KARPAL SINGH CONTROVERSY. NOW THE MUFTI OF PERAK ENTERS THE FRAY.

The Mufti of Perak is the latest to wade into the controversy surounding Karpal Singh’s statement regarding the extent of the powers of His Majesty Sultan of Perak. My personal view on this saga has already been made known. In brief, I am of the opinion that although Karpal Singh may be right in law, nevertheless it would have been politically prudent to leave it to others to make their observation or at the very least Karpal Singh ought to have put his views in temperate language.

Yesterday when I purchased a packet of nasi lemak for breakfast, the wrapper was from a page of Harian Metro and lo and behold! The page carried a statement of the Mufti of Perak.

Briefly this is what the Mufti said rebuking Karpal Singh. “Jangan menyakiti perasaan orang lain. Jangan menimbulkan kebencian dan kemarahan rakyat.” Fair comment I suppose.

Now, that’s strange when the rebuke and warning comes from someone who had a hand in the controversy surrounding the siege at Church Of Our lady Of Lourdes on November 6, 2006. At that time no one including the Mufti thought of prudence. No one bothered about “menyakiti perasaan orang lain” or even was concerned that the mobsters could “menimbulkan kebencian dan kemarahan orang lain.” In fact, in the aftermath, there was not even a ounce of decency from anyone to apologise to the Catholics. The Mufti did not rebuke anyone or condemn the mob that gathered outside the church. Worst of all, until today no one knows whatever has happened to the police investigation. Till today no one has been charged although a prime suspect was indeed arrested.

But in Karpal Singh’s case there has been a bee line to the police station to lodge police reports against Karpal Singh. The police has super efficiently and in meteorite speed wrapped up the investigation and papers sent to the Attorney General’s Office.

The long and short of it, is that, its time people stopped this SELECTIVE “menyakiti perasaan and jangan menimbulkan kebencian dan kemarahan” claptrap. Being hurt or being angry is not the exclusive domain of any one community or religion.

NOW THIS WAS THE ARTICLE POSTED ON NOVEMBER 20,2006 IN MY BLOG. PLEASE READ…

THE EVIL SMS THAT LAUNCHED A PROTEST.

All right thinking Malaysians and particularly Catholics are outraged at the intimidating actions of ill informed groups of Muslims who on November 5, 2006 pursuant to an SMS came in droves and gathered outside Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Silibin, Ipoh Perak causing fear and anxiety to the worshippers.
(Read The Herald November 12, 2006)

The SMS message said:-A number of Malays will be baptized by Dato Azhar Mansor this Sunday at the Slibin Church, Ipoh. Recently 600 students from Ungku Omar Polytechnic have converted to Christianity. Revealed by the Perak Mufti this afternoon at the state masjid. Please forward to all who stand for Islam.
(Translation)

The original SMS in Malay (and unedited) said:-Sejumlah Melayu akn dibaptiskan oleh Dato Azhar Mansor Ahad ini di Gereja Selibin IPO. Seramai 600 plajar Poli teknik Unku Omr Ipoh telah msuk Kristian baru2 ini. Pendedahan oleh Mufti Perak ptg ini di masjid Negeri. Sampaikan SMS kpd orang-2 yang mahukan ISLAM .(sic)

That malicious SMS ( which had indeed been circulating for almost three days before the incident ), on November 5, 2006 was enough to mobalise Muslim protestors ranging from individuals to political parties-read PAS and Muslim NGO’s to gather outside the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes. In truth what was to take place and did indeed take place in the Church was the First Holy Communion celebration for 98 children.

In the aftermath and in the days following the incident, the Perak Mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria began to shed some light on the issue. He first revealed that a woman from Selangor whom he later named as Raja Sherina as the originator of the text message. The woman had apparently on October 21, 2006 at 9.33 am sent the said SMS to him.

According to the Mufti, this woman had claimed that she had studied at the International Islamic University and the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. On her return from Egypt she was doing social work with missionaries when she converted. However, she claimed that she later returned to Islam.

The Mufti further claimed that the woman and her husband had come back to his house on October 22, 2006 to confirm the substance of the message.

According to the Mufti, the Perak Mufti Department then decided to record his meeting with Raja Sherina and copies of the VCD were later handed over to Special Branch, Perak Menteri Besar, the Prime Minister’s Department and the Islamic Development Department for further action.(read NST pg.12).

Thereafter on November 2, during a meeting at the conference room of the state mosque with members of non-governmental organization the Mufti once again brought up the issue of the SMS. The Mufti then claimed that on November 3, 2006 he was informed that a number of NGO’s who attended the meeting would hold a peaceful protest against the alleged baptism. As the highest religious official of the state, the Mufti could have and should have in no uncertain terms stopped the proposed protest. Instead he made some sheepish attempt by discouraging the protestors before leaving town for Syria.

What all this means is that as early as October 22, 2006 and some 12 days before the alleged baptism ceremony, the Mufti and many others already had knowledge of the SMS and the impending “baptism “. Thus the Mufti as a religious leader could and should have acted with greater responsibility first preventing the protest and secondly and more importantly verifying the authenticity of the SMS. Neither of this was done. Instead time was spent doing a VCD recording!. The 12 days was a period long enough for the Mufti and all concerned to do among others number of thing:-

a. Investigate further about Raja Sherina background and verify the truth of her claim;

b. Since the national mariner Azhar Mansor was said to be going to perform the baptism rites, why did the Mufti or other authorities not contact and obtain confirmation from him. After all he was in Langkawi. A denial by Azhar Mansor could have expeditiously resolved and concluded that the SMS was false;

c. Find out the procedure how one is baptized into Catholism. For the uninitiated, in Catholism only a priest can conduct the baptism rites. Thus no lay Catholic and worst of all a recent convert would not be allowed to perform the baptism rites and that includes Azhar Mansor even if he had converted;

d. In the spirit to ensure religious harmony, the Mufti could have verified the authenticity of the SMS with the Church. Naturally this would have been easier had there been open channels of communication;

e. Investigate and verify if there was any truth that 600 students of Ungku Omar Polytechnic had indeed converted to Christianity.

Perhaps it may not be wrong to assume that what was hoped for, was to catch the Church in the act. That would have been sensational news and Azhar Mansor would have been the icing. Instead and thankfully the SMS and the alleged event has turned out to be one big hoax and now the Mufti is scurrying away and hoisting the blame solely on the messenger. The SMS turned out to be not only malicious but also mischievous, irresponsible and has without any doubt has damaged inter-religious relationship. Now the authorities are searching for Raja Sherina and Raja Sherina (if caught) could be charged under the Sedition Act or under the Multimedia and Communication act.

Strangely, the Mufti now advises that should anyone receives similar text message on such issues, he should forward them to the police and the authorities instead spreading them. Fair advice, Then why did he without first verifying the authenticity of the SMS, on November 2, 2006 made the SMS known to others particularly to the NGO’s .? As a religious leader, does he not know that his exalted position requires him to act with prudence and a greater responsibility is required from him.

This is what Johan Jaafar writing in his column NST Point Blank on November 18, 2006 (about the Mufti) had to say:-

“Now this person have been known to make ridiculous statements on almost everything-banishing AIDS sufferers to an island, giving out fatwa (decrees) that smoking is haram and even stating frightening figures about Muslims who have become apostates”.

Incidentally, in February 2006 the Mufti made a sensational revelation claiming that 250,000 Muslims (of which 100,000 were Malays) had apostised themselves while 100,000 more had submitted their application to do so. Never mind that he was never able to substantiate his claim save for stating that these figures were obtained from “reliable sources”. Still it was enough for some NGO’s and political parties read PAS to go on the overdrive. In the end on November 11, 2006 Malaysiakini reported the findings by Dr Mohd Azam Mohd Ali, professor of law at University Technology Mara who basing on official data obtained from the state syariah court, religious departments and the National Registration Department recorded that from 1999 to 2003 there were 750 applications. Of these, only 220 were granted throughout the five years and most of these were applicants who were converts to Islam. Clearly the figures bandied around by the Mufti has been debunked.

