Tun Hanif: Malay Chinese Friction Sparked During MPAJA Rule in 1945

"I notice that there are lots of people who do not accept this story. I guess its because Tun Haniff said the truth about their community? 1969 event is another event that was that was not accepted as well. The Japanese apologise for their actions, I can't see any chinese leader including the Gerakan leader or the late chin peng apologising to the malay community for their actions? I guess maybe this is what they should do in order to move on? That way maybe then we would see UMNO apologising to Chinese about the killings of chinese in 1969?"

Maza Iraza

Interesting article from RPK's MT, I am posting the comments section as well:

EX-IGP: MALAY-CHINESE FRICTION SPARKED DURING ANTI-JAPANESE ARMY’S RULE

Ida Lim, Malay Mail Online

The country’s interracial tension especially between the Malays and the Chinese traces back to the latter group’s “cruel rule” during the pre-independence period, former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tun Mohammed Haniff Omar claimed today.

Haniff explained that this purported hostility between the communities did not exist before then, saying it was only sparked during a brief spell in 1945 when the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) declared itself to be in control.

“Pertempuran (clashes) between races never happened from zaman ke zaman (era to era) until the Chinese ruled cruelly part of the Malaya peninsular through the Malayan Communist Party (CPM) and Kuomintang in August, September 1945.

“Since then, Peninsular (Malaysia) has racial problems,” the retired policeman said during a luncheon talk titled “Cabaran Keselamatan Awam Masa Kini” (Today’s Public Security Challenges).

Pointing to the Chinese community’s presence here that traced back to the Malacca Sultanate without issue, the former police chief said race had never been a problem until that point in 1945.

Before independence, Peninsular Malaysia was carved up into the Federated Malay states, Unfederated Malay states and Straits Settlement — all under British rule.

Japan invaded then-Malaya in 1941, with its occupation ending in 1945 when it surrendered.

In a brief period spanning two to three weeks before the British returned and established the British Military Administration of Malaya on September 12, 1945, the only “organised force” then was the MPAJA commanded by the CPM and the Kuomintang, Haniff said.

During the brief MPAJA rule, Haniff said this “force” imposed a curfew on Malay males and killed those who breached the curfew.

This was despite the Chinese then having only British subjects status in the Straits Settlements rather than citizens in the Malay states, he said.

The MPAJA also hunted down collaborators of the Japanese and civil servants such as the police and village heads before torturing and killing them, he said.

The Malays then became “really aroused” and attacked the Chinese, with the Chinese then being in “great fear” of attacks from the Malays, he said.

“There was complete pandemonium. Until the British had to arrange for Malay and Chinese leaders to get together and promise to keep the peace.

“So we never had this until the Japanese surrendered and the MPAJA took over. That was the start,” the Institute of Public Securityof Malaysia (Ipsom) fellow said.

• 

  Lim Sim Khean ·  Top Commenter · Puchong

  This ex-IGP is talking nonsense.
  There was absolutely no enemity between the Malays and the Chinese during the Japanese occupation in Malaya. In fact, there was unity in fighting against the invading forces. The two races even went into the jungles, facing hardships to fight the Japanese armies, guerrilla style.

  Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · April 22 at 8:44pm

  • 

    Raja Petra Kamarudin ·  Top Commenter · Chief Editor at Malaysia Today

    Read what he said again. He said in the 2-3 weeks AFTER the Japanese surrendered when the MPAJA went on a rampage and killed many people, Malays included and my uncle one of them.

    Reply · Like · 1 · April 22 at 10:05pm
• 

  Mohamad Abdul Malik ·  Top Commenter · Malaysian Institute in Management

  I do not always agree with what Tun Hanif has to say but I am afraid he was right on this one although his views may be opposed by a lot of people. The root cause of this suspicion and friction was because of the MPAJA attitude and actions during the 14 days they were 'in power' in the then Malaya. And the Malay perception was that the MPAJA was a Chinese movement so to speak. Hence the lingering distrust and suspicion of the Chinese to this day.

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · April 22 at 9:36pm

  • 

    Raja Petra Kamarudin ·  Top Commenter · Chief Editor at Malaysia Today

    Yeap, my uncle was also killed by these Chinese in the 2 weeks after the Japanese surrendered. For many years after that many of my relatives were scared of the Chinese.

    Reply · Like · April 22 at 11:20pm
• 

  Vincent Tong ·  Top Commenter · Kuantan

  2 or 3 weeks can create such great animosity that can prevail for over more than half a century? In my humble opinion, the May 13 incident had a more profound impact on the Malay - Chinese dichotomy. Anyway MPAJA or CPM for that matter does not represent the Chinese. Just like Perkasa does not represent all Malays. This another desperate attempt to demonise the Chinese.

  Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · April 22 at 11:25pm

  • 

    Raja Petra Kamarudin ·  Top Commenter · Chief Editor at Malaysia Today

    As soon as the Japanese surrendered the MPAJA entered the towns and started killing those viewed as British and/or Japanese lackeys. Their objective was to take over the country by force.
    
    This frightened the Malays who saw this an an example of what will happen if the Chinese ever came to power. That was why when the CPM started an armed insurrection in 1960 they could not get Malay support. Only the Chinese supported them. The Malays were scared that what they saw in 1945 would again happen in 1960 if the CPM takes over. And in 1969 when it appeared like the Chinese were going to take over the Malays resisted.
    
    We may say why should what happened in 1945 still frighten the Malays 15 years later in 1960 and again nine years after that in 1969? Well, see what happened in Bosnia and Serbia. Old wounds and distrust take a long time to heal. I feel that was Chin Peng's biggest blunder in 1945. If not the Malays would have been with the CPM and the CPM would not have been a Chinese movement save for a small handful of Malays.

    Reply · Like · April 22 at 11:38pm
  • 

    Mohamad Abdul Malik ·  Top Commenter · Malaysian Institute in Management

    Yes, I agree with that. But that was the perception then and now. During the emergency many of the Chinese were born and came from China. Thus the close affinity with their 'motherland' who at that point in time were communists. LKY too have problems with the communists. Why do you think the British created new villages for the Chinese then? They did so because they wanted to isolate the Chinese rural population from the communists who they suspected was helping them. Why were there no Indian new villages? I think we should come to terms with that and move on. No I do not believe this is a desperate attempt by Hanif to demonise the Chinese. He was just calling a spade a spade. You can only solve a problem by correctly identifying the actual causes of the problems. The problems won't go away by being in a state of denial.

    Reply · Like · April 22 at 11:49pm
  • 

    Vincent Tong ·  Top Commenter · Kuantan

    Raja Petra Kamarudin, I respect your opinion but I beg to differ on the aspect of Chinese taking over the nation. The Chinese were never a majority race and will never be. For the sake of argument, the majority of the Chinese never really supported the CPM, otherwise it would never have been that easy to overcome the CPM. CPM were only be able to garner power by force and not by own volition. Btw, I am sorry for your lose (uncle).

    Reply · Like · 3 · Yesterday at 12:10am

  View 3 more
• 

  Nick Lmk ·  Top Commenter · King George V School (Hong Kong)

  Why dwell on the past? Its history! We should be talking about what needs to be done today to put the country back on the right track. again.Talking about the past is stupid, non-productive and a waste of saliva and will not take this nation and it's citizens anywhere.

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 1:10am

  • 

    Raja Petra Kamarudin ·  Top Commenter · Chief Editor at Malaysia Today

    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

    Reply · Like · 3 · Yesterday at 1:18am
  • 

    Michael Wong · Follow · Works at Freelancer

    Raja Petra Kamarudin Yes, but the statement above does not give the whole story. The Japanese planted the seed of hatred between the Chinese and Malay at the time. The Japanese seems to be sided Malay and given them job as police. Chinese continue being killed.

    Reply · Like · 1 · 23 hours ago
• 

  Wong FeiHong ·  Top Commenter · Works at Panasonic

  So now how? Should we continue to call all Malaysian Chinese communist and discriminate against them. Is that the way to solve Malaysian's problem. Especially the brain drain issues.

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 7:05am
• 

  Jason Zhou King · Publishing Contractor at Self-Employed

  Rpk u r right those people choosen to b killed were working for jep .among them not only malay but chinese were killed too in great numbers

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:44pm
• 

  Michael Wong · Follow · Works at Freelancer

  I hope you guys to have a look on this as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLx0V0GK4-A Japanese trying to controlling Malaya at the time to create suspicious between the Chinese and Malay.

  Reply · Like · 2 · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
• 

  Low Kee ·  Top Commenter

  Is Tun Haniff trying to blame our racial divide/tension today on the actions of those MPAJA and CPM in 1945?
  There are no more communist lovers in Malaysia today why are PERKASA and ISMA creating such a ruckus?

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
• 

  Maza Iraza
  I notice that there are lots of people who do not accept this story. I guess its because Tun Haniff said the truth about their community? 1969 event is another event that was that was not accepted as well. The Japanese apologise for their actions, I can't see any chinese leader including the Gerakan leader or the late chin peng apologising to the malay community for their actions? I guess maybe this is what they should do in order to move on? That way maybe then we would see UMNO apologising to Chinese about the killings of chinese in 1969?
  

