ONE BIG PIG MESS

The September 21, deadline set by Alor Gajah Municipal Council for the pig farmers in Paya Mengkuang, Bukit Beruang and Kampung Man Kok to reduce the pigs from 160,000 pigs to 48,000 pigs as has gone by and till todate the pig farmers have been able only to take out 23,824 pigs. The pig farmers are now given until October 4 to reduce the pig population. It is going to be an uphill task to reduce 97,241 pigs in ten days or so. Thus, it is inevitable that another tense situation perhaps even worst than the events of September 4 to happen. For politicians from either divide, it provides them an excellent opportunity to gain political mileage.

Some have instinctively claimed that the action of the Alor Gajah Municipal Council smacks racism. Now these people unlike the long suffering residents neighboring the pig farms, fail to understand that pig farms emit nauseating smell which permeates the air for miles. Thus, it isn’t surprising to observe that even the Chinese (unless they are in the trade) often do not want to live close to areas where pig rearing activities take place. So it is inappropriate to look at this issue from a racial perspective.

Now, everyone knows that Chinese rear pigs for pork. Pork is part of the Chinese diet. Pig rearing in areas such as Paya Mengkuang is also not new. Pig rearing farms in these areas have been in existence for more than 30 years. The State Government and the Alor Gajah Municipal Council would not have become mired in the present situation had they from the onset regulated properly the pig farming industry. They ought to have known that pig farming can cause environmental problems if not properly regulated.

The relevant authorities in granting license to pig farmers ought to have made it a condition requiring the farmers among others not to exceed the permitted quota of pigs allowed at any one time in the farms and also requiring pig farms to have proper sewerage and solid waste management mechanism. The lack of environmentally friendly pig rearing farms in the state could be blamed on the state and local authorities own policies and indifferences.

Most pig farmers have been reluctant to spend money simply because the authorities are not prepared to not only gazette but also alienate land for pig rearing.

Due to the insecurity of tenure, many pig farms have instead antiquated sump pits to neutralize the noxious smells. Many sump pits are not even maintained properly. Some pig farmers take the easy way out by releasing the solid waste into the drains which naturally and inevitably finds its way into the rivers and seas and thereby causing immense environmental damage.

So the fault must also lie with the local authorities for creating the situation. Had the authorities provided the security of tenure which the pig farmers needed, in return the pig farmers would have been prepared to invest in proper sewage and waste management mechanism which do cost million of Ringgit. No right thinking pig farmer is going to spend millions installing sewage and waste management and create environmentally friendly pig farm when he lives with the fear that the authorities may anytime revoke his business or take way his land.

It must be remembered that many countries like Australia and Denmark have large environmental friendly pig farms and the reason for the success – clear and fair regulations.

One wonders what has happened to all the Lawatan Sambil Belajar to Denmark, Holland, Australia and Japan to learn about environmental friendly pig rearing. It can safely be assumed that these study tours like many others were nothing more then junkets (Riadah dan Relaks) at tax payers expenses.

It is unfortunate that the authorities lack of foresight and their failure to regulate and set the ground rules has now made the issue to morph and become racial and religious. Chinese on one side alleging that the state is meddling without offering solution and help while the Malays blaming the Chinese for being insensitive.

Norman Fernandez

RUMOUR MONGERING SMS – WALK THE TALK

Two weeks ago Johor Bahru was awash with rumours about SMS’s which warned that on National Day racial violence would occur in Pasir Gudang. Whatever the initial SMS was, the malicious falsehood sooned morphed into various variations. These SMS’s were enough to cause uneasiness among the public.

The police and particularly Johor Acting Police Chief Datuk Mohamad Mokhtar Mohamad Sharif must be commended for the quick and swift action they have taken and also for arresting four suspects (so far) who allegedly had spread the inflammatory text messages.

It is also comforting to note that Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi views seriously the transmission of racial incitement through SMS and email and warns that punitive actions would be taken against. However concern by itself is not enough.

Last year an SMS made it rounds alleging that Azhar Mansor was going to baptise Malay children at a Church in Ipoh. That SMS was enough for some ignorant groups to mobilize a mob to descend at the entrance of the Church and terrorise the Sunday Catholic churchgoers.

In the aftermath, police took statements among others from the Mufti of Perak who alleged that a woman had met him and told of the baptism. Pursuant thereto a woman was arrested.

Till today the public and particularly the Catholics wonder what has happened to this case and why this woman has yet to be charged.

Thus, the Prime Minister’s warning about stern action against rumour-mongers would remain just mere talk and hollow speak when the woman arrested in connection with the baptism SMS till today has yet to be charged. One has to walk the talk.

Norman Fernandez.

FORGET ABOUT THE TAXI DRIVERS SHOES

Last weekend when I was in Kuala Lumpur, I did not realise that there was an unofficial strike by taxi drivers demanding higher fares. The taxi driver who ferried me from Plaza Seni (Central Market) to Segambut, told me that he (and other taxi drivers) had received messages asking them to stay away and not drive on Friday and Saturday. Apparently a few taxi drivers who decided to ignore had their windscreens smashed.

Today’s (Mondays September 3, 2007) newspapers reported that taxi drivers are being fined between RM100 and RM 300 by the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (CVLB) for not adhering to the code of uniform set by them. The offences among others include not wearing socks, not tucking in their shirts or even wearing dark brown shoes instead of black.

CVLB Chairman Datuk Markiman Kobiran said that the government was serious in enforcing the regulation on uniforms and that there would be a continuous crackdown on errant taxi drivers.

Clearly, CVLB has got its enforcement priorities all mixed up. The truth is that the average passenger is least bothered whether the taxi driver wears brown shoes or if he tucks in his shirt. Instead, what is important to the average passenger is that he expects the taxi driver to takes him to his destination, charge the fare according to the meter and with the least amount of fuss and rant. Of course the passenger also hopes for a clean and odorless taxi and a driver with neat appearance and pleasant personality. But in Malaysia, that’s asking too much.

In New York, Melbourne, London or closer home Singapore, one can flag a taxi, get in, tell the destination, be ferried to the destination and pay the fare according to the meter. It is as easy as that.

Not in Malaysia. After flagging a taxi, one has to pray, ask and hope that it is not too much of a trouble for the taxi driver to ferry you to your destination. Once he agrees, you have to then agree on the fare determined by him. Only after these brief formalities are completed you are invited into the very often weather beaten taxi.

In Johor Bahru one would be hard-pressed to find taxis using meters. Even if it is used, be assured that the fare on the meter is hardly ever followed. Instead a fare which is usually higher than the meter is the norm. On weekends and on Singapore holidays when Singaporeans flock to Johor Bahru, it’s a field day for taxi drivers. They simply ignore the locals and seek out the gullible Singaporeans who because of the exchange rate don’t mind paying the silly fares demanded by the taxi drivers.

What irks most passengers is the attitude of the taxi drivers who keep demanding for taxi fare rises but correspondingly show no sense of professionalism or have any desire to improve their image. It is always about them and their interest. Their usual complaint by the taxi drivers is that they have to pay high rental charges for their taxis. But shouldn’t this be an issue between the taxi drivers and the relevant authorities including the taxi companies. Why should the passengers be the victim and be fleeced of their money?

I speak with experience. In 2000, a taxi drivers association in Johor Bahru appointed me as their legal advisor. Regretfully, their shenanigans disgusted me, so much so that I tendered my resignation.

According to the rules, once a taxi is flagged down, the taxi driver has to take the passenger to wherever he wishes to go. Not so. Instead, it is the taxi driver who makes a considered decision whether to ferry you to the said destination. If he decides not, four standard excuses can be expected namely “tukar shif”, “on call”, “tak pergi sana” or “mau sembayang”. Next comes the fare haggling. Sometimes the taxi driver tells the fare only when the passenger has got into the taxi and after being driven a few metres. Disagree and he simply drops the passenger off there and there.

Hand towels near the taxi meter is not for the taxi drivers to wipe his hands or perspiration but instead used to cover the meter. If hand towels are not available a call card can be used to mask the fare. At the destination, the taxi driver takes a peek at the meter and then demand from the passenger a fare which is higher than the meter.

If you late about town, one would also observe the ritual of the taxis mysteriously going missing from 11.30 to midnight and only to appear after 12 am when the midnight charges have kicked in. Observe how after midnight droves of taxis appear and taxi drivers enthusiastically horn at you or drive close and stop close to the person standing near a sidewalk.

The reason taxi drives are able to behave like this is simply because they know that not only that the average passenger would not be bothered to report them to the authorities but also enforcement by authorities are never continuous but instead “seasonal”. I have made two reports against taxi drivers who demanded and overcharged me. After more that two years and despite numerous letters of reminders I have yet to get a reply from CVLB about my complaints.

So instead of CVLB getting all flustered about the physical appearance of the taxi drivers, it is advisable for CVLB to weed out taxi drivers who do not use meters, who overcharge passengers and who picks and chooses passengers and routes. Until and unless taxi drivers hear and see of licenses being revoked, taxi drivers will simply continue to fleece passengers. CVLB and the relevant authorities should start a crackdown and haul up these taxi drivers and until this is done it is the poor passengers who would continue to suffer.