The Catholics and Non Muslims are most relieved at the swift reaction and response by the police and the government. Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said that firm action must be taken against those who had spread the SMS message because the “SMS message is dangerous as it can lead to racial disputes and create a tense situation”.

The Prime Minister according to a report in the NST is reported to have told his cabinet that this was a matter which could not be treated lightly. The Prime Minister also wants those responsible be severely punished because “they did with the intent to provoke anger”. The good Prime Minister could not be more correct. Catholics and Non Muslims are most comforted by the Prime Minister when he returned to the issue of the said SMS during the UMNO General Assembly when the Prime Minister when addressing the issue of intolerance said:-

“It is this same group who makes such proclamation that are conjuring imaginary threats aimed at inciting Muslims, hoping that they (Muslims) will become more intolerant of others.Their agenda is to see Malaysia torn apart, for us to fail as a multi racial, multi religious nation. This is not Islam.For example, so many SMSes have been sent, claiming mass baptisms of Muslims and the purported formation of a Malay Christian Association. There are even those who claim- without proof-that hundreds of Malay Muslims have become apostates.This kind of incitement whips many Malays into a frenzy because we do not have a culture of seeking to verify what we hear, preferring to believe everything we are told.It is such unfounded claims which lead to many becoming angry and even militant.But when the lies are exposed, those who create them scurry into hiding, nowhere to be seen and not even attempting to rectify the situation or to calm things down.”

The good Prime Minister could not have said any better. He has soothed the pain and anguish of the Catholics. However the authorities must show courage and take this matter seriously and not only investigate but also apprehend and prosecute the individuals and groups that have deliberately tried to sow hatred and racial ill-will in this country.

If the perpetrators and those involved are not apprehended and prosecuted, then there is every danger that an ill-informed group could merely being suspicious of the language and skin-tone may on a Sunday appear at the church doorstep to inspect and verify if the Indonesians migrants, Sabahan and Sarawakian or even Filipinos attending praise and worship are indeed Christians.

Never again should the Catholics and Non Muslims be subjected to such trepidation and that the legitimate exercise of their faith including religious and holy ceremonies in peace should be respected and protected.

Surah al Hujraat 49 : 6 - O you who believe ! if a sinner comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.

Surah al Hujraat 49 : 12 – O ye who believe ! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible) for suspicion in some cases is a sin.Fr Bernard Paul : “ A sad state of affairs.. because it shows how gullible people are and how quickly they believe in lies rather then checking first before responding. They are disrupting our religious service.

This is our Sunday celebration ! Its unjust…

KEMPEN RUMAH SELAMAT SEMASA CUTI SEKOLAH

Desperate Dr M plays the race card

Source : MalaysianInsider

JOHOR BARU, May 17 ─ Desperate times call for desperate measures. So Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today played the race card ─ something the former prime minister has not done since he was a young, upstart Umno politician in the 1960s.

You can read the full news here, but some of his more extreme remarks were :

“If we don’t speak up, if we choose to keep quiet, we will lose our rights and the other races will take over,”

“What does it say? Malaysia for Malaysians! This is the reality of the present situation. If we do not speak up, if we choose to keep quiet, we will lose our rights and the other races will take over..." - on the memorandum forwarded by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf)

"Today, the Malays have lost their political power and the non-Malays no longer respect the Malays and the Malay institutions.."

"Technically, I am now without a state and am asking Britain for asylum,"-P Waythamoorthy

P Waythamoorthy, who has been living in self-imposed exile after organising the mammoth Hindraf rally last November, denounced the government for allegedly revoking his passport.
The Hindu Rights Action Force chairman, who has been in London since he fled the country last December, said he has sought asylum in Britain after learning that Kuala Lumpur had cancelled his passport.

"Technically, I am now without a state and am asking Britain for asylum," the chairman of rights group Hindraf told AFP in a phone interview. "This is a very cowardly act by the Malaysian government against me in order to undermine me, but it really undermines their credibility locally and internationally."

Waythamoorthy said immigration officers at Gatwick airport told him that Kuala Lumpur had revoked his passport when he last entered Britain.

"The revocation of my passport is a last desperate attempt by the government in crippling my international lobby for the cause of Malaysian Indians and this unwarranted act has given me strength to continue the fight," he said from London.Immigration: He should come back

Malaysian immigration officials told AFP they were unaware of the passport cancellation and said Waythamoorthy should return home to check the status of his travel document.

But Waythamoorthy said Kuala Lumpur intended to force Britian to deport him so he could be arrested under Malaysia's Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for indefinite detention without trial. Waythamoorthy, along with his brother P Uthayakumar and four other Hindraf leaders, angered the government in November by mounting a mass rally alleging discrimination against minority ethnic Indians.

Waythamoorthy fled Malaysia in December to lobby the international community for support, while the other five were detained under the ISA. The Federal Court on Wednesday refused to release the five. Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific advocacy director T Kumar called on Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to give a "full explanation on the rationale for the cancellation."

"This is the first time I have heard of a political activist's passport being revoked by his own country's government," he told AFP.

EC says Govt rejected use of ink but PM says he merely gave "advice"

EC chief: Cabinet rejected indelible ink

Election Commission chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman today dropped a bombshell by revealing that the cabinet had rejected the use of indelible ink in the March 8 general election on the day Parliament was dissolved.“I have not told the country about this (before) but what happened was that cabinet rejected our proposed law (on indelible ink) on Feb 13 - the day dissolution of Parliament was done,”...(read the full news at Malaysiakini)

No Instruction For EC To Scrap Ink Plan, Says Abdullah
KUALA LUMPUR, May 17 (Bernama) -- The government did not instruct the Election Commission (EC) to scrap its plan of using indelible ink in the last general election.Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said, although in principle the government made the decision, it was delivered in the form of an opinion and not instruction. (read the full news here)

New Straits Time Friday, May 2, 2008

Karpal saga - Johor DAP Vice Chairman agrees with Nathaniel Tan

Possibility: Karpal alone to sink Pakatan kapal?
Posted on May 10th, 2008 by Nathaniel Tan

It’s just a question, before diehard Karpal supporters start flinging brickbats. I must say I felt for the poor guy, who talked about rushing out to war and suddenly finding comrades you expected to be there behind you conspicuously missing. In this case however, perhaps it was a case of one general not consulting fellow generals, colonels and privates before rushing out.

I’m the last person in the world to comment about where royal boundaries begin and end. It’s simply not my area of expertise. But from a purely political standpoint, surely there is a need for some nuance here. The question I believe should face YB Karpal is, is it worth it?
Yes, I can totally sympathise with being unflinchingly true to ones principles. It is admirable no doubt.

For me, one principle is knowing what to give and what to take, to maximise the good of the people. Having recently rewatched Hot Fuzz with polytikus, I know the dangers of being obsessed with the greater good, and indeed, the line must be drawn somewhere. Indefinite detention without trial or torture for instance. Or even, I’m prepared to concede, super (and I mean super) dramatic cases involving serious overstepping of boundaries where the royalty or religion is concerned.

But drawing the line at the Sultan’s objection with regards to the appointment of a state religious chief? At a time when race relations are facing unprecedented challenges, and the unscrupulous (Utusan) waits to pounce on absolutely anything remotely perceived as anti-Malay? It’s not about sweeping everything under the carpet until Pakatan sweeps into power. It’s about being respectful of people’s beliefs, and what they hold sacred. If indeed someone’s right to swing his fist ends where your nose begins, I think we may have reached more than a few nostril hairs by now.

I think even Anwar, even riding the height of his credit ratings, prefers to consult with the party before deciding on major policy stances, statements, and the like. I certainly shouldn’t presume to tell others how to do their job, but perhaps not making such consultations has resulted in YB

Karpal’s current unenviable position?

Again: especially if you share my view that this is no slippery slope yet, is this really the place to draw that line?

'Allah' case: Court grants leave for judicial review

Source : MalaysianInsider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 5 – The preliminary round is over. After 2 hearings held over the past 10 days, the Catholic Church can now proceed to the next level and properly seek a judicial review of the Internal Security Ministry's decision to ban The Herald from using the word “Allah” in its publication.

