty ship.
When the woodsmen came upon the third tree, he was frightened because he knew that if they cut him down, his dreams would not come true. One of the woodsmen said : "I don't need anything special from my tree. I'll take this one, and he cut it down.
When the firts tree arrived at the carpenter's, he was made into a feed box for animals. He was then placed in a barn and filled with hay. This was not what he had hoped for at all.
The second tree was cut and made into a small fishing boat. His dreams of being a mighty ship and carrying kings had come to an end. The third tree was cut into large pieces and left alone in the dark. The years went by, and the trees forgot about their dreams.
One day a man and woman came into the barn. She gave birth and they placed the baby in the hay in the feed box made from the first tree. The man wished that he could have made a crib for the baby, but the manger would have to do. The tree could feel the importance of this event and knew that it had held the greatest treasure of all time.
Years later, a group of men got in the fishing boat made from the second tree.One of them was tired and went to sleep.While they were out on the water, a great storm arose and the tree didn't think it was strong enough to keep the men safe. The men woke the sleeping man, and He stood and said, "Peace", and the storm stoopped. The tree knew then that it had carried the King of Kings.
Finally, someone came and got the third tree. It was carried through the streets as people mocked the man carrying it.When they came to a stop at the top of a hill, the man was nailed to the tree and left to die there. When Sunday came, the tree realised that it was strong enough to stand at the top of the hill and be as close to God as possible because Jesus had been crucified on it.
Each of the trees got what it wanted, although not in the way it had imagined. In the same way, God's plans for us are not always our plans, but they are always the best.

PEKAN RABU JOHOR BAHRU- ANOTHER WHITE ELEPHANT ?

The Star Sataurday 30th September 2006 edition carried a news and pictorial feature on Pekan Rabu, Johor Bahru.

Pekan Rabu modelled on the original Pekan Rabu in Alor Star was built in 2005 and is a three storey complex designed to mirror the Johor Malay architure. The 7577 sq m complex and built at a cost of RM 7 million has 116 stalls, an exhibition area and 200 parking lots. Pekan Rabu is under the charge of Pekan Rabu Corporation and the state Economic Planning Unit. It was built on a site that priviously housed a whole sale market and was planned as a one stop centre for bumiputras to sell a diverse range of goods among others such as salted fish, clothes, handicrafts and cakes.

A year on instead of bustling crowds, Pekan Rabu is practically eeriely silent, deserted and devoid of customers. Despite the incentive of the RM600 monthly rental being waived as well as the water and the electricity charges being waived, most traders prefer to keep their shops shut.

So what went wrong ? How could such a place with a 350,000 population within a 8KM radius and so close to commercial and residential area turn out to be a flop?

While it is commendable, that the state authorities have assisted the Malays who wish to venture into trading, but I believe it was wrong to turn PekanRabu into a 100% malay trading post. What was so difficult to let traders of all races trade there? Presently why would any Chinese and Indian flock to this place when they can buy all the Malay goodies elsewhere and shop somewhere else where it is more multi cultural.

Secondly, the location of Pekan Rabu is sandwiched between Giant Hypermarket on the right and left and also KIP Mart Tampoi. KIP Mart Tampoi is a bustling place where one can buy products ranging from Jamu to Keropok to Malay delicacies. Then there is the pull factor of a real multicultural atmosphere with Malay, Chinese and Indian stalls. Why bother then to go to Pekan Rabu. For handicrafts ? Well one can go to Danga bay which offers a greater and a variety of choices.

Thirdly, one wonders if the stall holders chosen are genuine business traders. For a complex to be successful, shops must remain open even during the slump. Traders have to support each other. Instead most traders in Pekan Rabu have "gulung tikar". Why not give up the shop instead of keeping the shop shut. It is only natural that when shops are kept shut and when that happens it has a knock on effect on the remaining shops which are open. There is no more shopping atmosphere. In any event, it must be noted that from the beginning, the shops in Pekan Rabu sold a mismatch of things which were hardly enticing to the shoppers. Maybe the Pekan Rabu Corporation and EPU should have been not only selective in n selecting the tenants and but also should have ensured the correct mix of business.

It is a shame that this place could not have been turned into a food paradise offering genuine Johor dishes. The location was perfect, good catchment area and more importantly it was also close for Singaporeans using the 2nd Link. Unfortunately the managers of Pekan Rabu sought to challenge Giant and KIP Mart.

What next for Pekan Rabu ? Judging from the statement by State Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development committee chairman Samat Ariffin who said that there were plans to intergrate an immigration department on the Pekan Rabu complex to help draw customers. He is quoted to have said that with the immigration department there the traders will be assured of customers as 1500 to 2000 people go to the department daily. Imagine 116 shops catering for 1500 customers. Each shop getting about 10 customers !

Unless some better idea can be thought of, Pekan Rabu has all the classics of yet another expensive folly.

POPE’S STATEMENT AND THE CALL TO PROTEST.

Last Friday 22nd September 2006 as I was driving along Jalan Air Molek, Johor Bahru, I saw a banner on the fence of the old Johor Bahru prison. It was a call to Muslims to protest against “pope yang biadab” (yes those were the exact words).

While I sincerely belief that the quote was offensive, I was most relieved when the Pope with all humility apologized to all Muslims and made it known that the quote does not reflect his own views. He apologized openly not once but twice.

Thus I find it sad that despite the Pope having expressed his regret and apologized twice, there are still those who reject the apology and instead deem appropriate to continue to make the Pope’s speech an issue. Isn’t apologizing and forgiving an honourable virtue?

Growing up In Kuala Lumpur, I remember one South African preacher Ahmed Deedat who found in Malaysia a captive and receptive audience for his venomous sermons against Christians. He used to return to Malaysia regularly espousing his hatred for Christianity all couched in his bile sermons. I used to wonder how in a multi-religious country, the government could be so indifferent to the sensitivities of the Non Muslims and instead accord him such an honorable privilege.

Naturally we Christians were hurt but we suffered in silence. There was no demonstration or calling him to apologise. One day I heard that he had suffered a stroke but what made me very happy was when I heard that he had also lost his ability to
speak. That was the end of him.