Norman Fernandez
3rd September 2007

WE CAN LEARN FROM SINGAPORE

Recently an article appeared in the New Straits Times titled We can learn a thing or two from Singapore. For a moment I was stunned and wondered how an article such as this could appear and be given prominence in the nation’s premier newspaper.

After all what is there to learn from Singapore when Local Councillors on tax payers money go on a junket masqueraded as a study tour and go off to Australia simply to learn how to grow flowers when they could have gone for a visit to Singapore Botanical Gardens. Its always better and money worth spent especially when it is the tax payers money for state government official to go a study tours to Curitiba to learn about effective public transportation when a short trip to Singapore could suffice.

Why this article caught my attention is because of the writer. Had the article been written by a Chinese, in all probability it would have been viewed differently. But here is an article written by a Malay – Fauziah Ismail and without mincing her words saying that we can learn from Singapore.
As a Johorean, we witness much more closely at the way many things are done in Singapore and often it is done much better. Pride prevents us from admitting.

So can we learn from Singapore? I say we can learn many things from Singapore.


Here is the article in full.

COMMENT – FAUZIAH ISMAIL

WE CAN LEARN A THING OR TWO FROM SINGAPORE

The Malays have saying: Kuman di seberang laut nampak, gajah di depan mata tidak nampak - “you can see a germ across the sea, but not an elephant in front of you”.

This is how we treat our neighbour, Singapore. Politics and our troubled relations in the past continue to cloud our feelings towards the republic and its people.

Because of that, we’d rather venture further abroad looking for best practises, when we can find them easily down south.

We look at Japan’s high culture of maintenance, when Singapore practises such high standards, too. Its public toilets are as immaculate as those in Japan. Its pre-Independence buildings are restored and maintained as if they were brand-new.

We eye Singapore with suspicion. We detest any form comparisons between the two countries and their people. We sneer at Singaporeans’ “kiasu-ness” but do not realize that this fear of losing in a highly competitive society is what made Singapore what it is today.

The nation of 3.6 million, which turned 42 recently, has become the most successful economy in Asean.

Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said “kiasuism” was not about being superior but for its own survival.

“ Ask any ordinary Singaporean if they feel superior,” the eye surgeon turned politician and minister said.” No oil, gas, palm oil, rubber, beautiful tourist spots or gems in the earth. What we have today is (the result of) hard work.

“ If anything, we are probably insecure in that if we don’t work hard, we will starve. Our focus on making money is actually survival.

“We are working to put food on our table for ourselves and our children. Any excess is put in reserves. This is security for the future,” said Balakrishnan, who is also the second minister for minister for information, communications and arts.

Asked if it was asking too much of one minister to handle several portfolios, he said:
“ It’s the Singapore way of doing things. If it is proven effective, why not?” (In Malaysia, his equivalent portfolios are handled by three ministries).

Singapore is a small country in hectarage – even with its land reclamation - - but through Temasek, Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) and private companies, it has spread its tentacles far and wide.

While we get foreign manual workers in droves, Singapore gets the best brains from within the region through scholarships offered to student of the other nine Asean countries. While there are no bonds on the scholarships, nothing stops these students from staying on in the republic and working there.

When Singapore gained its independence in 1965, it had to be self – sufficient. Its leaders had to tackle widespread unemployment, raise the standard of living and implement large – scale public housing.

Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo, said the three main things the leaders prioritised in forming the structure for the country were education, health care and housing.

“We started by creating the foreign service and the defence force,” he said. “ Being small, we didn’t have the numbers. We had to start National Service. Then we had to give our people some sense of ownership of the country.”

The Housing Development Board (HDB) was formed two years after Singapore achieved independence. The agency has been in the red ever since but continues to build high – rise apartments – space constraints resulted in Singapore having to build upwards instead of sideways – to accommodate its growing population. It receives grants from the Singaporean government for its operational expenditure.

Married couples with a maximum combined income of S$8,000 (RM17,600) a month are eligible for HDB flats. Singles aged 35 and above are also eligible, while those in the upper – income range can buy in the open market.

HDB also offers financing to home - buyers, making it easy for Singaporeans to buy the flats. Now, nine of 10 Singaporeans own houses. “ We have created a structure for the country that over the years saw the government ceding its control and balancing the public and private sectors’ roles in nation building,” Yeo said.

The country has now developed its economic infrastructure, curbing the threat of racial tension through HDB ‘s ethnic integrations policy and independence national defence system, centring on National Service.

Singapore’s leaders and people have made something out of nothing. Take tourism. Last year, the republic received 9.7 million tourists and registered S$13 billions in receipts.

This year, it wants to see 10.2 million tourists and 17 million in 2015. By then, it should be looking at S$30 billion in receipts.

Singapore creates new tourism products every year – the Night Safari ( on good nights, and there are many visitors get to see more nocturnal animals than they would in Taman Negara) and theDUCKTours, which take visitors on an hour – long tour of the city on an amphibious vehicles that can also take to the river, among many other attractions.

Next year, the world ‘s tallest Ferris wheel, with gondolas that can accommodate up to 35 people each, will open on Feb 14. Forget about being among the first to ride it: The attraction’s booked solid for the first six months. Two casinos will also be opening. Construction of a Las Vegas Sand – operated casino near Marina Bay and Resorts World on Sentosa, with the universal Studio theme park, is under way.

Singapore’s been doing all this without a ministry in charge of tourism, just the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board. And up to 90 percent of the workforce in the island’s hospitality industry are Malaysians.

So, when Singaporeans recite their pledge – “ We the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation” – I believes they mean it.

We don’t have to open our hearts to them; just our eyes and ears. We may learn a thing or two.

KOTA TERAPUNG AIR

Oleh Norman Fernandez
Dedikasi buat Sdr Abdul Razak Ahmad
06hb June 1939 – 12hb Ogos 2007

Cecucuk-cerucuk besi di bibir pantai
yang dipukul ombak Tebrau
adalah testamen
angkara dan keangkuhan politikus-politikus
yang tergoda janji saudagar-saudagar impian
sehingga sanggup sekongkol menggadai pantai untuk ringgit

Dimanakah mereka kini
politikus-politikus dan adikara
yang memperlekeh suara-suara kerdil
mencerca mereka sebagai abar-abar.

Dimanakah hakim lagi arif
yang membidas peguam sebagai “busy body”
malah disuruh membayar kos
salahnya cuma mencari pengadilan
Kini siapa yang betul ?

Di bibir pantai
papan iklan yang dimamah mentari
masih degil mendabik
menjaja impian yang sudah lama pudar.
Dibibir pantai
Cerucuk-cerucuk besi yang lama terbengkalai
aib berdiri sebagai mercu kegagalan

Karya
Norman Fernandez
Johor Bahru 2002

INSULTING RELIGION - LESSONS NOT LEARNED

In February last year, two newspapers were suspended for publishing caricatures of Prophet Muhammad which had appeared in the Danish newspapers. The Sarawak Tribune was suspended indefinitely for reproducing the caricature while Guan Ming daily was suspended for two weeks for carrying a picture of a man reading a Danish paper with the caricature visible.

Thus one would have thought the incident, the people’s reaction and the government’s response was a sobering reminder to be mindful and sensitive of another’s religion. Alas, it would seem that lessons have yet to be learnt.

Now we have the Tamil newspaper Makkal Ossai or The People’s Voice insulting the Catholics by printing in its Tuesday edition a picture of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette in one hand while on the other hand Jesus is seen holding a can of drink, probably a beer and with a caption saying “If someone repents for his mistake, then heaven awaits him.”


Non Christians ought to be reminded that for the Catholics, the Sacred Heart is one of the most revered picture and has deep religious symbolism. Thus, it is sacrilegious for Makkal Ossai or for the matter anyone to reduce the picture of Sacred Heart or Jesus Christ to an object of ridicule. The manner Jesus Christ was portrayed was an act calculated to injure the feelings of Catholics in particular and the Christians in general.

Makkal Ossai the next day printed a front page apology after an uproar from the Christian community. Its General Manager S.M Periasamy in its defence, claims that a member of its newspaper graphic department had downloaded the picture from the internet to go with the daily inspirational quote section. This answer is unacceptable. In fact prudence dictates that we should be careful with information obtained from the internet and should verify the accuracy of the information obtained. Surely, the Chief Editor, Editor, General Manager or even the Proof Readers must have known that there is no such such picture of Jesus Christ ever holding a cigarette or a beer can, and, having seen how offending the offensive picture downloaded from the internet was could have rejected it.

Makkal Ossai, is an offshoot of Tamil Ossai and which had ceased operation in 1990 was a weekly newspaper for 15 years when it became a national daily. So it cannot plead inexperience or ignorance as a defence. How could the editorial team or the management not know that under s.6(1) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 it is an offence to publish materials that are damaging, potentially harmful to the peace, morality and safety of the public, threaten public and national interest or which go against the law.” One last question, did anyone do a final check and verification before setting the press on.

By publishing the picture it can be safely assumed that the insertion of the offensive picture to accompany the quote could not have been an oversight. Oversight is a hollow defence.

I am in full agreement with the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Dr Maximus Ongkili when he said “Increasingly there are irresponsible people including certain sections of the media who openly engage in ridiculing other religions or making a mockery of the national anthem. These are dishonourable acts and have long terms ramifications for national unity because of the sensitivities involved. After committing such acts they take an easy route of expressing remorse and apology. This is not enough.”