This morning, Justice Lau Bee Lan from the appellate and special powers division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court announced before a full courtroom that the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Murphy Pakiam, as publisher of The Herald, has been granted:

• Leave to apply that the Internal Security Ministry's decision under the “Garis Panduan Penerbitan” (Publishing Guidelines) dated March 1, 2007, which prohibits The Herald from using the word “Allah” is illegal, null and void; that the paper is entitled to use the word “Allah” and that the word “Allah” is not exclusive to the religion of Islam.
• Leave to quash the Ministry's decision to disallow The Herald from publishing the word “Allah”.
• And an order to stay the Ministry's order until the court decides on the matter.

Later, outside the courtroom, Derek Fernandez, one of the 5 church counsel, explained to the waiting reporters that Justice Lau had basically agreed that the church's application “is not a frivolous application ... not a waste of the court's time”.

The next move, he added, would be for the church to file a substantive application, which they will do so within the next 2 weeks. “Hopefully, (the court hearing for the judicial review) will be fixed within 6 months,” said Fernandez.

KEEP POLITICS AND ZEALOTORY OUT OF FOOTBALL. SELAMAT DATANG CHELSEA.

Last Saturday, Chelsea played Manchester United. Manchester United would have clinched and retained the premiership title had they beaten Chelsea. Instead my team, Manchester United lost 2-1.

I watched the game at Hamiid Restoran, a popular eatery in Tampoi Indah which on match days is filled with English Premier League fans. That Saturday, it no different and with the typical multiracial crowd. Among them there were a sizeable number of Malay youths. When Chelsea scored they clapped and cheared. When Manchester United equalized they groaned and when Chelsea stole it at the end up went the roars and the high fives. It did not matter that Chelsea’s manager was an Israeli and that the Chelsea team also has an Israeli international Tal Bal Haim.

I cannot be wrong when I say that Chelsea is a popular team worldwide and that includes muslim middle east. To date no mullah’s has issued any fatwas against supporting Chelsea or for the matter against Avram Grant or Tan Bal Haim. Infact Chelsea is scheduled to play in the middle east.

So it comes as a surprise when a group of wet blanket decide to protest the visit by Chelsea to Malaysia. Maybe they are not against Chelsea per se but their bone of objection is rather against Avram Grant and Tal Ben Haim. According to the coalition of 21 muslim groups’ spokesperson Muhamad Azmi Abdul Hamid, Israel is a rogue state and therefore this duo should be prevented entry. He further claims that the coalition intend to hold a massive protest at the tour match if the government did not bar the Israeli duo. He then pronounces an edict that Malaysians should boycott the match. My ass ! who is he to tell Malaysians to boycott the match or have the audacity to claim that his group represents Malaysians.

Let me ask this small minded person. How come he did not organise a massive protest when two young Malays footballers left for a brief training stint with Chelsea. None of them protested outside KLIA, threatened them with bodily injury or labelled them friend of the Jew. So lesson one is that if benefit is to be gained then it is all right to befriend a Jew. If the reason for their objection is that Malaysia has no diplomatic ties with the State of Israel, then the objection once again holds no water. Pray, tell me how come this group never objected when the government invited imminent Jews to participate and speak in conferences on Palestinian and Israeli conflict? So lesson two is that any Jew who is prepared to condemn the Jews may be welcomed to Malaysia. He is kosher. Just the other week, the Second Finance Minister Md Nor Yakcob urged the Malays to copy the Jews. No one kicked the Minister’s kaboosh and no group behaved like bats out of hell. The conclussion is that, there is only a small minority who wish to be vocal with their shifting principles. The majority of the Malaysians, thankfully, common sense still prevails.

Thus, credit must be given to Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Ahmad Albar for his courageous and wise decision to allow the Israeli duo to come to Malaysia. It may not have been an easy decision for him, considering that Malaysia do not have diplomatic ties with Israel and also not want to offend or incur the wrath of Malaysian Muslims. Rationality prevailed over emotions. Syabas and terima kasih, Datuk !.

No one is denying that the Israel- Palestinian conflict has gone on too long. The fault lies with both sides and deep rooted. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are equally to be blamed for perpetuating the conflict for so long but must we bring religion and politics to sports? It is worth remembering that sports is the best way to foster good relationship. Sportsmen and genuine fans forget about colour and creed of the sportsmen. To them it does not matter if the footballer is an Israeli or a Jew or for the matter an Afgan Taleban. Sports transcend all and genuine fans just want to enjoy the beautiful game and wish to keep it free from politics, zealotory, and racist bigots. Syed Hamid Albar rightly epitomizes forward thinking Muslims when he said “we do not look at the aspects of politics”. Well said.

So to this group my advice is protest if you wish to but disrupt you shall not do. Please do not to shove your politics and religious zealotory on us, genuine football fans. Selamat datang to Malaysia, Chelsea. I will be supporting Malaysia.

Graftbusters Formed

A few of the leaders at DAP Selangor has decided to form a 'Graftbusters' team to assist in the process of identifying and weeding out corruption. The team is currently led by the DAP MP for Segambut, Lim Lip Eng and comprises of Gobind Singh, MP for Puchong, Lau Weng San, ADUN for Kg Tunku as well as other DAP Selangor Legal Bureau lawyers.

And they need your help. Read more here.

Zahid suggests family be told after conversion to Islam

KUALA LUMPUR, April 30

Non-Muslims who are converting to Islam may only have to inform their family after their conversion and not before, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

He said although he respected the decision of the 18th Syarak (Islamic)/Civil Law Coordination Conference on Monday, the government was still studying the issue before making a decision.
The conference participants unanimously agreed that a non-Muslim does not need to inform the family first of his/her wish to convert to Islam.

"The proposal (by the prime minister that a non-Muslim must inform his/her family before converting to Islam) was acceptable and not rejected by the conference. But the announcement on conversion requires a suitable formula," he explained after presenting certificates to trainees of the Baitulmal Skills Training Institute at the International Youth Centre in Cheras, here yesterday.

Zahid said this was important to avoid suspicions among non-Muslims, and therefore required careful study so that the conversion would not affect the convert's relations with his or her family.

Top Islamic authorities, including legal and spiritual advisers, were also against Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi's "inform the family" proposal, Malaysian Islamic Development Department's director-general Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz said in a statement received yesterday.

The department's approval is needed to implement any rule relating to Islam. But the government can still get Parliament to pass a law which would override the department's objections.

Wan Mohamad said it was up to converts to decide whether to inform family members.
He said it should be "left to the discretion of the person who wishes to embrace Islam to determine how and when it is appropriate to inform family members. ... The existing laws for conversion to Islam and related matters are sufficient."

The failure by many converts to inform their families has led to disputes relating to funerals. In several instances, Islamic officials seized bodies for Muslim funerals, while non-Muslim family members disputed that the deceased had ever converted.

Islam is Malaysia's official religion. Non-Muslims are free to practise their religions but often lose out in interfaith disputes involving Islam. Malays are Muslim by law, and it is difficult for them to leave Islam. — Bernama, AP

PENJELASAN TERPERINCI SERTA KOMENTAR - NORMAN FERNANDEZ NAIB PENGERUSI DAP NEGERI JOHOR.

Isu : MUAT PAMER ARTIKEL MENGHINA AGAMA- AGAMA BUKAN ISLAM DALAM
LAMAN WEB PAS JOHOR BAHRU.

Isu : MESEJ ‘DARAH KARPAL HALAL DIBUNUH’

Minggu lalu, satu artikel Bahasa Inggeris yang membandingkan agama Islam dengan agama-agama bukan Islam dan secara khusus agama Kristian, Buddha dan Hindu telah dimuat papar dalam laman web PAS Johor Bahru.

Saya telah menerima aduan daripada pihak awam berkenaan dengan artikel tersebut. Melayari laman web tersebut, saya mendapati bahawa aduan pihak awam adalah benar. Saya percaya tidak salah untuk pihak PAS meletakkan apa-apa artikel yang mengagungkan agama Islam ataupun bertujuan menegakkan syiar Islam tetapi adalah tidak sesuai untuk memuat pamer artikel yang rata-rata bertujuan dan berniat meremehkan, merendahkan dan menghina agama-agama lain.