  Reply · Like · Follow Post · 12 hours ago

Some Questions by THE STAR answered by 1MDB

The Questions:

1MDB not doing what it has been designed to do

1MDB’s annual land assessments set a precedent

I don't know about you but 1MDB seems a bit mysterious as far as what it does, but finally some kind of explanation as to its activities are here at last(?) :

1MDB clarifies state of accounts

Posted on April 24, 2014  | 91 views |  Topic : Investment, News & Articles.

An artist’s impression of Tun Razak Exchange

WE refer to The Star reports on 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s (1MDB) audited financial statement for the year ended March 31, 2013 published on April 22 and April 23, 2014. We wish to clarify on the following:

1MDB has full control of its funds

1MDB’s board has full control over its funds in the Cayman Islands. The fund is managed under the mandate given by 1MDB, and 1MDB can withdraw the funds as it so determines.

In the reports, the word “control” has been wrongly interpreted.

With reference to this, the full statement based on the Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards (MFRS) is: “The Directors concluded that the Group is unable to exercise control or significant influence over Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) in accordance with the MFRS 127 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements and MFRS 128 Investments in Associates respectively.”

In MFRS 127, “control” is defined as “the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities”. As clearly disclosed in the notes of the accounts, 1MDB’s investment in the SPC is only as a participating shareholder.

This is akin to investing money in a mutual fund, where 1MDB is a participating shareholder of the fund that already has an investment mandate of its own and thus, as a participating shareholder, is unable to influence the original investment mandate.

It most certainly does not mean that 1MDB has lost control of the funds it invested.

Available for Sale

MFRS specifies three classes of investments:

1. Held to Maturity,
2. Available for Sale, and
3. Held for Trading.

In accordance with the guidelines of MFRS 139, 1MDB’s investments in the Cayman Islands are, therefore, classed as “Available for Sale”, as clearly the other categories would not be appropriate.

This does not indicate that 1MDB is putting the assets in the Cayman Islands up for sale. It is merely a technical classification of assets as stipulated by the MFRS.

1MDB has always stated that its investment in the Cayman Islands is a temporary measure. As per its press release issued in April 2013, 1MDB said the proceeds were earmarked for future investments, and pending that, the funds were placed in the SPC for cash management purposes.

Revaluation of investment

The claim that “the commonly adopted practice of property developers to do so every three to five years” is not applicable to 1MDB in this instance.

1MDB’s audited financial statement complies with the relevant accounting standards, be it the Financial Reporting Standards or FRS for financial year 2011 (FY11) and FY12 or MFRS. It is now a mandatory requirement for Malaysian companies to adopt the MFRS.

In the MFRS, land assets are either classified as fixed assets or investment properties. Investment properties are assets held for further developments. Since 1MDB has made clear its intentions of developing the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar Malaysia from day one, these land assets have always been classified as investment properties.

According to MFRS 140, the standard requires that “the fair value of investment property shall reflect market conditions at the end of the reporting period”.

The standard also encourages reporting entities, in the event of no active market or transacted prices, to use independent professional valuations, which 1MDB has complied with.Valuations of land under development are also essential for 1MDB’s preparatory work for TRX and Bandar Malaysia. It is necessary in order to accurately reflect the enhanced value as the developments progress.

Obtaining market valuations for TRX was crucial for the Investment Memorandum process, which has already drawn interest from high-profile potential partner investors.

Bandar Malaysia is currently in the process of the relocation of Pangkalan Udara Kuala Lumpur involving the development of eight sites. The relocation, alongside the commercial revaluation of the property, lays the groundwork for the project’s progress.

Energy acquisition

The claim that the term loan used to purchase Genting Sanyen Power was guaranteed by the federal government is incorrect.

None of 1MDB’s financing for the purchase of energy assets is guaranteed by the Government. This is clearly indicated in the financial statement of FY13.

In fact, the bulk of 1MDB’s financing has not been guaranteed by the Government, but is instead backed by the company’s own assets. Only RM5.8bil of loans, mostly as part of 1MDB’s start-up, has been guaranteed by the Government.

Each financing exercise, including bonds, was targeted to specific projects and their development needs and supported by the respective projects’ forecast cash flow and asset value.

1MDB has captured strong value from its energy assets, which contributed significantly to the group’s profit after tax of RM778.2mil for the year ending March 31, 2013.

The profit was posted on the back of a RM2.6bil revenue streaming mostly from its energy subsidiaries – Powertek Energy Sdn Bhd and Kuala Langat Power Plant Sdn Bhd.