Then who could forget Al-Arqam and its leaders who had some warped ideas for Muslims, Malaysia and Non Muslims. Thank God, Dr Mahathir’s government took them on and arrested the whole lot and incarcerated them under ISA. The main leader upon release was reduced to a drooling mess and unable to speak coherently.


I am an avid reader but alas there are some bookshops in Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur (Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman) which stocks and sells books which disparages Christianity. I used to wonder how these books could be permitted for sale when it is offensive to Christians. You do not see any banner calling for protest. Alas what could the Christians do but to pray that no one buys these books. One such bookshop in Landmark Mall has already closed down.

Perhaps those and particularly PAS who rejected the Pope’s apology and instead called for the “perhimpunan” could also ensure that in future that Christians and Christianity will also not be slandered and books which are offensive to Christians will not be sold in bookshops.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN A HOTEL GUEST AND ROOM SERVICE IN A MALAYSIAN HOTEL.


Room Services: Morny, ruin sorbes.

Guest : Sorry, I thought I dialled room services.

RS : Rye, ruin sorbes! Morny! Djewish to ordor sun teen ?

G : Ah yes. I’d like some sausages, toasts and eggs.

RS : How July dunn?

G : What!

RS : How July dunn? Pry, boy or pooch?

G : Oh, the eggs! How do I like them? Scrambled please.

RS : Ow July dee soarass…crease?

G : Crisp will be fine.

RS : Hokay. An santos?

G : What?

RS : Santos. July santos?

G : I don’t think so.

RS : No? Judo one toes?

G : I feel really bad, but I don’t know what ‘judo one toes’ means.

RS : Toes! Toes! Why dju Don Juan toes? Ow bow Singlish mopping we bother?

G : English Muffins? I’ve got it. You were saying ‘toast’ and English Muffins
would be fine.

RS : Copy?

G : Sorry?

Rs : Copy … tea … mill?

G : Coffee please, and that’s all.

RS : One Minnie, asruin torino fee, strangle ache, crease baychem, tossy Singlish
mopping, we bother honey sigh, and copy… rye?

G : We bother what? You mean with butter! Thanks!

RS : Tendjewberrymud!

G : You’re Welcome!

THE POPE AND THE STORM.

[This blog differs from my usual blogs. Instead of writing my own views on the matter, I have culled from the newspapers viewpoints of these imminent and learned Muslims on the issue”. A common thread in all these viewpoints is the call to challenge a view with reason and not by violence.]

On the 12th of September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a speech at Regensburg University, Germany. The speech titled Faith, Reason and the University, Memories and Reflection was a prolusion, an inaugural speech, delivered to an assembly of faculty and students at the beginning of the new academic year. By definition, it was an academic exercise, interdisciplinary and the eyes and years of scholars and would be scholars.


WHAT WAS THE POPE’s SPEECH ALL ABOUT ?

“Generally, it was about the convergence of the Christian faith with Hellennistic reasoning of God being tied to Reason, that He would not act unreasonably and “not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God”.

Reason was so important that it should even be “necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason”, but three waves of dehellenisation movement in the development in the development of the understanding of religion in the West has brought about a “dangerous state of affairs for humanity… when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it”.

The Pope suggested that to overcome this danger there should be a new coming together of reason and faith by overcoming “the self imposed limitation of reason to the empirically veritable”.

(Tun Hanif Omar writing in his column “Points of View” The Sunday Star 24th September 2006.

In his speech the Pope was trying to show how western society including the church has become secularized by removing from concept of Reason its spiritual dimension ad origins which are in God. In early Western history, reason was not opposed to faith but according to the Pope, but instead fed on it.


THE OBJECTION

Where Muslims have found the Pope’s speech extremely objectionable was when the Pope recounted a 14th century discussion on Christianity and Islam between Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel 11 Paleologus and a Persian scholar. The Pope quoted the dialogue from a recent book by Prof. Theodare Khoury, an expert on Byzantine, who reprinted the text of the dialogue between emperor Manuel 11 Paleologus and a Persian scholar. The Pope recounted what that the emperor had said “ show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.

The Pope without so much as a sentence to say that he did not hold to this view continued that, “ the emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable… and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature
(Tun Hanif Omar wrting in his column Points of View Sunday Star 24th September 2006).”


THE REACTION

Never mind that the emperor had also said violence is something unreasonable… incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of soul and never mind that the Pope no less that five times referred to this sentence, quoting the passage was sufficient to touch off a firestorm of impassioned reaction, protest and violence.

Some are of the view that the Pope ought to have made it clear at the onset that he did not agree with the emperor’s view but the question is, would the reaction be any different had the Pope disassociated with the emperor’s view.

So how have the reaction to the Pope been ?

In Basra, protestors burned an effigy of the pope, an Iraqi group linked to al Qaeda posted on a website threatening war against “worshiper’s of the cross” In Turkey a man tried to storm a Protestant church with a fake gun, in Somalia a nun was shot dead, In Nablus, Israel, two Anglican Churches were fire bombed. Then the usual rent-a mob was out in full force in Afganistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. In Malaysia, it was reported that a small demonstration took place in Kampung Baru and in Johor Bahru there was a call to protest against the Pope.

“But here it pays to take a degree of objective distance from the issue and look at the matter from a broader perspective. While the comments made by the Pope were morally questionable both in its content and intention, one also has to question the logic at work in the reaction of some Muslims to the event. It has been reported that many an Islamist group had reacted to the speech of the Pope with calls of violence and retribution. A stupid and counter productive reaction if any, for it simply reinforces the stereotypical view (repeated bt the Pope) that Islam is a religion of the sword and that Muslims are fundamentally violent.

Consider the following statements that were issued by one radical Islamist group in Iraq said to be linked to Al- Qaeda : In a press statement the Mujahideen Shura Council stated bluntly that “ We shall break the cross and spill the wine.. God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome… God enable us to slit their throat and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen”. In bellicose terms bordering on the hysterical the statement then proceeded to “tell the worshippers of the cross (the Pope) will be defeated and that “you will only see our swords until you go back to God’s true faith Islam”. If the pope’s speech had done damage to inter-religious dialogue, then such a reaction was calculated to ensure that the final nail would be hammered into the coffin.