Saya telah terus memaklumkan kepada pimpinan PAS rasa ketidakpuasan saya terhadap tindakan pihak PAS memuat pamer artikel yang menghina agama-agama lain. Saya juga telah meminta agar artikel tersebut yang jelas telah di muat turun dari laman lain di keluarkan. Ini tidak dilakukan sehingga kontroversi mesej ‘darah Karpal halal dibunuh’.

Sebelum saya beredar kepada isu seterusnya, saya ingin menyedari sahabat-sahabat dari PAS bahawa jika orang Islam mendapati filem kartun-kartun dalam suratkhbar Denmark ataupun filem Fitna dari Belanda menghina Islam dan mendemonstrasi menuntut maaf, pernahkah PAS berfikir bagaimana perasaan orang bukan Islam apabila PAS memuat artikel yang menghina agama orang bukan Islam. Orang bukan Islam juga mempunyai perasaan dan orang Islam tidak harus berfikir bahawa mereka mempunyai lesen bebas untuk menghina agama dan merendahkan agama orang lain. Allah telah menyatakan agama ku agamaku, agama mu agamamu. Bagi saya agamaku Kristian adalah agama yang cukup sempurna. Tetapi percayalah saya tidak akan merendahkan mana-mana agama yang lain. (Dalam weblog yang seterusnya saya akan menceritakan insiden penceramah yang menghina agama kristian dan lain-lain agama bukan Islam dikhayalak umum dan musibah yang melandanya diakhir hidupnya).

Belum isu ini reda, sekali lagi saya menerima panggilan talipon memaklumkan bahawa seorang lelaki telah meletakkan mesej dalam petilaung (shoutbox) laman web PAS Johor Bahru bahawa Karpal Singh telah menghina Islam serta darah Karpal halal dibunuh. Tergamak saya membaca mesej tersebut apatah lagi bila PAS-DAP-PKR kini bersama dalam Pakatan Rakyat.

Sekali lagi saya telah memaklumkan kepada pimpinan PAS tentang mesej ini dan meminta untuk dikeluarkan serta merta. Namun mesej tersebut tidak dikeluarkan sehingga mesej tersebut mendapat perhatian umum dan media. Akhirnya Karpal Singh sendiri bertindak membuat lapuran polis.

Saya percaya kita harus berhati-hati agar laman web resmi parti tidak disalah gunakan dan wajar menyedari apa-apa kenyataan yang dimuatkan dalam laman web resmi parti harus lah disifatkan sebagai pendirian parti ataupun bersetuju dengan pendirian penulis. Kalau tidak kenapa dimuatkan. Jika ianya dimuatkan atas dasar kebebasan bersuara, setujukah jika ada orang mempersendakan Tuan Guru dalam laman resmi parti misal kata DAP ataupun PKR ?

Saya berhak mempertahankan pemimpin saya. Setakat ini apakah bukti kukuh yang Karpal Singh telah menghina Islam. Selama ini beliau hanya mempertahankan apa yang tersirat dalam perlembagaan. PAS sudah tentu sedar bagaimana tiga hari selepas pilihanraya saya bertikam lidah dan mempertahankan poster-poster Tuan Guru Nik Aziz daripada dikoyak rabakkan oleh pihak Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru. Saya tidak teragak-agak mempertahankan poster-poster Tuan Guru di koyak rabakkan kerana status Tuan Guru sebagai pemimpin dalam Pakatan Rakyat. Saya tidak kesal berbuat demikian dan tetap bersedia mempertahankan mana-mana pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat.

Semoga kedua-dua isu ini menjadi satu pengajaran untuk kita semua dan mengambil iktibar daripada apa yang berlaku.

Akhir sekali saya amat berterima kasih di atas kenyataan maaf daripada PAS dan tindakan susulan yang telah diambil.

KENYATAAN UMUM - NORMAN FERNANDEZ NAIB PENGERUSI DAP NEGERI JOHOR.

ISU KOMEN ‘DARAH KARPAL SINGH HALAL DI BUNUH’ DALAM LAMAN WEB PAS JOHOR BAHRU

Pada hari Isnin 28hb April 2008 jam 4 petang, lelaki yang telah memuatkan mesej ‘darah Karpal Singh halal dibunuh’ yang telah dimuat dalam kotaklaung (shoutbox) laman web PAS Johor Bahru telah datang ke pejabat saya bersama dengan bapanya dan diiringi beberapa wakil Dewan Pemuda PAS Johor Bahru yang diketuai YDP Pemuda PAS Johor Bahru Sdr Rosli Kemin.

Lelaki Melayu berusia 18 tahun yang menggunakan nama “Alif” (nama sebenar telah diberitahu dan dirahsiakan) dalam laman web tersebut mengakui bahawa beliau adalah orang yang telah memuat mesej dalam laman web PAS Johor Bahru.

Lelaki tersebut adalah seorang pelajar kolej tempatan dan di pejabat saya beliau menulis satu surat kepada Pengerusi DAP Kebangsaan Sdr Karpal Singh.

Didalam surat tersebut, beliau telah menyatakan rasa kesal terhadap apa yang dilakukannya dan meminta maaf daripada Sdr Karpal Singh. Beliau juga berjanji tidak akan meletakkan apa-apa mesej yang yang boleh menyinggung perasaan, ofensif serta menyalahi undang-undang dalam mana-mana laman web. Beliau meminta maaf daripada Sdr Karpal Singh dan merayu agar Sdr Karpal Singh berbesar hati dan bersedia untuk menarik balik repot polis yang telah dibuatnya terhadap lelaki yang memuatkan mesej dalam laman web PAS Johor Bahru.

Seperti yang sedia maklum susulan daripada pendedahan mesej menjemput membunuh Sdr Karpal Singh, satu lapuran polis telah dibuat oleh Sdr Karpal Singh di IPK Pulau Pinang. Siasatan kes tersebut telah di pindahkan ke Johor Bahru. Saya telah dimaklumkan bahawa lelaki tersebut telah menyerah diri kepada pihak polis dan pihak polis Johor Bahru telah merakam satu percakapan dalam siasatan daripadanya.

Saya akan menghantar surat minta maaf daripada lelaki tersebut kepada Sdr Karpal Singh untuk beliau memutuskan tindakan yang selanjutnya. Memandangkan usia mudanya dan kerana janjinya untuk tidak melakukan perbuatan sedemikian dimasa hadapan, saya akan mensyorkan agar Sdr Karpal Singh menerima mohon maaf lelaki tersebut seperti yang di tulis dalam surat tersebut. Saya juga harap Sdr Karpal Singh akan bersedia dan bermurah hati untuk menarik balik laporan polis yang telah dibuatnya.

Norman Fernandez
Johor Bahru

Rencana (Ahad 27.04.2008) - Mingguan Malaysia

DAP upset over ‘kill Karpal’ call

Saturday April 26, 2008. The Star.

JOHOR BARU: The state DAP is upset over a comment left on a PAS website that called for the murder of DAP national chairman Karpal Singh and is calling for an apology.
Johor DAP vice-chairman Norman Fernandez said that it was unacceptable for the message to be posted on the Johor Baru PAS website especially when Pakatan Rakyat was trying to introduce a new era in politics.
“We want them to take the comment out, apologise to Karpal and ensure that no inciting messages will be put on their website henceforth,” he said.
The comment dated April 24 was listed on the website Shoutbox and was written by a commenter called “Alif” who alleged that Karpal had insulted Islam and that “darahnya halal dibunuh” (it's justifiable to kill him).
He added that for Pakatan Rakyat to succeed, mutual respect was needed and it was the responsibility of the webmaster to ensure that such comments did not appear on the party website.
Meanwhile, Johor PAS Commissioner Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamad said the comment posted was not the stand of the Johor PAS.

MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS ON REASONS FOR BARISAN NASIONAL'S ELECTION DEFEAT.