1MDB paid a value for the energy assets that is commensurate with our expected growth strategy and further values that the asset would generate in future. 1MDB strongly believes in the substantial future growth potential of the assets, led by a credible, experienced management which is already creating further value from the power business.

Despite a goodwill writedown of RM1.18bil of its energy acquisitions, which is a one-off, short-term event, the resulting value creation is already proven, starting from the ability to successfully win the competitive tender of the recent Project 3B bid worth RM11bil.

Going forward

1MDB expects its energy subsidiaries to continue bringing in strong cash flows to the group. During the subsequent financial year ending March 31, 2014, 1MDB has purchased a 75% stake in Jimah Energy Ventures, whose principal assets is the 1,400MW Jimah power plant in Negri Sembilan.

1MDB is set to capture higher growth value in the energy sector, attracting local and international investors when it moves towards a listing of its energy assets. The request for proposal or RFP for various professional services related to the initial public offering has generated keen interest from local and international financial institutions.

As a leading independent power producer locally as well as emerging regional markets, 1MDB will continue to bid for projects in Malaysia and overseas. Its real estate arm, meanwhile, moves into a new phase of development, with TRX finalising new investments for phase one of the development.

I am posting this for record only..some of the financial jargons saya pun tidak berapa faham..will check when needed to know later in future.

Hudud : Pakatan parties must stop 'agreeing to disagree' as it lead Malaysia to nowhere

The headline says it all:

WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM ALLIES, PAS TO BANK ON UMNO’S HELP WITH HUDUD

‘Hudud not part of Pakatan manifesto’

I am not arguing about Hudud whether it should be implemented or not in this country, though I firmly believe that Hudud if it is to be introduced in this country should and must apply to ALL Malaysians Muslims and non-Muslims too after it has been explained to the Malaysian public. Hudud is after all ALLAH's Law and ALLAH's Law is just and universal. PAS's version of Hudud being applicable to Muslims only is nonsense. Surely if other religion fight tooth and nail to use the word ALLAH for God they would not mind submitting to ALLAH's Laws would they?

Anyway, I am not talking about Hudud perse rather the consensus in Pakatan Rakyat that they are taking lightly. The Pakatan of DAP PAS and PKR cannot forever tell Malaysians that they are an alternative Gomen to BN when they always take the esay out to agree to disagree when ever a sensitive subject is brought up which will affect the nation if they do rule one day. An alternative coalition must show that they are decisive and speak with one voice not DAP agree PAS disagree and PKR just agree to keep quiet. It will be disastrous to the country as  socio economic or any plans at all cannot be planned or implemented as the Pakatan Gomen bicker among themselves.

"Hudud is an issue which requires an immediate solution by the component parties of the opposition pact, agreeing to disagree, whatever that means, is no solution."

Karpal Singh (2012), source here

Before tabling the Private Member's Bill in Parlimen to allow for Hudud to be implemented in Kelantan, PAS must reach 100% agreement from its other partner the DAP and PAS. The loose Pakatan coalition should and must stop this drama about agreeing to disagree and postpone decisive decision which will affect the country for another time aka sweeping problems of consensus under the carpet. It is not the way  how Malaysia should be administered. 

If PAS cannot get agreement from the DAP and PKR on the Hudud issue then PAS must go it alone and leave the Pakatan Rakyat. A coalition built only on their hate of UMNO and BN and nothing else is useless to the country's development and progress. 

A house divided cannot stand. 

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar -PAS’s ILL- CONCEIVED HUDUD MOVE

“One of the major causes of Muslim decay was rigid conformity to interpretations made in other ages.”

Shah Waliullah (1703-1762)

PAS should stop the saber rattling on Hudud, it does this blessed country no good. I would agree that Hudud as ALLAH's Law should be imposed on all Malaysians not just Muslims for ALLAH's Law is just and universal. PAS's Hudud is just an exercise to gain votes not to propagate ALLAH's Law.

PAS’s ILL- CONCEIVED HUDUD MOVE by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

From media reports, it appears that the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) is determined to table a Private Member’s Bill in the June session of the Dewan Rakyat that will seek to facilitate the implementation of hudud --- the Islamic penal code --- in Kelantan. The implementation will be based upon the Hudud Bill adopted unanimously by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly in November 1993.

I shall attempt to appraise the wisdom of doing this from three closely inter-related perspectives --- the concept of hudud in general and as enunciated in the Bill; the practice of hudud in other countries; and the local context in which hudud would be implemented.

The Concept.