I am also in agreement with Dr Ongkili who said that those responsible should be charged in order to deter others from committing the same acts. The apology can be their mitigation and it is up to the courts.

The government has been quick to react by punishing Makkal Ossai by suspending it for one month and Makkal Ossai ought to consider itself very lucky at the punishment meted out.

The incident also saw M.I.C Youth urging the government to take stern actions against Makkal Ossai hoping that it may suffer the same fate as The Sarawak Tribune. M.I.C Youth move comes at a surprise since one hardly finds M.I.C Youth protesting or demonstrating against demolishing of temples, making police reports when temples are demolished or even handing over memorandums when temples are earmarked for being demolished and here they are seeking justice for the Christians.

It is a known fact that Makkal Ossai in recent months has been strident in their criticism of Dato Seri Samy Velu and M.I.C. With the Maika A.G.M coming soon and particularly the issue of the proposed sale of Capital Insurance becoming a hot potato, Makkal Ossai would have provided an avenue for many to stoke feelings against M.I.C and Maika. Thus, for M.I.C, Makkal Ossai transgression came at the appropriate time and presented M.I.C with an opportunity. The one month suspension of Makkal Ossai now must come as a relief to some in the M.I.C.

Coming back to the issue, let this incident be a sobering reminder and a final warning to all that in multicultural and multi religious Malaysia, it is incumbent for all to refrain from causing any act which could injure the feelings and the sensitivities of another.


Norman Fernandez
25th August 2007

ABDUL RAZAK AHMAD DALAM KENANGAN

(Ucapan Norman Fernandez di Majlis Mengenang
Abdul Razak Ahmad pada 26hb Ogos 2007
Hotel Selesa, Johor Bahru)

Hadirin yang dihormati,

Hari ini genaplah tiga minggu pemergian Sdr Abdul Razak Ahmad ataupun lebih dikenali dengan panggilan Razak Ahmad. Sdr Razak Ahmad yang lahir pada 6hb Jun 1939 menyahut seruan Allah pada hari Ahad 12hb Ogos 2007.

Hari ini kita bersama-sama rakan-rakan kenalan dan sahabat Razak Ahmad berhimpun dimajlis peringatan ini untuk mengimbas kembali dan mendengar coretan perjalanan hidup serta perjuangan politik Sdr Razak Ahmad. Hari ini kami berhimpun untuk memberikan penghormatan terakhir kepada seorang insan yang cukup dihormati dan disanjung ramai.

Bagi pihak DAP Negeri Johor, izinkan saya untuk menyampaikan rasa takziah kepada isteri Sdr. Razak Ahmad, Pn Kintan Mohd Amin, anak-anaknya Zulkifli, Juliah, Faizal dan Azlina diatas pemergiannya.

Hadirin,

Saya berasa sungguh bertuah kerana dapat mengenali Sdr Razak Ahmad secara peribadi. Sdr Razak Ahmad seperti saya adalah peguam yang menjalankan amalan guaman di Johor Bahru. Sdr Razak Ahmad adalah graduan Undang-Undang dari Universiti Singapura dan diterima masuk sebagai peguambela dan peguamcara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya pada 10hb September 1973.

Sebagai peguam, beliau terkenal sebagai sebagai seorang yang beretika apabila menjalankan tugas dan mendapat penghormatan bukan sahaja dari peguam yang lain tetapi juga dari hakim-hakim. Beliau menjadi pembela kepada yang tersisih dan tertindas. Beliau pernah membela orang-orang kampung kawasan Gelang Patah yang kehilangan tanah dibawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah dan pernah mengingatkan orang-orang Melayu di Gelang Patah agar jangan tergoda dengan habuan yang ditaburkan untuk tanah-tanah mereka. Suatu hari “apabila wang yang diterima kamu hari ini habis, kamu akan insaf dengan tindakan silam kamu. Tanah orang Melayu yang terlepas takkan kembali.”

Sekali lagi apabila Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar di lancarkan, Sdr Razak Ahmad mengingatkan orang Melayu kepada apa yang terjadi di Gelang Patah dahulu untuk dijadikan iktibar. Pernah suatu hari semasa saya berbincang dengan Sdr Razak Ahmad tentang WPI, beliau dengan nada sayu meluahkan, jika orang Melayu tidak sedar, WPI akan melihat kepada kehilangan lebih banyak tanah orang Melayu. Masanya akan datang bila orang Melayu tidak akan memiliki tanah. Peringatan kepada nama “Tanah Melayu” akan hanyalah kepada peninggalan silam yang terukir pada koc Keretapi Tanah Melayu. Semoga rakyat di WPI mengambil iktibar dari amanat Sdr Razak Ahmad.

Sebagai orang politik, saya mula mengenali Sdr Razak Ahmad secara terdekat semasa kemelut politik sekitar tahun 1998. Namun perjuangan politiknya sudah bermula ketika Sdr Razak Ahmad menuntut di Universiti Singapura tahun. Idealisme dan semangat untuk berkhidmat kepada rakyat membuatnya menceburkan diri dalam Parti Rakyat dan di penghujung hayatnya beliau bersama dengan Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Apa yang boleh diperhatikan ialah kepercayaan dari awal lagi kepada konsep multiculturalism.

Walaupun berkali-kali Sdr Razak Ahmad bertanding dalam pilihanraya namun tuah kemenangan tidak memihaknya. Paling dekat ialah pada tahun 1986 apabila Sdr Razak Ahmad kalah di DUN Tanjung Puteri dengan 22 undi dan kemudian kesahihan keputusan ini telah dicabarnya di Mahkamah yang akhirnya memutuskan bagi pihak Sdr Razak Ahmad. Dalam pilihanraya kecil Sdr Razak Ahmad sekali lagi kalah dengan hanya 31 undi.

Hadirin,

Sdr Razak Ahmad akan dikenali sebagai seorang insan biasa yang sedia kedepan dan berani berdiri bersama rakyat yang tersisih dan tertindas. Sdr Razak Ahmad menabur budi membela nasib rakyat tanpa memikir tentang ganjaran peribadi mahupun keselesaan diri untuknya. Bayangan hukuman undang-undang sama sekali tidak mengoyahkan perjuangannya.

Sehingga hari ini ramai masih memperkatakan bagaimana pada tahun 1974 Sdr Razak Ahmad menunjukkan solidaritinya bersama dengan hampir 200 warga setinggan yang kehilangan tanah dirampas pihak berkuasa dan berkhemah bersama mereka di perkarangan Bukit Timbalan. Sdr Razak Ahmad ditangkap dan ditahan dibawah ISA dan kemudiannya diletakkan dibawah Restricted Residence selama dua tahun. Kesalahannya hanyalah kerana tampil membela nasib warga setinggan Tasek Utara.

Bagi ramai, tahanan dalam ISA sudah cukup untuk melunturkan semangat politik. Tetapi bukan bagi Sdr Razak Ahmad. Semangat menegakkan keadilan tetap berkobar dan keinginan berjasa untuk insan tertindas tetap disanubari.

Pada tahun 1986, melihat kepada kekejaman Zionis terhadap rakyat malang Palestin dan untuk menarik perhatian kepada ketidakadilan di bumi Palestin, Razak Ahmad membantah kedatanganan Presiden Israel Chaim Herzoq ke Singapura. Beliau memberanikan diri berbaring di landasan keretapi Johor Bahru untuk menghalang tren KTM menghala ke Singapura. Razak Ahmad membuat sedemikian bukan untuk meraih publisiti murahan tetapi untuk membuka mata rakyat dan dunia kepada keperitan rakyat Palestin dan menghantar mesej kepada rakyat Palestin bahawa masih ada yang bersamamu.

Sekali lagi pada tahun 1995, Sdr Razak Ahmad menjadi perhatian.
Pantai dan laut adalah kurnia tuhan untuk manfaat rakyat. Tetapi pihak berkuasa apabila ditaburkan ringgit dan janji indah sanggup memfaraidkan persisiran pantai Lido kepada pemaju mengunakan alasan kononnya ingin melaksanakan pembangunan tepi pantai pada hal pembangunan sebelah pantaipun belum terlaksana.

Sdr Razak Ahmad mengambil tindakan untuk mencabar keputusan pihak kerajaan Negeri dan menyaman Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru. Malangnya Sdr Razak Ahmad bukan sahaja tidak berjaya dan dipaksa membayar kos tetapi lebih memilukan ialah hakim kes dalam penghakimannya menyelar Sdr Razak Ahmad sebagai “tukang sibuk”.

Kini apabila rakyat melalui tepian jalan pantai Lido kita boleh lihat melihat bagaimana cerucuk-cerucuk besi menjadi mercu tanda projek terbengkalai.

Saya pernah mengarang sebuah sajak tentang isu ini dan izinkan saya untuk mendeklamasikan sajak berjodol :-

BANDARAYA TERAPUNG AIR

Cecucuk-cerucuk besi di bibir pantai
yang dipukul ombak Tebrau
adalah testamen
angkara dan keangkuhan politikus-politikus
yang tergoda janji saudagar-saudagar impian
sehingga sanggup sekongkol menggadai pantai untuk ringgit

Dimanakah mereka kini
politikus-politikus dan adikara
yang memperlekeh suara-suara kerdil
mencerca mereka sebagai abar-abar.