Diagnosis

Overeating – gorged themselves and ate too much of the people's money.

Heart failure – did not have a heart to really care about the rakyat.

Rectal cancer and constipation – did not expel all the shit from the system.

Diabetes – fondness for sweet things, i.e. saying sweet things to try and con the rakyat ( in plain English, lying)

Stroke – stroked too much of their own ego and became too arrogant.

Overworking – too busy running here and there cutting deals for own benefit.

Alzheimer's – forgot to play the proper role of an elected representative.

Obsessive-compulsive neurosis – obsession with cleaning, especially sweeping things under the carpet.

HP6 – a mutation of the deadly H5N1 ( bird flu) virus which manifests itself in the form of idiocy or semi-idiocy, thus the descriptor ' half past six ( HP6)'. Many members of the BN are infected. VD – Very Deaf. Did not listen to the grievances of the rakyat and did not heed the healthy advice and feedback from bloggers.

Color Bind – a form of visual impairment which is directly the opposite of being color blind. There is a fixation on color and everything must always be discussed in terms of 'color' – Malay, Chinese, Indian etc.

Liver problems – failure to de-Liver on promises.

'Inverted Cerebranus' – a new form of disease where the cerebrum and anus are transposed causing highly irrational and objectionable behaviour, like brandishing ancient weapons and ranting racial slurs and threats.

Prognosis Not good and definitely a terminal case. Chances of recovery are 1 in a gadzillion, about the same odds as Osama converting to the Jewish faith and becoming a messenger of world peace.

Cure No known cure. Euthanasia recommended. Suggest to drink lacquer – at least it will ensure a beautiful finish.

-By Political doctor

Dr.Mahathir on BBC's Hard Talk

Stephen Sackur Introduction:
Last month marked a watershed in the politics of Malaysia. The ruling national front recorded its worst election results in five decades. It’s still in power but seriously weakened. My guest today personifies the power of the ruling party for 22 years. He was Malaysia’s PM and one of the most outspoken leaders in the Muslim world. His critics called him a racist and a dictator. Has retirement mellowed Mahathir Mohamed?

Stephen Sackur: Dr Mohamad welcome to Hardtalk. Let’s start with that election result last month, has it marked the beginning of the end for Malaysia’s ruling party?

Mahathir Mohamad: Not necessarily, unless no action is taken, of course it may result in that. But if proper action is taken, including of course the present Prime Minister leaving his seat of power, it may be possible to bring back the Barisan Nasional Front in order to become again a very strong ruling party.

Stephen Sackur: You’re saying that PM Abdullah Badawi has to be kicked out for the ruling party to recover?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well not so strong as that. He can step down. I stepped down in my time. It’s about time that he steps down because the result of the election shows clearly that many of the former followers, supporters of the Nasional Front had decided that they would work, vote for the Opposition even if they didn’t like the Opposition. They voted for the Opposition to send a message to the present government.

Stephen Sackur: Prime Minister Abdullah says that you have been one of the curses that have brought him down, because you’ve been sniping from the sidelines for the last two or three years.

Mahathir Mohamad: That may be so. I don’t see why I should not criticise wrongdoings by him.

Stephen Sackur: What wrongdoings?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well in the first place, the government promises to remove corruption and things like that, but the government is found to be corrupt.

Stephen Sackur: You are tearing your own party apart though, that is the problem. And that is what many people inside your party believe.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well sometimes it may be necessary. I told people that I’m a doctor. If I find one leg becoming gangrenous I remove it.

Stephen Sackur: Now he has said Prime Minister Abdullah, that he will go eventually, but is your message to him that he has no time, he must go now?

Mahathir Mohamad: He must go now, because he will take time to revive the party for the next election.

Stephen Sackur: Isn’t the truth of what we see in Malaysia today that the real discontent isn’t so much with Prime Minister Abdullah, it is with the system and the ideology that you bequeathed to your country?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well the system and the ideology have been there for the last 50 years. It’s worked very well we had always won elections, people always supported us and the country has done very well during that 50 years with that system.

Stephen Sackur : But the indications are and the opposition succeeded by saying to the public, we no longer want this racially defined system inside Malaysia. And it was the racial defined system that was the platform upon which you succeeded in running Malaysia for 22 years.

Mahathir Mohamad: I think that’s wishful thinking on the part of foreign critics. But the fact is that this election result was due to disaffection on the part of the ruling party’s supporters, with the present leadership.

Stephen Sackur : Well let me just quote you the words of the new head of Penang State and let’s not forget that these results saw five very big and wealthy states go to the Opposition. The new head of Penang State Mr Lim Guan Eng, he says ‘we want a new state administration that is free from corruption and cronyism, we are here to build a Penang State for all.’ You didn’t build a Malaysia for all did you?

Mahathir Mohamad: I did. If you look at Malaysia today. Everybody is enjoying, has enjoyed, a very good life. They have become very prosperous. Malaysia was one of the fastest growing countries in the world. If you look at the different races, you can find that they all benefited from that government. So it is of course, necessary for Opposition parties to make remarks like that.

Stephen Sackur : But they are not making it up are they? Let’s look at your new economic policy which you pursued for so long. It favours ethnic Malays, in so many different ways, from public sector appointments to university places, to advantageous acquisition of stocks, discounts on housing, I don’t know where to stop. There are so many different ways in which you ran an unequal system.

Mahathir Mohamad: No this was a policy which was initiated by my predecessors, it was necessary to...

Stephen Sackur : But you ran it for 22 years, you had ample opportunity to change it.

Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I had ample opportunity to implement in a way that will correct imbalances that existed in Malaysia since the British days. And unless these imbalances are corrected there’s bound to be another race riot, as happened in 1969.

Stephen Sackur : But the point is that 80 thousand Indians for example, were on the streets protesting long and loud last November, because they are no longer prepared to live with the racial division that you set in the stone.

Mahathir Mohamad: Why now? Why not during my time? They were quite free to demonstrate. Many of the people who disagreed with me demonstrated...

Stephen Sackur : But many of the people who disagreed with you, I’m afraid ended up in prison.

Mahathir Mohamad: Who?

Stephen Sackur : Hundreds of them, read every Amnesty international and human rights watch report for the years in which you were in power..

Mahathir Mohamad: The western press, the problem is that you make up these stories and then you take this as the truth, it’s not the truth. Tell me who are the hundreds of people who ended up in prison.

Stephen Sackur: I’ll discuss human rights a little bit later. I just want before we get distracted from this question of racism in Malaysia, I just want to put to you this final point: Anwar Ibrahim says that he is going to push and of course he your long time friend who became, your political enemy, he is going to push for a colour blind Malaysia where affirmative action is open to all who need help.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well this opportunism for him, now that he is out of the government, he was in the government for a long time, he never made any complaints, he never did anything to.

Stephen Sackur : He certainly made a complaint when you locked him up.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well that was not the reason why he was locked up, he was accused of sodomy, he was accused of abuse of power, he was tried in court, nine months and he was defended by nine lawyers and he was found guilty...

Stephen Sackur : Trumped up charges.. trumped up charges.. says not just Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International but I’ve been looking through the record, the Canadian government, the White House, the International Commission of Jurists, all of them expressed grave and deep concern with the way in which your judicial system treated Anwar Ibrahim.

Mahathir Mohamad: Yes you’re free to say so but...

Stephen Sackur : I’m not saying it, I’m just quoting to you all the people who did say it.

Mahathir Mohamad: But what is the record of these countries? These people, these same countries arrested people without the law, and detained them in Guantanamo Bay and even in Britain here, you arrest people and detain them without any sanction by law.

Stephen Sackur : So does that make it okay that you did it for 22 years?

Mahathir Mohamad: We did it under the laws of the country, but it is not the way...

Stephen Sackur : You used the laws which went back to colonial times, the internal security act, emergency procedures, you feel satisfied to tell me that that was entirely legitimate?

Mahathir Mohamad: No we find that the situation in the country is very very fluid and it is very likely that there will be racial riots, unless we prevent precise people who are promoting racial hatred from talking about it.