The Kelantan Hudud Bill has been subjected to a comprehensive analysis in Muhammad Hashim Kamali’s Punishment in Islamic Law: An Enquiry into the Hudud Bill of Kelantan (Kuala Lumpur: Institut Kajian Dasar, 1995). Kamali, one of the world’s leading Islamic jurists, reveals in detail the weaknesses of the Bill, including those pertaining to its categorisation of hudud offences and how it contradicts the Quranic prescription on punishments and why it conflicts with the Malaysian Constitution and the Penal Code. All members of Parliament, from the government and the opposition, Muslims and non-Muslims, should digest the contents of the book before debating the PAS sponsored Bill.

They will realise that the PAS approach is focussed essentially upon modes of punishment and not upon the fundamental principle of justice which is the overriding concern of the Quran. When justice is one’s leitmotif one would first strive to ensure that the social ethos and the power structure conduce towards equity and fairness rather than preoccupy oneself with detailed descriptions of how different forms of punishment would be meted out. Besides, the concept of hudud --- or boundaries --- in the Quran has a much wider and deeper meaning and is not confined to its penal aspects. It is also employed in relation to fasting, family laws and inheritance and indeed embodies all of God’s teachings and guidelines. By over-emphasising punishment, PAS has also side-lined provisions on repentance and reformation which are crucial to all those instances in the Quran where punitive measures are mentioned in the context of specific offences.

The Practice.

It is not just the failure to appreciate the spirit of compassion and justice that accompanies legal provisions in the Quran that renders the PAS move to introduce hudud problematic. The party and others who subscribe to a similar view have not examined the realities surrounding the implementation of hudud. Most Muslim majority states do not provide for hudud. The most populous Muslim nation on earth, Indonesia, has not incorporated such a provision into its legal system though one of its smaller provinces, Acheh, has introduced elements of the Islamic penal code while retaining civil law in other areas. The change is drawing more and more criticism from within Achenese society itself. Turkey, one of the more prominent Muslim states today, with a leadership rooted in an Islamic movement, has stayed away from hudud laws. Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, among others, have not included hudud in their criminal justice systems. In some instances, their constitutions proclaim a general commitment to Sharia as “a way of life.”

Those countries which have sought to enforce hudud such as Afghanistan, Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan do not seem to have succeeded in reducing the very crimes that the law is meant for. In some of them, murder and robbery are still as rife as ever. Even if street-level theft has been kept in check in one or two cases, there is ample evidence of massive looting of the nation’s wealth by the elite for the elite. And yet the hands of these thieves are not cut off! It merely reinforces the point that it is not the mode of punishment that ensures justice but the ability of society to hold the powerful accountable.

If accountability and justice are still lacking in hudud-based societies, their parlous situation is further exacerbated by the plight of women and non-Muslims. In almost every one of the states that has embraced hudud laws, women have been marginalised both in their private sphere and in the public arena. In those countries where there is a non-Muslim minority, their space for expression and action often shrinks, in the wake of hudud enforcement.

The local Context.

This brings us to the situation in Malaysia. Since it is Kelantan that wants to implement hudud, it is pertinent to ask: how would the punishments prescribed in the hudud laws help to reduce various crimes in the state? In Kelantan, as in other states in Malaysia, a number of robberies and murders appear to be related to drug abuse. Unless this underlying cause is eliminated, it is unlikely that the crime rate will be reduced even if the modes of punishment are brought in line with hudud rules.

There is also another problem that Kelantan will have to address. Though its non-Muslim population is small, at about 5 percent, the state’s Buddhists, Hindus and Christians have the right to continue to be charged under the existing law which means that the state will have two sets of criminal legislation. As argued by some others, a Muslim and a non-Muslim charged for the same crime will have to be tried under two different jurisdictions and meted out two different sentences. One could be more severe than the other. Would that be just? Would that be morally right?

Equally serious, what would be the impact of this bizarre arrangement upon relations between Muslims and people of other faiths? Wouldn’t it lead to greater polarization at a time when we are already struggling with increasing communal polarization?

Conclusion.

In the ultimate analysis, the PAS bid to implement hudud in Kelantan is not just about its understanding of hudud. It is sadly about how the vast majority of Muslims in this country understand hudud. It is an understanding shaped largely by the interpretation of the ulama --- an interpretation that is literal and static.

This is why modes of punishment including those that have no basis in the Quran are perceived as sacrosanct. Malaysian Muslims forget that it is the underlying moral principle of right and wrong that is fundamental --- a principle which regards murder and robbery and adultery as eternally wrong. In order to do justice to the victims of these and other wrongdoings, every religion and every epoch has formulated modes of punishment which are often shaped by the prevailing social milieu.