Dimanakah hakim lagi arif
yang membidas peguam sebagai “busy body”
malah disuruh membayar kos
salahnya cuma mencari pengadilan
Kini siapa yang betul ?

Di bibir pantai
papan iklan yang dimamah mentari
masih degil mendabik menjaja impian yang sudah lama pudar.
Dibibir pantai
Cerucuk-cerucuk besi yang lama terbengkalai
aib berdiri sebagai mercu kegagalan.

(Info Johore Bar Sept 2002)


Hadirin yang di hormati,

Saudara Razak Ahmad pernah berkhidmat dalam Perkhidmatan Awam Negeri Johor sebagai Penolong Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri dan pernah menjadi Timbalan Pengarah Tanah dan Galian. Beliau juga pernah menjadi Setiausaha Kerja FELDA dan pada masa itu Pengerusinya ialah Tan Sri Musa Hitam.

Hadirin, bolehlah bayangkan dengan jawatan-jawatan tinggi yang dipegangnya berpeluang untuk Sdr Razak Ahmad menikmati hidup yang lebih senang sememangnya sudah terbentang luas. Kontrak-kontrak kerajaan senang di bolotnya, menjadi Pengarah Syarikat-syarikat papan utama Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur bukannya sukar. Pinggat Datuk dan Tan Sri hanya menanti masa. Malah menjadi seorang menteri tidak begitu mustahil.

Namun, untuk menghirup dunia senang lenang hanya boleh jikalah Razak Ahmad mengabdikan diri kepada wang ringgit dengan menutup mata kepada kesemua ketidakadilan, jika Razak Ahmad sanggup bersekongkol dengan ahli politik tidak bermaruah dan memekakkan telinga kepada ratapan rakyat dan jikalah Razak Ahmad sanggup membisu dan tidak membicarakan rentetan rakyat biasa dan sedia menjadi pak turut mengipas punggung si politikus keparat.

Malah dizaman serba senang ini, bukan senang untuk mencari peguam yang sanggup berjuang bersama barisan alternatif membela rakyat yang tertindas kerana takut-takut disenarai hitam dan tidak diletakkan dalam panel bank dan pemaju.

Tetapi Sdr Razak Ahmad bukan orang sedemikian yang boleh dipancing dengan wang, jawatan dan pangkat. Kerana itulah sepanjang hayatnya dan sehingga Sdr Razak Ahmad menghembuskan nafas terakhirnya Sdr Razak Ahmad melaksanakan perjuangan politiknya yang penuh dramatis dan penuh pengorbanan dengan caranya yang tersendiri. Prinsip pegangan hidupnya dan prinsip perjuangannya hanyalah satu untuk rakyat dan hanya untuk rakyat.

Benarlah bak kata ungkapan Melayu lama seperti yang terpapar dalam kad jemputan ke majlis ini “harimau mati meninggalkan belang, Manusia mati meninggalkan nama”.

Pulau Pandan jauh ke tengah
Gunung Daik bercabang tiga
Hancur badan dikandung tanah
Budi yang baik dikenang jua.

Budi dan jasa Sdr Razak Ahmad Budi akan tetap dikenang.

Dalam majlis terakhir Workshop Hak-Asasi Manusia anjuran Badan Peguam Johor pada bulan Julai 2007 Sdr Razak Ahmad selepas menceritakan pengalaman politik dan kepeguaman telah memberi nasihat “ I would urge young lawyers to come forward together with senior lawyers whenever you see abuses and take it up”.

Hari ini, Badan Peguam telah kehilangan seorang yang tidak gentar membela yang teraniaya. Hari ini politik pembangkang kehilangan seorang yang lantang bersuara berani berjuang. Hari ini Malaysia kehilangan seorang patriot.

Percayalah, wahai Sdr Razak Ahmad, kamu telah berusaha dengan sebaiknya dan sudahpun sampai di garis akhir. Bersemadilah sahabatku Sdr Razak Ahmad dalam kedamaian abadi.

Norman Fernandez
25hb Ogos 2007

PROSECUTE OTHERS FIRST BEFORE CHARGING WEE MENG CHEE

Not contented with defiling the national anthem, Wee Meng Chee has once again riled up Malaysians with another new song titled Kawanku/My friend. Its lyrics are a blend of Mandarin, Malay and English and in it he rants “talk some more lah/Chinese go back to China/ if all go back ah/ This would not be Malaysia/ I fear where will you find work/ But its usual lah Malays also don’t like to work/ All go into the jungle/Live like Sakais”

He raps off by ending “But this is my true feeling”. My..my he sure has a way of expressing himself !

After this back to back success, could we expect another parody? Perhaps this time spewing venom against the Indians? Why not Indians have always been easy target.

His antics have found tacit approval from some who claim that he is simply venting out the frustration felt by many but who are fearful to express their views publicly. To them I ask, firstly, if you have an issue or hard done by isn’t there another way to raise it. Are all civil and political avenues to express their views in Malaysia closed ? Secondly, to those claiming that he is speaking up for the Chinese let me ask you this. Would you like it if some Malay youth in the name of creativity or freedom of speech were to make a parody of the lion dance or the Goddess Kuan Yin? I bet all hell will break loose.

I remain steadfast in my view that his parody of the national anthem was wrong and his excuses remain untenable. His latest “outburst” convinces me that he is simply a racist who is no different from the person who some time ago at a gathering brandished and waved a keris in the air.

So should he be punished? I say yes but not before punishing those who made seditious speeches in the UMNO general assembly. Not before punishing the Cabinet Minister who while on an official trip abroad insulted the Indians. Not before punishing the Member of Parliament who made the sexist remark in parliament. Not before punishing the Member of Parliament who shouted a derogatory word against the Indians. Not before punishing all those who were involved in circulating the vicious SMS which mobilised a Muslim mob to gather and terrorised Catholics outside the Silibin Church. Not before punishing those who disrupted a lawful Article 11 gathering. Not before punishing politicians who had threatened a reoccurrence of the May 13 incident. The list can go on.

I ask those baying for Wee Meng Chee’s head, where we you when all these transgressions occurred? You did not have the political will to stand up and ask them to apologise nor the moral decency to ensure that they were prosecuted. But when it concerns Wee Meng Chee, all of a sudden these morally deprived politicians become vociferous and heap the whole gamut of law on him. Now this, I (and many others) construe it as nothing less that an act of racial bigotry.

Norman Fernandez

Norman Fernandez is a lawyer in private practice and maintains his blog at www.normanfernandez.blogspot.com

RAPPING NEGARAKU IS NOT A JOKE

Wee Meng Chee, a Malaysian student studying Mass Communication at Ming Chuan University, Taiwan has gained instant notoriety for mocking the national anthem and making statements which many have found it offensive. His self made six minute video rapping Negaraku or rather in his case “Negarakuku” posted on the video sharing site Youtube has come under fire.

He now refuses to apologise and instead demands that the government “through proper laws prove to him” what wrong he had done by parodying the national anthem. He claims that his lyrics do not criticise anyone but merely narrates how he saw his country. He blames the Malay papers for maligning him and causing stress to his family.

What a load of codswallop ! Instead of apologizing and quickly bringing the issue to a close he is now belligerent.

Having viewed the video, I find it most offensive when Meng Chee does a rap of the national anthem. For a start he raps negaraku as “negarakuku” implying that Malaysia is insane. He even equates the call of the azan to the crowing of the cockerel. There is no doubt that he has insulted the national anthem and even belittling religion.

The national anthem, Negaraku is not the anthem of the government in power but is the anthem of Malaysia and Malaysians. As such it calls for respect and reverence by all Malaysian irrespective of race, creed and political divide.

Some have defended him by saying that it was his reflection of present day Malaysia. If Meng Chee (or any other like minded)has an issue with the country or believes that he has been hard done by, there are many other ways and avenues for him to express his views. Definitely not by deriding the Jalur Gemilang or the Negaraku.

Even more disappointing is to hear some politicians coming to his defence for his bravado and giving perverse reasons. Parti Keadilan Nasional Youth has openly defended his action as reflection of Malaysia, while the PKR Batu Gajah, Perak division has offered him legal help. Worst, DAP Youth Chief Nga Kor Ming is reported in the STAR, August 12, 2007 to have found Meng Chee’s rapping of the national anthem not offensive and instead very creative.

I, for one cannot accept such reasoning. I believe that, whatever shortcoming Malaysia has, as citizens of Malaysia and so long as we are Malaysians we owe ourselves to be loyal to Malaysia and that includes respecting the flag and the national anthem.

Some politicians have already demanded that Meng Chee be charged and punished under the Sedition Act or the ISA or that his passport be revoked. There is not a need to go that extreme when there are already provisions under the National Anthem Act.

In the interim, Meng Chee must know that his action is unacceptable and his justifications untenable. He has insulted the national anthem for which he owes an open and unconditional apology - to all Malaysians.