Stephen Sackur : Put it this way, Dr Mahathir, you’ve had several years out of power now to consider your record and what you did, I wonder whether you are now ready to say that you regret what you did to Anwar Ibrahim?

Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I regret? He was arrested under the laws of the country, he was tried in the courts of the country and he was sentenced by the court. If he was not wrong, I don’t think, no matter what you think about our judiciary, I don’t think he would have been sentenced to prison.

Stephen Sackur : It damaged your reputation though didn’t it?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s something I have to accept.

Stephen Sackur : You may also find it comes back to haunt you? Anwar Ibrahim is now leading the opposition coalition. We are led to believe that there are certain MPs in the ruling party who may defect to him, in which case he could very soon be running the government. And he’s made it plain that he wants to have you answer for all of the things you do while you were in power.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well he’s welcome to do that if he becomes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, but if he wins over members of the ruling party to his side, it is the prime minister, the present leader who should be blamed, because he couldn’t even get the loyalty of his own members.

Stephen Sackur : It wasn’t the current prime minister who was in power when Anwar Ibrahim was savagely beaten during his time in detention?

Mahathir Mohamad: Savagely beaten? I know he was slapped and he had a black eye which was very useful for election purpose...

Stephen Sackur : Why you think he hit himself maybe?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well I don’t know what happened..but the police the IGP admitted that he assaulted Anwar, but that wasn’t me that was the IGP.

Stephen Sackur : But how do you respond, if Anwar comes to power and he as he said on this programme and elsewhere, that he wants a full and thorough public inquiry into all of your, Dr Mahathir’s misdeeds, how will you respond to that?

Mahathir Mohamad: He is welcome to do so, but I hope that he finds people who are neutral, who are impartial, probably foreigners, because I don’t trust the people that they put after people they don’t like.

Stephen Sackur : Interesting that you say you don’t trust people who are currently or maybe in charge of any inquiry, do you trust the integrity of the Malaysian judiciary?

Mahathir Mohamad: I do, at times I do but...

Stephen Sackur : is that because you appointed the judges?

Mahathir Mohamad: I didn’t appoint the judges, the judges were recommended by the Chief Justice and my duty is to check whether he has any records or not and after that he is presented to the king who will then appoint the judge...

Stephen Sackur : Dr Mahathir, you know as well as I do, that the hottest political topic in Malaysia today, is the state of the judiciary, the integrity of the judiciary and that a video has been playing in Malaysia for a long time now which shows a top lawyer talking to a top judge going back to 2001, in which the lawyer says to the judge ‘believe me in the end all of the positions going all the way to the supreme court are fixed by the politicians’, i.e. by you who were the prime minister at the time Dr Mahathir?

Mahathir Mohamad: Did he say that? Did he mention my name?

Stephen Sackur : He didn’t mention your name he said this will be fixed, this goes through the political system. You ran the political system.

Mahathir Mohamad: I’m not so sure about that. But the fact is that this man had his video taken because they intended to blackmail him. He happens to be my lawyer, defending me at this moment for libel against Anwar and this tape came from Anwar. Anwar had these things recorded in order to blackmail the lawyer.

Stephen Sackur : But the point is the current government led by Prime Minister Abdullah who is nominally or despite what you have said on this programme, is of your party. Prime Minister Abdullah has now essentially apologised, he said both to the supreme court justice that you removed and to other judges that were suspended or removed during your time in power, he’s said sorry to them. He’s said that he wants to offer them monetary compensation

Mahathir Mohamad: Fine but it’s a political move. Something a man who is very unpopular at the moment, wanting to show that he’s going to do something right.

Stephen Sackur: And that Dr Mahathir is my point. The Malaysian people no longer want to live with the system you created. That’s why Prime Minister Abdullah is essentially dismantling the system that you created.

Mahathir Mohamad: No no no he’s not dismantling the system, he is making use of the system in a worse way. Nobody can say anything against him, he has newspapers which only reports about him and how great he is. And he was mislead by his own supporters, into believing that if he holds the election now, this is one and half years before the end of the term, he would win, he would have a clean sweep. If you look at the records, he made statements that he would win the election, with zero for the Opposition.

Stephen Sackur: The more I listen to you talking about Prime Minister Abdullah, the more I wonder why did you choose him to be your successor?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well these people are very smart in hiding their true character. He was known as Mr Clean and I thought I would appoint a clean person to succeed me. Although he was not the one with the highest votes in my party. But I thought that he was older and I appointed him thinking that he’s not going to do anything very wrong. But this man gives priority to his family rather than to the country.

Stephen Sackur: So it was a fundamental lack of judgement on your part?

Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I’ll admit that. But we all make mistakes. The British people voted in people like Blair, who told lies, so did the Americans. Lots of people make mistakes.

Stephen Sackur: We all make mistakes you say, was it also a mistake for you to define
yourself so clearly, as anti-western and anti-democratic, in the sense that the West understands democracy?

Mahathir Mohamad: No that’s the problem, I am not anti-Western, I am against the bad things that were done by the Western countries.

Stephen Sackur: You’re not anti-western and yet in June 2003 before you left office, you said anglo-Saxon Europeans are essentially proponents and I’m quoting here: ‘proponents of war, sodomy and genocide.’

Mahathir Mohamad: Which is true, you must admit.

Stephen Sackur: But you’re not anti-western?

Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating the fact. This is their character and I will continue to say so.

Stephen Sackur: So when you come here, you sit in the Hardtalk studio, in the heart of London, you regard yourself do you, as in one of the Headquarters of war, sodomy and genocide?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well I come here of course expecting to be lambasted by you, because that is the way you work.

Stephen Sackur: Well I’m not lambasting you at all. I’m trying to tease out whether you believe it was a mistake for you to use this sort of language. Because you clearly cut yourself off, from any sort of meaningful dialogue with the West when you use these words.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well the Europeans used to call us the lazy Malays, incompetent Malays, untrustworthy Malays, we couldn’t say a thing about you. So when I was in a position to say what we think about you, and I did and you don’t like it. When you said it to us you expect us to like it. We didn’t like it, but we had no way of making our voices heard.

Stephen Sackur: I am just wondering how you feel about democracy. Of course in the world since 9/11, the United States and the coalition of partners led by the United Kingdom, have talked a lot about spreading democracy, do you believe in democracy?

Mahathir Mohamad: If you look at the history of the west, they come up with all kinds of ideologies, they use it for sometime and then they found it defective and they dropped it and start on another. One day they are going to forget about democracy because in some countries democracy actually ended up with anarchy. And there were practically no governments. It’s not a system that can feed everybody. You must have a certain understanding of the limitations of democracy, in order to make it work.

Stephen Sackur: Is that why you were not a democrat, why you in the end did behave like a dictator?

Mahathir Mohamad: Well that is something that the West would like to say about me, I am a dictator.

Stephen Sackur: Well I’m just quoting your own words from 2002. You said it’s good governance people need, you said, feudal kings even dictators have provided and can provide good governments.

Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s very true, that is very true. The great civilisations of the past did not have democracies. And yet they became great. It’s not necessary that the system will work for everybody. But if we have a bad leader, even the democratic system will fail.
We must remember that it is a democratic country which dropped atomic bombs, killing 200 thousand people.

Stephen Sackur: How do you think the Malaysian public will respond to you saying, look you know what democracy isn’t the best system and in fact dictatorship can often work better.

Mahathir Mohamad: I went through five elections and I won all the elections with a majority...

Stephen Sackur: Without a free press, locking up many of your opponents

Mahathir Mohamad: There you go again about locking up many of my opponents, who are they?

Stephen Sackur: I don’t know how many times I have to tell you, that I’ve studied the human rights watch reports, the Amnesty International reports, studies from the state department, from the Canadian government.

Mahathir Mohamad: These are biased reports, the first thing I did on becoming the prime minister in 1981, was to release political prisoners who were detained by my predecessors, 22 or them, including many members of the Opposition.

Stephen Sackur: Under the 1984 Press law which required newspapers to get a new licence every single year. It made it very easy for you to quieten them down, didn’t it?