It remains an oddity till today that many Islamist groups react to provocation at a drop of a hat and that their reaction often follow the predictable path of rhetoric and pyrotechnics. Fiery speech may gain a group some precious minutes on TV screen, but in the long run they do untold damage to the understanding and image of Islam (both in the eyes of Muslims and other faith communities) that will take ages to heal.

It would be hypocritical for some of these Islamist groups to demand an apology from the Pope while remaining blissfully oblivious to the venomous speeches and tirades that issue forth from their own ranks, be it in the form of mosque sermons, videos, pamphlets, recordings or death threats. Muslims cannot and should not demand respect for our faith as long as we are not prepared to show respect to the belief of others.

Yet how many Muslims have criticised the extremist and the conservatives in their midst who continue to ply the crown with sordid stories of “Christian conspiracies against Muslims, or with lurid account of the alleged “decadent, immoral lives and values of the so called “infidels”.

…
Stupid, insulting and even destructive comments from either community should be met with rational voice tempered with logic and morality and not the threats of violence couched in filmsy rhetoric of victimhood.

If Muslims felt insulted by the Pope’s comments, then we need to realize that many non Muslims likewise feel insulted by barbed accusation and slander that have come from some self appointed spokesmen of Islam.

…
Muslims need to remember that in our reaction to abuse and slander we are nonetheless guided by a moral principle that is higher. One cannot react to slander with even more slander; anymore than one can react to racism .

If the moral compass has been lost by the Pope, our duty as Muslims alike is to restore this balance and not let the ship of humanity flounder even more.
(Dr Farish Ahmad Noor from Centre for Modern orient Studies in Germany writing in the SUN September 25, 2006 “Slander Cannot Be Met With Slander”.

“Throughout the Muslim world religious leaders, presidents, politicians and intellectuals joined their voices to protesting masses angered by perceived insult to their faith.

Whatever, their judgements, they should adopt a more reasoned approach in their critical remark for two reasons.

Firstly, certain parties manipulate crises of this kind as a safety valve for both their restive population and their own political agenda.

Secondly, what we are witnessing is mass protest characterized primarily by an uncontrollable out pouring of emotion providing proof that Muslims cannot engage in reasonable debate. Some arguing, that the Pope had offended Muslims, demanded a personal apology.
…
(Pope Benedict)… the questions he asks Muslims are those of the day : questions that should be answered clearly with solid arguments. To start, we must not accept that “jihad” be translated as “holy war”. Our priority should be to explain the principles of legitimate resistance and of Islamic ethics in conflict situations, not encourage people to protest violently against the accusation that they believe in violent religion.
…
The Pope’s reductionism has done nothing to help the process of reappropriation : a critical approach should not expect him to apologise but simply and reasonably to prove him that historically, scientifically and ultimately spiritually, he is mistaken.”
(Tariq Ramadan president of European Muslim Nettwork, Brussels writing in the September 25th, 2006 edition of the Star, “Understand the real reason why Pope was wrong”.)

Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Professor of Law, UITM, Shah Alam writing in New Straits Times cautioned “Muslims must not react to Pope’s Benedict’s inflammatory comments in a way that provides fodder for Islam-haters. Instead, they should exhibit tolerance and patience.”

Hashim Muzadi, head of Indonesia’s largest Islamic organization, Nahdiatul Ulama “ If we remain furious, then the Pope will be proved correct”.


THE AFTERMATH

The Pope has said that he was deeply sorry for the offence caused by his remarks and has also delivered a papal expression of regret saying ‘These were in fact quotation from a medieval text which do not in anyway express my personal thought”.

My own honest view is that the Pope could have chosen to express his thoughts without necessarily referring to the said objectionable dialogue. Infact the speech and its message could have been presented without reference to the dialogue. Perhaps, it would have been wiser had the Pope at the onset of the quote made it clear that the quote was not in any way reflective of his own opinion.

Still, the truth is that the feelings of the Muslims have been hurt and it has to do not with the speech but by recounting the offending dialogue.

But at the end of the day, the Pope is the father of my faith and however wrong the Pope is, I cannot and will not condemn Him but express my regret.

TRIBUTE TO R.R. MAHENDRAN

RR Mahendran was a lawyer in private practice in Johor Bahru. On the 5 th of September 2006, RR Mahendran passed away. He was 40.


His area of practice was civil law and quasi-criminal primarily specialising in Habeas Corpus applications for which he deservedly developed a reputation and respect. As a lawyer, he was thorough in his research, meticulous in the preparation, persuasive in his articulation and unrelenting in his mission. He had all the hallmarks of an excellent lawyer.

There is no denying that in his early years of practice he was more often than not dogged in some personal battle or embroiled in some controversy. In fact controversies found a friend in him and even at death it never left him. Many still remember his Anglo-Saxon address to a stunned judge.

But in the last two to three years there was a remarkable change in him. Perhaps he finally found in his wife, Susan his anchor. He became focused in his practice, developed a passion for golf and was a maniacal supporter of Liverpool though the team more often than not fell short of his expectation. He had was a zest for life.

He was generous in kind and cash to many worthy causes of the Bar. He donated freely.


RR Mahendran had his faults and his shortcomings – even at death. Who are we to judge his faults or cast aspersions on him. Did Jesus not say, let the man who had not sinned cast the first stone It is for him to make peace with his God and knowing him he will file a habeas corpus just to get a meeting with God to resolve matters.

Let us remember RR Mahendran above all as a lawyer, proud that he was one of us and more importantly he was from the Johore Bar.

SHALOM.

DO YOU KNOW HINDUS DONT EAT BEEF ? DO WE CARE?

On Monday, 4th September 2006, the New Straits Times published a letter by Azlan Ramli a former Malay Mail reporter giving a poignant account of his meeting with the late Rev. K. Sri Dhammananda Nayaka Maha Thera, the Buddhist Chief Priest of Malaysia and Singapore who passed away on the 31st August 2006.

The letter by Azlan Ramli is published as had appeared.