Norman Fernandez
Norman Fernandez is a lawyer in private practice in Johor. He maintains his blog at www.normanfernandez.blogspot.com

ISLAMIC STATE AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

On July 17, 2007, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state which is driven by fundamentals of Islam and was not a secular state. He even went further by emphasizing that Malaysia had “never been a secular state”.

Malaysians still remember how Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed (then Dato) on July 29, 2001 unilaterally, unconstitutionally and without even consulting his Barisan Nasional coalition partners (so much for a united national front) declared that Malaysia was an Islamic state.

While there is no denying that Dr Mahathir’s unilateral declaration and Najib’s statement could be construed as political gimmickry aimed to appease the Malays to believe that UMNO is no less Islamic than PAS but also to convince the Non Muslims that UMNO’s version of Islamic state is more moderate and acceptable when compared to PAS’s version of Islamic state, the danger is that, if these declarations remain unrebutted, uncorrected and unchallenged it would only mean further undermining of the Malaysian constitution.

Clearly, attempts are being made by certain quarters to rewrite history and the social contract of 1957 surreptitiously.

So is Malaysia an Islamic state? Proponents could show physical characteristics, among others Islamic schools, colleges and universities, Shariah laws and shariah courts (for muslims) in every state in Malaysia, Islamic banks and Islamic banking system, Islamic medical centres and hospitals and even membership to international Islamic organizations such as Organisation of Islamic Countries (O.I.C) and Islamic Development Bank. While these attributes may also be found in other Muslim countries, Malaysia with these attributes and despite having a larger Muslim population, remains a secular state as expressed in the Federal Constitution.

Support for the view that Malaysia was conceived as a secular state can be found in Malaysia’s document of destiny - The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Article 4 clearly declares that it is the supreme law of the land. In fact the Hansard of 1st May 1958 records the reaffirmation of the then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman: when he on behalf of the government placed it on record and said “I would like to make it clear that this country is not an Islamic State as it is generally understood, we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the Federation”.

Thus to cite Article 3(1), to infer that Malaysia is an Islamic state runs contrary to the original intention of the Constitution. In fact, Tun Salleh Abbas in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor reiterated that religion in Article 3 was never intended to extend the application of shariah law to the sphere of public law.

Unlike the constitution of Pakistan which declares the shariah law as the supreme law of the land and laws inconsistent with the shariah are deemed inconsistent, in Malaysia, no where in the Federal Constitution does it state that the governance is based on the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. There is a clear and crucial distinction between a country where the majority of the population are Muslims and is accepted as an Islamic country and a country where the supreme law is the shariah and is deemed to be an Islamic state. In Che Omar’s case Tun Salleh Abbas said “If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the junction of Islam would be void.”

Evidences found in constitutional documents points to the view that at various stages of the formation of the Federation of Malaya (1957) and subsequently Malaysia (1963), the nation was founded on the basis that it should remain a secular state. It is worth remembering that initially, the Rulers did not want Islam to be the official religion because of fears that their status as head of religion in the states would be usurped. (see Ahmad Ibrahim “the Position of Islam in the Constitution of Malaysia”, in Mohd Suffian The Constitution of Malaysia, its development : 1957-1977 p.49 ).

The Alliance Party ( a coalition of UMNO, MCA and MIC) recommended to the Reid Commision that:
…the religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslims nationals professing and practicing other religions and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.” (cited by Supreme Court in Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas (1990) 2 MLJ 300. The recommendation became the basis of Article 3 of the 1957 Constitution.

This reflects the thinking of our founding fathers. Islam was given a special position in the constitution by making it the official religion of the Federation. Freedom to practice other religions was guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, it can be said with certainty that the founding fathers who represented the Malays, Chinese and the Indians never went as far as agreeing to accept Malaysia as an Islamic state or to acknowledge that shariah was to be the supreme law of the land. Shariah laws applies exclusively to Muslims only and that too in areas as demarcated under Schedule 9, List 11, Item 1 of the Constitution.

We should not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims and therefore an Islamic country and where the supreme law is the shariah, an Islamic state. In Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor the Supreme Court stated that “ If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution) on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of the secular law prior to the Constitution…”.

It is grossly unbecoming for politicians and other parties, for their own political expediency and self interest to distort the constitutional status quo and declare Malaysia an Islamic state. Politicians and others with an agenda must be reminded that the Federal constitution cannot be subverted through reinterpretations inconsistent with the objectives underlying the Federal Constitution.

In conclusion, Malaysians irrespective of race and religion must ensure and guard the Constitution from being hijacked by those who finds the ‘secular’ Constitution and the State an anathema and are determined to impose their own agenda.

THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED LION

Long time ago, God put two flocks of sheeps on grassland: one group in the north and one group in the south. God also gave them two types of native predators: Lion and wolf.

God told the sheeps: “If you choose the wolf, I shall give you one, and it’s allowed to bite you at its will. If you choose the lion, I shall give you two, and you are allowed to choose from the two which is to live on the grassland, and you can replace it at any time.”

So, the question is: If you are one of the sheep, what will you choose? A wolf or two lions?

It’s easy to make your choice, right? Remember your choice, and continue with our story.

The sheeps in the south thought that the lions are more fierce than wolf, so they picked the wolf.

The sheeps in the north thought that although the lions are more fierce than the wolf, they had an the option to choose. So they choose two lions.

The wolf started eating the sheep once it entered the herd in the south. The wolf was smaller and it had smaller appetite. One sheep was enough to appease its hunger for days. So the sheeps only were hunted once a few days.

The sheeps in the north chose a lion and left another with God. The lion started eating the sheeps once it entered the herd in the north. The lion was more fierce than the wolf and it had much larger appetite. It needed to eat a sheep each day to keep its stomach full. So the sheeps was hunted everyday, and they were very afraid.

They asked God to replace the lion. But the lion that stayed with the God has not eaten anything and it was very hungry. It pounced on the sheeps and bite like crazy. The sheeps had to run for their life everyday until they didn’t have any time to eat.

The sheeps in the south were please that they had made the right choice, and they laughed at the sheep in the north for being stupid for chosing the wrong predator.

The sheeps in the north regreted their choice. They complained to God, and asked God to change their native predator to a wolf. But God said: “No. Once the native predator was chosen, it cannot be changed anymore. You must live with it forever. Your only option is to choose between the two lions.” The sheeps in the north have to keep rotating the two lions.

But both lions were the same. Both of them showed no mercy. No matter how they rotated the lions, their situation was always much more miserable than the sheep at the south. At last, they stoped rotating. They kept a lion full all the time while letting another one suffer in hunger. They only replaced the lions when the hungry lion was dying.


After a long time of hunger, the hungry lion realized that: Even though they are much stronger than the sheeps, its fate was controlled by the sheeps. The sheep could can send him back to God anytime, and let him suffer and die in hunger.

So it treated the sheeps very well, and it only ate the dead and the old sheeps. It would not eat the healthy sheeps. The sheeps felt very surprised and were happy. Some of the younger sheeps even suggested letting the hungry lion to stay with them forever. But one of the elder reminded them: “The lion treats us good because it is afraid that we’ll send it back to the God. If we let another lion die, we’ll left with no choice and the hungry lion will return to its nature and starts hunting us again.” The sheeps agreed with the elder. To prevent another lion from starving to death, they replaced it after a few weeks.

And the lion also realized that its fate was also controlled by the sheep. In order to stay longer on the grassland, the lions’ tried its best to please the sheep. Another lion felt so sad that it had to suffer hunger again.

After experiencing such a hard time, the sheep in the north finally can enjoy themselves.

In the mean time, the situation of the sheeps in the south became worse. Since the wolf had no competitor and the sheeps couldn’t replace it, it started to act wildly. It had to kill ten sheep everyday. It didn’t eat sheep anymore. It only drank their blood. The sheep were not allowed to make a sound because they would be killed by the wolf if they did.

In the end, the sheep at the south could only bemoan: “We should have chosen the lions in the first place……”.

End of story.

The moral of the story

We can only surrender if we don’t have the right to choose and decide (like the sheep at the south). But democracy gives us an opportunity to exercise our power to choose and decide our destiny (like the sheep at the north).

Regretfully, in our country, many people do not realize that they have the power to do so. They keep feeding the same lion with their flesh and blood while letting another one starve to death. As a result, the lion grows stronger and its appetite becomes larger. It starts to think itself as the King and do not care for the sheeps as long as it’s happy. It hopes that this situation will last forever.

So, I hope that after reading this story, you’ll realize that you have the power to choose. You have to show the lions who’s the boss!!!

-UTOPIA-

Revathi's Revelation

(II) JOHOR BAHRU (J-enayah B-anyak) AND CRIME

In March 1997, the then Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew during a libel suit against Tang Liang Hong affirmed an affidavit where in he remarked that the Malaysian state of “Johor was notorious for shooting, mugging and car jacking”.

That was enough to make Malaysian politicians have hissy fits and demand that Lee Kuan Yew apologise. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, then the Foreign Affairs Minister described Lee Kuan Yew’s comment as callous and hostile. Najib Tun Razak, the then Education Minister said only an arrogant leader would come out with such an irresponsible statement. Johor UMNO members when welcoming the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed at Senai airport brandished placards calling Lee Kuan Yew among others of being senile. In the end Lee Kuan Yew apologized.