Mahathir Mohamad: No it has always been there, the press law has been there...I didn’t do that...but the fact is that we have a multi-racial country and if we are not careful, there will be racial flare-ups. And you look at most of the countries with multi-racial population, they are never peaceful, even Northern Ireland, it took you such a long to stop the war in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Sackur: Talking of peace, you did worry about the stability of your country, didn’t you? That’s why you were very strong, very tough with Islamist extremism inside Malaysia.

Mahathir Mohamad: Yes it is necessary.

Stephen Sackur: Well I just wonder in that case then why just before you left office, in October 2003, why did you tell the Islamic Summit Conference that and I’m quoting again a very famous speech, it’s a little bit long but “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews,” you said. “We’re actually very strong. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million but today Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” You went on to say: “But the Jews have become arrogant. And arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes and there may be a window of opportunity for us.”

Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating facts, I am willing to say that again and again that this is what has happened.

Stephen Sackur: Anti-Semitic and racist that was called by many governments and people around the world.

Mahathir Mohamad: Anti-Semitism is created by the Jews themselves. We cannot say anything. In fact journalists have been arrested for saying something against the holocaust and jailed for three years. Where is the freedom of press?
Stephen Sackur: So those words I quoted in your view, are not anti-Semitic?

Mahathir Mohamad: No they are not anti-Semitic? I am just quoting facts. The fact is that the United States obeys what Israel wants it to do.

Stephen Sackur: You call them facts, let’s leave that aside for the moment. I am trying to understand your logic. Here you are a man who says that your own country is potentially destabilised by Islamic extremism and then you go out in an Islamic Conference and you use words which could have been used by Osama bin Laden.

Mahathir Mohamad: There’s no contradiction, no contradiction at all. I don’t want Islamic terrorism any more than I want Jewish attacks against Israel, or American bombs on Baghdad. It is not incompatible.

Stephen Sackur: Do you feel confident that people still listen to your message?

Mahathir Mohamad: I wouldn’t be able to say. Why should people worry about me?

Stephen Sackur: In Malaysia people say, and I’m talking about the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition: it’s time for you to be quiet.

Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I be quiet? You mean to say when they are doing something wrong, to my country and I should not say anything? I would be irresponsible if I were to do that.

Stephen Sackur: Dr Mahathir Mohamad thank you very much for being on Hardtalk.

Mahathir Mohamad: You’re welcome.

1988 crisis : Salleh Shot Himself On The Foot? - By P Suppiah

The personalities involved in the entire episode are as follows:

The then Yang Di Pertuan Agong (the King), now the Sultan of Johor

Tun Salleh Abas, who was then the Lord President

The prime minister (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Datuk Seri Dr),

The then attorney-general, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, now Suhakam chief.

The whole episode started with Salleh writing a letter to the King dated March 26, 1988, copies of which were sent to the Malay rulers. On May 27, 1988 the prime minister in the presence of high-ranking government officials informed Salleh that the King wished him to step down (to retire as Lord President) because of the said letter.

Salleh on May 28, 1988 sent a letter of resignation: the next day he withdrew it and subsequently held a press conference. On June 9, 1988 the prime minister made a second representation to the King alleging further misconduct on the part of Salleh based on his undignified use of the press to vent his grievances – such as requesting for a public hearing of the tribunal and asking for persons of high judicial standing to sit on the tribunal.

On June 11, 1988, members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Federal Constitution by the King. On June 14, 1988, Salleh was served with the list of charges against him. On June 17, 1988, Salleh was served with a set of rules to govern the tribunal procedure. On June 21, 1988, on the application of Salleh, a Queen’s Counsel was admitted for the purpose of defending him without any objection from the attorney-general.

Salleh was informed of the tribunal’s hearing on June 29, 1988 and was told he could be represented by his Queen’s Counsel. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Salleh appeared and informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Salleh was making a series of press statements including an interview with the BBC showing unhappiness over the tribunal’s legality.

The tribunal held its proceedings in camera. Salleh was accorded the right to be defended by counsel. His counsel decided not to cross-examine any of the witnesses. The tribunal was made up of the following six persons:

Acting Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar (tribunal chairman), who was appointed a High Court judge in September 1968. In 1980, he was appointed a Federal Court judge. On Feb 3, 1984, he was made the Chief Justice of Malaya taking over from Salleh.

TS Sinnathuray, a Singapore Supreme Court judge (tribunal member).

Abdul Aziz Mohamed Zain, a former Federal Court judge (tribunal member).

Mohamed Zahir Ismail, former High Court judge from 1975 to 1982 before assuming his post as a Dewan Rakyat speaker (tribunal member).

Sri Lankan Chief Justice, KAP Ranasinghe (tribunal member).

Chief Justice of Borneo, Lee Hun Hoe (tribunal member).

The allegations against Salleh were made known to him in writing (in respect of which the tribunal held its inquiry), and briefly they are:

First allegation: On the occasion of the conferment of the honarary degree of doctor of letters on him by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 in his speech he made several statements criticising the government which displayed prejudice and bias against the government: and these statements were incompatible with his position as the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech he made several statements discrediting the government and thereby sought to undermine public confidence in the government’s administration of this country in accordance with the law.

In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.

In particular he advocated thus: "This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings."

His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.

Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.

Fourth allegation: In his said letter dated March 26, 1988 to the King and the Malay rulers, he stated that it was written on behalf of the judges of this country. This is false as there was no prior consultation with nor approval of all the judges of the country on the content of the letter before he sent it.

Fifth allegation: He, after his suspension as Lord President, made various statements to the media for publication and broadcasting which contained untruths and which were calculated to politicise the issue between the government and himself and to further discredit the government.

The tribunal commenced its hearing on June 29, 1988. Salleh was absent. But his counsel, namely Raja Aziz Addruse, CV Das and Royan were present. The attorney-general presented his arguments to assist the tribunal and set out the facts. In his submission, the AG stated that there was more than ample evidence and justification to recommend Salleh’s removal from office.

In all four witnesses were called and much written material connected with the allegations was made available to the tribunal for its members to rely on. The four witnesses were Sallehudin Mohamed, Sharon Abdul Majid (director-general of Fisheries), Saedon Daud (deputy director of Budget) and Haidar Mohd Noor (chief registrar) who gave evidence with regard to the adjournments of the conversion case mentioned in the third allegation.

The tribunal completed its report on July 7, 1988. In it, it stated that the tribunal was appointed by the King under Article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution to investigate and submit a report to the King in regard to the representation made by the prime minister that Salleh be removed from office on the grounds of his misbehaviour which show that he is no longer able to discharge his duties and function as Lord President properly and justly.

The tribunal in its report set out the background facts and its findings and recommendations.

The tribunal under proof and findings inter alia stated that it endeavoured to follow the well-

known principle and applied and followed in such matters and also in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof by similar tribunals in other jurisdictions. It dealt with each of the allegations and stated briefly in respect thereof as follows:

Allegations 1 and 2: The tribunal was satisfied on a consideration of the documents containing the speech that had been made by Salleh on the occasion he was conferred the honourary degree of doctor of letters by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 and also the speech made by him on Jan 12, 1988 on the occasion of the official launching ceremony of the book Malaysian Law and Law Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trends at the Shangri La Hotel Kuala Lumpur that the particulars set out in the said allegations have been established.

Allegation 2 (iv) and 3: In regard to allegation 3 the tribunal was satisfied in the absence of any explanation by Salleh that the adjournment was made upon improper and extraneous consideration when the case related to the conversion of a minor from the religion she professed (Buddhism) to the Islamic faith.

Allegation 2 (iv): The tribunal held:

i) that it was manifestly clear in the absence of an explanation from Salleh who made the speech that he was seeking to advocate in the guise of interpretation, the acceptance of the principles of Islamic law as propounded by the ‘muftis’ and to assert that such rulings bound not only the judiciary but also both the Parliament and the executive of the country

ii) that it must be borne in mind that Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution of Malaysia by Articles 3 and 11 assures and guarantees to all persons complete freedom of religion by vesting in every person "the right to profess and practise his religion" in accordance with the law.

iii) that it must also be borne in mind that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. That being so, the assertion of principles as spelt out in the said speech by Salleh is likely to cause not only uneasiness but also fear and doubt in the minds of those who profess a religion other than Islam and do not subscribe to the tenets and principles advocated by Salleh in his speech.

iv) that it must also be borne in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, it was ill-advised for Salleh as head of the judiciary to make an authoritative statement that "Islamic laws bind not only the judiciary but Parliament and the executive also".