REMEMBERING A GREAT HUMAN

Honoured and humbled by thoughtful gesture

AS a reporter with The Malay Mail between 1994-2005, I met Rev K. Sri Dhammananda several times – usually during Wesak Day celebrations he led at the Buddhist Maha Vihara (temple) in Brickfields and on a few other occasions.
On Christmas Day, 1998, I was assigned to cover a party for some 200 underprivileged children. It was held at the Vihara in Brickfields.
Organised by a group of Christians, the Santa Claus was a Hindu and the contributor for all the ballons adorning the party area was a Muslim.
December 1998 was also the month of Ramadan. By the time I arrived at the Vihara, it was 6.30pm and many children were already playing around, taking photos with Santa and being entertained by a clown, among others.
As the time approached for buka puasa, I was busy thinking of where to go for my dinner. The Reverend, the Vihara’s religious adviser back then, must have been observing me. As if he had read my mind, he calmly said : “Young man, don’t think too much. You can buka puasa here. I will accompany you”.
“Please forgive us. We only have vegetarian dishes here,” he humbly and smilingly added, while leading me to a dining table somewhere in the Vihara’s premises.
So there we were, sitting at the dining table, together with a few other priests in their saffron robes and a spread of vegetarian dishes was laid out in front of us.
As I was checking my watch, the Reverend brought out a small pocket radio transistor, and tuned in to a Bahasa Malaysia radio station.
As scheduled, the muezzin recited the call for the evening prayer through the little speaker, which also marked the moment to breakfast.
“Go ahead, Azlan,” he told me to start first. Only after I had my first gulp of water for the day did he and the other priests start eating. I was honoured and humled at the same time.
The fact that I didn’t go to a KFC outlet or the teh tarik stall wasn’t because I didn’t know how to turn down an invitation of the chief high priest of Malaysian and Singaporean Theravada Buddhism. It was buka puasa in a Buddhist temple for me, during a Christmas party.
The Reverend’s humble gesture greatly raised my respect and admiration for him.
During that brief encounter with him, my personal tolerance and understanding of other people’s faiths, beliefs and cultures was greatly altered for the better.
In less than an hour of dining together, his simple humility made me a better person, more open-minded and drastically changed for the better my ways of looking at the world I live in.
To me, the Rev Dhammananda was a great Buddhist and more importantly, a great human being.
Malaysia and its Buddhist community lost a very special person on Aug 31.
With much sadness, I bid farewell to him.

Ironically on the same day I had received an email from friend, Adeline, recounting her unfortunate experience at an event organized by one of the government’s ministry. Being upset and understandably she courageously wrote a letter to the ministry.

Adeline’s letter is published as contained in the email I received.

I was a guest at the recent launching of ‘Pameran Perjuangan Ke Arah Kemerdekaan’ & the new publication by our highly respected YB Datuk Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim. I was deeply disappointed to note that several matters of import in the interest of our country’s multi-cultural society failed to be respected and incorporated into the event.

There were dignitaries both local and from the various foreign consulates there but the Event Managers were absolutely oblivious to their presence and were not sensitive to local ethnic sentiments. How can we truly say we can proud of our multi-ethnic society when we practice total disregard and disrespect of others.

For one, the event managers failed to ensure that their dancers who represented the Chinese & Indians were indeed of that ethnic race!

Is it that hard to get one Chinese and Indians each?.. furthermore, instead of dressing to reflect the national costumes from various parts of the country, eg Minangkabau, Kadazan, etc, some of the dancers were dressed in appallingly unsuitable costumes!

When it was announced that a rep from each ethnic race would deliver the key to the chest containing YB’s Book, it did not happen as such.

These small gestures sends waves of messages to the invitees..both local & foreign..

Further to that, the beautiful collection of exhibits were all titled only in Bahasa Malaysia. Our foreign guests would have gone back wondering why did they even bother to attend! The food served for VIPs were not labeled to indicate what they were???

…Beef was placed at the table without label. Insensitive to say the least.

How can we preach harmony, mutual respect and racial solidarity when simple gestures like these reflect blatant disrespect and disregard of others.

I was deeply saddened by this event rather than proud of it. I truly wanted so much to purchase the book YB had written but the event had sapped the patriotic mood out of me. Frankly I don’t think anyone’s going to take this comment at all seriously but I had to say my piece in the true sprit of Nationalism.

Both YB & our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister delivered such beautiful speeches surrounding national unity & harmony between people of many races in our country yet sadly that message failed to reflect upon KeKWa’s handlng of the same event.

I believe it is time for KEKKWA to Walk The Talk if it truly aspires to achieve the very objectives it stands for.

The ministry’s response was;

From: aduanbb@heritage.gov.my
To:
Subject: Re: Aduan Perkhidmatan Awam
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:27:47 +0800(CST)

Behalf of the Ministry, We would like to thanks for your concerning and response by giving the information about the quality of the services which provided by government servant.

For your information, this hotline only received the complaining about misbehaviour of the government servant which contradicted to our Budi Bahasa and Nilai-nilai Murni Campaign.

Therefore, action can only be made if your compaining is related to our observation.

Thank you.

[ note: Notice the reply which is written in atrocious English and is a testament to how low the standard of English has fallen but more importantly notice also the tone of the reply which neither addresses the complaint nor is apologetic for its transgression.
--Norman ]


The compassionate act by the Rev. Dhammanananda as recounted by Azlan Ramli serves as a great example of religious understanding and racial tolerance. On the contrary, the act of serving beef at KEKKWA’s function ought not to be dismissed as an administrative hiccup suffice to be resolved with an apology or even worst to reason out that the Hindus and the Taoist guest at the function were provided with other options.

The act of serving beef at a government organized function can only fortify the view that despite all the sloggering of multi racial, multi religious and multi cultural Malaysia, in truth, many of us and worst of all the government continue to be ignorant, insensitive and indifferent to another’s and particularly the minority races cultural and religious norms. In fact many a times Hindus have complained about beef being served by organisers at functions attended by Hindus. It would seem that the main concern to the organisers of functions where food is served is to ensure that no pork is served. On the other hand, beef is provided as an option. Infact I (a Christian) together with a Hindu friend Kuna, had to move a resolution in the Annual General Meeting to stop the Johore Bar from serving beef at functions organiused by the Johore Bar.