Ten years on after Lee Kuan Yew’s infamous remark, Johor Bahru has yet to lose its cowboy town reputation and now has become even worst, earning a grim reputation of being a crime infested city.

A few days ago Datuk Maximus Ongkili, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and who is also the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation Chairman claimed that Johor is safe and that crime rate has dropped by 7.24 per cent in the first six months.

It is easy for the Minister to say that Johor Bahru is safe. He does not live in Johor Bahru. For us Johoreans, we remain remain unconvinced. There is an escalation of crimes in Johor Bahru and particularly vicious and violent crimes. Snatch thefts are so prevalent that it has become a common occurrence and part of city life. The question is how and why crime got so out of hand in Johor Bahru. One thing for certain Lee Kuan Yew has definitely made Malaysian politicians eat humble pie!

A recent spate of vicious and violent crimes and which was widely reported, not only has caused much anxiety among the people but continues to reaffirms the perception of Johor being a lawless city and that the police seem incapable to combat the crime effectively.

Here are some of the vicious and violent crimes which occurred in Johor Bahru in May and June 2007.

June 12, 2007
Three men raped a 19 year old girl and her 22 year old boyfriend could only watch helplessly because he had been slashed twice.

June 13, 2007
A group of armed men, took a couple on a one hour terror ride before raping the 35 year old woman in the presence of her friend who had been slashed.

June 20, 2007
A 16 year old girl was abducted by four men on motorcycles at a park and was taken to a secluded spot 20 kilometres away, where the men took turns to rape her.

June 20, 2007
A 15 year old girl and her 13 year old brother was waiting at a bus-stop when a man claiming to be a police officer stopped and asked for their identity cards. When the pair told him that their identity cards were at home, he told them to get in the car. When they arrived at their home, the man asked the brother to go and get the identity cards. He then sped off with the girl. The girl was taken to a sewerage treatment plant in Taman Teknologi Skudai and was brutally raped.

May, 2007
A pregnant woman who was waiting in the car while her husband went to toilet was held up at knife point and taken on a terror ride and was robbed and gang-rapped in front of her three year old son.

On June 17, 2007 about 200 people, gathered outside the residence of the Johor Menteri Besar in Johor Bahru to demonstrate against the high crime rate. A week later Johor Bahru Tiong Hua Federation launched a 100,000 signature campaign to protest against rising crime rate in Johor Bahru. Such was the effect that in less than a week, the Johor Bahru Tiong Hua Federation collected 118,000 signatures! These events are the people message to the government that the people are beginning to feel helpless, frustrated and worried at the increasing lawlessness.

The people of Johor Bahru are shocked and frightened by the police admission that they have identified seven gangs lording (bermaharaja –lela) in Johor Bahru . On June 30, 2007 the Inspector General of Police went further by revealing that apart from Singapore criminals, criminal elements from Taiwan and Indonesia has been identified to be involved in organized crime in Johor. In fact on June 26, 2007, the Inspector General of Police said that these criminals are being protected by “influential people”. (Minguan Malaysia June 30, 2007). The people’s anxiety worsens when newspapers carry reports of a certain crime boss in Johor dubbed “Tunku” who wields great influence both under and above ground. Nanyang Siang Pau July 5, 2007 claims that Tunku is so powerful that several policemen who had crossed his path were “transferred” and that he is said to have paid RM 2 million to a senior officer at Bukit Aman for the latter’s cooperation, with which he was able to build his underworld base in Johor. Things get murkier when the STAR, July 2, 2007 reported that almost the entire D7 unit based at the Johor State Police headquarters were moved out. This included the unit’s commanding officer and five inspectors. It is not clear whether the officers were transferred out for not carrying out their duties or by powerful syndicates who felt hindered by these officers. (Read the STAR Monday 2, July 2007).

All these revelations does not surprise the long suffering people of Johor Bahru who have been witnessing the increasing lawlessness and are living in fear that they or their family could be the next victim.

So what could the reason be for the escalating crime rate. One reason is the lack of sufficient policemen to fight crime. The crime statistic and police to people ratio for Johor makes miserable reading.

According to police statistics, in 2006, Johor recorded a total of 29,079 criminal cases and out of which 68% of these reports were lodged were of incidents which occurred in the Johor Bahru district alone.

Crime statistics from Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontingen Johor, for the period January to May 2007 reveals that, Johor Bahru Selatan recorded 6,467 cases while Johor Bahru Utara for the same period recorded 2,258.

New Straits Times Saturday June 23, 2007 reported that the 1.5 million people in Johor Bahru were being served by 1,700 policemen that is one policeman to 15,000 people. On Monday 22 June 2007, the Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman in the State Assembly said that Johor requires 6,910 police personnel or one policeman to every 250 people (1:250).

Presently in Johor Bahru Selatan the ratio is one policeman to 1,100 (Johor Bahru Selatan population 1,159079- policemen 1159 ) while for Johor Bahru Utara is one policeman to 776 people (Johor Bahru Utara population 530,990 - policemen 684). This miserable police to people ratio falls short of what is recommended by Interpol, which is one policeman for every 250 people.

The government must be mindful that the Johor Bahru is not only the southern gateway into Malaysia but more importantly the economic lifeline of Johor Bahru is very much dependent on Singaporeans (even if they do not wish to admit it). But with all the crimes making headlines, there is an adverse effect on Johor Bahru. Singaporeans are now fearful of coming into Malaysia. With travel becoming cheaper, they may give Johor Bahru and Malaysia a miss. Soon they may even reconsider if they should invest in Malaysia.

A secure and safe city and state becomes all the more important after the launching of the Iskandar Development Region (IDR). Malaysia is trying to attract investors to IDR but investors will not come to a crime infested city/ region. Thus when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, visited Singapore to promote IDR the foremost question by potential Singapore investors was the issue of security. That should be a sobering reminder that the success of IDR will very much depend on how serious and proactive the government and the police is in fighting crime.

Fighting crime and keeping criminals out (Johor has 17 entry and exit points making it easier for foreign criminals to slip in) must be of utmost priority and to wage war on crime requires policemen, resources and honest policing. Thus, unless there are sufficient policemen and until these policemen are visibly present on the street together (and entry points well secured) and unless there is a concerted and proactive effort to fight crime, crimes will continue to escalate and criminals will brazenly continue to terrorise the people of Johor Bahru.

JOHOR BAHRU (J-enayah B-anyak) AND CRIME

In March 1997, the then Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew during a libel suit against Tang Liang Hong affirmed an affidavit where in he remarked that the Malaysian state of “Johor was notorious for shooting, mugging and car jacking”.

That was enough to make Malaysian politicians have hissy fits and demand that Lee Kuan Yew apologise. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, then the Foreign Affairs Minister described Lee Kuan Yew’s comment as callous and hostile. Najib Tun Razak, the then Education Minister said only an arrogant leader would come out with such an irresponsible statement. Johor UMNO members when welcoming the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed at Senai airport brandished placards calling Lee Kuan Yew among others of being senile. In the end Lee Kuan Yew apologized.

Ten years on after Lee Kuan Yew’s infamous remark, Johor Bahru has yet to lose its cowbow town reputation and now has become even worst, earning a grim reputation of being a crime infested city.

Crime in Johor Bahru has in recent years become more violent and vicious. A recent spate of vicious and violent crimes and which was widely reported, not only has caused much anxiety among the people but continues to reaffirms the perception of Johor being a lawless city and that the police seem incapable to combat the crime effectively.

Here are some of the vicious and violent crimes which occued in Johor Bahru in June 2007.

HEADLINES

June 12, 2007
Three men raped a 19 year old girl and her 22 year old boyfriend could only watch helplessly because he had been slashed twice.

June 13, 2007
A group of armed men, took a couple on a one hour terror ride before raping the 35 year old woman in the presence of her friend who had been slashed.

June 20, 2007
A 16 year old girl was abducted by four men on motorcycles at a park and was taken to a secluded spot 20 kilometres away, where the men took turns to rape her.

June 20, 2007
A 15 year old girl and her 13 year old brother was waiting at a bus-stop when a man claiming to be a police officer stopped and asked for their identity cards. When the pair told him that their identity cards were at home, he told them to get in the car. When they arrived at their home, the man asked the brother to go and get the identity cards. He then sped off with the girl. The girl was taken to a sewerage treatment plant in Taman Teknologi Skudai and was brutally raped.

May, 2007
A pregnant woman who was waiting in the car while her husband went to toilet was held up at knife point and taken on a terror ride and was robbed and gang-rapped in front of her three year old son.

PEOPLES RESPONSE

Thus it was no surprise that long suffering people of Johor Bahru decided to act. On June 17, 2007 about 200 people, gathered outside the residence of the Johor Menteri Besar in Johor Bahru to demonstrate against the high crime rate. Instead of being sympathetic, understanding and responsive to the civil act, two SUARAM activist were arrested. The gathering was instead turned into a racial agenda. Talk about shooting the messenger ! A week later Johor Bahru Tiong Hua Federation launched a 100,000 signature campaign to protest against rising crime rate in Johor Bahru. Such was the effect that in less than a week, the Johor Bahru Tiong Hua Federation collected 118,000 signatures.