Allegation 4: The tribunal held that for Salleh to say that the letter to the King (copied to all the Malay rulers) was from "all of us" was an untruth and in the absence of any explanation the tribunal held that Salleh had done so in order to ensure that the said letter could carry greater authority and greater conviction than it would have had it been made only by a section of the judges.

Allegation 5: The tribunal was satisfied that in the absence of any explanation from Salleh that he used the media with the view to politicising the issue of his suspension and to gain public sympathy for himself.

The tribunal touched on the meaning of "misbehaviour": to mean unlawful conduct or immoral conduct such as bribery, corruption, acts done with improper motives relating to the office of a judge and which would affect the due administration of justice or which would shake the confidence of the public in a judge.

The tribunal concluded: "Having regard to the views we have already formed upon the material before us, we are of the opinion, in the absence of an explanation being made by or on behalf of Salleh that he has been guilty of not only "misbehaviour", but also of misconduct which falls within the ambit of "other cause", which renders him unfit to discharge properly the functions of his office, as Lord President, as set out in Article 125(3) of the Constitution."

Under recommendation, the tribunal said: "Salleh has been proved to have behaved himself in such a way as would destroy the public confidence in his impartiality, his honesty his integrity and in his ability to make decisions as a judge and unanimously recommended that he be removed from office, both as a judge and as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, which recommendation was accepted by the King."

It further stated: "We very much regret that the respondent chose not to appear before us, even though every reasonable opportunity was afforded to him by us. We have, as has been made clear in this report, come to the findings which we have arrived at only upon the unchallenged and uncontradicted material placed before us. Needless to say that had we had the benefit of a plausible explanation from the respondent in regard to the several issues which were presented to us for our consideration, our decision may well have been different."

Much later in a reply letter dated March 20, 1989 to the International Commission of Jurist, Hamid stated that though Salleh was the Lord President his judicial experience on the Superior Court bench was comparatively short having been appointed (when he was a solicitor-general) direct to the Federal Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) as recently as 1979.

Salleh was never a Judge of the High Court and had no experience whatever of trial court work at that level. On the other hand, he (Hamid) was appointed High Court judge in 1968 (11 years earlier).

What prompted me to write this letter is because the topic of Salleh Abas has cropped up in the papers recently with the de facto law minister holding the view that the government should apologise to Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President.

The present prime minister has also advocated in his speech at the Bar dinner last week (nearly 20 years later) that the government would make "goodwill ex-gratia payment to Tun Salleh". I wonder whether it will be proper to use government’s money for such purpose.

It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.

His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.

By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?

To my mind, it is still open to Salleh, for instance among other avenues, to ask for an appointment of another tribunal to review his case (whether there will be any objection to this from any quarters, I do not know) subject however to his agreeing to give evidence as to his defence. The record of the proceedings are still there. Even if this happened he will be running into difficulties because the four witnesses who gave evidence at the tribunal were never cross-examined by his counsel.

OUTSTANDING STUDENT FAILS TO OBAIN LOCAL SCHOLARSHIPS BUT OBTAINS OFFERS OF PRESTIGIOUS OVERSEAS SCHOLARSHIPS.

Lee Jia Hui (pic), 19 scored 11 1A’s in the SPM examination. The Sunday Star, April 20, reported that he had for the last six months applied for scholarship to pursue his studies oversea from various local agencies such as Public Services Department and Bank Negara. He was unsuccessful.

Interestingly and luckily, he has now obtained offers of scholarships from renowned institution such as Harvard University, Princeton, Darthmoth, Cornell, as well as Wesleyan Asian Freeman Scholarship. Imagine prestigious and renowned foreign institutions are falling over to offer scholarships and yet at home he is unable to obtain a scholarship.

Now that Lee has secured a multitude offers of scholarship, it can also be certain that Lee would be another talent lost by Malaysia. With a degree from a prestigious institution, he would surely receive offers of employment even before he finishes his studies. I just wonder what will be the motivation for him to return home. The lifestyle he would have become accustomed to, the employment opportunities, remuneration and perks may make him not to come back to Malaysia. Frankly, why would he want to.

Singapore government has for a long time offered Asean Scholarship to top students from Asean countries to study in Singapore. Now, Singapore has gone even further. It now offers scholarships even for for Primary and Secondary students. The multitudes of scholarships given are designed to lure top students from the region and particularly from Malaysia to study in Singapore. These students after having being used to the Singapore life- style and work ethics, more often than not would then stay on and work in Singapore. Many raise families and ultimately become Singapore citizens. The very least they become Singapore Permanent Residents while their children becoming Singapore citizens.

Singapore has found ways to entice and retain talent while Malaysia on the other hand seems to be indifferent to the loss of talents. After all the loss and brain drain can be replenished with Bangladeshis, Sudanese or even Myanmaris. Little wonder Singapore who once was on par with Malaysia has transformed into a first world and much of it is because of Malaysian talent who left our shores to help transform Singapore to become what it is today. Malaysia hardly made attempts to plug the brain drain or even ensure that our talents return. We just let them go and in the process lost them.

It is said that virtually all the students from the top class in Foon Yew Chinese school is headhunted by Singapore with offers of education scholarships. While the UEC examination certificate is not recognized for entry into local universities, yet it is recognized by Singapore (and many other countries) and students with good UEC results often receive offers of scholarship from Singapore. Has Petronas, Bank Negara or even Khazanah Nasional even provided a scholarship for a top student from Foon Yew Chinese School ?

The government is now considering sending a second man to space. Imagine the millions which is going to be spent when no one has a clue what benefit we have received from the first mission, apart from having the distinction of being the first Malay and Malaysian to go into space. The government even once was prepared to spend millions just to build a high performance sports centre in England. Luckily the local council rejected the application.

The point is this, the government readily finds money to spend on grandiose projects but find it difficult to provide scholarships for outstanding students. Why can’t the government, government linked agencies and companies find ways to help outstanding students with scholarship. What is even more sad, is that very often Non Malay students find it virtually impossible to obtain scholarship from government or government linked agencies and companies, yet are often receipients of scholarship from overseas universities. Importantly, it is to be noted that these scholarships are often secured on merit. I still remember how a couple of years ago government linked companies were falling over each other to provide scholarship for a British whiz kid whose only link to Malaysia was that her mother was born in Malaysia. Now the whiz kid is a 130 sterling pounds per hour whore.

Malaysia through the decades have lost thousands of outstanding students to other countries and we cannot continue to lose talent and let the brain drain go on. In a globalised world we must retain our outstanding students while at the same time source for outstanding foreign talents. We must make available scholarships for our top students and more importantly every top student irrespective of race must have an opportunity. We rely now on foreign doctors often from third rate countries and who can hardly speak the local language and some hardly look convincing nor confident as a doctor. Could we not have sent abroad on scholarship more Malaysian student of all races to study medicine. I know one Indian family whose child is studying medicine in Bandung, Indonesia. The poor parents are virtually begging from office to office for money to educate their child.

Let us be realistic, if the country treats a top student like a step-child and alienates him from opportunities, would he still be motivated to return and serve the country. This is what has happened and still happens. Many who has gone abroad still has family ties and feelings for the country but government policies and alienation of opportunities makes them not having any desire to return.

Malaysians pay tax, Petronas makes billions, government and government linked agencies and companies make money and government poor millions bailing out government linked companies. Yet, outstanding students and particularly non malay students cannot secure scholarships easily. What the government, government agencies and government linked companies must do is to provide scholarships for outstanding Malaysians and importantly irrespective of race. What has happened to Lee Jia Hui should not have happen and must never happen again.

Norman Fernandez
Vice Chairman
DAP Johor