Recently, Malaysia celebrated 49 years of independence. We may have achieved nationhood but honestly it is questionable if we have not lived as Malaysians. As Malaysians, we are obliged to know and understand each other and that includes knowing ,understanding and more importantly respecting cultural norms and religious sensitivities but alas ! after 49 years there are Malaysians who remain ignorant and worst of all insensitive.

Imagine after 49 years, the government, of all people still do not know that Hindus and Taoist do not consume beef.!!!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MALAYSIAN MICROCHIP ?

Recently, in Parliament, Mohd. Shafie Mohd Salleh (BN- Hulu Langat), suggested that the government implant a microchip in illegal immigrants or make them wear an unremovable bracelet to prevent them from returning to Malaysia. (Malaysiakini 30th August 2006).

Ironically, a microchip with such possibilities had indeed become became available when on September 5, 2003 Dr Mahathir Mohamed announced that the government had for an undisclosed amount bought the intellectual property rights to a miniature microchip from a Japanese company FEC Inc. Dr Mahathir Mohamed claimed that the aptly dubbed Malaysian Microchip (MM) and measuring 0.5mm x 0.5mm - approximately the size of a decimal point was so small and so revolutionary that the microchip could be embedded into currencies to passport and even inside human bodies. Since the microchip also came with a built-in antenna, there were a myriad of possibilities.

Then, a year later, on the 2nd March 2004, the government announced that it would begin commercial production of the microchip which initially would be manufactured in Japan and thereafter production will be shifted to Silterra (M) Sdn Bhd, a wafer fabrication firm belonging to Kedah state government.

Three years after the first announcement it would be good to know whatever has become of Malaysian Microchip?

RECONSIDER PEACEKEEPING DUTIES DECISION.

Malaysia’s offer and readiness’ to contribute troops as part of United Nations peacekeepers to Southern Lebanon raises a number of issues.

Firstly, as a general rule, peacekeepers are deployed when a ceasefire is in place and parties to conflict has given its consent. Malaysia on the on the other hand views Israel with utter contempt. Demonisation of Israel receives official sanction. The Education Minister, Dato Seri Hishamuddin, encourages the burning (infact calls for more burning) and desecration of the Israeli flag. The Foreign Minister proposes that the Organisation of Islamic Conference to arm Hizbollah to fight Israel. Then there is the Malaysian media devoid of any impartiality, which not only absolves Hizbollah from any blame but instead attempts to portray the conflict as a religious conflict.

Now is it any surprise why Israel is objecting to the presence of Malaysian peace-keepers ?. Further, could impartiality and neutrality be maintained by our Malaysian peace keepers particularly after having being fed on a diet of Jewish hatred . After all, during the Bosnia conflict, Malaysian peacekeepers even burned down a church.

Secondly, Malaysia and Malaysian soldiers has no business in the present conflict particularly when countries like Egypt, Jordan, Oatar, Oman or even Bahrain, all countries in the Middle East which either have diplomatic ties or trade ties with both Israel and Lebanon are non committal but instead hope someone else, read Malaysia would do guard duties. Why can’t, other O.I.C countries like Nigeria, Gambia, Tunisia or even Mauritania which have either diplomatic or trade ties with Israel and Lebanon cannot be forthcoming and committing their soldiers to peacekeeping duties. I am certain peacekeepers from these countries would be acceptable to all warring factions.

Why should Malaysia risk the life of its soldiers just to earn some brownie points from the O.I.C. In any event, I am certain that Malaysian soldiers took oath to defend our country and they for a moment would not have imagined that their country would put them to the risk of death in another country’s conflict.

Malaysia should reconsider its proposal.
NORMAN FERNANDEZ

REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF UNITED STATES TO MALAYSIA.

Thank God good sense prevailed when Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi ticked off Khairy Jamaluddin and UMNO Youth’s for talking big in calling for boycott of United States products.

Lest it is forgotten, those having the warped idea of calling for a boycott may well worth to be reminded that United States is Malaysia’s largest trading partner and the largest foreign investor in Malaysia. In 2005 Malaysia-United States trade was valued at US $ 44 Billion with U.S imports from Malaysia standing at almost US$ 34 Billion. This by itself should be a sobering reminder of the importance of maintaining and even forging good relations with United States.

United States companies are also engaged in manufacturing of semiconductors and other electronic/computer products and also in oil, gas and petrochemical sectors, all providing Malaysians with employment. Even Mc Donald’s Restaurant and Coca-Cola the potent symbols of Americanism provides employment to thousands of Malay-Muslims.

Adding to this are the technical trainings, scholarships and grants preferential treatments and other assistance provided to Malaysia by United States. “The action to boycott can backfire on Malaysia” said Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Rightly said particularly when remembering that one George Soros singularly was capable of bringing Malaysia to its knees.

Bravado and brinkmanship, naturally has its limits.

NORMAN FERNANDEZ
anfalaw@streamyx.com

CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP. PART 1.

In Malaysia, freedom of right to practice religion is a fundamental right which is enshrined under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

Article 11(1) of the Constitution states:-
(1). Every person has the right to profess and practice his own religion and subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

The limitation as provided in Clause 4 states that State and Federal laws may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrines or believes among persons professing the religion of Islam.

Thus, Article 11 in effect clearly envisages that a person has:-

Firstly, the right to embrace and profess a religion of his choice;

Secondly, the right to practice, perform and participate in rituals and practices of his religion and this includes the right to congregate with others of the same faith in a common place of worship; and

Thirdly, the right to propagate the tenets and teaching of his religion subject to and being mindful of Article 11(4) of the Constitution

This article however seeks to explore specifically Article 11 (3) of the Federal Constitution.

Religion is practiced by profession of faith and as such any meaningful practice of religion would obviously requires people professing the same faith to be able to congregate together at a common place of worship in order to be able to perform the rituals and practices of the religion. This constitutional guarantee is indeed provided under Article 11(3).

Article 11(3) of the Constitution states:

Every religious groups has the right to:-

(a). to manage its own religious affairs;

(b). to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

(c). to acquire and to own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law.

Regretfully, this constitutional guarantee in Article 11(3) is bridled with obstacles.