One thing is clear, the aftermath of the civil protest and peoples initiative has resulted in response and success (even if the authorities do not admit it). The reactionary and knee–jerk response has finally awakened the authorities. The government has responded. The police has also responded.

STATISTICS

Suddenly there is an admission by the police that they have identified seven gangs lording (bermaharaja –lela) in Johor Bahru and on June 30, 2007 the Inspector General of Police made a startling claim that apart from Singapore criminals, criminal elements from Taiwan and Indonesia has been identified to be involved in organized crime in Johor. In fact on June 26, 2007, the Inspector General of Police said that these criminals are being protected by “influential people”. (Minguan Malaysia June 30, 2007). All these revealation does not surprise the people of Johor Bahru .

In the aftermath of the violent crimes which made headlines, The STAR, July 2, 2007 reported that almost the entire D7 unit based at the Johor State Police headquarters were moved out. This included the unit’s commanding officer and five inspectors. It is not clear whether the officers were transferred out for not carrying out their duties or by powerful syndicates who felt hindered by these officers. (Read the STAR Monday 2, July 2007)

The crime statistic and police to people ratio for Johor makes miserable reading.

According to police statistics, in 2006, Johor recorded a total of 29,079 criminal cases and out of which 68% of these reports were lodged were of incidents which occured in the Johor Bahru district alone.

According to crime statistics from Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontingen Johor, for the period January to May, Johor Bahru Selatan recorded 6,467 cases while Johor Bahru Utara for the same period recorded 2,258.

So what is the problem ? New Straits Times Saturday June 23, 2007 reported that the 1.5 million people in Johor Bahru were being served by 1,700 policemen , that is one policeman to 15,000 people. On Monday 22 June 2007, the Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman in the State Assembly said that Johor requires 6,910 police personels or one policeman to every 250 people (1:250).

However presently in Johor Bahru Selatan the ratio is one policeman to 1,100 (Johor Bahru Selatan population 1,159079- policemen 1159 ) while for Johor Bahru Utara is one policeman to 776 people (Johor Bahru Utara population 530,990 - policemen 684). This miserable police to people ratio falls short of what is recommended by Interpol, which is one policeman for every 250 people

THE PROBLEM , CONSEQUENCE AND SOLUTION

Now the main problem has become clear. Not enough police personnel and policemen on the street to fight crime. Unless and until there are sufficient policemen and they are visibly present on the street, crime will continue to strive and the people of Johore Bahru will continue to live in fear.

It must be remembered that unlike other states, Johor is located next to Singapore and Indonesia with 17 entry and exit points, especially at ferry terminals. This makes it easy for criminal elements from Indonesia to slip in and out undetected. In Johor Indonesians continue to commit crimes. Now the IGP says there are also underworld element from Taiwan and Singapore making their bases here. People of Johor Bahru fear that in future a turf war among these gangs may one day break out.

Thus fighting crime and keeping criminals out must be of utmost priority. That can only be done if there are sufficient policemen and resources.

The government must be mindful (even if they do not wish to admit it) that the Johor Bahru is not only the southern gateway into Malaysia but more importantly the economic lifeline of Johor Bahru is very much dependent on Singaporeans. But with all the crimes making headlines, there is an adverse effect on Johor Bahru. Singaporeans are now fearful of coming into Malaysia. With travel becoming cheaper, they may give Johor Bahru and Malaysia a miss. Soon they may even reconsider if they should invest in Malaysia.

A secure and safe city and state becomes all the more important after the launching of the Iskandar Development Region (IDR). Malaysia is trying to attract investors to IDR but investors will not come to a crime infested city/ region. Thus when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, visited Singapre to promote IDR the foremost question by potential Singapore investors was the issue of security. That should be a sobering reminder that the success of IDR will very much depend on how serious and proactive the government and the police is in fighting crime.

Police in helicopters keeping a watchful eye, pictures of police patrols and roadblocks in the newspapers, police cars making regular patrols, policemen and GOF personals more visible and patrolling the streets - all happening only after a spate of crimes will not allay the peoples fear or instill confidence in the people if at the end of the day there is no concerted and proactive efforts to fight crime.

Hopefully lessons have been learned. The public has had enough and now look to a safe Johor Bahru and that means effective policing and not suffering from not understaffed and overstretched policing.

Timelines

June 17, 2007
About 200 people gathered in front of the Johor Menteri Besar’s residence in Johor Bahru to voice their anger at increasing crime rate.

June 21, 2007
Deputy Prime Minister said cabinet has decided that an additional 400 policemen would be deployed in Johor Bahru as soon as possible. Also an additional 200 police patrol cars would be deployed.


June 21, 2007
State police Chief announces that with effect of 23 June, more than 300 policemen will take over policing of crime prone areas in Johor Bahru.
160 General Operations Force personnel will join the 150 Federal Reserve unit to patrol the streets.
The number of patrol cars have been increased from 68 to 93.


June 22, 2007
Teh Kee Sin who is the Southern Johor Small and Medium Industries Association president was reported in the STAR (June 22, 2007) saying” potential investors were skeptical about venturing into Johor Bahru due to its reputation as a hotspot for crime. Businessmen especially those from Singapore and abroad tell me that unless we solve the crime issue they are not keen on investing here”.

June 22, 2007
Datuk Donald Lim Deputy Minister for Tourism was reported in the STAR (June 22, 2007) saying that “the recent spate of crime in Johor Bahru has adversely affected tourism”.

June 25, 2007
Tan Sri Musa announced that police will rent premises to be temporary police stations. 30 inspectors have been sent to Johor as investigating officers.

Usual blog resumes on Monday 22nd January 2007.

MALAYSIA. IS THIS GOODBYE ?

Deputy UMNO Youth head, Khairy Jamaludin ( November 16, 2006) at the People’s Progressive Party Youth wing convention warned that there are limits to freedom.

He said while there was all the open atmosphere where government policies and leaders could be criticised by the media and where issues could be discussed, he said that there were limits that needed to be adhered. According to him, racial sensitivities still exist and that we should respect these boundaries.

The government, he said, could revert to a more controlled atmosphere if certain people chose to abuse this freedom. He hoped that the few people who were bent on testing the limits would not be too extreme, as this would prompt restriction.

Khairy warned that ”UMNO Youth will come down hard on those who breach the limits and ignore the boundaries of law and racial sensitivities”.

The question is why warn others when much of the needless saber rattling and blood curdling talk had come from UMNO?. In fact for the first time, Malaysians witnessed the worst manifestation of negative, divisive and destructive polemics when speakers at the UMNO general assembly ignored the boundaries of law and sensitivities.

Remember Malacca delegate Hasnoor Sidang Hussein bluntly stated that “ UMNO is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood in defence of race and religion.”

Remember Trengganu delegate Razali Idris who reminded that “Malay rights cannot be challenged, or else the Malays will run amok and May 13 will recur.

Remember UMNO Youth exco member Azimi Daim who said “when tension rises, the blood of Malay warriors will run in our veins”.

Remember UMNO delegate from Perlis who directed his question at youth chief Dato Seri Hishammuddin Hussein: “Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Dato Hisham when is he going to use it”.

Prior to these Malaysians have witnessed how UMNO youth members violently disrupted the APCET conference and has not forgotten when one UNMO Youth exco member during the Suqui controversy threatened to burn down the Chinese Assembly Hall and were equally alarmed when recently a group of UMNO members barged into Puchong M.CA Member of Parliament office and demanded retraction and apology for his speech in the Parliament simply because the Member of Parliament raised the concern of lack of non muslim places of worship.

Even the concept of Bangsa Malaysia held dearly by Malaysians have suddenly become unacceptable and untenable to the Johor Menteri Besar Dato Ghani Othman who fears that the concept could pose a threat to national stability. Instead of using the concept of Bangsa Malaysia to strengthen racial unity, and particularly when Malaysia is just one year away from celebrating 50 years of nationhood, there are politicians who endure to ensure divisiness.


Thus it must have come at no surprise when New Sunday Times (of all newspaper !) November 17, 2006 at pg 25 reported that since November, more Malaysians now more than ever are selling their properties and cars and are seeking to migrate.

According to a migration agent, they used to get on an average 15 to 20 enquiries a day. However between November 15 and November 19, 2006 there were 6,500 enquiries for Australia, 5,500 enquiries for New Zealand, 4,000 enquiries for Canada and 3,500 enquiries for other countries including Norway and Switzerland. And who exactly are migrating? According to another migration agent the callers were of all races-Malays, Chinese and Indians.

The newspaper also reported that real estate agents also revealed that an increasing number of people mainly from middle income groups and above and owned properties worth RM 250,000 and more of wanting to sell their houses and the reason given by most of them is that they are migrating and needed to dispose of their houses. Like real estate agents, used car dealers are also getting enquiries from would be emigrants. A used car dealer is quoted as telling that there was an increased number of sellers in the market recently.

Irresponsible acts, divisive, provocative and seditious polemics from politicians hoping to score sectarian points has without any doubt done grave damage to the Malaysian psyche and nation building particularly. There is indeed a quiet soul searching going on. Importantly, Malaysians are most concerned about their future and more importantly about the destiny of Malaysia. Many are fearful that recent events may well be the manifestation of a future Malaysia. Perhaps it is the apprehension and the wariness of the future which is precipitating many to consider migrating. More worrying is the fact that even Malays are considering to emigrate. That to me does not bode well for Malaysia and Malaysians.