If one fails to distinguish the contextual from the eternal, the ephemeral from the perennial, the universal message of religion will be lost. Great Muslim thinkers have cautioned Muslims about this through the ages. The illustrious eighteenth century theologian Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) for instance emphasised that “every age must seek its own interpretation of the Quran and the traditions.” He believed that, “One of the major causes of Muslim decay was rigid conformity to interpretations made in other ages.”

Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), the distinguished twentieth century poet-philosopher, was also of the view that in approaching the Sharia, “each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems in accordance with the level of its consciousness and the demands of the time.” Another reformer of repute, Ali Shariati (1933-1977), was equally critical of “traditional, formalistic Islam” and sought to liberate the religion from the grip of those ulama “who had imprisoned Islam by monopolising it.”

Here in Malaysia, Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007) had for many decades, through works such as Kita dengan Islam argued eloquently for an understanding of Islam that goes beyond the literal and connects with the essence of the faith. In an essay entitled, Al-Quran: Nilai dan Peraturan in Dewan Budaya (February and March 1980), I has also explored further the distinction between contextual rules and the eternal message. It explains why when PAS began pushing for hudud soon after it came to power in Kelantan for a second time in 1990, I raised the question, Hudud: Central to Islam? in a 1992 article which became a chapter in my Rights, Religion and Reform ( London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002)

Now that the issue of hudud has re-surfaced with even more serious implications for the nation as a whole, we should remind ourselves of the magnitude of the challenge that faces us. In Kamali’s words, nineteen years ago, “We either choose to retain the eternal message of Islam, uphold its civilizational ideals, and invest our energy in the task of reconstructing a society in that image or lower our sights only to see the concrete rules and specific details. This latter alternative … attaches higher priority to details and make them the focus of attention at the expense of the broader and more important objectives of Islam. Islam’s commitment to moral virtue, to justice, to equality and freedom … and to the promotion of humanitarian and compassionate values are of universal and perpetual significance. Failing to understand these will inevitably lead to the misapprehension and misinterpretation of Islam and its criminal justice.”

Read more at Anas Zubedy's blog.

Another case for a 1 School for All System

I was schooled during the good old days of dual medium schools, my father at that time insisted that I go to an English Medium School in JB so there I was started schooling at Sekolah Temengong Abdul Rahman (STAR1) in 1968. Those days you will find Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sikhs students mixing around easily unlike these days when students are polarised by the Sekolah Kebangsaan and Vernacular and Religious Schools. Teachers be they Chinese, Indians or Malays are a bunch of dedicated masters bent on making all their students to be attentive in class.

Then some smart alec politicians decided to listen to the language extremists who insisted that the English Medium Schools are to be abolished because parents are slowly not sending their kids to vernacular schools preferring instead to send them to English medium schools.  When I took my MCE (Malaysia Certificate of Education) in 1978 that will be the 2nd last time that MCE exams were held. 1979 was the last for MCE and after that its SPM until now. 

Since the abolishment of the MCEour Education System has seen one mess after another and our children are growing up polarised within their own school vacuum. As a result we are now a nation polarised by race and religion, some of us cannot even string a few sentence in our national language Bahasa Melayu together.

I hope one day a politician and does not matter which political divide they come from will decide that the nation will only have a 1 School for All System, perhaps such as described by Dr. Suraiya in her letter to the NST which I reposted below:

Anwar's Sodomy2: Written Judgement of The Court of Appeal is out today

From the NST 18 April 2014:

KUALA LUMPUR: An 85-page written judgment on opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's second sodomy case revealed that his choice of giving a statement from the dock was an important factor that led to his conviction at the Court of Appeal in March.

On March 7, a three-man bench, headed by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi delivered the unanimous decision after finding Anwar, 67, guilty of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 29, and sentenced him to five years' jail.

In the judgment released to the media today, the panel ruled that Anwar's choice to give a statement from the dock instead of a sworn testimony during the defence stage of the trial at the High Court raised flags questioning Anwar's reluctance to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination.

The bench also concurred with the trial judge that Anwar's statement from the dock was a mere denial as he did not dispute the fact that he was at the scene of the crime at the material time and date as stated in the charge.

"A credible defence is one that answers the evidence thrown at it by the prosecution.

"It is also imperative that the respondent (Anwar) explain his case."

On Anwar's alibi, the coram stated that Anwar had given notice before the commencement of the trial, that his line of defence was an alibi.

"But at the trial, it appears that this defence was never pursued for reasons best known to him.

"It is pertinent to note that an alibi represents a complete defence to exculpate the respondent from the offence charged."

The panel also said that among the witnesses named in the notice of alibi was Anwar's wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and his Chief of Staff.