Presently, Non Muslim are facing difficulties in obtaining not only land for the construction of places of worship but worst of all applications for places of worship are either rejected or approvals not forthcoming. Adding to these problems are the insensitive actions of local authorities in demolishing places of worship. Infact in recent months many Hindu temples in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan has been demolished by the authorities. More often then not these temples were demolished without the authorities providing a proper alternative place and even if an alternative land is provided, it comes with absurd condition such that the temple cannot be more than 10 feet by 10 feet ! (note: for comparison, a graveyard is usually 6 feet by 6 feet ) It is no surprise that in recent months there have been a number of skirmishes when temples were being demolished.

Further, it does not necessarily mean that even if the authorities have given approval, construction can commence and or continue unhindered. Sometimes even after approval, the construction of the places of worship can continue to touch a raw nerve. Thus, incidents of objections, protest and even stop order and revocation of approval are not uncommon.
The Shah Alam Catholic church is a classic example where approval granted was revoked and the authorities then alienated another piece of land and midway through construction the approval and the alienation of the land was once again revoked. Once again the Catholic Church had to make application for permission for approval and alienation of land to construct a church. Since approval was not forthcoming and faced without any choice, a legal action was filed. Good sense finally prevailed when the matter was resolved out of court when the authorities relented and approved the alienation and construction of a Catholic Church. Imagine it took the Non Muslim ( Catholics ) almost 20 years to enjoy the constitutional guarantee under Article 11(3) of the Constitution.

This is rather unfortunate particularly when we claim to be multi cultural, multi religious and multi racial, we are also quick to cast aside the spirit of tolerance and understanding. Worst of all the Non Muslims find it difficult to reconcile how the authorities are steadfast in refusing permission for places of worship can readily and expeditiously approve “rumah urut badan dan batin”, massage parlours masquerading as brothels and even love hotels. To add insult to injury these establishments which are mushrooming at an alarming rate are located in residential areas.
TO BE CONTINUED.
CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND THE RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP. -PART 2-

REAPPRAISING DR MAHATHIR’S LEGACY

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed took office as the forth prime minister of Malaysia on the 16th July 1981. For 22 years until he stepped down in October 2003, Dr Mahathir was not only the longest serving prime minister of Malaysia but has also been credited for engineering Malaysia’s rapid modernization earning him the soubriquet of Bapa Kemodenan Malaysia (father of modernization).

Malaysia’s physical transformation is obvious. After all, Dr Mahathir presided over a period of phenomenal growth and at the end of Dr Mahathir’s tenure, Malaysia bristled with concrete symbols from the gleaming airport to the impressive skyline.

Dr Mahathir left office in a blaze of endearment and glowing tributes. Three years later, the period for veneration is over and the shenanigans of Dr Mahathir’s rule are slowly being untangled and the warts of his administration are beginning to show.

A reappraisal of his legacy will show that the transformation of Malaysia has come with a price.

JUDICIARY UNDER DR MAHATHIR

The Malaysian judiciary before Dr Mahathir though conservative was however fairly independent and was the envy of the region. Today it is a mere shadow of its former glory. In fact there has been cases of the Chief Justices who left office in a shadow of controversy.

Judicial independence from the executive was so severely compromised that it was reduced to becoming a chimera in the Dr Mahathir’s period. The judiciary not only became subservient but also the tool of the executive.

A clear case of political subservience can be seen in the Lim Guan Eng case. Lim Guan Eng was sentenced to 18 months jail under the Sedition Act and Printing Presses and Publication Act for publicly exposing the case of statutory rape of a 15 year old girl. On the other hand, the then Attorney General conveniently withdrew the criminal charges for statutory rape against the Former Chief Minister of Malacca. In a strange twist, the 15 year old girl in the Lim Guan Eng’s case gave evidence on oath that the Chief Minister did indeed have sex with her.

For the Malaysian judiciary, a critical watershed was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as the Lord President and the suspension of five Supreme Court judges and the eventual sacking of two of them. In the aftermath of the crisis, even the Supreme Court was renamed as the Federal Court while the Lord Presidents position was renamed to Chief Justice.

There are various interpretation of these events but the main outcome has been the judiciary becoming politically compliant and the strengthening of the hands of the executive.

Then there was the Anwar Ibrahim saga, when in 1997 Dr Mahathir used homosexual shenanigans as the reason to sack Anwar Ibrahim the then Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. The government brought sodomy and abuse of power charges against Anwar Ibrahim. No matter what the twist and turns were in this highly published case, once Anwar Ibrahim incurred the wrath of Dr Mahathir, the outcome became a forgone conclusion. Anwar Ibrahim was found guilty and sentenced to six years imprisonment for corruption and nine years imprisonment for sodomy.

Much has been written about this saga but the root cause which led to the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim from the government and party was power. Dr Mahathir perceived Anwar Ibrahim moves as an attempt by Anwar and his supporters to grab power. This earned Dr Mahathir’s wrath and he responded with vigour and without scruples.

EDUCATION UNDER DR MAHATHIR

At independence Malaysia inherited English as the language of public education. However, English language became a politically sensitive issue and was viewed as a relic of the colonial.

Thus in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots and in the upsurge of Malay nationalism, English was sidelined and replaced by Bahasa Malaysia as not only the national language but the National Education Policy made Bahasa Malaysia the medium of instruction in schools.

It was also thought that with Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction, it would give Malay students an equal footing or even better a head against Non Malay students. Thirty years later, unfortunately it is the Non Malays students who have became adept in Bahasa Malaysia, English and their mother tongue being another advantage. Whatever initial advantage the Malay students had has been surpassed with the Non Malay students being conversant in almost three languages. The Malay students are now doubly disadvantaged when Dr Mahathir reversed the teaching of maths and science from Bahasa Malaysia to English

Now in a globalised and knowledge based economy with English and Mandarin becoming a prerequisite, nationalism has come with a heavy price.

This can particularly be seen in the field of Information Technology. In 1996, Dr Mahathir came to California to promote Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor. Bill Gates described it “amazing”. Ten years later it is Bangalore, India which is making waves and much of it has to do with competency in English.