BE HONEST WITH YOUR FAITH

Let us be honest. In Malaysia, no one is forced to become a Muslim. Whatever the reason for the conversion, no convert who having voluntarily embraced Islam, could not later claim he did not know the consequence of his conversion. In fact having embraced Islam voluntarily one expects him to be a good practicing Muslim.

The problem with some is that after having embraced Islam, they then either keep their new faith shrouded in secrecy or worst of all continue to follow the practices of former religion, sometimes brazenly open. Infact, many family members only come to know of the loved one’s conversion at death. That is when the problem arises. That is when the body tussle between the family and religious authorities begin.

Much of this could have easily been avoided if he had been honest, forthcoming and informed his family members of his conversion. By shrouding his conversion and keeping this as a dark secret, family members on his death instead of mourning his death, invitingly and inevitably become embroiled in a body tussle when religious authorities make a claim for his body. This is not only distressing for his family members but also brings religion and particularly Islam into open conflict.

All too often family members caught in such a situation proffer claims that the deceased during his lifetime continued to eat pork, drink alcohol or participate in non-muslim religious ceremonies. It must be remembered that these are not grounds to show that he had “renounced Islam” or had not been following his new faith. His actions would merely at worst make him a “bad” Muslim but never an apostate.

If he had embraced Islam voluntarily then family members must acknowledge his new faith and more importantly accept the fact that he must be buried according to Muslim rites however painful and distressing it may be.

JOHOR ASSEMBLYMAN DEFEND’S MALICIOUS SMS.

The Star 1st December reported that the Barisan Nasional Johor State Assemblyman for Kemelah Ayub Rahmat defended the controversial action of the woman who sent an SMS alleging the baptism of Muslims (read www.normanfernandez.blogspot.com) and further said that the SMS senders should not be blamed as ‘it was a wariness over the possibility of apostasy reoccurring”.

For a start it is mind boggling that a Johor State assemblyman would waste precious assembly time and demean the august Assembly by raising not only an issue which occurred in another state (Perak) but worst of all insult non muslims and particularly Catholics, by showing solidarity with the woman.

If he has nothing much to say and which obviously he doesn’t have, then he should shut up and conceal his ignorance and stupidity. It would have been better if he had given others the opportunity to speak. Even stranger was his ignorance or the matter which almost disrupted peace, security and harmony so much so that police and the government had to step in and quickly resolve the issue. Obviously he was oblivious to all these and was beyond comprehension for this small minded and myopic politician.

Instead of ticking off the woman who sent the malicious and false SMS and the Muslim mob which descended and disturbed a religious celebration at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church Silibin, the assemblyman found no wrong and to add insult to injury makes an open pronouncement justifying and approving their action. Would he approve should a Christian mob pursuant to a malicious and unverified SMS descend and gather outside a mosque.?

While one does not expect Muslim assemblymen to rebuke the said Assemblyman for his idiocracy, what is perplexing was the indifference and the muted silence of Non Muslim assemblymen from MCA, MIC and GERAKAN who neither had the courage to immediately stand up and rebuke the assemblyman nor call on him to retract the statement let alone stand up and clarify the issue. These are the leaders voters have entrusted their votes to !.

Stranger still is the assemblyman’s logic that “wariness” was the reason for the Muslim mob to gather outside the Silibin Catholic church. Perhaps the assemblyman ought to know that wariness is never a justification for mob reaction. In fact in such situation it becomes all the more important that one should act and think rationally in seeking and verifying the truth. That’s what sensible right thinking people and people guided by religion would do.

The action of the Kemelah assemblyman maybe is the face of a future Malaysia. If leaders like the Kemelah assemblyman cannot think rationally, what hope is there for the flock.

BERCAKAP ADA HUKUMNYA, BERUCAP ADA RUKUNNYA

Bahang dan kesan daripada mesyuarat perwakilan UMNO masih belum reda. Rata-rata gelagat dan ucapan beberapa perwakilan mendapat kecaman. Namun masih ada yang mempertahankan apa yang berlaku dalam mesyuarat UMNO tahun ini sebagai perkara biasa yang juga berlaku dalam mesyuarat parti-parti lain.

Suka atau tidak politik Malaysia adalah politik perkauman. Apatah lagi dengan hampir kebanyakkan parti- parti politik di Malaysia berteraskan perkauman sudah tentu matlamat utamanya adalah perjuangan untuk kaumnya.

Justru itu, sudah menjadi lumrah bahawa mesyuarat tahunan mana-mana parti yang berteraskan kaum, intipati mesyuarat, ucapan dan bahas akan menyentuh kepentingan kaumnya. Ini adalah hakikat dan sudah diterima semua. Kerana itulah apabila kedengaran laungan “bangsa, agama dan negara”, bangsa yang dimaksudkan bukanlah perjuangan untuk bangsa Malaysia tetapi perjuangan untuk kaumnya.

Nada mesyurat tahunan UMNO tahun ini bertukar daripada desakan kepada ugutan dan ucapan bertukar kepada hasutan perasaan kurang senang yang dipendam menjadi benci terbuka. Seolah-olah para perwakilan dalam mesyurat tahunan tahun ini mendapat lesen terbuka dan restu untuk bertindak sedemikian.

Untuk kali pertama kita menonton gelagat para perwakilan yang memberi tepukan gemuruh apabila wakil naik berang seolah-olah melepaskan perasaan dan pandangan yang selama ini terpendam. Ada wakil yang sekadar membidas kaum Cina. Tidak kurang juga yang begitu marah dengan kaum Cina. Malahan pemimpin serta parti komponen BN sendiri tidak terlepas dari bahang kemarahan para perwakilan.

Masyarakat bukan Melayu tergamak melihat wakil bahagian memberitahu perhimpunan bahawa keris telahpun dihayun, sudah pun dicium dan menghasut dengan persoalannya bila pula keris akan di gunakan. Lebih mengerikan adalah mendengar wakil yang bercakap pasal keris dibasahi darah. Amaran bahawa “amuk” yang juga digunakan dalam bahasa Inggeris adalah asalnya perkataan Melayu dan bahawa orang Melayu boleh naik amuk juga menjadi bahan bahas.

Tidak kurang rimas juga apabila melihat keris yang tidak bersalut dicium. Apabila di tegur, orang bukan Melayu di katakan tidak tahu budaya orang Melayu. Mungkin ramai tidak mengetahui bahawa budaya hayun dan mencium keris mula wujud hanya dalam dua tahun kebelakangan ini. Kita tak pernah sebelum ini melihat Tun Abdul Razak ataupun Tun Hussein Onn menghayun dan mencium keris dalam mesyuarat tahunan.

Semua orang politik harus menerima hakikat realiti bahawa Malaysia ini bukan lagi dan tidak lagi kepunyaan mana-mana kaum. Jika lahir di sini kita berhak memanggil Malaysia negaraku. Juga semua harus akur bahawa suka atau tidak Malaysia adalah dan sudahpun menjadi negara berbilang kaum.

Justru itu, biarpun politik Malaysia masih berkobar dengan semangat perkauman dimana yang di pentingkan dan dipertengahkan adalah perjuangkan untuk bangsa, agama dan negara, namun orang politik tidak terkecuali daripada etika politik untuk bertindak sebagai politikus tanggungjawab (responsible politician).

Ini bermakna bercakap ada rukunnya dan berucap ada batasnya. Rukunnya ialah, sesuatu isu biarpun sensitif boleh pertengahkan secara rasional. Lihat bagaimana Mufti Shuib berucap. Tema ucapannya Melayu Kelas Ketiga Mentaliti Kelas Pertama dan Melayu Kelas Pertama Mentaliti Kelas Ketiga. Beliau tidak meracau tetapi mesej yang di sampaikan di akhir ucapan terusik dinaluri semua yang mendengar.

Tidak dapat dinafikan ada mereka apabila berucap bercakap dengan semangat berkobar-kobar dan mengapi-apikan. Malahan mereka menjadi pilihan dan tarikan ramai. Jika itu menjadi cara penyampaian hujahnya, beliau masih bertanggungjawab untuk memastikan bahawa ucapannya tidak menyongsang kearah hasutan dan ugutan sehingga menyemarakkan benci. Di kacamata orang rasional beliau ibarat samseng jalanan. Dahlah cakap pun semberono, mesej pula melampaui batasan. Inilah yang menjadi di mesyuarat UMNO kali ini.

Rukun kelima RukunNegara ialah “Kesopanan dan kesusilaan”. Ini adalah rukun hidup rakayat Malaysia. Namun apa yang di paparkan di mesyuarat tahunan UMNO kali ini ialah hasutan dan ugutan yang mencemar rukun kelima rukun Negara. Peribahasa Melayu menyatakan menang sorak, kampong tergadai. Ya, ucapan berapi-api mungkin telah mendapat tepukan gemuruh, tetapi cakap celaru sudah membawa padah. Orang bukan Melayu sudahpun berasa rimas dengan masa depan mereka. Pelabur asing mungkin juga akan membuat perhitungan mereka. asing ?

Next blog - With effect of 1 December 2006, new post shall appear every Monday.