"These witnesses in particular, would have been available and were at the respondent's disposal had his alibi been genuine."

On a possible contamination of the semen samples, the coram said PW25 (Prosecution Witness 25 Investigating Officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira) had merely cut open P27 (the plastic) to remove the receptacles (containing the semen samples) to be put into separate envelopes.

"The tampering of semen samples with exhibits in P27 is devoid of any merit as contamination was not proven," they said.

The bench added that the trial judge had erred in giving weight to DW2 (Defence Witness 2 Professor David Lawrence Wells) and DW4 (Dr Brian Leslie Mcdonald) that seemed to be armchair experts rather than relying on testimonies given by PW5 (chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong).

"Evidence of PW5 clearly shows that the deterioration of the samples in this case was not to such an extent which did not permit her to do DNA profiling.

"Hence, the finding by PW5 of sperm cells in the complainant's anus 56 hours after the sodomy incident is not unusual."

As such, the panel said they had no hesitation to conclude that both PW5 and PW6 (chemist Siti Aidora Saedon) were able to obtain perfect DNA profiles which connected Anwar with the offence charged.

"It is crystal clear that the learned trial judge was simply overwhelmed by the evidence of these two expert witnesses called by the defence.

"We find that the judge had overlooked the testimony of DW2 under cross examination regarding the issue of tampering of the containers where DW2 admitted that he could not say that there had been tampering of the containers."

The panel judgment also criticised Anwar's various preliminary applications filed before the Court of Appeal heard the prosecution's appeal.

"Counsel should not intentionally use procedural devices to delay proceedings without any legal basis," the judgment read.

Anwar was charged with committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature against Saiful at the Desa Damansara Condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.01pm and 4pm on June 26, 2008.

The opposition leader was acquitted of sodomising his former aide after a trial which lasted almost two years in Jan 9, 2012 by High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.

The prosecution appealed against the acquittal on Jan 20, 2012.

After the conviction on March 7, the court allowed an application by learned counsel the late Karpal Singh for a stay of execution of the sentence.

Bail was set at RM10,000 with one surety.

Veteran lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was appointed as an ad-hoc deputy public prosecutor by the Attorney-General's Chamber representing the government, during the appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal.

Apart from Balia, the other judges on the panel were Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.

For my record and you guys too, you can read or print the FULL judgement in pdf from the www.kehakiman.gov.my site here:

excerpts:

"[6] Based on the above facts, it would be stretching it too far to say that this appeal has been disposed of in haste. It should be noted that most of the applications to adjourn were at the instance of the respondent who had filed one application after another. It can be seen that the first hearing of the appeal was fixed on 22.7.2013 by which time both parties ought to have filed their respective written submissions. However, only the appellant filed its written submissions dated 19.7.2013 together with the bundle of authorities. The court received the respondent’s first written submissions only on 12.2.2014 and another written submissions on the first hearing day i.e. 6.3.2014.

[7] It is in the public interest that criminal appeals be dealt with by the courts as soon as possible. Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. As is often pointed out, “delay is a known defence tactic”. It is not proper for a counsel to routinely fail to expedite hearing an appeal solely for the convenience of his client. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable, if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party to obtain rightful redress. Counsel should not intentionally use procedural devices to delay proceedings without any legal basis."

Takziah kepada keluarga mendiang Karpal Singh

Malaysia lost a good son today.

"Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal.”

My condolences to the family of the late YB Karpal Singh.

Kemana Arah Tuju Politik Kaum Cina Malaysia Sekarang

'Ramai pemimpin Cina sekarang hanya bijak menyalakan api, tetapi tiada seorang pun yang boleh menjadi penyuluh jalan kepada kaum itu'

'Cukup dikesalkan kerana orang Cina kini menganggap pemimpin yang pandai bermain api itu adalah penyuluh jalan kepada mereka'

Long Yan - Nanyang Siang Pau

From Utusan Malaysia's - Isu-isu Akhbar Cina dated 10 April 2014:

HALA TUJU POLITIK KAUM CINA

ISU masa depan politik masyarakat Cina di Malaysia turut disentuh oleh Long Yan dalam akhbar Nanyang Siang Pau bertarikh 29 Mac 2014. Artikel bertajuk ‘Ke mana hala tuju politik orang Cina?’ disiarkan dalam ruangan Pendapat Yuan Lun halaman W3.

MCA telah ditubuhkan lebih 60 tahun lalu dan sepanjang tempoh itu ia telah menjadi komponen utama dalam Barisan Nasional (BN) yang memerintah negara.