Thirty years later, after Bahasa Malaysia becoming the medium of instruction, and now recognizing that the Malaysia’s education system was losing its competitive advantage and particularly the standard of English was deteorating, in a complete reversal of policy, Dr Mahathir attempted to remedy the situation by ordering the teaching of maths and science in English. However, having allowed and watched the rot set in , the reversal came a little too late.

There is a general decline in English competency. Thus it did not come at a surprise when the Human Resource Minister recently revealed that there are almost 60,000 unemployed graduates mostly Malays and most of them were not proficient in English.

Under Dr Mahathir, not only there was a gradual decline in the Malaysian education system but the education system itself became polarized. Teachers instead of teaching were often more concerned with forms and dressing. Instead of building on the heritage of the mission schools, school administrators worked hard to malay-nise the school.

While in the past, children of all races mixed freely and studied together and thereby building common bond, friendship and understanding, many parents and particularly the Chinese seeing national schools were on a slide lost faith began to send their children to vernacular schools. Schools could have been the best place to initiate and cultivate national unity but that opportunity has long gone. Malaysians have regressed and have become polarized from school age.


ECONOMY UNDER DR MAHATHIR

Industrialisation and privatization has been the centerpiece of Dr Mahathir’s era. Dr Mahathir wanted to transform Malaysia from an agricultural based economy to a regional industrialization hub. To achieve this, Dr Mahathir had his ambitions, initiatives and plans and launched his favoured projects with flourishes of economic nationalism. In the end many of the projects entailed huge problems, flaws and abuses and even needed government bailouts at the expense of public funds.

An example is Perwaja Steel which was Dr Mahathir’s showpiece steel plant which was to spearhead the country’s industrialization is today a spectacular failure, having lost billions by mid 1990.
Proton another of Dr Mahathir’s pet project is now floundering with plummeting car sales and is looking for a suitor. On the other hand late upstarts Thailand’s motor industry has grown and developed to the extent that Rayong is called Detroit of the East.

Together with industrialization, privatization was to have been the centerpiece of Dr Mahathir’s efforts to leapfrog to a first world status from a third world one and privatization of government assets were carried out with a zeal. Privatisation was also meant to be an effective tool for redistribution of wealth. A noble vision. Unfortunately, Malaysia’s privatization first launched in 1983, got off to a wrong footing because many projects were instead awarded to political favorites without competitive bidding. Worst still, handpicked elite who were linked to Dr Mahathir and UMNO who got the big awards and they in turn saw it as an instant ticket to richness.

The government’s public assets were privatized at discounts but the government used public funds to renationalized assets at prices far exceeding market levels. The government linked businessmen were doubly blessed by firstly benefiting from the privatization and secondly when crisis struck to be able to walk away unscathed from the debts and liabilities. Soon government linked businessmen were comforted to know that it was alright to fail for the government would ultimately bail them out using public funds.

It was this blurring of the relationship and boundaries between business, politics and state which inevitably gave rise to patronage, bailouts and corruption and with the consequence of billions of public funds been wasted or squandered.

The proof can be seen in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis. In the 1997 economic crisis, the top 10 borrowers hogged a staggering US 36 billion of the non performing loans and these borrowers were the fortunate few who had Dr Mahathir’s imprimatur.

Much is said about Dr Mahathir’s defiance of the International Monetary Fund following the 1997 economic crisis which was widely blamed on East Asian corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Many economist have praised Dr Mahathir’s handling of the crisis using unconventional method and it must have been most gratifying for Dr Mahathir. To be fair, Dr Mahathir’s capital control seemed eminently sensible in September 1998 when there seemed no end to the Asian crisis.

Dr Mahathir blamed the 1997 on the currency speculators and particularly George Soros for the financial crisis. During the worst of the Asian crisis Dr Mahathir even hauled out a copy of the protocols of the Elders of Zion and blamed the Jews rather than his own mismanagement. Dr Mahathir conveniently forgot that his government was also responsible for the very expensive speculative failures when Bank Negara suffered multi billion ringgit losses from its massive purchases of sterling before the sterlings collapse in September 1992.

For Dr Mahathir, it was the currency speculators, the west and the Jews which caused the crisis but never his mismanagement.

Dr Mahathir has been praised for saving Malaysia but lost amidst the laudatory praises is the question as to how did Malaysia end up in this mess in the first place. Was Malaysia’s economy so pernicious that it could take one man George Soros to cripple Malaysia’s economy?

Looking back, Dr Mahathir Mohamed should bear responsibility for it was his own flawed policies and major failures in implementation and for not checking abuses in high places, political and corporate which had created the mess. It had to take the 1997 crisis to lay bare his economic management.

Reevaluating Dr Mahathir legacy will show that although he had the hardware but by using the wrong software, the drive has developed major fault.

Norman Fernandez

POLITICS. QUESTIONS MALAYSIANS WANT DR. MAHATHIR TO ANSWER.

For a man who held in complete contempt anyone who dared to question his policies and decisions, it comes at a complete surprise that in retirement Tun Dr Mahathir has suddenly taken the high moral ground and is now unrelenting in his pursuit for answers for decisions taken by the present government of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Since Tun Dr Mahathir demands answers, it is only right and justified that the same ordinary public which he now claims to be part of also requires him to answers the following questions :

QUESTIONS FOR MAHATHIR

1. What was the basis of inviting Libyan-American Sadeq Mustaffa to Malaysia to set up InventQjaya Sdn Bhd and to also give a grant of RM440 million? What was the benefit for Malaysia and how has Malaysia benefitted?


2. What was the justification for privatizing profitable state owned enterprises like Telekom Malaysia, Tenaga Nasional and Pos Malaysia?


3. What was the basis of granting Indah Water Konsortium a concession to manage the national sewerage system? Could you explain the RM1.4 billion soft loan to IWK which is clearly irrecoverable losses?


4. You insinuate Khairy Jamaluddin. Did you not assist your son Mirzan by rescuing Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (then owned by Mirzan) and which had debts of RM1.7 billion using funds from Petronas? Was it not your administration which forced Malaysian International Shipping Company (MISC) to acquire the assets of Konsortium Perkapalan Nasional?


5. Did your government not sell Malaysian Airline System without an open tender to Tajuddin Ramli who had no knowledge whatsoever in running an airline? Why did your government bail out Tajuddin Ramli by paying RM8 per share when the shares were trading at RM3.60 in the open market.


6. Did your administration not bail out Time DotCom Bhd which was saddled with a RM5 billion debt? Why did your government bail out Time dotCom Bhd by using RM904 million from Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen to buy up 273.9 million unwanted Time dotcom shares incurring an instant loss of RM280 million?


7. Did you not force Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to buy 81.6 million unsubscribed public portion of the initial public offering (IPO) of Time Dotcom Bhd at RM 3.30 per share when the shares were trading at only between RM1.95 and RM2.10 and in the process incurring an instant loss of RM100 million?


8. Did you not bail out the light rail transit operators Projek Usahasama Transit Ringan Automatik Sdn Bhd (Putra) which belonged to Renong and Sistem Transit Aliran Ringan Sdn Bhd (STAR) using almost RM600 million from EPF which still resulted in EPF having to write off RM135 million and a share loss of RM96million?


9. Did your administration not award North South Expressway concession to UEM (who then formed PLUS) and then provide them with a loan of RM1.6 billion which was half of the tender price of RM3.2 billion. What was the justification in your administration grant PLUS such overgenerous terms which included annual increment of toll rates, guaranteed traffic volumes?


10. What was the justification of your administration in 1998 in awarding the RM24.3 Billion contract to PSC Industries Berhad, together with and an advancement of more than RM2.5 Billion to build naval patrol boats? Why were they also given exclusive rights to service the Malaysian navy’s entire fleet? Could you confirm that the first two ships built by PSCI could not even pass pre-delivery trials? How would you answer to the Public Accounts Committee’s revelation that it will cost the government another RM120 million just to salvage the first two vessels nearing completion after seven years?


11. What was the basis of awarding Ekran Bhd the contract to build the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam in sarawak? Why did your administration take over the construction of the Dam by bailing out Ekran by almost RM 200 Million for “work done”?


12. What was the justification for your administration in MAMINCO to corner the London tin market which instead resulted in MAMINCO losing RM150 million?


13. Was your administration not vitriolic about George Soros and other currency traders and hedge fund managers and yet presided over speculation in the foreign exchange markets which ultimately cost Bank Negara almost RM9.3 billion losses?


14. What are the total losses of Perwaja Steel and how much of public funds have been used to cover these losses of Perwaja Steel?


15. What was the basis for your administration, at the expense of Malaysian tax payers, to force Tenaga Nasional Berhad toaccept such grossly unfair and unjustified terms in purchasing energy from independent power producers?


16. What was the justification of privatizing government medical stores to Southern Task Sdn Bhd which then hiked up the price of medicines?


17. Perhaps you could reveal how much of Petronas monies have been used by your administration in bailouts and projects of folly.

Naturally there are many more questions the Malaysian public would want answers to but answering these questions first would be a good start.

This article first appeared in Malaysiakini July 5, 2006.

Norman Fernandez
Johor Bahru.

CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP.
PART 2.

The Fifth Malaysia Plan, on nation building said “A greater understanding and appreciation of the sensitivities of the various communities as well as a recognition of the commonness of experiences and values would go a long way in promoting racial harmony and tolerance and serve to strengthen the bonds among all Malaysians.”

Twenty years on (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tabled the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006), Non Muslims continue to face great difficulties in obtaining approval and place of worship.

The problems and tension would not have risen, had the government not only ensured that there was harmonization of local municipal laws and state laws with the Federal Constitution in respect of Non Muslims places of worship but also kept abreast and taken into consideration demographic changes. In a rapidly developing Malaysia, local municipal planning policies have not kept up with the need for clear, fair and equitable guidelines for Non Muslim places of worship. Progress and economic boom meant new housing areas and new townships. Alas, housing areas and townships were approved and even developed without consideration for places of worship for Non Muslims. Worst of all, temples situated in private and government land had to make way for development often without alternative land being made first and even if made the proposed alternative is not suitable.

While religious groups can purchase land or even properties, Non Muslims face the difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval for converting the land use to that of a religious use.

Further, there are other obstacles. Under the Garis Panduan Perancangan: Tempat Ibadat Bukan Islam, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (September 1988) the ministerial guideline directs local councils to refuse application for building of Non Muslim religious buildings in Muslim majority areas. Also, for a long time regulation have remained that all application for building of Non Muslim place of worship must be referred to State Islamic Religious Council and Jabatan Kuasa Ketua Kampung for approval. Then there is the requirement that there should at least be 5000 adherents of the same faith before a place of worship can be considered. In fact, the Menteri Besar of Johor on 21st December 2001 in the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislature) said that permission for building of places of worship will not be given unless the adherents of faith constitute a majority of the area. Going by the strict criteria it would mean that no church would ever be approved since it is unlikely that the Catholics will ever constitute a majority in any place.

For effective practice of religion one must be able to congregate with others of the same faith. Due to the difficulties in obtaining places of worship, some religious faith have acquired houses in residential areas, shop houses, factory lots and even commercial buildings for the purpose of using them as places of worship. Admittedly and to a certain extent and praise God, the authorities have often kept an eye closed unless their presence and activities is such that it gives rise to objection and protest. Not withstanding this tacit approval, the fact remains that the local authorities has a whole gamut of laws which can be invoked to prosecute not only the religious group but even the owners of the building and even the devotees.

There are a number of ways the present problem can be resolved. A complete review and drafting of a fair and equitable guideline for Non Muslim places of worship is long overdue. The government should make it mandatory that developers set aside land for Non Muslim places of worship. The government should stop the practice of general demarcation presently practiced by developers as it does not identify which Non Muslim religious group is entitled. Land should be made available for all major religion or if that is economically not viable then at least make the land available for Non Muslim religious groups to acquire them. While it may be impractical for every housing area to have temples and churches, every constituency should have places of worship of the major religions.

Another alternative and a better alternative is to permit conversion of buildings such as shop houses or even disused halls and cinemas or even abandoned shopping complexes as places of worship. In fact in Johor there are many such building which have been left abandoned since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and these buildings can easily be converted to churches.

Recent incidents ought to be a reminder that if this issue is not handled sensitively, fairly and at the earliest, it can easily in the long term turn out to be another issue and which can be much more divisive.