(i)
The events unfolding in Thailand are part of a gathering global revolt against democracy?
(ii)
Bagaimana saya boleh terbabit dalam agenda Anwar Ibrahim menjadi PM menjelang, pada dan selepas 16 September? Ada lagi hujah-hujah bangang seperti ini!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Fedap & Boikot? Kah, kah, kah!
Kah, kah, kah! Ada penulis-penulis blog, khususnya yang tersohor mula berasa fedap (asal: fed up) dan ingin memulaukan kegiatan memblog buat sementara waktu - mogok.
Demikian, kata mereka.
Ada kehidupan yang lebih penting daripada politik, orang politik dan segala kegilaan mengejar kuasa orang politik.
Maksud mereka, sejak peristiwa minggu lepas mula menguak perang politik - ada orang kata pengulangan 1998 - termasuk liwat dan pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Kah, kah, kah! Orang-orang ini sudah gila atau apa?
Kah, kah, kah! Orang ini mahu tunjukkan mereka lebih suci daripada binatang-binatang politik itu, political junkie?
Kah, kah, kah! Rasakan kamu semua!
Episod ini hanya satu permulaan (bagi sebuah pengakhiran?) atau satu pengakhiran yang sebenar-benarnya?
Kah, kah, kah! Rasakan keindahan politik Malaysia - lebih kotor dan keji, lebih mulia! Kenapa kita takut?
Kah, kah, kah - jika saya berdiri di depan mereka ini - saya juga akan ketawa dengan kepura-puraan mereka (atau, dengan ketulusan akal budi mereka)
Kah, kah, kah - ingin jadi nabi, konon! Bullshit, bros!
Kah, kah, kah - kegilaan kuasa (sama ada mereka yang ingin mencapainya, atau yang ingin mengekalkannya, atau yang baru mengecapi nikmatnya beberapa bulan) harus lebih kotor dan keji lagi!
Kah, kah, kah - sudah tidak sanggup? Cis, bodoh, jenis kelas menengah yang hidup di pinggir kota besar... beginilah lagaknya mereka? Kah, kah, kah!
Kalau langit jatuh menghempap satu per satu penulis-penulis blog ini dan binatang-binatang politik yang mereka keji itu, aku akan tetap terus ketawa. Kah, kah, kah!
[ii]
Hey orang PAS, kau orang ingat ucapan Mohamad Sabu itu lebih mulia daripada lagu liwat Carburator Dung?
Hey, sudahlah!
Hey kau orang fikir ahli-ahli politik itu bahasanya lebih poetic dan lyrical daripada lagu liwat itu?
Hey, sudahlah!
[iii]
Kau fikir jika kau orang terkenal, ada kuasa, ada glam, ada media - kau orang akan tegak di puncak selama-lamanya??? !
Kah, kah, kah...
Jangan berlagak sucilah, oiii! Sedar dirilah sikit, suluh muka sendiri di cermin!
Demikian, kata mereka.
Ada kehidupan yang lebih penting daripada politik, orang politik dan segala kegilaan mengejar kuasa orang politik.
Maksud mereka, sejak peristiwa minggu lepas mula menguak perang politik - ada orang kata pengulangan 1998 - termasuk liwat dan pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Kah, kah, kah! Orang-orang ini sudah gila atau apa?
Kah, kah, kah! Orang ini mahu tunjukkan mereka lebih suci daripada binatang-binatang politik itu, political junkie?
Kah, kah, kah! Rasakan kamu semua!
Episod ini hanya satu permulaan (bagi sebuah pengakhiran?) atau satu pengakhiran yang sebenar-benarnya?
Kah, kah, kah! Rasakan keindahan politik Malaysia - lebih kotor dan keji, lebih mulia! Kenapa kita takut?
Kah, kah, kah - jika saya berdiri di depan mereka ini - saya juga akan ketawa dengan kepura-puraan mereka (atau, dengan ketulusan akal budi mereka)
Kah, kah, kah - ingin jadi nabi, konon! Bullshit, bros!
Kah, kah, kah - kegilaan kuasa (sama ada mereka yang ingin mencapainya, atau yang ingin mengekalkannya, atau yang baru mengecapi nikmatnya beberapa bulan) harus lebih kotor dan keji lagi!
Kah, kah, kah - sudah tidak sanggup? Cis, bodoh, jenis kelas menengah yang hidup di pinggir kota besar... beginilah lagaknya mereka? Kah, kah, kah!
Kalau langit jatuh menghempap satu per satu penulis-penulis blog ini dan binatang-binatang politik yang mereka keji itu, aku akan tetap terus ketawa. Kah, kah, kah!
[ii]
Hey orang PAS, kau orang ingat ucapan Mohamad Sabu itu lebih mulia daripada lagu liwat Carburator Dung?
Hey, sudahlah!
Hey kau orang fikir ahli-ahli politik itu bahasanya lebih poetic dan lyrical daripada lagu liwat itu?
Hey, sudahlah!
[iii]
Kau fikir jika kau orang terkenal, ada kuasa, ada glam, ada media - kau orang akan tegak di puncak selama-lamanya??? !
Kah, kah, kah...
Jangan berlagak sucilah, oiii! Sedar dirilah sikit, suluh muka sendiri di cermin!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Tidakkah kau takut?
Barangkali saya tersalah tanya isu yang salah kepada tokoh muda yang salah.
Di hujung wawancara dengan Mohamad Ezam Mohd Nor kurang lebih seminggu lepas, saya bertanya (kira-kira berbunyi):
Apakah anda tidak takut melihat kehidupan berpolitik kita hari ini, apabila orang politik lebih banyak dan hebat mendedahkan isu-isu dan kes-kes rasuah berbanding media dan wartawan? [Apakah anda tidak takut melihat kehidupan berpolitik kita hari ini ...] sebahagian isu rasuah itu untuk menghentam orang lain dan menaikkan diri sendiri?
Soalan ini, di hujung sisa-sisa temubual di pejabat Malaysiakini pada Sabtu lepas, bukan soalan politik dan tidak wajar ditanyakan kepada tokoh politik -- walau Mohamad Ezam mahu dikenali sebagai juara anti-rasuah melalui GERAK.
Soalan ini juga, saya kira, bukan soalan berita yang wajar diperhitungkan untuk dimasukkan sebagai bahan santapan pengguna media.
Mohamad Ezam menjawab sesuatu, bukan berdiam diri atau termenung. Saya tidak pasti sama ada beliau memahami persoalan itu, atau cuba menduga siratan pertanyaan yang tersurat.
Namun saya dapat menduga beliau agak kekok dengan pertanyaan ini, dan janggal pula dengan persoalan ini.
Lalu saya cuba memancing lagi (sekali lagi, kira-kira berbunyi):
Di negara-negara lain pendedahan rasuah dan skandal orang politik, khususnya parti pemeritah, dan selebriti diusahakan oleh media, di tangan wartawan. Tetapi di sini, tidak. Media berdiri jauh di belakang pendedahan skandal dan rasuah yang dibuat orang politik.
Saya agak Mohamad Ezam, dan teman-teman seangkatannya sama ada pembangkang atau kerajaan, tidak dapat menduga sedalam mana persoalan ini daripada beberapa baris pertanyaan ini. Dan, mungkin jauh sekali untuk menduga kepentingan dan keberkaitannya dengan isu politik, rasuah dan kehidupan demokrasi di negara kita.
Saya tidak salahkah beliau dan saya tidak salahkan sesiapa -- sememangnya untuk menjadi mahkluk politik, dan political junkie, kita tidak perlu bertanya isu-isu yang lebih mendalam dengan cakupan yang luas.
Politik kita tidak memerlukan itu semua.
Persoalan saya itu persoalan kebudayaan, persoalan filsafat, persoalan yang bertujuan menerobos ke dasar kesedaran diri daripada sekadar retorika. Persoalan saya itu persoalan refleksi, renungan dan cerminan balik ke dasar-dasar persoalan.
Oleh kerana tidak ada lagi soalan yang lebih ingin ditanyakan kepadanya, sebagai wartawan, saya melontarkan persoalan tersebut. Oleh kerana sudah lama tidak mengemaskini blog ini dan oleh kerana tiada bahan yang hendak saya tulis, maka saya bangkitkan persoalan tersebut.
Ya, ia hanya sisa-sisa persoalan daripada semua yang berguna. Yang enggan dijawab, dan mungkin tidak mahu dipertanyakan orang.
[ii]
Sudah agak lama saya tidak berendam dengan buku, idea dan diskusi warung yang rancak. Mungkin sepanjang usia perkahwinan saya, atau lebih panjang lagi. Setidak-tidaknya, dalam ingatan saya, sejak kembali dari Jakarta dan sejak berhenti menulis kolum "Tiada Noktah" di Malaysiakini, saya hari demi hari semakin jauh dari buku -- maksud saya, buku yang memuaskan batin!
Sehinggalah, demi menghabiskan sisa-sisa perjalanan yang tidak terlalu membosankan dari Puduraya ke Tanjung Malim dan Besout, saya membelek-belek The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, buah tangan Mark Lilla.
Ternyata, ia memang mengasyikkan, boleh meningkatkan berahi intelek yang luar biasa -- kadang-kadang terasa juga buku ini, walaupun tentang tokoh, sejarah dan idea filsafat besar abad ke-20 hanyalah sekadar buku pop tentang orang, idea dan zamannya. Buku-buku yang lebih baik sedikit daripada biasa.
Namun, persoalan yang dibangkitkan oleh Lilla, memang berat dan mencabar. Persoalan ini semakin relevan apabila Pakatan Rakyat menguasai politik nasional dalam skala yang besar, sewaktu teman-teman, khususnya yang muda-muda 20-an usianya terseret dalam kancah kemenangan tersebut.
Kecuali seorang (agak saya), teman-teman lain belum membacanya -- walau hubungan dan peranan intelektual dengan politik sudah tidak terlalu asing kepada kami. Saya baru sampai di halaman 206 bab "The lure of Syracuse", yang kononnya pernah ditanyakan kepada Martin Heidegger selepas Nazisme tumbang.
Walaupun tidak mendalam dan biasa-biasa sahaja, saya sering juga menyentuhnya. Menghabisi bab demi bab The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics ibarat mengkhatam sejuzuk al-Quran, asyik dan rohani sekali kesannya.
Apatah lagi jika dibaca di dalam sebuah bas dingin yang tidak mempunyai (seorang pun!) gadis manis...
Di hujung wawancara dengan Mohamad Ezam Mohd Nor kurang lebih seminggu lepas, saya bertanya (kira-kira berbunyi):
Apakah anda tidak takut melihat kehidupan berpolitik kita hari ini, apabila orang politik lebih banyak dan hebat mendedahkan isu-isu dan kes-kes rasuah berbanding media dan wartawan? [Apakah anda tidak takut melihat kehidupan berpolitik kita hari ini ...] sebahagian isu rasuah itu untuk menghentam orang lain dan menaikkan diri sendiri?
Soalan ini, di hujung sisa-sisa temubual di pejabat Malaysiakini pada Sabtu lepas, bukan soalan politik dan tidak wajar ditanyakan kepada tokoh politik -- walau Mohamad Ezam mahu dikenali sebagai juara anti-rasuah melalui GERAK.
Soalan ini juga, saya kira, bukan soalan berita yang wajar diperhitungkan untuk dimasukkan sebagai bahan santapan pengguna media.
Mohamad Ezam menjawab sesuatu, bukan berdiam diri atau termenung. Saya tidak pasti sama ada beliau memahami persoalan itu, atau cuba menduga siratan pertanyaan yang tersurat.
Namun saya dapat menduga beliau agak kekok dengan pertanyaan ini, dan janggal pula dengan persoalan ini.
Lalu saya cuba memancing lagi (sekali lagi, kira-kira berbunyi):
Di negara-negara lain pendedahan rasuah dan skandal orang politik, khususnya parti pemeritah, dan selebriti diusahakan oleh media, di tangan wartawan. Tetapi di sini, tidak. Media berdiri jauh di belakang pendedahan skandal dan rasuah yang dibuat orang politik.
Saya agak Mohamad Ezam, dan teman-teman seangkatannya sama ada pembangkang atau kerajaan, tidak dapat menduga sedalam mana persoalan ini daripada beberapa baris pertanyaan ini. Dan, mungkin jauh sekali untuk menduga kepentingan dan keberkaitannya dengan isu politik, rasuah dan kehidupan demokrasi di negara kita.
Saya tidak salahkah beliau dan saya tidak salahkan sesiapa -- sememangnya untuk menjadi mahkluk politik, dan political junkie, kita tidak perlu bertanya isu-isu yang lebih mendalam dengan cakupan yang luas.
Politik kita tidak memerlukan itu semua.
Persoalan saya itu persoalan kebudayaan, persoalan filsafat, persoalan yang bertujuan menerobos ke dasar kesedaran diri daripada sekadar retorika. Persoalan saya itu persoalan refleksi, renungan dan cerminan balik ke dasar-dasar persoalan.
Oleh kerana tidak ada lagi soalan yang lebih ingin ditanyakan kepadanya, sebagai wartawan, saya melontarkan persoalan tersebut. Oleh kerana sudah lama tidak mengemaskini blog ini dan oleh kerana tiada bahan yang hendak saya tulis, maka saya bangkitkan persoalan tersebut.
Ya, ia hanya sisa-sisa persoalan daripada semua yang berguna. Yang enggan dijawab, dan mungkin tidak mahu dipertanyakan orang.
[ii]
Sudah agak lama saya tidak berendam dengan buku, idea dan diskusi warung yang rancak. Mungkin sepanjang usia perkahwinan saya, atau lebih panjang lagi. Setidak-tidaknya, dalam ingatan saya, sejak kembali dari Jakarta dan sejak berhenti menulis kolum "Tiada Noktah" di Malaysiakini, saya hari demi hari semakin jauh dari buku -- maksud saya, buku yang memuaskan batin!
Sehinggalah, demi menghabiskan sisa-sisa perjalanan yang tidak terlalu membosankan dari Puduraya ke Tanjung Malim dan Besout, saya membelek-belek The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, buah tangan Mark Lilla.Ternyata, ia memang mengasyikkan, boleh meningkatkan berahi intelek yang luar biasa -- kadang-kadang terasa juga buku ini, walaupun tentang tokoh, sejarah dan idea filsafat besar abad ke-20 hanyalah sekadar buku pop tentang orang, idea dan zamannya. Buku-buku yang lebih baik sedikit daripada biasa.
Namun, persoalan yang dibangkitkan oleh Lilla, memang berat dan mencabar. Persoalan ini semakin relevan apabila Pakatan Rakyat menguasai politik nasional dalam skala yang besar, sewaktu teman-teman, khususnya yang muda-muda 20-an usianya terseret dalam kancah kemenangan tersebut.
Kecuali seorang (agak saya), teman-teman lain belum membacanya -- walau hubungan dan peranan intelektual dengan politik sudah tidak terlalu asing kepada kami. Saya baru sampai di halaman 206 bab "The lure of Syracuse", yang kononnya pernah ditanyakan kepada Martin Heidegger selepas Nazisme tumbang.
Walaupun tidak mendalam dan biasa-biasa sahaja, saya sering juga menyentuhnya. Menghabisi bab demi bab The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics ibarat mengkhatam sejuzuk al-Quran, asyik dan rohani sekali kesannya.
Apatah lagi jika dibaca di dalam sebuah bas dingin yang tidak mempunyai (seorang pun!) gadis manis...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Debat baju sekolah
Isu-isu ini memang panas. Perkataannya - "seksi" - panas, dan sindirannya juga pedas. Jawapan dan kecaman terhadap sindirannya tidak kurang panas... Tetapi foto dari negara jiran ini, yang ditunjukkan oleh editor saya yang pernah bertugas di negara jiran, lagilah panas. Pakaian seragam untuk mahasiswi Thailand yang dikenali sebagai "pakaian pensil" kerana warnanya yang hitam dan putih.
Baju sekolah memang 'seksi'
(Malaysiakini.com, 26 Mei 2008)
Muslimat PAS bersetuju dengan saranan Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang menggesa pakaian seragam pelajar perempuan diganti kerana jarang dan boleh mengundang gangguan serta jenayah seks.
Bagaimanapun setiausaha dewan itu Aiman Athirah Al Jundi berkata isunya bukan warna baju pelajar itu tetapi jenis kainnya yang jarang dan menarik perhatian.
Baju sekolah memang 'seksi'
(Malaysiakini.com, 26 Mei 2008)
Muslimat PAS bersetuju dengan saranan Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang menggesa pakaian seragam pelajar perempuan diganti kerana jarang dan boleh mengundang gangguan serta jenayah seks.
Bagaimanapun setiausaha dewan itu Aiman Athirah Al Jundi berkata isunya bukan warna baju pelajar itu tetapi jenis kainnya yang jarang dan menarik perhatian. "Kita tidak dapat menafikan bahawa material (bahan) kain putih yang digunakan selama ini adalah agak nipis dan menyebabkan pelajar-pelajar perempuan kelihatan agak seksi khususnya apabila tidak mengenakan tudung yang dapat membantu menutup dada mereka (sekiranya dilabuhkan sedikit)," katanya.
"Apatah lagi sekiranya mereka hanya memakai coli tanpa mengenakan singlet dalam. Lebih ketara apabila warna pakaian dalam mereka lebih terang atau kontra dengan seragam putih yang mereka pakai.
"Lebih malang bagi pelajar perempuan ialah apabila hari hujan."
Tukar baju elak gangguan seks
(Malaysiakini.com, 21 Mei 2008)
Kementerian Pelajaran dicadangkan menukar pakaian seragam pelajar perempuan bagi menangani jenayah seksual melibatkan remaja dan hubungan seks sebelum perkahwinan dalam kalangan mereka.
Tukar baju elak gangguan seks
(Malaysiakini.com, 21 Mei 2008)
Kementerian Pelajaran dicadangkan menukar pakaian seragam pelajar perempuan bagi menangani jenayah seksual melibatkan remaja dan hubungan seks sebelum perkahwinan dalam kalangan mereka.
Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) berkata, kementerian boleh menukar baju putih kepada baju berwarna kerana ia tampak sesuai dan tidak jarang untuk dipakai oleh pelajar perempuan.
"Baju berwarna putih sangat jarang untuk dipakai oleh pelajar perempuan menyebabkan ada daya tarikan di situ," kata pemimpin wanita PKPIM, Munirah Bahari hari ini.
"Lebih-lebih lagi ia (baju jarang) akan mengganggu mata lelaki, sama ada suka melihatnya atau pun tidak. Baju berwarna putih itu tidak sesuai dipakai oleh pelajar perempuan di sekolah kerajaan.
"Di sinilah punca yang boleh kita saksikan bahawa pelajar perempuan itu sendiri mempunyai daya tarikan supaya lelaki mendekatinya.
"Oleh itu terjadilah perkara-perkara seperti pencabulan, penzinaan dan sebagainya."
Beliau mencadangkan kementerian menilai semula secepat mungkin baju seragam sekolah untuk pelajar perempuan.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The art of the novel is anti-political
Orhan Pamuk was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2006. His most recent book of essays is entitled Other Colors. He has just finished a new novel, The Museum of Innocence. He spoke recently with Paul Holdengraber, director of public programs at the New York Public Library. Below are excerpts of that interview.
NPQ: You offered a unique interpretation of Notes From the Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky in your introduction to a Turkish edition of that book, focusing not on individual alienation but on the relationship between the center and the margin. You say that "the true subject of that book is the jealousy, the anger and pride of a man who cannot make himself into a European." This obviously has resonance today in the Turkish situation vis-a-vis Europe.
Orhan Pamuk: Yes, Dostoevsky is an author with whom I tend to identify. I have learned a lot from him. In Notes From the Underground, he was waging a war against shallow Occidentalists, didactic writers who were always extolling the wonders of the West.
Dostoevsky himself, of course, was made of the stuff of the West. He went to military school, but studied engineering as taught in the West. In his youth, he was a radical Westernizer. But, later, in his middle life, he converted into a conservative pan-Slavist. It was at that age, when he was developing his ideas for this novel, that being Western, having the positivist outlook of Western science, was so admired among the Russian youth. Dostoevsky hated that.
Not only did he hate this admiration of the West. He wanted to contradict the core ideas of Western civilization at that time, among which were that all human beings are rational, and their rational self-interested actions would be good for them and their society.
He wrote, long before Freud, that human beings were not rational creatures but acted on instincts they didn't understand. He tried to understand this dark side of the human spirit.
Clearly, also, there was jealousy here. As a Russian, he was aware of the fact that Russian culture was considered by the West as barbarian and undeveloped. That upset him. He was angry at the West and the Westernizers for looking down on his people.
Of course, in my case, I am a Turk. I come from Istanbul. I'm heavily imbedded in my culture. But Turkish culture and Turkish language have never been the center of the world. So, like Dostoevsky, I too carry a certain anger and resentment toward the center.
NPQ: V.S. Naipaul always writes about this theme of the center and the margin. Do you identify with him?
Pamuk: Let me tell you a story about Naipaul I've never told anyone. In May, we were staying in the same hotel in Italy. We met in the lobby briefly, and he said, "Pleased to meet you," and left.
As I was leaving the hotel, the butler came up to me and said, "Mr. Naipaul admires you a lot, he said such nice things to me about you." But Naipaul didn't say these things to my face, but to the butler. What an irony! Two non-Western writers communicating through a European butler!
Now, when you raise the name of Naipaul, everyone immediately rises to condemn his politically incorrect remarks. But this is not the point. The point about writers is not where they fail, but what they have achieved. Few authors are geniuses all the time. Sometimes they write something extraordinary, and that is what ought to count. That is what we should pay attention to.
Their failures, their silly comments in some interview here or there are not so interesting.
The fact remains that Naipaul was the first writer to pay attention to what we call today non-Western "post-colonial societies" when, after the bad imperialists left -- and they were bad -- a new generation of national leaders took over. Because of the guilt in the West, the tendency was to praise these post-colonial societies without understanding what was happening there. Naipaul, for the first time, paid closer attention to the horrors going on in the places where he belonged, from which he came.
NPQ: In the frontispiece to your novel Snow, you quote Stendhal: "Politics in a literary work are a pistol-shot in the middle of a concert, a crude affair, though one impossible to ignore. We are about to speak of very ugly matters."
Albert Camus said something similar, that the perfect political story portrays politics not as something we have eagerly sought, but as "an unhappy accident we are obliged to accept."
How do these views fit in with your idea of the novel and politics?
Pamuk: If you put the two together, you get my view: An unhappy accident may happen to all of us, and we will find ourselves facing ugly matters.
This is certainly what happened to me in Turkey. I didn't seek out politics, I didn't have an agenda but found myself in a political situation. [Editor's note: Pamuk was accused last year of "un-Turkish" behavior for discussing in a Swiss newspaper the massacre of Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.]
My experience going back to my early 20s when everyone was politicized in Turkey is that serving a cause destroys the beauty of literature. Most of the time I saw that well-meaning authors had destroyed their talent through politics.
If you look at the whole corpus of novels, politics is not the most interesting subject. These subjects are love, happiness, bourgeois life, the meaning of life, goals in life that end in disillusionment.
There is so much cheap morality in writing political fiction. I wrote a political novel, Snow, but I did my best not to pass a moral judgment on any of my characters. The problem with the political novel is that there is a high expectation from the reader that you will pass judgment on a character.
But the very strength of the art of the novel is that the writer identifies with the character he creates with such great intensity that no moral judgment should be passed on a character.
The art of the novel is based on the unique capacity of human beings to identify with the Other with whom we have no common interests. In my mind's eye I try to understand what this person -- who is not like me but is of a different race, gender, culture or class, who may be perverse or strange -- is thinking and feeling. But at the same time he or she is a human being like me. It's called compassion.
Of course, I'm not saying human beings are like this all the time. We are capable of killing 200,000 Iraqis and don't care about it anymore, and just pay attention to what George Bush says. We are capable of doing this as well as being compassionate. But the art of the novel is based on this human capacity for compassion.
A novel works if the writer manages to identify with the characters. That means putting oneself in the shoes of others, not judging them.
NPQ: You offered a unique interpretation of Notes From the Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky in your introduction to a Turkish edition of that book, focusing not on individual alienation but on the relationship between the center and the margin. You say that "the true subject of that book is the jealousy, the anger and pride of a man who cannot make himself into a European." This obviously has resonance today in the Turkish situation vis-a-vis Europe.
Orhan Pamuk: Yes, Dostoevsky is an author with whom I tend to identify. I have learned a lot from him. In Notes From the Underground, he was waging a war against shallow Occidentalists, didactic writers who were always extolling the wonders of the West.
Dostoevsky himself, of course, was made of the stuff of the West. He went to military school, but studied engineering as taught in the West. In his youth, he was a radical Westernizer. But, later, in his middle life, he converted into a conservative pan-Slavist. It was at that age, when he was developing his ideas for this novel, that being Western, having the positivist outlook of Western science, was so admired among the Russian youth. Dostoevsky hated that.
Not only did he hate this admiration of the West. He wanted to contradict the core ideas of Western civilization at that time, among which were that all human beings are rational, and their rational self-interested actions would be good for them and their society.
He wrote, long before Freud, that human beings were not rational creatures but acted on instincts they didn't understand. He tried to understand this dark side of the human spirit.
Clearly, also, there was jealousy here. As a Russian, he was aware of the fact that Russian culture was considered by the West as barbarian and undeveloped. That upset him. He was angry at the West and the Westernizers for looking down on his people.
Of course, in my case, I am a Turk. I come from Istanbul. I'm heavily imbedded in my culture. But Turkish culture and Turkish language have never been the center of the world. So, like Dostoevsky, I too carry a certain anger and resentment toward the center.
NPQ: V.S. Naipaul always writes about this theme of the center and the margin. Do you identify with him?
Pamuk: Let me tell you a story about Naipaul I've never told anyone. In May, we were staying in the same hotel in Italy. We met in the lobby briefly, and he said, "Pleased to meet you," and left.
As I was leaving the hotel, the butler came up to me and said, "Mr. Naipaul admires you a lot, he said such nice things to me about you." But Naipaul didn't say these things to my face, but to the butler. What an irony! Two non-Western writers communicating through a European butler!
Now, when you raise the name of Naipaul, everyone immediately rises to condemn his politically incorrect remarks. But this is not the point. The point about writers is not where they fail, but what they have achieved. Few authors are geniuses all the time. Sometimes they write something extraordinary, and that is what ought to count. That is what we should pay attention to.
Their failures, their silly comments in some interview here or there are not so interesting.
The fact remains that Naipaul was the first writer to pay attention to what we call today non-Western "post-colonial societies" when, after the bad imperialists left -- and they were bad -- a new generation of national leaders took over. Because of the guilt in the West, the tendency was to praise these post-colonial societies without understanding what was happening there. Naipaul, for the first time, paid closer attention to the horrors going on in the places where he belonged, from which he came.
NPQ: In the frontispiece to your novel Snow, you quote Stendhal: "Politics in a literary work are a pistol-shot in the middle of a concert, a crude affair, though one impossible to ignore. We are about to speak of very ugly matters."
Albert Camus said something similar, that the perfect political story portrays politics not as something we have eagerly sought, but as "an unhappy accident we are obliged to accept."
How do these views fit in with your idea of the novel and politics?
Pamuk: If you put the two together, you get my view: An unhappy accident may happen to all of us, and we will find ourselves facing ugly matters.
This is certainly what happened to me in Turkey. I didn't seek out politics, I didn't have an agenda but found myself in a political situation. [Editor's note: Pamuk was accused last year of "un-Turkish" behavior for discussing in a Swiss newspaper the massacre of Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.]
My experience going back to my early 20s when everyone was politicized in Turkey is that serving a cause destroys the beauty of literature. Most of the time I saw that well-meaning authors had destroyed their talent through politics.
If you look at the whole corpus of novels, politics is not the most interesting subject. These subjects are love, happiness, bourgeois life, the meaning of life, goals in life that end in disillusionment.
There is so much cheap morality in writing political fiction. I wrote a political novel, Snow, but I did my best not to pass a moral judgment on any of my characters. The problem with the political novel is that there is a high expectation from the reader that you will pass judgment on a character.
But the very strength of the art of the novel is that the writer identifies with the character he creates with such great intensity that no moral judgment should be passed on a character.
The art of the novel is based on the unique capacity of human beings to identify with the Other with whom we have no common interests. In my mind's eye I try to understand what this person -- who is not like me but is of a different race, gender, culture or class, who may be perverse or strange -- is thinking and feeling. But at the same time he or she is a human being like me. It's called compassion.
Of course, I'm not saying human beings are like this all the time. We are capable of killing 200,000 Iraqis and don't care about it anymore, and just pay attention to what George Bush says. We are capable of doing this as well as being compassionate. But the art of the novel is based on this human capacity for compassion.
A novel works if the writer manages to identify with the characters. That means putting oneself in the shoes of others, not judging them.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Don't let this writer go to jail
Kenapa saya sokong Raja Petra dibebaskan?
Pertama, kerana saya yakin dan percaya bahawa apa yang ditulisnya di bawah ini mengandungi kebenaran (kalau tidak semua, sebahagiannya).
Kedua, perbicaraan kes bunuh Altantuya Shaariibuu dipenuhi keraguan -- oleh orang ramai, sejak awal.
Ketiga, saya mempunyai "sumber tertinggi" di "jabatan tertinggi" bahawa perbicaraan ini ... menimbulkan keraguan!
Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell
Posted by Raja Petra
Friday, 25 April 2008
Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong.
“Even pigs can be cute,” my wife who was driving the car butted in and I repeated what she said. “Yes, even pigs are cute. These people are not even the same level as pigs. They are lower than pigs. Melayu babi, the whole lot of them.”
I found it very difficult to hold back my tears as Din continued with his narration of what Dr Shaariibuu said at his press conference. Yes, I am a very emotional person as many may have suspected by now. But I can also be very stubborn and stiff-lipped as well when facing an adversary, as the Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman have discovered. I am what the Malays would call ‘marah nyamuk, bakar kelambu’. And I would not hesitate to deny my body food and water as an act of defiance just to prove to my jailors that they may incarcerate my body but they can never own my mind or break my spirit. But hearing what Dr Shaariibuu had to say ‘broke’ me. Even my degil got tamed.
“Let’s bring these bastards down,” I told Din. “Let’s launch a ‘Justice for Altanatuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign’ or something like that. These assholes must be sent to hell.”
Understandably, much of the dinner conversation thereafter was focused on the Altantuya murder. What was most amusing -- not that I would classify this tragic murder as ‘amusing’ -- is that none at the dinner table are lawyers by profession. But all were able to skilfully ‘argue their case’ as any seasoned lawyer with decades of litigation experience under his or her belt can -- or maybe even better than that because not all lawyers are smart (trust me on this one). I always say you need brains to become a lawyer but you do not need to be a lawyer to have brains.
Sure, ‘certified’ lawyers would pooh-pooh such ‘coffee shop’ arguments as just that, coffee shop arguments. And have we not overheard and scoffed at many an ‘expert’ at the next table offering his or her legal prognosis to all and sundry who would care to listen? Yes, opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.
But there are opinions and there are opinions -- and, just like assholes, no two are alike. So, while we value the expert opinions of our ‘learned’ legal eagles (yes, that is what they call each other in court even though they may be arguing -- how civil), we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict even while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court.
Of course, we are not at liberty to say this as this may tantamount to subjudice or contempt of court or something like that (the courts have all sorts of fancy words and phrases to throw at you when they want to send you to jail whenever you differ with their opinion). So I would never dare state that the Altantuya murder trial ‘a show trial in a kangaroo court’ for fear of getting sent to jail. All I am at liberty to say is that many consider the Altantuya murder trial a show-trial in a kangaroo court and leave it at that without declaring whether I too share the opinion of the majority of Malaysians (not sure whether that statement can still get me sent to jail).
Anyway, back to the dinner last night and to what all those ‘self-made lawyers’ who never argued even one case in court their entire life had to say. As I said, neither they nor I am a lawyer but I have attended a decade of trials and hearings since the birth of Reformasi in 1998 and my ‘practical experience’ has exposed me to much of what goes on in court. And all I can say is that, and I repeat, while you need brains to become a lawyer, you really do not need to be a lawyer to have brains, as my dinner friends proved last night.
It was a long dinner and much was discussed and everyone had an opinion plus, as I said, all skilfully ‘argued their case’. However, to avoid this piece turning into a fifty-page thesis, which may see me getting an honorary law degree (or see me getting sent to jail), allow me to summarise how the ‘case’ was argued last night.
First concerns the Affidavit that Razak Baginda submitted to the court during his bail application hearing in the Shah Alam High Court. Justice Segera had initially cautioned Razak’s lawyer that there was no necessity in submitting an Affidavit since it was only a bail application hearing and, anyway, bail is not allowed in murder cases. But the lawyer insisted in pursuing the matter in spite of repeated warnings from the Judge. So the Judge had no choice but to accept the Affidavit as it is the right of the accused to defend himself/herself the way he/she sees fit.
Justice Segera then read the Affidavit and remarked that, after reading it, he is even more convinced that Razak is guilty. How then to grant bail, notwithstanding the fact that bail should automatically be denied anyway in cases of murder? Justice Segera was then immediately removed from hearing the case and was replaced by a junior judicial commissioner.
Note that Justice Segera is a senior Judge and the most suited to hear this very controversial and high-profile case. Was he removed because he had prejudged the case or because he was now privy to certain information that may influence his decision or because they want to ‘kill’ the Affidavit?
This was the first bone of contention. Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief on behalf of Altantuya’s family, then raised this matter during the trial and he asked the police officer on the stand as to why they did not investigate the Affidavit since much has been revealed in that document. The police officer replied that they did not investigate the Affidavit because ‘tidak ada arahan dari atas’ (so instructions from the top).
This further enhances the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. The fact that the Affidavit exists and Karpal raised the matter in court and the police did not deny it -- other than explain they did not investigate it because of no instructions from the top -- convinces most that something is amiss here.
It seems the Affidavit also reveals that Altantuya was camped outside Razak’s house and this caused him to panic. He then went running to Najib, and Rosmah summoned Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri, and instructed him to solve Razak’s problem. Musa then summoned the two police officers currently on trial. So, it appears like Razak and the two police officers are not the only ones involved. Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing. And why the need for the police officer to declare that he had already killed six people before this if murder was not what was on everyone’s mind?
Then the Attorney-General did a very strange thing. Just before the trial started, he made a public announcement that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. This is not only strange but highly irregular as well. It is not the Attorney-General’s job to determine this. This is for the court to decide. Furthermore, the trial had not even started yet so how does the Attorney-General know what is going to surface in the trial? No one has testified yet and until all the testimonies are heard who knows who else is involved and whether the three accused who on trial are even guilty or not? The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced? How not to feel that the trial is a show-trial?
The Sunday morning before the trial was supposed to start, I received a SMS that said the charges against Razak would be withdrawn. At 4.00pm, I received another SMS saying that the entire team of prosecutors will be replaced because they did not agree to drop the charges against Razak. The following morning, the new prosecutor requested a one-month postponement on the excuse that he had just that very morning been told he is taking over the case so he needs time to study the files. The judge gave them a two-week postponement. The SMS may have been inaccurate but the actions thereafter lent credence to the SMS. And this SMS was from a Deep Throat in the Attorney-General’s Chambers so I am not about to just dismiss it as lies and slander.
The next point is about where Altantuya’s remains were found, which was deep in the jungles. The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her? Did they use a bomoh? Was there an informer? No, the police just happen to know that deep in the jungles they would find Altantuya’s remains without anyone having to tell them.
It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. Does this then mean that the two police officers on trial alongside Razak are police hit men whose job it is to bump people off and then get rid of their bodies at that site where they retrieved Altantuya’s remains? This, of course, remains mere speculation but there is certainly cause for speculation and the evidence all seem to point to this assumption.
The whispering amongst those who walk in the corridors of power is that when they went to the ‘dump site’ they retrieved the remains of many others as well. Some say it was the remains of seven people and others say nine. So Altantuya was not the first. There were many others before this, almost ten judging by the remains.
This, of course, has never been made public and probably never will. So, until it is, we must assume that the ‘whispering’ is unfounded. But then, what about Razak’s Affidavit we talked about earlier, which stated that the police officer had admitted to killing six people before this. This would then make Altantuya the seventh victim. Against this backdrop, the ‘whispering’ about the police retrieving the remains of seven or nine people begins to sound like very loud whispers.
Many other ‘key issues’ raised by my non-lawyer friends, who all argued as if they were conducting the Altantuya murder trial, were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.
Rumour has it, and it remains just that, a rumour, is that all this ‘evidence’ has been given to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Okay, maybe Abdullah is using this information to keep Najib in line -- which appears to be working seeing that he is constantly licking Abdullah’s hand. But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such. This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial. Abdullah is an accessory to murder and burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.
I really wish I could write about all the above which was discussed by those at the dinner table last night. Unfortunately, since the trial is still ongoing, I will not be able to talk about any of these matters. The best I can do is relate what those at the dinner table discussed last night and leave it at that without giving my opinion. And the above is what was discussed by those who are not lawyers and never once in their lives argued any case in court.
Of course, since all these people are not lawyers, most of what they said is based purely on logic and not on points of law. It is actually quite ridiculous that people not tutored in matters of law would attempt to dissect and analyse the Altantuya murder trial and pass judgement as if they are trained and certified lawyers. Anyway, as I said, opinions are like assholes and every one has one so we should not take too much notice of what my dinner friends said last night. Meanwhile, read what my friend, Din Merican, e-mailed to me this morning:
******************************************
Take the case of the beating-up of the Indonesian karate/judo coach and the brutality towards, and extortion of, Indonesian guest workers by Rela, the murder of a Mongolian national, etc. Is the way we deal with our neighbours and other nation states? I wonder whether we are a nation of laws or a country run on the basis of the law of the jungle.
Our Prime Minister, Badawi, and his Foreign Minister (at that time Syed Hamid) did not have the courtesy to reply to the letters from their counterparts in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, seeking a fair trial and justice for the family of the late Altantyua Shaariibuu. Too busy maybe? Surely not!
We are being viewed as arrogant by the Indonesians, Thais, Singaporeans, as well as by many of our neighbours. Now, we add to this list the Mongolians. How indecent and irresponsible of the PM and his Foreign Minister for not even acknowledging the receipt of letters from their Mongolian counterparts. Who are we protecting?
There is no point in Badawi trying to convince us that his Administration is keen to restore the image of the judiciary. He cannot even fix his own Police Force and the AG’s Office. Frankly, Malaysians should have sent Badawi and his cohorts in BN out of office in the last general election.
The mainstream media is just hopeless in the cause of justice for Altantuya and dignity for Malaysia. Malaysians and civil society movements must now pressure the Badawi government to expose the real culprit behind this murder and bring to closure this long and costly trial. Let justice prevail and let us put an end to the culture of impunity, where the powerful and politically connected are above the Law.
As a father of six kids (of whom three are girls, including a 16-year old) and a grandfather, I feel for Dr. Setev Shaariibuu and his family. I was at the press conference on April 24 at the Office of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I personally saw the agony on Dr. Shaariibuu’s face.
It is time for Malaysians to push this issue and not allow the murderers who walk in the corridors of power to get away with this vile and evil deed unscathed. It is time to ‘storm the Bastille’. It is time we sent these sorry excuses for human beings to hell where they deserve to be.
Pertama, kerana saya yakin dan percaya bahawa apa yang ditulisnya di bawah ini mengandungi kebenaran (kalau tidak semua, sebahagiannya).
Kedua, perbicaraan kes bunuh Altantuya Shaariibuu dipenuhi keraguan -- oleh orang ramai, sejak awal.
Ketiga, saya mempunyai "sumber tertinggi" di "jabatan tertinggi" bahawa perbicaraan ini ... menimbulkan keraguan!
Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell
Posted by Raja Petra
Friday, 25 April 2008
Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
I had dinner with a few friends last night and on the way to the restaurant another good friend, Din Merican, phoned to fill me in on the details of Dr Setev Shaariibuu’s press conference that was held earlier that day. I listened as Din filled me in on what transpired and could not help but blurt out, “I am a father of two daughters. I can imagine what Shaariibuu must be feeling. Fucking assholes!”
“I have three daughters,” Din responded. “These people are animals, bloody animals. Fuck them! Fuck them!” This is what I would call ‘at a loss for words’ -- and when you just have to say something but no words can fully describe how you feel, then ‘fuck’ is the only word you can use which will console you enough and make you feel you have expressed your anger and disgust in a most ‘appropriate’ manner.
“I have three daughters,” Din responded. “These people are animals, bloody animals. Fuck them! Fuck them!” This is what I would call ‘at a loss for words’ -- and when you just have to say something but no words can fully describe how you feel, then ‘fuck’ is the only word you can use which will console you enough and make you feel you have expressed your anger and disgust in a most ‘appropriate’ manner.
“Hey, don’t insult animals,” I replied. “Animals are cute. I love cats, dogs and horses. These people are worse than animals. Even animals will not do something like this.”
“Even pigs can be cute,” my wife who was driving the car butted in and I repeated what she said. “Yes, even pigs are cute. These people are not even the same level as pigs. They are lower than pigs. Melayu babi, the whole lot of them.”
I found it very difficult to hold back my tears as Din continued with his narration of what Dr Shaariibuu said at his press conference. Yes, I am a very emotional person as many may have suspected by now. But I can also be very stubborn and stiff-lipped as well when facing an adversary, as the Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman have discovered. I am what the Malays would call ‘marah nyamuk, bakar kelambu’. And I would not hesitate to deny my body food and water as an act of defiance just to prove to my jailors that they may incarcerate my body but they can never own my mind or break my spirit. But hearing what Dr Shaariibuu had to say ‘broke’ me. Even my degil got tamed.
“Let’s bring these bastards down,” I told Din. “Let’s launch a ‘Justice for Altanatuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign’ or something like that. These assholes must be sent to hell.”
Understandably, much of the dinner conversation thereafter was focused on the Altantuya murder. What was most amusing -- not that I would classify this tragic murder as ‘amusing’ -- is that none at the dinner table are lawyers by profession. But all were able to skilfully ‘argue their case’ as any seasoned lawyer with decades of litigation experience under his or her belt can -- or maybe even better than that because not all lawyers are smart (trust me on this one). I always say you need brains to become a lawyer but you do not need to be a lawyer to have brains.
Sure, ‘certified’ lawyers would pooh-pooh such ‘coffee shop’ arguments as just that, coffee shop arguments. And have we not overheard and scoffed at many an ‘expert’ at the next table offering his or her legal prognosis to all and sundry who would care to listen? Yes, opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.
But there are opinions and there are opinions -- and, just like assholes, no two are alike. So, while we value the expert opinions of our ‘learned’ legal eagles (yes, that is what they call each other in court even though they may be arguing -- how civil), we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict even while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court.
Of course, we are not at liberty to say this as this may tantamount to subjudice or contempt of court or something like that (the courts have all sorts of fancy words and phrases to throw at you when they want to send you to jail whenever you differ with their opinion). So I would never dare state that the Altantuya murder trial ‘a show trial in a kangaroo court’ for fear of getting sent to jail. All I am at liberty to say is that many consider the Altantuya murder trial a show-trial in a kangaroo court and leave it at that without declaring whether I too share the opinion of the majority of Malaysians (not sure whether that statement can still get me sent to jail).
Anyway, back to the dinner last night and to what all those ‘self-made lawyers’ who never argued even one case in court their entire life had to say. As I said, neither they nor I am a lawyer but I have attended a decade of trials and hearings since the birth of Reformasi in 1998 and my ‘practical experience’ has exposed me to much of what goes on in court. And all I can say is that, and I repeat, while you need brains to become a lawyer, you really do not need to be a lawyer to have brains, as my dinner friends proved last night.
It was a long dinner and much was discussed and everyone had an opinion plus, as I said, all skilfully ‘argued their case’. However, to avoid this piece turning into a fifty-page thesis, which may see me getting an honorary law degree (or see me getting sent to jail), allow me to summarise how the ‘case’ was argued last night.
First concerns the Affidavit that Razak Baginda submitted to the court during his bail application hearing in the Shah Alam High Court. Justice Segera had initially cautioned Razak’s lawyer that there was no necessity in submitting an Affidavit since it was only a bail application hearing and, anyway, bail is not allowed in murder cases. But the lawyer insisted in pursuing the matter in spite of repeated warnings from the Judge. So the Judge had no choice but to accept the Affidavit as it is the right of the accused to defend himself/herself the way he/she sees fit.
Justice Segera then read the Affidavit and remarked that, after reading it, he is even more convinced that Razak is guilty. How then to grant bail, notwithstanding the fact that bail should automatically be denied anyway in cases of murder? Justice Segera was then immediately removed from hearing the case and was replaced by a junior judicial commissioner.
Note that Justice Segera is a senior Judge and the most suited to hear this very controversial and high-profile case. Was he removed because he had prejudged the case or because he was now privy to certain information that may influence his decision or because they want to ‘kill’ the Affidavit?
This was the first bone of contention. Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief on behalf of Altantuya’s family, then raised this matter during the trial and he asked the police officer on the stand as to why they did not investigate the Affidavit since much has been revealed in that document. The police officer replied that they did not investigate the Affidavit because ‘tidak ada arahan dari atas’ (so instructions from the top).
This further enhances the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. The fact that the Affidavit exists and Karpal raised the matter in court and the police did not deny it -- other than explain they did not investigate it because of no instructions from the top -- convinces most that something is amiss here.
It seems the Affidavit also reveals that Altantuya was camped outside Razak’s house and this caused him to panic. He then went running to Najib, and Rosmah summoned Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri, and instructed him to solve Razak’s problem. Musa then summoned the two police officers currently on trial. So, it appears like Razak and the two police officers are not the only ones involved. Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing. And why the need for the police officer to declare that he had already killed six people before this if murder was not what was on everyone’s mind?
Then the Attorney-General did a very strange thing. Just before the trial started, he made a public announcement that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. This is not only strange but highly irregular as well. It is not the Attorney-General’s job to determine this. This is for the court to decide. Furthermore, the trial had not even started yet so how does the Attorney-General know what is going to surface in the trial? No one has testified yet and until all the testimonies are heard who knows who else is involved and whether the three accused who on trial are even guilty or not? The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced? How not to feel that the trial is a show-trial?
The Sunday morning before the trial was supposed to start, I received a SMS that said the charges against Razak would be withdrawn. At 4.00pm, I received another SMS saying that the entire team of prosecutors will be replaced because they did not agree to drop the charges against Razak. The following morning, the new prosecutor requested a one-month postponement on the excuse that he had just that very morning been told he is taking over the case so he needs time to study the files. The judge gave them a two-week postponement. The SMS may have been inaccurate but the actions thereafter lent credence to the SMS. And this SMS was from a Deep Throat in the Attorney-General’s Chambers so I am not about to just dismiss it as lies and slander.
The next point is about where Altantuya’s remains were found, which was deep in the jungles. The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her? Did they use a bomoh? Was there an informer? No, the police just happen to know that deep in the jungles they would find Altantuya’s remains without anyone having to tell them.
It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. Does this then mean that the two police officers on trial alongside Razak are police hit men whose job it is to bump people off and then get rid of their bodies at that site where they retrieved Altantuya’s remains? This, of course, remains mere speculation but there is certainly cause for speculation and the evidence all seem to point to this assumption.
The whispering amongst those who walk in the corridors of power is that when they went to the ‘dump site’ they retrieved the remains of many others as well. Some say it was the remains of seven people and others say nine. So Altantuya was not the first. There were many others before this, almost ten judging by the remains.
This, of course, has never been made public and probably never will. So, until it is, we must assume that the ‘whispering’ is unfounded. But then, what about Razak’s Affidavit we talked about earlier, which stated that the police officer had admitted to killing six people before this. This would then make Altantuya the seventh victim. Against this backdrop, the ‘whispering’ about the police retrieving the remains of seven or nine people begins to sound like very loud whispers.
Many other ‘key issues’ raised by my non-lawyer friends, who all argued as if they were conducting the Altantuya murder trial, were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.
Rumour has it, and it remains just that, a rumour, is that all this ‘evidence’ has been given to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Okay, maybe Abdullah is using this information to keep Najib in line -- which appears to be working seeing that he is constantly licking Abdullah’s hand. But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such. This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial. Abdullah is an accessory to murder and burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.
I really wish I could write about all the above which was discussed by those at the dinner table last night. Unfortunately, since the trial is still ongoing, I will not be able to talk about any of these matters. The best I can do is relate what those at the dinner table discussed last night and leave it at that without giving my opinion. And the above is what was discussed by those who are not lawyers and never once in their lives argued any case in court.
Of course, since all these people are not lawyers, most of what they said is based purely on logic and not on points of law. It is actually quite ridiculous that people not tutored in matters of law would attempt to dissect and analyse the Altantuya murder trial and pass judgement as if they are trained and certified lawyers. Anyway, as I said, opinions are like assholes and every one has one so we should not take too much notice of what my dinner friends said last night. Meanwhile, read what my friend, Din Merican, e-mailed to me this morning:
******************************************
In ancient times, nations go to war at the slightest provocation. In the 21st century, fortunately, we are more civilised than our progenitors, although there are still exceptions. After all, we are members of the United Nations and, I am told, we subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Yet, we in Malaysia, treat foreign nationals with total disregard for compassion and human decency. Are we a bunch of cynics? I wonder.
Take the case of the beating-up of the Indonesian karate/judo coach and the brutality towards, and extortion of, Indonesian guest workers by Rela, the murder of a Mongolian national, etc. Is the way we deal with our neighbours and other nation states? I wonder whether we are a nation of laws or a country run on the basis of the law of the jungle.
Our Prime Minister, Badawi, and his Foreign Minister (at that time Syed Hamid) did not have the courtesy to reply to the letters from their counterparts in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, seeking a fair trial and justice for the family of the late Altantyua Shaariibuu. Too busy maybe? Surely not!
It is going to be tragic for Malaysia’s image if the Altantuya family cannot get justice for the brutal murder of their loved one. How can we blow to smithereens a human being, someone’s loved one, and a mother to two young children, using an explosive which is only utilised in times of war to destroy bunkers, bridges and buildings? This is unheard off anywhere in the world.
This case, therefore, has a lot of international implications, especially when the deed was done by ‘servants’ of this country.
This case, therefore, has a lot of international implications, especially when the deed was done by ‘servants’ of this country.
We are being viewed as arrogant by the Indonesians, Thais, Singaporeans, as well as by many of our neighbours. Now, we add to this list the Mongolians. How indecent and irresponsible of the PM and his Foreign Minister for not even acknowledging the receipt of letters from their Mongolian counterparts. Who are we protecting?
There is no point in Badawi trying to convince us that his Administration is keen to restore the image of the judiciary. He cannot even fix his own Police Force and the AG’s Office. Frankly, Malaysians should have sent Badawi and his cohorts in BN out of office in the last general election.
The mainstream media is just hopeless in the cause of justice for Altantuya and dignity for Malaysia. Malaysians and civil society movements must now pressure the Badawi government to expose the real culprit behind this murder and bring to closure this long and costly trial. Let justice prevail and let us put an end to the culture of impunity, where the powerful and politically connected are above the Law.
As a father of six kids (of whom three are girls, including a 16-year old) and a grandfather, I feel for Dr. Setev Shaariibuu and his family. I was at the press conference on April 24 at the Office of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I personally saw the agony on Dr. Shaariibuu’s face.
It is time for Malaysians to push this issue and not allow the murderers who walk in the corridors of power to get away with this vile and evil deed unscathed. It is time to ‘storm the Bastille’. It is time we sent these sorry excuses for human beings to hell where they deserve to be.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Rustam A Sani (1944-2008)
Obituary: Rustam A. Sani
By Jomo K. S.
I write this in haste from afar without the benefit of any reference material. But I must do so, as I have lost another brother, taken away before his time.
I first met Rustam, soon after joining the UKM economics faculty in early 1977, then still at its temporary campus in Pantai. The crammed facilities in the PKNS flats there forced a certain physical closeness which was, in turn, conducive to generating close personal relations.
Rustam was then in the Anthropology and Sociology Department with Halim Ali, Sanusi Osman, Hood Salleh, Dahlan Hj Aman, Ting Chew Peh, Cheu Hock Tong, Shamsul Amri and others, many of whom had been students of Syed Husin Ali at the University of Malaya in the 1960s.
Struggle for the Nation
Born towards the end of the Japanese Occupation in the Perak border town of Tanjung Malim, Rustam grew up in the shadow of his famous father, Abdullah Sani @ Ahmad Boestamam.
As a mature student at university, Rustam quickly established a reputation in his own right as an essayist, poet and pamphleteer in the Socialist Club and promoting the national language at the University of Malaya. He often joked that if he had agreed to run in the May 1969 election, he would have become Selangor Mentri Besar at the age of 25!
Instead, he opted to do a Masters at the University of Kent in Canterbury where he indulged and mentored a variety of undergraduates including PAS Secretary-General Kamaruddin Jaffar, economist Ghazali Atan and publisher Tan Siang Jin.
There, he deepened his preoccupation with the challenges of Malaysian nationhood, an enduring theme in his writings since the 1970s, and the subject of one of his two latest books to be launched posthumously by his old friend from the 1960s, citizen Anwar Ibrahim.
Soon after I joined UKM, I left for a semester to finish my thesis, returning only to find him preparing to leave soon after with his wife, Rohani, and young children, Azi and Rini, for Yale. But after passing the tough comprehensive exams there, he lost interest, preferring instead to write a statistics textbook for those afraid of such quantitative methods.
Back at UKM, he switched to the Politics Department as his old Canterbury friend, then ABIM Secretary-General Kamaruddin left to join Anwar in UMNO and the government. With Syed Husin at the helm of the Malaysian Social Science Association (PSSM), Rustam and I started a bilingual quarterly journal, Ilmu Masyarakat, to try to open new Malaysian debates under the then new Mahathir dispensation, to which the former UKM academic as well as PNB and Guthries chief executive, Selangor Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim was an early and insightful contributor.
Patriot and Statesman
At the end of the 1980s, Rustam accepted Nordin Sopiee’s invitation to join ISIS. There, he crafted Mahathir’s historic February 1991 speech promising a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ as part of his Vision 2020 (thankfully translated by Rustam as Wawasan 2020, instead of the earlier Visi 2020), changing the terms of national discourse in one fell swoop.
Frustrated by its lack of serious commitment, he left ISIS in the mid-1990s to become a writer, translator and reluctant businessman. Soon after, he agreed to become Deputy President of PSSM, later inaugurating the biennial series of international Malaysian Studies Conferences in which we tried to reposition Malaysian studies as a national -- and nationalist --discourse, rather than as post-colonial area studies.
However, the events of 1997-1999 disrupted our plans, and Rustam rose to the popular national call for reformasi following Anwar’s incarceration and persecution, becoming its most thoughtful ‘participant observer’. As deputy president of the party his father had founded almost half a century before, he negotiated its principled unification with the political movement which had emerged around Anwar despite several high profile defections.
Rustam was always a reluctant politician and had little patience for the intrigues which seemed to preoccupy some of his counterparts, including his fellow former academics. Generous in spirit and encouraging of younger talents, he never hesitated to give his all to the writing he enjoyed, regardless of the sacrifices involved. Although principled, he never claimed the high moral ground or used his language, writing and other talents to put down others.
Although I only saw him a few times after leaving the country in 2004, we kept in touch. March 8, International Women’s Day, must have given him great satisfaction indeed, as he saw the people give the nation another chance. He must have been pleased that Anwar – another son of the Burhanuddin Al-Helmy tradition to which he himself belonged -- will launch his last two books today as he moves to take his rightful place in our nation’s history.
Boestaman-Nationalist Father
Boestamam -- who had allegedly taken the names of his two heroes, Ahmad Sukarno and Subhas Chandra Bose -- had been a young follower of the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) from the late 1930s in Perak, emerging after the war as the militant youth leader of API (Angkatan Pemuda Insaf) to the older and more moderate Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy and Ishak Haji Muhammad (Pak Sako) of the Malay Nationalist Party (PKMM).
PKMM, in turn, led PUTERA (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) which joined with the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU)-led All Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) to craft the People’s Constitution in 1947 as the basis for Malayan independence, years before UMNO switched its slogan from ‘Hidup Melayu’ to ‘Merdeka’ under Tunku Abdul Rahman’s leadership.
Boes was detained without trial for seven long years from early 1948, before the Emergency was declared in mid-1947, together with thousands of other Malay youths demanding independence. This pre-emptive repression by the colonial power was to ethnically colour the subsequent anti-colonial resistance.
Soon after he was released in 1955, he set up the Partai Rakyat Malaya, and later joined with the Labour Party of Malaya, chaired by Pak Sako, to create the Socialist Front, which later also included the popular expelled UMNO agriculture minister Aziz Ishak’s National Convention Party. Detained again without trial over the mid-1960s together with many other leftist politicians and activists, Boes faded from the headlines of Malaysian politics as Rustam came of age.
Jomo K. S. is United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.
By Jomo K. S.
I write this in haste from afar without the benefit of any reference material. But I must do so, as I have lost another brother, taken away before his time.
I first met Rustam, soon after joining the UKM economics faculty in early 1977, then still at its temporary campus in Pantai. The crammed facilities in the PKNS flats there forced a certain physical closeness which was, in turn, conducive to generating close personal relations.
Rustam was then in the Anthropology and Sociology Department with Halim Ali, Sanusi Osman, Hood Salleh, Dahlan Hj Aman, Ting Chew Peh, Cheu Hock Tong, Shamsul Amri and others, many of whom had been students of Syed Husin Ali at the University of Malaya in the 1960s.
Struggle for the Nation
Born towards the end of the Japanese Occupation in the Perak border town of Tanjung Malim, Rustam grew up in the shadow of his famous father, Abdullah Sani @ Ahmad Boestamam.
As a mature student at university, Rustam quickly established a reputation in his own right as an essayist, poet and pamphleteer in the Socialist Club and promoting the national language at the University of Malaya. He often joked that if he had agreed to run in the May 1969 election, he would have become Selangor Mentri Besar at the age of 25!
Instead, he opted to do a Masters at the University of Kent in Canterbury where he indulged and mentored a variety of undergraduates including PAS Secretary-General Kamaruddin Jaffar, economist Ghazali Atan and publisher Tan Siang Jin.
There, he deepened his preoccupation with the challenges of Malaysian nationhood, an enduring theme in his writings since the 1970s, and the subject of one of his two latest books to be launched posthumously by his old friend from the 1960s, citizen Anwar Ibrahim.
Soon after I joined UKM, I left for a semester to finish my thesis, returning only to find him preparing to leave soon after with his wife, Rohani, and young children, Azi and Rini, for Yale. But after passing the tough comprehensive exams there, he lost interest, preferring instead to write a statistics textbook for those afraid of such quantitative methods.
Back at UKM, he switched to the Politics Department as his old Canterbury friend, then ABIM Secretary-General Kamaruddin left to join Anwar in UMNO and the government. With Syed Husin at the helm of the Malaysian Social Science Association (PSSM), Rustam and I started a bilingual quarterly journal, Ilmu Masyarakat, to try to open new Malaysian debates under the then new Mahathir dispensation, to which the former UKM academic as well as PNB and Guthries chief executive, Selangor Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim was an early and insightful contributor.
Patriot and Statesman
At the end of the 1980s, Rustam accepted Nordin Sopiee’s invitation to join ISIS. There, he crafted Mahathir’s historic February 1991 speech promising a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ as part of his Vision 2020 (thankfully translated by Rustam as Wawasan 2020, instead of the earlier Visi 2020), changing the terms of national discourse in one fell swoop.
Frustrated by its lack of serious commitment, he left ISIS in the mid-1990s to become a writer, translator and reluctant businessman. Soon after, he agreed to become Deputy President of PSSM, later inaugurating the biennial series of international Malaysian Studies Conferences in which we tried to reposition Malaysian studies as a national -- and nationalist --discourse, rather than as post-colonial area studies.
However, the events of 1997-1999 disrupted our plans, and Rustam rose to the popular national call for reformasi following Anwar’s incarceration and persecution, becoming its most thoughtful ‘participant observer’. As deputy president of the party his father had founded almost half a century before, he negotiated its principled unification with the political movement which had emerged around Anwar despite several high profile defections.
Rustam was always a reluctant politician and had little patience for the intrigues which seemed to preoccupy some of his counterparts, including his fellow former academics. Generous in spirit and encouraging of younger talents, he never hesitated to give his all to the writing he enjoyed, regardless of the sacrifices involved. Although principled, he never claimed the high moral ground or used his language, writing and other talents to put down others.
Although I only saw him a few times after leaving the country in 2004, we kept in touch. March 8, International Women’s Day, must have given him great satisfaction indeed, as he saw the people give the nation another chance. He must have been pleased that Anwar – another son of the Burhanuddin Al-Helmy tradition to which he himself belonged -- will launch his last two books today as he moves to take his rightful place in our nation’s history.
Boestaman-Nationalist Father
Boestamam -- who had allegedly taken the names of his two heroes, Ahmad Sukarno and Subhas Chandra Bose -- had been a young follower of the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) from the late 1930s in Perak, emerging after the war as the militant youth leader of API (Angkatan Pemuda Insaf) to the older and more moderate Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy and Ishak Haji Muhammad (Pak Sako) of the Malay Nationalist Party (PKMM).
PKMM, in turn, led PUTERA (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) which joined with the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU)-led All Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) to craft the People’s Constitution in 1947 as the basis for Malayan independence, years before UMNO switched its slogan from ‘Hidup Melayu’ to ‘Merdeka’ under Tunku Abdul Rahman’s leadership.
Boes was detained without trial for seven long years from early 1948, before the Emergency was declared in mid-1947, together with thousands of other Malay youths demanding independence. This pre-emptive repression by the colonial power was to ethnically colour the subsequent anti-colonial resistance.
Soon after he was released in 1955, he set up the Partai Rakyat Malaya, and later joined with the Labour Party of Malaya, chaired by Pak Sako, to create the Socialist Front, which later also included the popular expelled UMNO agriculture minister Aziz Ishak’s National Convention Party. Detained again without trial over the mid-1960s together with many other leftist politicians and activists, Boes faded from the headlines of Malaysian politics as Rustam came of age.
Jomo K. S. is United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Reformasi apa lagi, Pak Lah!
Berikut tiga kenyataan/artikel yang dikeluarkan dalam tempoh beberapa hari mutakhir. Perdana menteri menggelarkan kabinetnya pada 18 Mac sebagai "kabinet reformasi". Sebulan selepas itu (hari ini), reformasinya bertukar deformasi....
Dan, kita pun layak maki-hamunnya (kalau kita mahu)!
Reform or repression? Badawi's reform cabinet (18 April 2008)
When Prime Minister Badawi named his new cabinet on March 20th. after the unprecedented election bashing he got, he called his new cabinet the reform cabinet and that he is willing to institute major reforms. In the March 8 election, the 14-party National Front(Barisan Nasional) government lost five states to the opposition coalition (Pakatan Rakyat) as well as lost two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Parti Sosialis Malaysia make the following observation in the wake of the recent reforms called by Badawi and the power struggle within UMNO :
While the Police Force has a new uniform, yet they don't seem to have a reform attitude. The Black 14 peacefully in-door gathering at a private venue was disrupted by the police at 10.20pm. when Anwar Ibrahim was giving his speech. What was even more high handed was when the police went to serve 111 notices as early as 6.30am to four leaders of Pakatan Rakyat including the Menteri Besar of Selangor , Khalid Ibrahim and PKR President Dr Wan Azizah Ismail. This is sheer harassment and an infringement to freedom of assemble. How does this action speak about the reform cabinet of Badawi?
Then comes the banning of popular Tamil-language newspaper -Makkal Osai. No reason was given though it is clear that it is a political decision as the daily has been critical of the leadership of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). The paper also gave wide ranging coverage to the rally organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) in November 2007 and the issues surrounding the rally and its leadership. Our own assessment of Makkal Osai is that the paper ensures that it gives a 50% coverage to both Government and opposition news. But such mathematics does not help in Malaysian freedom of media, where the daily newspapers must give at least a 80-20% advantage to the Ruling parties' controlled newspaper. This ban takes place while new Information Minister, Shabery Cheek talks about freedom of the media. How does this ban fit into the new reform cabinet?
On the issue of the ISA, the new Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar has made it clear that ISA is going to stay by refusing to immediately and unconditionally release the Hindraf detainees as well as other ISA detainees , some of them going into their seventh year of detention. So what does this say about the new reforms brought by the new cabinet.
Yesterday, Badawi once again tried to hood-wink by introducing reforms to the Judiciary. Badawi was very careful not to utter the word apology as well as the word "independent" when naming the new commission -Judicial appointments commission" which will give the Prime Minister prerogative to select the members of the Commission. Nothing was said about the other Commissions he set up before this and his failure to pass the IPCMC bill. Though Badawi has been quite radical is setting up Commission but nothing radical has been done to implement the outcomes. This announcement would keep the State controlled TV and media busy for another few weeks.
With this backdrop, it is therefore quite clear that the BN's Govermment intention to introduce an anti-hopping law has nothing to do with democracy and fundamental liberties. On the contrary, it is designed to control and contravene fundamental liberty as well as freedom of association. PSM, a party which has been denied the right to freedom of association for a decade now, can vouch on this.
No reform can reform the obsolete state the Barisan Nasional is today and the politics it offers. It is time for to take over power at the Federal level and undo the structures and the political systems created by the BN. In order to do that, BN has to go. BN rules the day by reform and repression.
The future of Malaysian politics cannot be held by a minority class using reform and repression to be in power. While the future of Badawi seems uncertain, the road to change is not going to be easy. BN leadership with its 50 years legacy of Emergency law and ISA will not transfer power easily to any new Government. It is this time, that the will of the people will have to prevail.
PSM and its front organizations are committed to face whatever consequences and call upon the people to raise as they have done many times before against this tyranny of BN rule. It is only when the mass majority of the people are united as a single united class led by principles of justice, conscious and equality can we overthrow the BN brand of politics of race, religion and corruption
S.Arutchelvan, secretary general PSM
Makkal Osai: Reform? What reform? (17 March 2008)
It seems that it is business as usual for the Barisan federal government and the insincerity underlying the promises of reform becoming more evident.
The Home Affairs Ministry has refused to extend the permit of Makkal Ossai (‘Daily threatened racial harmony: Syed Hamid’, Malaysiakini, 17.04.2008).
In the usual double speak that we have become so familiar with, we are told by the Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, that there is no question of the permit having been cancelled, it is merely not being extended.
Tell that to the employees of the newspaper who have suddenly found themselves facing unemployment. Explain to them how they are supposed to meet their financial commitments be they mortgages, car repayments or just food on the table. Glib sophistry is not going to be consoling them.
But, oh wait, that is the point, isn’t it? Force the editors through concern for their colleagues into becoming more Barisan friendly or at the least, Pakatan unfriendly. The nuances of the promise of an ‘appeal’ by the Minister resonate loud and clear.
In legal speak, we refer to such pressure as duress. But then, what else can one expect from a Ministry that is equally responsible for the implementation of the Internal Security Act.
The Minister says that the newspaper threatened racial harmony. He does not say how nor does he specify when. He appears to have adopted a very broad-brushed approach, one that could have equally resulted in the conclusion that the New Straits Times or the Berita Harian or the Utusan Malaysia or any other major daily had similarly threatened racial harmony at some point or other.
The Minister after all does not specify that the threats arose from editorial pieces or from news reports or, if so, from style as opposed to content. He should recollect that, if one wants to stretch a point, we have been exposed by major dailies to content that could arguably be said to be racist or supremacist or divisive from time to time.
The recent speech of Tengku Faris of Kelantan that raised many an eyebrow was dutifully reported by the major dailies as were the incredible speeches at the last two UMNO general assemblies.
"Makkal Sakti" does not deserve to be singled out. We have heard of no specific incident recently that created controversy, that shook the nation to its very core. The refusal of the renewal smacks of arbitrariness and has made victimis those who work for the newspaper.
Views are views. I think that is why it is called press freedom. And as for racial harmony, Malaysians are more mature than the government gives them credit for. That is why they voted the way they did. But perhaps, the seemingly continuing inability of the government to see that is the real problem.
The government says that it is pushing for reforms, that it made the mistake of overlooking the significance of alternative media. I find this hard to believe in the face of this kind of indifferent, callous, self-serving sort of conduct. If the government was sincere, Makkal Ossai would continue operating, its staff would not be facing the prospect of joblessness and we would not be having this discussion.
For any of you doubting the wisdom of having voted against the Barisan this last general election, keep in mind that with behaviour like this, there really is no other choice.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Umno's and BN's post-March 8 schizophrenia (17 March 2008)
Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders should end its post-March 8 schizophrenia – claiming to have finally heard the voice of the people and yet still refusing to “walk the talk” of reforms like closing down the Tamil daily Makkal Osai, continued detention of Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and stonewalling the proposal for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to keep crime low and make the country safe for Malaysians, visitors and investors.
Such political schizophrenia seizing Umno and Barisan Nasional has become a daily staple in the mass media, as illustrated by the following two headlines today:
• Najib tells BN: Win over support from non-Malays (NST);
• Makkal Osai loses licence – Tamil daily’s application rejected (The Star)
Has it occurred to the Umno and Barisan Nasional leadership, including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, that the best way to ensure that the Barisan Nasional will lose even more support from the non-Malays are high-handed, arrogant and undemocratic actions like the closure of Makkal Osai, the refusal to release the five Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, newly-elected Selangor DAP State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah A. Manoharan, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar or refusal to give Uthayakumar the best medical treatment while under ISA detention?
In fact, such political arrogance and contempt for human rights will also offend all right-thinking and justice-loving Malays, as illustrated by the March 8 “political tsunami” which saw Malaysians voting across racial and religious divides.
New Straits Times announced today that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is expected to announce several measures to reform the judiciary at a dinner organized by the Malaysian Bar at Hotel Marriot, Kuala Lumpur tonight.
I will attend the dinner. While DAP and Pakatan Rakyat will support judicial reforms to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity and quality of the judiciary after two decades of “judicial darkness”, however belated, they are merely first steps in a journey of a thousand miles of major national reforms whether in mindsets, institutions, laws or governance if Malaysia is to rise to the challenges of globalization where the competition is not between Malays and non-Malays but between Malaysians and the rest of the world.
Lim Kit Siang, MP for Ipoh Timur
Dan, kita pun layak maki-hamunnya (kalau kita mahu)!
Reform or repression? Badawi's reform cabinet (18 April 2008)
When Prime Minister Badawi named his new cabinet on March 20th. after the unprecedented election bashing he got, he called his new cabinet the reform cabinet and that he is willing to institute major reforms. In the March 8 election, the 14-party National Front(Barisan Nasional) government lost five states to the opposition coalition (Pakatan Rakyat) as well as lost two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Parti Sosialis Malaysia make the following observation in the wake of the recent reforms called by Badawi and the power struggle within UMNO :
While the Police Force has a new uniform, yet they don't seem to have a reform attitude. The Black 14 peacefully in-door gathering at a private venue was disrupted by the police at 10.20pm. when Anwar Ibrahim was giving his speech. What was even more high handed was when the police went to serve 111 notices as early as 6.30am to four leaders of Pakatan Rakyat including the Menteri Besar of Selangor , Khalid Ibrahim and PKR President Dr Wan Azizah Ismail. This is sheer harassment and an infringement to freedom of assemble. How does this action speak about the reform cabinet of Badawi?
Then comes the banning of popular Tamil-language newspaper -Makkal Osai. No reason was given though it is clear that it is a political decision as the daily has been critical of the leadership of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). The paper also gave wide ranging coverage to the rally organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) in November 2007 and the issues surrounding the rally and its leadership. Our own assessment of Makkal Osai is that the paper ensures that it gives a 50% coverage to both Government and opposition news. But such mathematics does not help in Malaysian freedom of media, where the daily newspapers must give at least a 80-20% advantage to the Ruling parties' controlled newspaper. This ban takes place while new Information Minister, Shabery Cheek talks about freedom of the media. How does this ban fit into the new reform cabinet?
On the issue of the ISA, the new Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar has made it clear that ISA is going to stay by refusing to immediately and unconditionally release the Hindraf detainees as well as other ISA detainees , some of them going into their seventh year of detention. So what does this say about the new reforms brought by the new cabinet.
Yesterday, Badawi once again tried to hood-wink by introducing reforms to the Judiciary. Badawi was very careful not to utter the word apology as well as the word "independent" when naming the new commission -Judicial appointments commission" which will give the Prime Minister prerogative to select the members of the Commission. Nothing was said about the other Commissions he set up before this and his failure to pass the IPCMC bill. Though Badawi has been quite radical is setting up Commission but nothing radical has been done to implement the outcomes. This announcement would keep the State controlled TV and media busy for another few weeks.
With this backdrop, it is therefore quite clear that the BN's Govermment intention to introduce an anti-hopping law has nothing to do with democracy and fundamental liberties. On the contrary, it is designed to control and contravene fundamental liberty as well as freedom of association. PSM, a party which has been denied the right to freedom of association for a decade now, can vouch on this.
No reform can reform the obsolete state the Barisan Nasional is today and the politics it offers. It is time for to take over power at the Federal level and undo the structures and the political systems created by the BN. In order to do that, BN has to go. BN rules the day by reform and repression.
The future of Malaysian politics cannot be held by a minority class using reform and repression to be in power. While the future of Badawi seems uncertain, the road to change is not going to be easy. BN leadership with its 50 years legacy of Emergency law and ISA will not transfer power easily to any new Government. It is this time, that the will of the people will have to prevail.
PSM and its front organizations are committed to face whatever consequences and call upon the people to raise as they have done many times before against this tyranny of BN rule. It is only when the mass majority of the people are united as a single united class led by principles of justice, conscious and equality can we overthrow the BN brand of politics of race, religion and corruption
S.Arutchelvan, secretary general PSM
Makkal Osai: Reform? What reform? (17 March 2008)
It seems that it is business as usual for the Barisan federal government and the insincerity underlying the promises of reform becoming more evident.
The Home Affairs Ministry has refused to extend the permit of Makkal Ossai (‘Daily threatened racial harmony: Syed Hamid’, Malaysiakini, 17.04.2008).
In the usual double speak that we have become so familiar with, we are told by the Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, that there is no question of the permit having been cancelled, it is merely not being extended.
Tell that to the employees of the newspaper who have suddenly found themselves facing unemployment. Explain to them how they are supposed to meet their financial commitments be they mortgages, car repayments or just food on the table. Glib sophistry is not going to be consoling them.
But, oh wait, that is the point, isn’t it? Force the editors through concern for their colleagues into becoming more Barisan friendly or at the least, Pakatan unfriendly. The nuances of the promise of an ‘appeal’ by the Minister resonate loud and clear.
In legal speak, we refer to such pressure as duress. But then, what else can one expect from a Ministry that is equally responsible for the implementation of the Internal Security Act.
The Minister says that the newspaper threatened racial harmony. He does not say how nor does he specify when. He appears to have adopted a very broad-brushed approach, one that could have equally resulted in the conclusion that the New Straits Times or the Berita Harian or the Utusan Malaysia or any other major daily had similarly threatened racial harmony at some point or other.
The Minister after all does not specify that the threats arose from editorial pieces or from news reports or, if so, from style as opposed to content. He should recollect that, if one wants to stretch a point, we have been exposed by major dailies to content that could arguably be said to be racist or supremacist or divisive from time to time.
The recent speech of Tengku Faris of Kelantan that raised many an eyebrow was dutifully reported by the major dailies as were the incredible speeches at the last two UMNO general assemblies.
"Makkal Sakti" does not deserve to be singled out. We have heard of no specific incident recently that created controversy, that shook the nation to its very core. The refusal of the renewal smacks of arbitrariness and has made victimis those who work for the newspaper.
Views are views. I think that is why it is called press freedom. And as for racial harmony, Malaysians are more mature than the government gives them credit for. That is why they voted the way they did. But perhaps, the seemingly continuing inability of the government to see that is the real problem.
The government says that it is pushing for reforms, that it made the mistake of overlooking the significance of alternative media. I find this hard to believe in the face of this kind of indifferent, callous, self-serving sort of conduct. If the government was sincere, Makkal Ossai would continue operating, its staff would not be facing the prospect of joblessness and we would not be having this discussion.
For any of you doubting the wisdom of having voted against the Barisan this last general election, keep in mind that with behaviour like this, there really is no other choice.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Umno's and BN's post-March 8 schizophrenia (17 March 2008)
Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders should end its post-March 8 schizophrenia – claiming to have finally heard the voice of the people and yet still refusing to “walk the talk” of reforms like closing down the Tamil daily Makkal Osai, continued detention of Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and stonewalling the proposal for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to keep crime low and make the country safe for Malaysians, visitors and investors.
Such political schizophrenia seizing Umno and Barisan Nasional has become a daily staple in the mass media, as illustrated by the following two headlines today:
• Najib tells BN: Win over support from non-Malays (NST);
• Makkal Osai loses licence – Tamil daily’s application rejected (The Star)
Has it occurred to the Umno and Barisan Nasional leadership, including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, that the best way to ensure that the Barisan Nasional will lose even more support from the non-Malays are high-handed, arrogant and undemocratic actions like the closure of Makkal Osai, the refusal to release the five Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, newly-elected Selangor DAP State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah A. Manoharan, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar or refusal to give Uthayakumar the best medical treatment while under ISA detention?
In fact, such political arrogance and contempt for human rights will also offend all right-thinking and justice-loving Malays, as illustrated by the March 8 “political tsunami” which saw Malaysians voting across racial and religious divides.
New Straits Times announced today that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is expected to announce several measures to reform the judiciary at a dinner organized by the Malaysian Bar at Hotel Marriot, Kuala Lumpur tonight.
I will attend the dinner. While DAP and Pakatan Rakyat will support judicial reforms to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity and quality of the judiciary after two decades of “judicial darkness”, however belated, they are merely first steps in a journey of a thousand miles of major national reforms whether in mindsets, institutions, laws or governance if Malaysia is to rise to the challenges of globalization where the competition is not between Malays and non-Malays but between Malaysians and the rest of the world.
Lim Kit Siang, MP for Ipoh Timur
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Zam sindir Khairy
Kenyataan,
Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin,
Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin,
di sidang akhbar
11 Mac 2008
11 Mac 2008
Tsunami politik telah mematahkan suatu percubaan untuk mengambil alih kepimpinan Negara oleh golongan muda yang dibuat secara terurus dan terancang menerusi Pilihan Raya Umum ke-12 untuk perubahan politik secara drastik.
Ini adalah kerana tuhan masih sayang kepada kepimpinan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dan juga Timbalannya Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak dan juga UMNO.
Maka itu, tsunami politik ini adalah satu hikmat yang memberikan pengajaran yang cukup besar kepada kepimpinan Negara dan golongan ini.
Apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh semua ahli UMNO sekarang ini ialah memberikan sokongan kepada Presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Abdullah dan juga Timbalannya Datuk Seri Mohd Najib, untuk kembali mengukuhkan UMNO dan meletakkan UMNO kepada jalan yang benar, yang selama ini sentiasa mengimbangi pengorbanan golongan tua dan inspirasi serta idealisme golongan generasi muda.
Sekarang bukan masa untuk menuding jari atau menuduh sesiapa atas apa yang telah berlaku, tetapi keutamaan perlu diberikan kepada usaha untuk menjernihkan suasana dan mengembalikan kepercayaan rakyat kepada UMNO.
Jadi ditoleh ke belakang dalam sejarah Malaya dan Malaysia, setiap tragedi politik yang menimpa UMNO dan rakyat, ianya membawa hikmah, membuka fikiran dan penggemblengan semula kepimpinan UMNO dan kesedaran rakyat bagi muhasabah diri dan meletakkan semula kepimpinan UMNO kepada jalan yang dihasratkan oleh rakyat, sekalipun ianya adalah sesuatu yang amat berat untuk dilakukan.
Sesungguhnya saya percaya, kepimpinan UMNO ini adalah lebih mementingkan negara dan rakyat dan menganggap tanggungjawab ini adalah lebih besar dari kepentingan diri, keluarga dan juga harta.
Sebagai konklusinya, bagi saya apa yang berlaku dalam Pilihan Raya Umum ke-12 ini merupakan satu nikmat dan rahmat yang amat besar kepada masa hadapan negara, dan secara khususnya kepada UMNO.
(Berikut berita di halaman dua Utusan Malaysia, 12 Mac 2008)
Cubaan golongan muda ambil alih kepimpinan gagal
KUALA LUMPUR 11 Mac – Bekas Menteri Penerangan, Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin hari ini mendedahkan ada golongan muda telah membuat percubaan untuk mengambil alih kepimpinan negara secara terurus dan terancang melalui Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-12.
Bagaimanapun, menurut beliau, cubaan untuk membuat perubahan secara drastik tersebut gagal berikutan tsunami politik yang berlaku pada pilihan raya umum itu.
Zainuddin yang diminta menjelaskan dakwaannya itu bagaimanapun enggan mengulas lanjut. Sebaliknya beliau meminta wartawan jangan membuat provokasi terhadapnya.
“Saya tidak akan jelaskan dengan lebih lanjut, biarlah pembaca (orang ramai) menilai sendiri kenyataan saya ini,” katanya pada sidang akhbar terakhirnya di Kementerian Penerangan di sini hari ini.
Zainuddin menjelaskan, tsunami politik itu yang menyaksikan Barisan Nasional (BN) gagal memperoleh majoriti dua pertiga adalah satu hikmah yang memberikan pengajaran yang cukup besar kepada kepimpinan negara dan golongan muda tersebut.
Katanya, Tuhan masih sayang kepada kepimpinan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dan juga timbalannya, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Beliau memberitahu, apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh semua ahli UMNO sekarang adalah memberikan sokongan kepada Presiden UMNO dan timbalannya.
Katanya, sokongan itu penting bagi mengukuhkan kembali UMNO dan meletakkan parti utama kaum Melayu itu pada landasan yang betul.
“Selama ini parti UMNO sentiasa mengimbangi pengorbanan golongan tua dan inspirasi serta idealisme generasi muda.
“Sekarang bukan masa untuk menuding jari atau menuduh sesiapa atas apa yang telah berlaku, tetapi keutamaan perlu diberikan kepada usaha menjernihkan suasana dan mengembalikan kepercayaan rakyat kepada UMNO,” katanya.
Ketika ditanya mengenai kekalahannya di Parlimen Sungai Petani, Zainuddin berkata, beliau kalah kerana para pengundi Cina tidak ramai keluar mengundi.
“Saya mengakui kekalahan saya juga disebabkan saya tidak banyak berkempen di kawasan tersebut,” katanya.
Namun, beliau menggunakan pendekatan tersendiri iaitu bertemu rakyat secara lebih dekat bagi mengetahui permasalahan mereka.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
PM a 'lovable teddy bear'
Among those missteps, analysts said, Mr Abdullah ignored Malaysia's widening poverty gap and increasing cost of living. He appointed his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin as an adviser. And when the southern state of Johor was struggling after floods in 2006, Mr Abdullah was in Perth to inaugurate his brother's curry restaurant.
M'sian PM 'failed to gauge public anger'
KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S prime minister may have made his biggest political blunder by calling early elections that only exposed public anger over simmering racial tensions and his perceived missteps.
Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was sworn in on Monday for a new five-year term in office, following a stinging defeat by his ruling coalition in general elections. Mr Abdullah is rejecting calls to step down, but analysts say Saturday's poll results will place Mr Abdullah under pressure to resign.
"He misread the signs. A lot of people were voting against Badawi," said Mr Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer and political commentator. "He became the face of the mismanagement of the country."
Mr Abdullah's National Front coalition lost its two-thirds majority in the 222-member parliament for the first time in four decades, winning only a simple majority of 140 seats.
The opposition gained control of five of Malaysia's 13 states and a third of its parliament in the biggest electoral upset in the country's history.
The results were seen as a verdict against a string of perceived missteps by Mr Abdullah, 68, and his failure to fulfill promises made ahead of the 2004 elections, which the National Front won in its biggest victory ever.
Among those missteps, analysts said, Mr Abdullah ignored Malaysia's widening poverty gap and increasing cost of living. He appointed his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin as an adviser. And when the southern state of Johor was struggling after floods in 2006, Mr Abdullah was in Perth to inaugurate his brother's curry restaurant.
Mr Abdullah also has faced criticism for remarrying less than two years after his first wife died of cancer and engaging in public displays of affection with his new wife.
'At a time when the country is crumbling around us we have to watch his lovey-dovey going-ons with his wife,' said Mr Malik.
"People don't want to see a lovable teddy bear. They want a tough leader." Mr Abdullah's next big test will come later this year when he faces the general assembly of the United Malays National Organisation, the largest party in the National Front coalition. A date has not yet been set.
"The reality is that there will be tremendous pressure within Umno for him (Abdullah) to step down," said Ms Bridget Welsh of the Johns Hopkins University, a Southeast Asia expert who was in Malaysia to monitor the polls.
Former longtime leader Mahathir Mohamad already has called for Mr Abdullah's resignation, saying he had 'apparently made the wrong choice' when he hand-picked Mr Abdullah to succeed him in 2003.
Dr Mahathir's son Mukhriz, an active member of Umno, joined the call. 'The message is clear from the results of the elections. That's the voice of the people. We have to respect it. It is a very humbling experience and points to dissatisfaction of the prime minister's leadership,' he said.
The Front's formula for success all these years was simple. It is a coalition of 11 small parties and three major ones that represent Malaysia's main ethnic groups - the majority Muslim Malays who make up 60 per cent of the 27 million population, the Chinese at 25 per cent and Indians at 8 per cent.
Traditionally, Malays have voted for Umno, the Chinese for the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Indians for the Malaysian Indian Congress.
The power-sharing arrangement has worked as long as the three races believed only their parties could look after their respective communities' interests. But the minorities have become increasingly disappointed with their parties.
The Chinese and Indians are angry about an affirmative action programme known as the New Economic Policy that has given Malays preference in jobs, education, business, housing, finance and religion since 1971.
They also worry that their religious rights are being eroded by the government. Several Indian temples were destroyed by authorities last year, purportedly for illegal construction, and many courts presiding over religious disputes ruled in favor of Muslims.
Ordinary Malays also are unhappy, many charging that the benefits of the New Economic Policy are being reaped only by rich and well-connected Malays.
Repressive police tactics have further aggravated racial tensions. In October, officers dispersed thousands of people with tear gas and water cannons at a street protest for electoral and judicial reforms.
A month later, Indian demonstrators were chased away by police when they held a rally to protest discrimination. Five of their leaders were jailed under a law that allows indefinite detention without trial.
These tensions were tapped by the opposition parties, which for the first time set aside their ideological differences and came together to pose a united challenge. They countered National Front propaganda in government-controlled media with campaigns on the Internet.
In the end, the Indian and Chinese minorities abandoned the National Front in droves. MCA, the Chinese party, won only 15 of the 40 seats it contested, and the Indian MIC won three out of nine.
Umno won only 78 seats compared to 109 in 2004.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim campaigned on a platform that urged people to look outside race-based politics. Although the opposition parties are also identified by race, they have agreed to build a multiracial alliance where all races will be treated equally.
'What is crucial now is how the opposition works as a coalition,' Ms Welsh said. 'The mandate given to them has created a national opposition for the first time.' -- AP
M'sian PM 'failed to gauge public anger'
KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S prime minister may have made his biggest political blunder by calling early elections that only exposed public anger over simmering racial tensions and his perceived missteps.
Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was sworn in on Monday for a new five-year term in office, following a stinging defeat by his ruling coalition in general elections. Mr Abdullah is rejecting calls to step down, but analysts say Saturday's poll results will place Mr Abdullah under pressure to resign.
"He misread the signs. A lot of people were voting against Badawi," said Mr Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer and political commentator. "He became the face of the mismanagement of the country."
Mr Abdullah's National Front coalition lost its two-thirds majority in the 222-member parliament for the first time in four decades, winning only a simple majority of 140 seats.
The opposition gained control of five of Malaysia's 13 states and a third of its parliament in the biggest electoral upset in the country's history.
The results were seen as a verdict against a string of perceived missteps by Mr Abdullah, 68, and his failure to fulfill promises made ahead of the 2004 elections, which the National Front won in its biggest victory ever.
Among those missteps, analysts said, Mr Abdullah ignored Malaysia's widening poverty gap and increasing cost of living. He appointed his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin as an adviser. And when the southern state of Johor was struggling after floods in 2006, Mr Abdullah was in Perth to inaugurate his brother's curry restaurant.
Mr Abdullah also has faced criticism for remarrying less than two years after his first wife died of cancer and engaging in public displays of affection with his new wife.
'At a time when the country is crumbling around us we have to watch his lovey-dovey going-ons with his wife,' said Mr Malik.
"People don't want to see a lovable teddy bear. They want a tough leader." Mr Abdullah's next big test will come later this year when he faces the general assembly of the United Malays National Organisation, the largest party in the National Front coalition. A date has not yet been set.
"The reality is that there will be tremendous pressure within Umno for him (Abdullah) to step down," said Ms Bridget Welsh of the Johns Hopkins University, a Southeast Asia expert who was in Malaysia to monitor the polls.
Former longtime leader Mahathir Mohamad already has called for Mr Abdullah's resignation, saying he had 'apparently made the wrong choice' when he hand-picked Mr Abdullah to succeed him in 2003.
Dr Mahathir's son Mukhriz, an active member of Umno, joined the call. 'The message is clear from the results of the elections. That's the voice of the people. We have to respect it. It is a very humbling experience and points to dissatisfaction of the prime minister's leadership,' he said.
The Front's formula for success all these years was simple. It is a coalition of 11 small parties and three major ones that represent Malaysia's main ethnic groups - the majority Muslim Malays who make up 60 per cent of the 27 million population, the Chinese at 25 per cent and Indians at 8 per cent.
Traditionally, Malays have voted for Umno, the Chinese for the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Indians for the Malaysian Indian Congress.
The power-sharing arrangement has worked as long as the three races believed only their parties could look after their respective communities' interests. But the minorities have become increasingly disappointed with their parties.
The Chinese and Indians are angry about an affirmative action programme known as the New Economic Policy that has given Malays preference in jobs, education, business, housing, finance and religion since 1971.
They also worry that their religious rights are being eroded by the government. Several Indian temples were destroyed by authorities last year, purportedly for illegal construction, and many courts presiding over religious disputes ruled in favor of Muslims.
Ordinary Malays also are unhappy, many charging that the benefits of the New Economic Policy are being reaped only by rich and well-connected Malays.
Repressive police tactics have further aggravated racial tensions. In October, officers dispersed thousands of people with tear gas and water cannons at a street protest for electoral and judicial reforms.
A month later, Indian demonstrators were chased away by police when they held a rally to protest discrimination. Five of their leaders were jailed under a law that allows indefinite detention without trial.
These tensions were tapped by the opposition parties, which for the first time set aside their ideological differences and came together to pose a united challenge. They countered National Front propaganda in government-controlled media with campaigns on the Internet.
In the end, the Indian and Chinese minorities abandoned the National Front in droves. MCA, the Chinese party, won only 15 of the 40 seats it contested, and the Indian MIC won three out of nine.
Umno won only 78 seats compared to 109 in 2004.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim campaigned on a platform that urged people to look outside race-based politics. Although the opposition parties are also identified by race, they have agreed to build a multiracial alliance where all races will be treated equally.
'What is crucial now is how the opposition works as a coalition,' Ms Welsh said. 'The mandate given to them has created a national opposition for the first time.' -- AP
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Tahniah! Tahniah! Tahniah!
Saya tak sangka, keputusannya membingungkan dan sama sekali luar jangka. Bagaimanapun ...
TAHNIAH
TAHNIAH
TAHNIAH
Editorial saya tentang gejala ini -- satu kenyataan tentang kejutan dan kebingungan...
TAHNIAH
TAHNIAH
TAHNIAH
Editorial saya tentang gejala ini -- satu kenyataan tentang kejutan dan kebingungan...
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Islam & Pluralisme (himpunan)
Berikut catatan blog, berita, surat pembaca & sedikit latar belakang isu pengharaman buku, khususnya korban terkini Islam & Pluralisme. Halaman ini boleh juga dicapai melalui majalah web REPUBLIK KATA.
Forum bahas larangan buku baru
Malaysia Bodoh.com
Forum MISG Online
Forum Tempur Politik Maya KMU
Siaran media
>>> "Islam & Pluralisme" diharamkan: MEGC minta penjelasan (5 Feb)
>>> Maklumat asas buku "Islam & Pluralisme" (5 Feb)
Blog (bahasa Melayu)
Kecek-kecek soal pengharaman Islam & Pluralisme (31 Jan)
Bila Muslim tidak kompeten (1 Feb)
Hadhari haram (1 Feb)
Sial, kenapa? (1 Feb)
Di sebalik pengharaman ‘Islam & Pluralisme’ (2 Feb)
Kempen Sapere Aude! - Jangan Haram Buku 1 (2 Feb)
Pengharaman buku: Satu lagi projek Islam Hadhari! (3 Feb)
Pupuk tradisi ilmiah, bukan sikap bebal (3 Feb) oleh Anwar Ibrahim
Perlu haram buku? (4 Feb)
Buku haram (4 Feb)
Blog (English)
Banned books in Malaysia (Daniel Pipes, 29 Jan)
11 more books on Islam banned (30 Jan)
On the dangerous topic of Islam and haram (30 Jan)
The opposite efffect of book-banning ( 1 Feb)
Book banning: Another project by Islam Hadhari! (3 Feb)
So, we are more FREE? (Rocky Bru, 7 Feb)
Protest against Malaysian book ban (31 Jan) must read
Berita/news/surat/letters
11 buku Islam diharamkan kerana fakta menyeleweng (29 Jan)
Ministry bans 11 books about Islam (29 Jan)
Malaysia bans 11 books on Islam (30 Jan)
11 books banned: What hadhari? (Merdekareview.com, 4 Feb)
Kenapa perlu KKDN haramkan buku? (Harakahdaily.net, surat, 6 Feb)
Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari (Malaysiakini.com, letter, 11 Feb)
Book ban: who are we to question gov't? (Malaysiakini.com, letter, 13 Feb)
Di mana boleh dicari? Want to get a copy?
Toko Buku Faisal
Silverfish Books
Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM)
Bacaan latar/background reading
Senarai Penerbitan Haram (KKDN - senarai lengkap tahun 2000-2008)
Tujuh buku diharamkan kerana sentuh kesucian Islam (12 Nov 2007)
KDN Haram 18 Penerbitan Cemar Islam (18 Jan 2007)
Jawatankuasa Penapisan Peraku Haram 11 Buku, 4 CD (16 Feb 2006)
Jawatankuasa Penapisan Penerbitan Berunsur Islam (1 Jul 2005)
Bahagian Penyelidikan (Larangan Buku) JAKIM
>>> Wawancara bersama Al-Mustaqeem: Gerakan reformisme, kebebasan pendapat & pendidikan Islam (Jun 2007)
>>> Authorities ban films, books, television talkshow (Feb 2007)
>>> They Still Ban Books and Shackle Minds? (May 2005)
>>> Manuscripts Don't Burn (Bloggers Against Book Banning)
>>> Malaysia: Restrictive Laws in a Parliamentary Democracy (Amnesty International, 1999)
Catatan isu pengharaman buku di blog ini (komentar)
Fiqh Perempuan (15 Nov 2007)
Kamasutra (19 Jan 2007)
Mayat (buku) (19 Jun 2006)
Forum bahas larangan buku baru
Malaysia Bodoh.com
Forum MISG Online
Forum Tempur Politik Maya KMU
Siaran media
>>> "Islam & Pluralisme" diharamkan: MEGC minta penjelasan (5 Feb)
>>> Maklumat asas buku "Islam & Pluralisme" (5 Feb)
Blog (bahasa Melayu)
Kecek-kecek soal pengharaman Islam & Pluralisme (31 Jan)
Bila Muslim tidak kompeten (1 Feb)
Hadhari haram (1 Feb)
Sial, kenapa? (1 Feb)
Di sebalik pengharaman ‘Islam & Pluralisme’ (2 Feb)
Kempen Sapere Aude! - Jangan Haram Buku 1 (2 Feb)
Pengharaman buku: Satu lagi projek Islam Hadhari! (3 Feb)
Pupuk tradisi ilmiah, bukan sikap bebal (3 Feb) oleh Anwar Ibrahim
Perlu haram buku? (4 Feb)
Buku haram (4 Feb)
Blog (English)Banned books in Malaysia (Daniel Pipes, 29 Jan)
11 more books on Islam banned (30 Jan)
On the dangerous topic of Islam and haram (30 Jan)
The opposite efffect of book-banning ( 1 Feb)
Book banning: Another project by Islam Hadhari! (3 Feb)
So, we are more FREE? (Rocky Bru, 7 Feb)
Protest against Malaysian book ban (31 Jan) must read
Berita/news/surat/letters
11 buku Islam diharamkan kerana fakta menyeleweng (29 Jan)
Ministry bans 11 books about Islam (29 Jan)
Malaysia bans 11 books on Islam (30 Jan)
11 books banned: What hadhari? (Merdekareview.com, 4 Feb)
Kenapa perlu KKDN haramkan buku? (Harakahdaily.net, surat, 6 Feb)
Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari (Malaysiakini.com, letter, 11 Feb)
Book ban: who are we to question gov't? (Malaysiakini.com, letter, 13 Feb)
Di mana boleh dicari? Want to get a copy?
Toko Buku Faisal
Silverfish Books
Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM)
Bacaan latar/background reading
Senarai Penerbitan Haram (KKDN - senarai lengkap tahun 2000-2008)
Tujuh buku diharamkan kerana sentuh kesucian Islam (12 Nov 2007)
KDN Haram 18 Penerbitan Cemar Islam (18 Jan 2007)
Jawatankuasa Penapisan Peraku Haram 11 Buku, 4 CD (16 Feb 2006)
Jawatankuasa Penapisan Penerbitan Berunsur Islam (1 Jul 2005)
Bahagian Penyelidikan (Larangan Buku) JAKIM
>>> Wawancara bersama Al-Mustaqeem: Gerakan reformisme, kebebasan pendapat & pendidikan Islam (Jun 2007)
>>> Authorities ban films, books, television talkshow (Feb 2007)
>>> They Still Ban Books and Shackle Minds? (May 2005)
>>> Manuscripts Don't Burn (Bloggers Against Book Banning)
>>> Malaysia: Restrictive Laws in a Parliamentary Democracy (Amnesty International, 1999)
Catatan isu pengharaman buku di blog ini (komentar)
Fiqh Perempuan (15 Nov 2007)
Kamasutra (19 Jan 2007)
Mayat (buku) (19 Jun 2006)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
PM: Saya jamin inilah pilihan raya teradil
EC chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman appealed to the media to give equal airtime and press coverage to all political parties. (The Star, 15 Apr)
Bagaimanapun kementerian yang diketuai oleh Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menekan akhbar. Jelas dan nyata baca di edisi Melayu Malaysiakini.com (15 Apr):
Oriental Daily mengeluarkan “garis panduan” khas kepada wartawan pada 13 Feb, hari Parlimen dibubarkan.
‘Garis Panduan Membuat Liputan Pilihanraya 2008’ itu yang memuatkan 10 perkara, antaranya:
>>> Isu-isu lazim masyarakat Cina seperti 'desakan untuk menambah bilangan sekolah' atau 'pengundi Cina kini tidak memihak kepada BN' tidak wajar dibangkitkan kerana dianggap "tidak menarik minat" pembaca dan "mengancam" (masa depan) Oriental Daily.
>>> Berhati-hati melaporkan berita calon-calon pembangkang, jangan letakkan di bahagian-bahagian depan atau utama.
>>> Laporan tentang BN haruslah 65 peratus, sementara liputan tentang pembangkang sekadar 35 peratus.
Bagaimanapun kementerian yang diketuai oleh Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menekan akhbar. Jelas dan nyata baca di edisi Melayu Malaysiakini.com (15 Apr):
Oriental Daily mengeluarkan “garis panduan” khas kepada wartawan pada 13 Feb, hari Parlimen dibubarkan.
‘Garis Panduan Membuat Liputan Pilihanraya 2008’ itu yang memuatkan 10 perkara, antaranya:
>>> Isu-isu lazim masyarakat Cina seperti 'desakan untuk menambah bilangan sekolah' atau 'pengundi Cina kini tidak memihak kepada BN' tidak wajar dibangkitkan kerana dianggap "tidak menarik minat" pembaca dan "mengancam" (masa depan) Oriental Daily.
>>> Berhati-hati melaporkan berita calon-calon pembangkang, jangan letakkan di bahagian-bahagian depan atau utama.
>>> Laporan tentang BN haruslah 65 peratus, sementara liputan tentang pembangkang sekadar 35 peratus.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Pluralist Islam: Who are you?
Book ban: who are we to question gov't?
S Abdullah (Malaysiakini.com, Feb 13, 2008)
I am refer to the letter Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari.
I believe the Internal Security Ministry banned all the books the writer mentioned in good faith because the ministry, as I understand it, has religious experts to evaluate all the books.
Furthermore, they can refer material to Islamic Development Department (Jakim), a division under the Prime Minister’s Department, or state religious departments and muftis.
In fact, as I was told, a well-known mufti Harussani Zakaria chairs the Jakim's censorship committee. He is also the chairperson of the National Fatwa Committee and the Perak mufti.
This committee then recommends to the Internal Security Ministry to ban any book deemed detrimental to Islamic beliefs and values. The ministry does not ban any book because of political pressure or political reasons as suggested by the writer or the author Stephen Schwartz.
The writer’s claims that ‘our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims’ and that ‘his Islam Hadhari project has been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements’ are a far-fetched insinuations.
One of the books recently banned is the locally published Islam dan Pluralisme edited by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmod Radhi and Khairul Anam Che Menteri. The book tried to project the idea that Islam can tolerate or accept any truth, even those from other religions. This is a fatally dangerous notion propagated by liberal Muslims worldwide.
The banned book tried to sell the idea that Islam and other religions are ‘the same’ because any religion will lead its followers to the Truth and heaven. See, for instance, Chapter Three of Islam dan Pluralisme as written by Asghar Ali Engineer. The whole section argues that other religions are as true as Islam!
See also the next chapter ‘Macam-macam Jalan ke Syurga’ authored by an Iranian by the name Reza Shah-Kazemi, and his subsequent chapter ‘Kristian di Masjid Nabawi: Renungan ke dalam Sunnah’ and ‘Pluralisme Keagamaan dan Islam’ written by John Hick.
Very unfortunately, however, Muslims cannot swallow such liberal, pragmatist ideas. If the writer may refer to the Quran, it says ‘the only religion recognised by Allah is Islam’. Religious experts and our muftis, including Harussani Zakaria, have criticised such ideas and warned Muslims against the danger of being influenced by them.
"If left unchecked, liberalism and pluralism will be difficult to control," said Harussani Zakaria when speaking at the Ulamak 2006 Convention.
I wonder why the writer only highlighted only one book, The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism and did not refer to the other 10 banned books.
Is he trying to accuse the present prime minister with dissemination of Wahhabism, allegedly funded by the Saudi Arabian government as insinuated by Stephen Schwartz’s term ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents in Malaysia’?
Is he also saying the Malaysian government now is under ‘fundamentalist’s hands’?
The writer’s analysis not only provides an incomplete picture of the censorship policy of the ministry, but also distorts the truth and puts the Malaysian government in bad light. By portraying the wrong picture, he accused Islam Hadhari of having ‘two faces’ or double standard.
If the writer is willing to see the truth, he may refer to Jakim’s website or call the ministry’s office. This before writing a letter with such a bend.
S Abdullah (Malaysiakini.com, Feb 13, 2008)
I am refer to the letter Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari.
I believe the Internal Security Ministry banned all the books the writer mentioned in good faith because the ministry, as I understand it, has religious experts to evaluate all the books.
Furthermore, they can refer material to Islamic Development Department (Jakim), a division under the Prime Minister’s Department, or state religious departments and muftis.
In fact, as I was told, a well-known mufti Harussani Zakaria chairs the Jakim's censorship committee. He is also the chairperson of the National Fatwa Committee and the Perak mufti.
This committee then recommends to the Internal Security Ministry to ban any book deemed detrimental to Islamic beliefs and values. The ministry does not ban any book because of political pressure or political reasons as suggested by the writer or the author Stephen Schwartz.
The writer’s claims that ‘our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims’ and that ‘his Islam Hadhari project has been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements’ are a far-fetched insinuations.
One of the books recently banned is the locally published Islam dan Pluralisme edited by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmod Radhi and Khairul Anam Che Menteri. The book tried to project the idea that Islam can tolerate or accept any truth, even those from other religions. This is a fatally dangerous notion propagated by liberal Muslims worldwide.
The banned book tried to sell the idea that Islam and other religions are ‘the same’ because any religion will lead its followers to the Truth and heaven. See, for instance, Chapter Three of Islam dan Pluralisme as written by Asghar Ali Engineer. The whole section argues that other religions are as true as Islam!
See also the next chapter ‘Macam-macam Jalan ke Syurga’ authored by an Iranian by the name Reza Shah-Kazemi, and his subsequent chapter ‘Kristian di Masjid Nabawi: Renungan ke dalam Sunnah’ and ‘Pluralisme Keagamaan dan Islam’ written by John Hick.
Very unfortunately, however, Muslims cannot swallow such liberal, pragmatist ideas. If the writer may refer to the Quran, it says ‘the only religion recognised by Allah is Islam’. Religious experts and our muftis, including Harussani Zakaria, have criticised such ideas and warned Muslims against the danger of being influenced by them.
"If left unchecked, liberalism and pluralism will be difficult to control," said Harussani Zakaria when speaking at the Ulamak 2006 Convention.
I wonder why the writer only highlighted only one book, The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism and did not refer to the other 10 banned books.
Is he trying to accuse the present prime minister with dissemination of Wahhabism, allegedly funded by the Saudi Arabian government as insinuated by Stephen Schwartz’s term ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents in Malaysia’?
Is he also saying the Malaysian government now is under ‘fundamentalist’s hands’?
The writer’s analysis not only provides an incomplete picture of the censorship policy of the ministry, but also distorts the truth and puts the Malaysian government in bad light. By portraying the wrong picture, he accused Islam Hadhari of having ‘two faces’ or double standard.
If the writer is willing to see the truth, he may refer to Jakim’s website or call the ministry’s office. This before writing a letter with such a bend.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The two faces of Islam Hadhari
Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari
Ismail Che Yahaya (Malaysiakini.com, Feb 11, 2008)
On Jan 29, the Malaysian government banned 11 books, one of them The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism authored by Stephen Schwartz, a Muslim convert.
Schwartz suggested that ‘Saudi-Wahhabi agents’ in Malaysia had become alarmed by the publication of the book in Bahasa Indonesia, Dua Wajah Islam.
In a protest statement against the Malaysian ban, Schwartz commented: ‘It’s contemptible and, frankly, reveals the backward-looking attitudes of authorities in Malaysia, a country which prides itself on its alleged modernisation as an economic tiger.
‘In reality, books cannot be banned today. They are smuggled, pirated – especially in Southeast Asia – downloaded, and, in the case of my book, can easily be imported from Indonesia and read by Malaysians who do not know English’.
Regardless of Schwartz’s wild guess, book banning in Malaysia of late has gone beyond ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents’.
Before The Two Faces of Islam, the Internal Security Ministry banned four titles on religious fundamentalism over two years. They are: Islamic Fundamentalism since 1945 (banned on 7 June 2007), Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis (26 April 2007), The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (8 June 2006) and, A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and The Emergence of Islamism (8 June 2006).
See the ministry's full list of banned books here.
Islamic fundamentalism is a broad phenomenon, not solely engineered or funded by the Saudi regime. In fact, fundamentalism is no longer a Christian or Muslim political landscape. It has gained currency and inflicted other religions too.
Karen Armstrong, in her banned book, describes religious fundamentalism of the 20th century as a response to modern, liberal, materialist globalised civilization. She writes: ‘The West has developed an entirely unprecedented and wholly different type of civilisation, so the religious response to it has been unique’.
Religious fundamentalists, she elaborates, ‘have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these ‘fundamentals’ so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action’.
Therefore, it is of no surprise that even Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism have developed fundamentalist factions.
That is why I find the banning is so overwhelming in that it shows the ‘two faces’ of Islam Hadhari as formulated by our present prime minister. On one hand, he tries to promote more tolerant, progressive and moderate Islam but on the other hand, his government has time and again banned such scholarly books on fundamentalism.
Does it mean our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims? Has his Islam Hadhari project been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements in his bureaucracy?
Ismail Che Yahaya (Malaysiakini.com, Feb 11, 2008)
On Jan 29, the Malaysian government banned 11 books, one of them The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism authored by Stephen Schwartz, a Muslim convert.
Schwartz suggested that ‘Saudi-Wahhabi agents’ in Malaysia had become alarmed by the publication of the book in Bahasa Indonesia, Dua Wajah Islam.
In a protest statement against the Malaysian ban, Schwartz commented: ‘It’s contemptible and, frankly, reveals the backward-looking attitudes of authorities in Malaysia, a country which prides itself on its alleged modernisation as an economic tiger.
‘In reality, books cannot be banned today. They are smuggled, pirated – especially in Southeast Asia – downloaded, and, in the case of my book, can easily be imported from Indonesia and read by Malaysians who do not know English’.
Regardless of Schwartz’s wild guess, book banning in Malaysia of late has gone beyond ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents’.
Before The Two Faces of Islam, the Internal Security Ministry banned four titles on religious fundamentalism over two years. They are: Islamic Fundamentalism since 1945 (banned on 7 June 2007), Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis (26 April 2007), The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (8 June 2006) and, A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and The Emergence of Islamism (8 June 2006).
See the ministry's full list of banned books here.
Islamic fundamentalism is a broad phenomenon, not solely engineered or funded by the Saudi regime. In fact, fundamentalism is no longer a Christian or Muslim political landscape. It has gained currency and inflicted other religions too.
Karen Armstrong, in her banned book, describes religious fundamentalism of the 20th century as a response to modern, liberal, materialist globalised civilization. She writes: ‘The West has developed an entirely unprecedented and wholly different type of civilisation, so the religious response to it has been unique’.
Religious fundamentalists, she elaborates, ‘have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these ‘fundamentals’ so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action’.
Therefore, it is of no surprise that even Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism have developed fundamentalist factions.
That is why I find the banning is so overwhelming in that it shows the ‘two faces’ of Islam Hadhari as formulated by our present prime minister. On one hand, he tries to promote more tolerant, progressive and moderate Islam but on the other hand, his government has time and again banned such scholarly books on fundamentalism.
Does it mean our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims? Has his Islam Hadhari project been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements in his bureaucracy?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Protest against Malaysian book ban
The Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), an international network of Muslim moderates with operating groups and correspondents in the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, France, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and other countries PROTESTS a decision by Federation of Malaysia authorities to ban The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism, authored by CIP Executive Director Stephen Schwartz.
The Two Faces of Islam was published by Doubleday, New York, 2002, and has been translated and published in Bosnian, Croatian, Albanian, and Bahasa Indonesia – the latter readable by Malaysians, under the title Dua Wajah Islam. Translations into other major languages read by Muslims are in preparation.
Executive Director Schwartz commented on the news, “It’s contemptible and, frankly, reveals the backward-looking attitudes of authorities in Malaysia , a country which prides itself on its alleged modernization as an economic tiger. In reality, books cannot be banned today. They are smuggled, pirated – especially in Southeast Asia – downloaded, and, in the case of my book, can easily be imported from Indonesia and read by Malaysians who do not know English. I consider this ban a badge of pride. I do, however, call on moderate Muslims and those who sympathize with moderate Islam, as well as all supporters of freedom of expression, to protest to the Malaysian authorities against this absurd decision.”
Schwartz suggested that Saudi-Wahhabi agents in Malaysia had become alarmed by the publication of the book in Bahasa Indonesia. In addition, fundamentalist advocates trained in Malaysia have recently stirred up trouble in the Balkans, using their past solidarity with embattled Bosnia-Hercegovina as a pretext for extremist agitation.
“The Two Faces of Islam will continue to be published in Muslim countries and read by ordinary Muslims,” Schwartz said.
The Two Faces of Islam was published by Doubleday, New York, 2002, and has been translated and published in Bosnian, Croatian, Albanian, and Bahasa Indonesia – the latter readable by Malaysians, under the title Dua Wajah Islam. Translations into other major languages read by Muslims are in preparation.Executive Director Schwartz commented on the news, “It’s contemptible and, frankly, reveals the backward-looking attitudes of authorities in Malaysia , a country which prides itself on its alleged modernization as an economic tiger. In reality, books cannot be banned today. They are smuggled, pirated – especially in Southeast Asia – downloaded, and, in the case of my book, can easily be imported from Indonesia and read by Malaysians who do not know English. I consider this ban a badge of pride. I do, however, call on moderate Muslims and those who sympathize with moderate Islam, as well as all supporters of freedom of expression, to protest to the Malaysian authorities against this absurd decision.”
Schwartz suggested that Saudi-Wahhabi agents in Malaysia had become alarmed by the publication of the book in Bahasa Indonesia. In addition, fundamentalist advocates trained in Malaysia have recently stirred up trouble in the Balkans, using their past solidarity with embattled Bosnia-Hercegovina as a pretext for extremist agitation.
“The Two Faces of Islam will continue to be published in Muslim countries and read by ordinary Muslims,” Schwartz said.
“The counter-jihad has hardly begun, and the arbitrary abuses committed by Malaysian and other radicals will do nothing more than call attention to our work. I do not believe this ridiculous decision reflects on the people of Malaysia or their Islam; rather, it reveals that a serious confrontation is underway in that country between moderates and extremists. The notable fact that my book, which is supported by numerous Muslim scholars, was banned in a ‘grab-bag’ list including Islamic and non-Islamic works, demonstrates the immoral use of the ‘technique of the amalgam,’ which was made famous by Communist regimes in suppressing their critics. It is unworthy of any Muslim to support such desperate intrigues as undertaken in Malaysia. No books on any religion should be banned in Malaysia . The involvement of the Ministry of Internal Security in this disreputable action is ludicrous; my book is in no way a threat to the internal security of Malaysia .”
Schwartz concluded his comments on the incident with the Quranic citation, “ ‘Say: “I seek refuge in the Lord of men, the King of men, the God of men, from the mischief of the slinking prompter who whispers in the hearts of men.”’” (Surah 114).
* * *
The Center for Islamic Pluralism requests that protestors against this ban address communications to:
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
800 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 790
Washington , D.C. 20002 USA
E-mail: communications@uscirf.gov
U.S. Embassy to Malaysia
Amb. James Keith
376 Jalan Tun Razak 50400
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: klconsular@state.gov
Federation of Malaysia
Ministry of Internal Security
Blok D1 & D2, Parcel D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62546 Putrajaya Malaysia
E-mail: pro@mois.gov.my
Embassy of Malaysia
3516 International Court NW
Washington, DC 20008-3002 USA
E-mail: malwashdc@kln.gov.my
Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations
313 East 43rd Street
New York, NY
10017 USA
E-mail: malnyun@kln.gov.my
Malaysian High Commission in UK
45-46 Belgrave Square
London SW1X 8QT UK
E-mail: mwlon@btconnect.com
Malaysian High Commission in Singapore
301, Jervois Road
249 077 Singapore
E-mail: mwspore@singnet.com.sg
Malaysian Embassy to Indonesia
Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said Kav, X/6,
No. 1-3 Kuningan 12950 Jakarta Selatan
Jakarta Indonesia
E-mail: mwikarta@indosat.net.id
Note: To avoid spam filters, please write in the subject line of e-mails: PROTEST AGAINST MALAYSIAN BAN ON “TWO FACES OF ISLAM”
Copies of protest e-mails should be blind-copied to: schwartz@islamicpluralism.org
Schwartz concluded his comments on the incident with the Quranic citation, “ ‘Say: “I seek refuge in the Lord of men, the King of men, the God of men, from the mischief of the slinking prompter who whispers in the hearts of men.”’” (Surah 114).
* * *
The Center for Islamic Pluralism requests that protestors against this ban address communications to:
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
800 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 790
Washington , D.C. 20002 USA
E-mail: communications@uscirf.gov
U.S. Embassy to Malaysia
Amb. James Keith
376 Jalan Tun Razak 50400
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: klconsular@state.gov
Federation of Malaysia
Ministry of Internal Security
Blok D1 & D2, Parcel D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62546 Putrajaya Malaysia
E-mail: pro@mois.gov.my
Embassy of Malaysia
3516 International Court NW
Washington, DC 20008-3002 USA
E-mail: malwashdc@kln.gov.my
Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations
313 East 43rd Street
New York, NY
10017 USA
E-mail: malnyun@kln.gov.my
Malaysian High Commission in UK
45-46 Belgrave Square
London SW1X 8QT UK
E-mail: mwlon@btconnect.com
Malaysian High Commission in Singapore
301, Jervois Road
249 077 Singapore
E-mail: mwspore@singnet.com.sg
Malaysian Embassy to Indonesia
Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said Kav, X/6,
No. 1-3 Kuningan 12950 Jakarta Selatan
Jakarta Indonesia
E-mail: mwikarta@indosat.net.id
Note: To avoid spam filters, please write in the subject line of e-mails: PROTEST AGAINST MALAYSIAN BAN ON “TWO FACES OF ISLAM”
Copies of protest e-mails should be blind-copied to: schwartz@islamicpluralism.org
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Imran
Buat Imran & Alfian, terima kasih kerana sudi berziarah dan bersembang-sembang.
Tiada buah tangan untuk dibawa pulang, inilah sahaja sedikit "huraian tambahan" tentang maksud saya di warung tadi.
>>> Hati-hati makan nasi lemak, roti canai
Tiada buah tangan untuk dibawa pulang, inilah sahaja sedikit "huraian tambahan" tentang maksud saya di warung tadi.
>>> Hati-hati makan nasi lemak, roti canai
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Pluralisme
Akhirnya buku Islam dan Pluralisme diharamkan oleh Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (KKDN).
Buku yang disusun sahabat saya MR al-Mustaqeem menjadi kontroversi seawal perhimpunan Pemuda Umno pada 2006, tidak lama selepas diterbitkan.
al-Mustaqeem, yang memimpin organisasi penerbitan, penterjemahan dan penulisan yang mula bertapak Middle Eastern Graduate Centre (MEGC atau sebutannya MEG-Si), bermula sebagao seorang calon graduan syariah di Jordan dan berakhir sebagai seorang liberal di Jalan Telawi.
al-Mustaqeem, seorang sahabat, juga editor buku saya Patah Balek; Catatan terpenting reformasi.
Hari ini saya boleh berbangga, kerana buku seorang teman dekat saya akhirnya diharamkan oleh kerajaan setelah beberapa lama penerbitan yang saya pernah terlibat, atau menyumbang rencana, ditarik permitnya oleh KKDN.
Saya masih menunggu-nunggu bila pula buku-buku seperti Islam dan Dasar Pemerintahan (karya Ali Abdul Raziq, terjemahan al-Mustaqeem, terbitan Institut Kajian Dasar) atau Pengalaman Bertuhan (kumpulan esei pelbagai agama, suntingan al-Mustaqeem, terbitan terbaru MEGC) diharamkan!
Buku yang disusun sahabat saya MR al-Mustaqeem menjadi kontroversi seawal perhimpunan Pemuda Umno pada 2006, tidak lama selepas diterbitkan.al-Mustaqeem, yang memimpin organisasi penerbitan, penterjemahan dan penulisan yang mula bertapak Middle Eastern Graduate Centre (MEGC atau sebutannya MEG-Si), bermula sebagao seorang calon graduan syariah di Jordan dan berakhir sebagai seorang liberal di Jalan Telawi.
al-Mustaqeem, seorang sahabat, juga editor buku saya Patah Balek; Catatan terpenting reformasi.
Hari ini saya boleh berbangga, kerana buku seorang teman dekat saya akhirnya diharamkan oleh kerajaan setelah beberapa lama penerbitan yang saya pernah terlibat, atau menyumbang rencana, ditarik permitnya oleh KKDN.
Saya masih menunggu-nunggu bila pula buku-buku seperti Islam dan Dasar Pemerintahan (karya Ali Abdul Raziq, terjemahan al-Mustaqeem, terbitan Institut Kajian Dasar) atau Pengalaman Bertuhan (kumpulan esei pelbagai agama, suntingan al-Mustaqeem, terbitan terbaru MEGC) diharamkan!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Loloq
Inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raajiuun!
Perginya penulis lirik terkenal Loloq, atau Rosli Khamis, ke pangkuan-Nya.
Menurut laporan Utusan Online, Loloq meninggal dunia di Hospital Pakar Damansara, di Petaling Jaya hari ini.
Penulis lirik yang berasal dari Singapura itu meninggal dunia pada pukul 1.37 petang akibat pendarahan otak.
(c) Foto ini diambil tanpa kebenaran dari blog Normal Girl Living a Crazy Life
Perginya penulis lirik terkenal Loloq, atau Rosli Khamis, ke pangkuan-Nya.Menurut laporan Utusan Online, Loloq meninggal dunia di Hospital Pakar Damansara, di Petaling Jaya hari ini.
Penulis lirik yang berasal dari Singapura itu meninggal dunia pada pukul 1.37 petang akibat pendarahan otak.
(c) Foto ini diambil tanpa kebenaran dari blog Normal Girl Living a Crazy Life
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
1998-2008
Sebagai mengulas coretan Najwan Halimi (23 Jan 2008)
Saya fikir persoalan Reformasi harus bermula daripada reformasi pemikiran, atau perubahan cara kita berfikir, atau penerokaan cara-cara baru/lain untuk melihat Malaysia.
Sebab itu, pada malam perbualan kita itu, saya tekankan persoalan meningkatkan mutu perdebatan isu-isu (khususnya nasional) agar kepadatan dan kedalaman perbahasan dapat disalurkan (exchange) dengan minima/ringkas.
Dalam contoh mudah, saya sebut persoalan bahasa, budaya dan pemikiran. Khususnya memadatkan sesuatu istilah sehingga ia berfungsi semacam "sponge" atau "hyperlink".
Sering saya perhatikan, kelemahan ini wujud di kalangan kita yang menuntut perubahan politik dan kritis pada kerajaan yang sedia ada. Tidak lupa juga pemimpin-pemimpin, tokoh-tokoh, orang-orang popular.
Kita/mereka menghabiskan banyak masa menyampaikan sesuatu (sesama sendiri) dan juga orang ramai kerana bahasa yang digunakan untuk menyalurkan idea bukan bahasa ilmu dan bahasa idea, tetapi bahasa politik, bahasa propaganda, bahasa "nak menang" (yakni: bahasa ingin menguasai pihak lain).
Bahasa kita bahasa yang menundukkan, bahasa yang mengikat, dan bahasa pembujukan yang menjadikan pendengar/sasaran komunikasi sebagai "alat" untuk dieksploitasi.
Contohnya, artikel saya sewaktu mengupas kempen menentang "Islam Liberal" yang diguna pakai oleh puak-puak Islam. >>> Lihat artikel saya: ‘Islam Liberal’ wacana terdesak (Ummahonline.com, 16 Mei 2005)
Bahasa seumpama ini bukan bahasa untuk menggalakkan dialog, bukan bahasa untuk mencungkil kelemahan sedia ada dan kemungkinan baru, bukan bahasa untuk rakan komunikasi yang setara/setaraf. Tetapi bahasa yang bertukar fungsi sebagai penyalur ideologi, kuasa dan penundukan psikologi.
Dalam perbahasan mutakhir tentang demokrasi dan masyarakat sivil, sarjana kini bercakap tentang "modal budaya" atau "modal sosial" sebagai prasyarat awal untuk membangunkan demokrasi dari bawah. Jadi, bagi saya, bahasa politik yang wujud pada hari ini belum membentuk modal budaya/modal sosial ke arah Reformasi.
Oleh itu, pada hemat saya saat ini, bidang inilah yang jangan sekali-kali kita abaikan. Dan .... ia menjadi suatu aspek perjuangan Reformasi yang maha mustahak.
Saya fikir persoalan Reformasi harus bermula daripada reformasi pemikiran, atau perubahan cara kita berfikir, atau penerokaan cara-cara baru/lain untuk melihat Malaysia.
Sebab itu, pada malam perbualan kita itu, saya tekankan persoalan meningkatkan mutu perdebatan isu-isu (khususnya nasional) agar kepadatan dan kedalaman perbahasan dapat disalurkan (exchange) dengan minima/ringkas.
Dalam contoh mudah, saya sebut persoalan bahasa, budaya dan pemikiran. Khususnya memadatkan sesuatu istilah sehingga ia berfungsi semacam "sponge" atau "hyperlink".
Sering saya perhatikan, kelemahan ini wujud di kalangan kita yang menuntut perubahan politik dan kritis pada kerajaan yang sedia ada. Tidak lupa juga pemimpin-pemimpin, tokoh-tokoh, orang-orang popular.
Kita/mereka menghabiskan banyak masa menyampaikan sesuatu (sesama sendiri) dan juga orang ramai kerana bahasa yang digunakan untuk menyalurkan idea bukan bahasa ilmu dan bahasa idea, tetapi bahasa politik, bahasa propaganda, bahasa "nak menang" (yakni: bahasa ingin menguasai pihak lain).
Bahasa kita bahasa yang menundukkan, bahasa yang mengikat, dan bahasa pembujukan yang menjadikan pendengar/sasaran komunikasi sebagai "alat" untuk dieksploitasi.
Contohnya, artikel saya sewaktu mengupas kempen menentang "Islam Liberal" yang diguna pakai oleh puak-puak Islam. >>> Lihat artikel saya: ‘Islam Liberal’ wacana terdesak (Ummahonline.com, 16 Mei 2005)
Bahasa seumpama ini bukan bahasa untuk menggalakkan dialog, bukan bahasa untuk mencungkil kelemahan sedia ada dan kemungkinan baru, bukan bahasa untuk rakan komunikasi yang setara/setaraf. Tetapi bahasa yang bertukar fungsi sebagai penyalur ideologi, kuasa dan penundukan psikologi.
Dalam perbahasan mutakhir tentang demokrasi dan masyarakat sivil, sarjana kini bercakap tentang "modal budaya" atau "modal sosial" sebagai prasyarat awal untuk membangunkan demokrasi dari bawah. Jadi, bagi saya, bahasa politik yang wujud pada hari ini belum membentuk modal budaya/modal sosial ke arah Reformasi.
Oleh itu, pada hemat saya saat ini, bidang inilah yang jangan sekali-kali kita abaikan. Dan .... ia menjadi suatu aspek perjuangan Reformasi yang maha mustahak.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Kajian Media (1)
Modern propaganda is distinguished from other forms of communication by its deliberate and conscious use of false or misleading information to sway public opinion. The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century gradually made it possible to reach large numbers of people.
But it was not until the nineteenth century that state governments began to employ propaganda for political purposes to any wide degree deliberately aimed at influencing the masses. The invention of radio and television in the twentieth century made it possible to reach even more people. The development of modern media, global warfare, and the rise of extremist political parties provided growing importance to the use of propaganda.
>>> Propaganda
But propaganda can be as blatant as a swastika or as subtle as a joke. Its persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propagandistic messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell malt liquor.
As Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson point out, "every day we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda." (Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)
With the growth of communication tools like the Internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been dramatically accelerated. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This is a wonderful development, but there is a cost.
>>> Propagandacritic.com
Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand, but rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach, evidence and language.
Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks.
Propaganda must be creative. It is by no means a matter for the bureaucracy or official administration, but rather it is a matter of productive fantasy. The genuine propagandist must be a true artist. He must be a master of the popular soul, using it as an instrument to express the majesty of a genuine political will. Propaganda can be pro or con. In neither case does it have to be negative. The only thing that is important is whether or not its words are true and genuine expressions of the people. During its period of opposition, the National Socialist movement proved that criticism can be constructive, indeed that in a time which the government is in the hands of destructive powers it may be the only constructive element.
>>> "Goebbels on Propaganda" dalam Propaganda - General (theory, practice and history)
But it was not until the nineteenth century that state governments began to employ propaganda for political purposes to any wide degree deliberately aimed at influencing the masses. The invention of radio and television in the twentieth century made it possible to reach even more people. The development of modern media, global warfare, and the rise of extremist political parties provided growing importance to the use of propaganda.
>>> Propaganda
But propaganda can be as blatant as a swastika or as subtle as a joke. Its persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propagandistic messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell malt liquor.
As Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson point out, "every day we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda." (Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)
With the growth of communication tools like the Internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been dramatically accelerated. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This is a wonderful development, but there is a cost.
>>> Propagandacritic.com
Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand, but rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach, evidence and language.
Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks.
Propaganda must be creative. It is by no means a matter for the bureaucracy or official administration, but rather it is a matter of productive fantasy. The genuine propagandist must be a true artist. He must be a master of the popular soul, using it as an instrument to express the majesty of a genuine political will. Propaganda can be pro or con. In neither case does it have to be negative. The only thing that is important is whether or not its words are true and genuine expressions of the people. During its period of opposition, the National Socialist movement proved that criticism can be constructive, indeed that in a time which the government is in the hands of destructive powers it may be the only constructive element.
>>> "Goebbels on Propaganda" dalam Propaganda - General (theory, practice and history)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