Sebagai salah satu rakan kongsi penting dalam gabungan berkenaan, jasa MCA terhadap negara boleh dilihat di depan mata. Oleh itu, dakwaan MCA tidak menyumbangkan sebarang jasa walaupun sedikit adalah tidak betul. Ada ramai orang Cina terutama sekali generasi muda yang membuat dakwaan itu kerana melihat MCA gagal menyelesaikan masalah pendidikan Cina, kekurangan tenaga guru di Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJKC) dan sijil sekolah menengah Cina tidak diiktiraf.

Mereka mendakwa kedudukan MCA yang hanya menjadi parti komponen utama tetapi tidak mempunyai kuasa dalam kerajaan telah menyebabkan orang Cina di negara ini dilayan secara tidak adil.

Kepada orang Cina, kita ingin menanyakan adakah penilaian mereka terhadap MCA dibuat secara adil? Orang Cina yang menghentam MCA ini dengan bijak berhujah bahawa sebagai rakyat, mereka sepatutnya mendapat hak sama rata seperti kaum lain. Pandangan itu memang tidak salah dan kita tidak mempertikaikannya. Cuma kita mahu orang Cina yang berhujah sedemikian melihat daripada ruang lingkup lebih luas yang melibatkan kaum lain. Sebagai warganegara mereka juga berhak menuntut hak dan kepentingan kaum mereka.

Contohnya, kita menghentam Presiden Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa), Datuk Ibrahim Ali sebagai seorang fanatik. Sebenarnya apa yang dilakukan beliau hanyalah mempertahankan hak orang Melayu seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Beliau menuntut keadilan sama seperti yang diminta oleh orang Cina, jadi kenapa pula kita tuduh beliau fanatik?

Jika dikaji secara mendalam, Perkasa adalah sebuah pertubuhan yang mewakili orang Melayu dengan sebahagian kepimpinannya juga adalah terdiri daripada golongan cerdik pandai dan intelektual kaum itu. Kenapa mereka tidak dihormati seperti yang sepatutnya mereka dapat?

Ketika Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK) Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Kajang, pihak pembangkang dalam kempen mereka telah meletakkan calon BN daripada MCA, Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun setaraf dengan pemimpin Perkasa. Isu itu dijadikan sebagai senjata pembangkang untuk menghentam MCA. Tindakan pihak pembangkang khususnya politikus Cina berkenaan adalah lebih menjurus kepada menghasut dan membangkitkan emosi kaum itu.

Yang lebih pelik lagi, kenapa politikus berkenaan diberi sokongan oleh masyarakat Cina. Ini bermakna ada sesuatu yang tidak kena dengan cara pemikiran orang Cina sekarang yang perlu diubah.

Nasihat kita kepada orang Cina, mereka hendaklah menghormati hak kaum lain seperti yang termaktub di bawah undang-undang dan dalam Perlembagaan negara. Tidak kira gabungan parti mana yang memerintah negara, ia sudah pasti tidak boleh melanggar batasan undang-undang berkenaan.

Dalam keadaan yang terbatas itu, perlu ada pemimpin luar biasa dan bijak yang boleh memastikan setiap kaum diberikan hak masing-masing seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan. Kita sudah tentu tidak memerlukan pemimpin tangkap muat yang hanya bijak berpidato dan berkata-kata sahaja.

Jika kita lihat pemimpin Cina sama ada daripada BN atau pembangkang, belum ada lagi individu yang terbilang seperti itu. Ramai pemimpin Cina sekarang hanya bijak menyalakan api, tetapi tiada seorang pun yang boleh menjadi penyuluh jalan kepada kaum itu.

Cukup dikesalkan kerana orang Cina kini menganggap pemimpin yang pandai bermain api itu adalah penyuluh jalan kepada mereka. Kaum berkenaan juga menganggap pemimpin politik yang sering menghentam MCA itu adalah penyelamat mereka. Jika itulah yang menjadi pendirian, kita mahu orang Cina keseluruhannya secara rela hati dan jujur menjawab ke manakah hala tuju politik kaum berkenaan?

Fikir-fikirkan. Wallahualam.

Pandangan Yang Tidak Di Undang

I have decided to layoff blogging for a while due to work commitments and the travelling that goes with it,  I am not getting any younger and time to recover between travels lengthens over the years, but glad to see that the tight security in KLIA is much tighter now judging by the long queues at the security check point. Everybody's not complaining about the extra security, that I am sure. In fact frequent air travelers like myself welcome the new development..just hope like all things Malaysian its not a hangat-hangat tahi ayam thing.

Anyway just received an e-mail from my retired senior civil servant friend Dato' ARMNOOR who request that I post this following letter he wrote for our YAB PM Najib Razak: