Croaking From Underneath the Coconut Shell

In light these serious concerns, yesterday leaders of Pakatan Rakyat sent a letter to the Prime Minister at 2:30 PM requesting a meeting to discuss the future course of the nation’s leadership and to seek his assurance on the following important matters:
1) That the BN shall not hinder or prevent their BN MPs from acting in accordance with their conscience, constitutional rights and independent judgment;
2) That the BN government shall not invoke the Internal Security Act to detain any of the MPs who will join Pakatan Rakyat, or any of the present 82 Pakatan Rakyat MPs;
3) That the BN government shall not invoke emergency or police powers, or suspend the constitution, or dissolve parliament in response to our intention to form a new government;
4) That the Barisan Nasional government shall not impose road-blocks and impede the MPs from gaining access to the House of Parliament and the institutions of government.
We are confident he will ensure the BN will act constitutionally and democratically to ensure that the transition will be peaceful, and there will be no actions taken to sabotage the wishes of the people or play on racial tensions in the country.
We appeal to all quarters in Malaysian society to understand our intentions are for the betterment of Malaysian society. The mainstream media, in particular, should accept the reality of these historic times and report fairly, accurately and without bias. The irresponsible tact that is used by the media to obfuscate issues, attack opposition supporters and instigate racial tensions must end immediately.

3) That the BN government shall not invoke emergency or police powers, or suspend the constitution, or dissolve parliament in response to our intention to form a new government; (my emphasis)

Commentary:
This one caught my eye rather unexpectedly. In fact, I had to filch out my seldom used magnifying glass to be doubly sure. I was aghast this should come from a self styled democrat. One for whom, the constitution is supreme and the ballot box the pathway to Utopia. The way the words are couched it appears the sub-text reeks of demands, of neutering the other side’s right to determine the rules of engagement. In fact, it sounds much like a document demanding surrender and capitulation. Be that it is may, the maker of the document reveals his intellectual vacuity when he asserts “the BN will act constitutionally and democratically to ensure that the transition will be peaceful, and there will be no actions taken to sabotage the wishes of the people”. A reiteration of the need for constitutional probity and democratic fair play that goes against the very grain of (3) i.e denial of the right to constitutionally dissolve parliament! In other words, a Magnum has been placed on the PM’s head which in no uncertain terms demands that power be relinquished to the Pakatan at once, to hell with the will of the people!!.

Lets take apart these portions of the statement piece by piece and assess the credibility of the demands using the bible of all secular democrats : the Constitution:
Article 43
(4) If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.

Note that the PM has the democratic right to request for dissolution which goes smack against, ultimatum 3 that reads :
That the BN government shall not invoke emergency or police powers, or suspend the constitution, or dissolve parliament in response to our intention to form a new government;

Next, study the following:
If an act of parliament recites that action has been taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside the Federation -
(a) to cause, or to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organised violence against persons or property; or
(b) to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any Government in the Federation; or
(c) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of the population likely to cause violence; or
(d) to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established; or
(e) which is prejudicial to the maintenance or the functioning of any supply or service to the public or any class of the public in the Federation or any part thereof; or
(f) which is prejudicial to public order in, or the security of, the Federation or any part thereof, any provision of that law designed to stop or prevent that action is valid notwithstanding that it is…………………….

Yes siree what is encouraging defections but the procurement of alteration of the status quo in terms of party representation, something lawfully established by electoral means. And further what if any one the frogs in a moment of amphibian epiphany in the twilight zone of land and water reveal that he had been feted with insects or even promised the resident grass-hopper wouldn’t that constitute illegal means within the construct of 149 (1d). And then what, the PM to peluk tubuh and take a nap while a thief rifles the crown jewels.

Finally, lets take apart this high-falutin statement which has the cheek to appropriate public sympathy for his cause:

“the BN will act constitutionally and democratically to ensure that the transition will be peaceful, and there will be no actions taken to sabotage the wishes of the people”.

Why for God’s sake, should the BN cede their crown constitutionally and democratically when I have clearly shown that Pakatan never operated within these very paradigms. Further, democratically has all the hallmarks of a classic Anwar punchline. First, he denies the BN’s right to dissolve Parliament and call his bluff that he enjoys the support of the rakyat, so what’s so democratic about that? Second by demanding that such a recourse be never effected, Saudara Anwar in a bizarre move for a champion democrat, indirectly denies the citizen’s right to hold their reps responsible for their actions including their froglike tendencies to hop from one lotus leaf onto another in search for the perfect spot to attain Nirvana, plus their rights to vote in people based on a manifesto, the issues and ideology politics you so avidly advocate.

Finally, the people’s wishes?I am flummoxed by this. Which people? The 51% who voted against you + the 30% who did not turn up (God knows what’s their stance)+ the 4 million or so (including me) who are not even bothered. Since when your 49% constitute the majority in an electorate of 10 million or so, I wonder.

So, saudara Anwar, instead of cleaving semantics and breeding a fresh bevy of frogs (remember Sabah circa 1994) to unleash misery on insect colonies,you would be better off taking up aquaculture as the frog’s legs market is pretty down now and the market futures indicator is also dropping like a brick . Oh why not leeches for these blood suckers would surely enjoy your tender touch!

As for the press, trawl the blogs and witness how vile the comments are against a certain religion. Perhaps, that will knock some sense into you that the gutter traverses both sides of the divide. (more on this later)

Revert: this is what happens when we equate charisma with intelligence

A Case for Military Intervention in Civilian Life (Part 1)

My earlier hint of a military takeover and the installation of a strongman drew some adverse emails. Most were aghast at the idea that our civil liberties could be suspended in such a scenario and that I ever deigned to suggest the notion that we should go down the merry path of dictatorship. Hold on to your horses, folks… I was merely suggesting an alternative not that I am enamoured with the notion anyway. But anything other than democracy is infinitesimally more palatable to me at least. So, bring on the military anytime, to stop this slow motion trainwreck and restore some sanity to our public life. The failure of democracy and democratic institutions in Malaysia is all too clear and the sooner we come to terms with that reality the better. Democracy was never a viable option anyway if one studies the numerous road kill that strew the political highways and byways of the Third World be it in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Africa or in Latin America.

Study the countries of East Asia and you will notice the success of these nation states were primarily due to the emergence of a strongman albeit the benevolent dictator be it Chiang kai Shek in Taiwan, Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan in Korea or Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP in Singapore. And what about China, Vietnam and to a lesser extent Japan. Prosperity built on the bedrock of strong central authority of single parties!!. And look at Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillipines, shining examples of democracy at work?? Definitely no by any stretch of the imagination! I will write more on this in the near future, time permitting but back to my suggestion

General Abdul Aziz Zainal,is a patriot,mark my words. Like most Malaysians, the man has had enough of the shenanigans of the past 6 months and in my opinion, is justified in indulging in some sabre rattling, just to knock some sense into our hapless politicians. For those who criticised the Man, I have this to ask “ do you honestly belief that democracy was working well and fine under the Malaysian sun/? do you really seriously entertain the thought that our citizenry have the wherewithal to handle the demands of a civil society? Do you really think that we have provided the electorate with sufficient access to democratic inputs in order to critically evaluate the available choices and make informed decisions? And do we truly respect the mandate given or indulge in “democratic” coup d’etats to fulfil our thirst for power So why not do away with the charade and embrace the beauty of authoritarianism if the idea of an Islamic state is revolting to your senses? Who knows, if implemented judiciously such a state may yet propel us to the next level.

Revert : Ken Arrow was right all along about the absurdity of democracy!

A Pakatan of Dreams

Wong Choon Mei's report entitled "Early elections if Pakatan takes over" in Malaysiakini had me rolling on the floor in paroxysms of uncontrollable laughter. My funny bone was well and truly tickled by this "Kollywood" Superstar of Malaysian politics. Come onlah, Saudara Anwar, who are you trying to kid. Apart from your love for Chinese opera style dramatics, another "endearing" trait of yours is your asinine ability to stop the presses with your irrational garbage coated in high falutin expressions. And it is not surprising that you had to resort to this latest gimmick especially when your minions are having pangs of guilt as well. So much so that there is now an orgy of soul searching convulsing many a breast of diehard Anwaristas that we neutrals have been suffocated to tears, by all the agonising yarns of self doubt, traumatic moralising and ethical dilemmas in self styled people's legislatures and blogospeheres..sheesh...gimme a break!

Anyway all this outpouring of grief may well come in as a handy trial run on the preparedness of many a tear duct as in five days time or so,when the jackboots will move in to declare martial law and a very familiar figure from the recent past assumes the strongman role to steer the country back into its familiar squalid reality.

Yeah..plans are afoot and the two warnings issued within a space of three days must surely be an obvious weathervane to all and sundry especially our dear Anwaristas unless they are all having a lark in cloud cuckoo land!

Revert : Thanks for the memories, Anwar and here is hoping you will given a good matteress in Kamunting.

Of Rusty Iron Bones

Tulang Besi has just confirmed my long held suspicions that the Malay Muslim polity in the opposition ranks are mere apologists for the Anti Muslim lobby. In fact, it can be safely surmised that they are more obsessed in orchestrating an ‘extra constitutional’ power grab in cahoots with these liberal secular scum.. The fact that Tulang Besi is apologetic for his previously “hardline” stance makes a mockery of his hitherto “aggressive” stance against the liberal secularist elements. Why proffer an apology if you are in the right, TB? Since when a Muslim need to be apologetic to the Kuffar for defending the tenets of his faith?

TN next proceeds to rightly brand the liberal secularists as anti-Islam but oddly you are not averse to collaborating with them via the Pakatan Rakyat framework to effect a power grab. I just cannot fathom this line of reasoning. Don’t you understand that Islam does not legitimise collaboration with the kuffar what more if they are avowed enemies of the faith. Have you heard of Kaffir harbi, kaffir dhimmi constructs and Matlamat tak Halalkan cara!!, get it dude) The lame excuse that this collaboration is to bring about much needed reforms to the diseased Malaysian body politic and its debatedlty ailing economy is at best a hollow excuse designed to mask the actual intentions of this motley crew of political misfits i.e., the institutionalisation of secular liberal paradigm with Islam being reduced to an “indoor” faith, lurking in the prayer rooms and bed chambers of private homes and the marbled and carpeted interiors of mosques ( don’t be surprised if the Azan call and the mandatory tudung is banned in the public sphere of this new political landscape as Muslims are compelled to be subservient to an Ataturkian resurrection in the East).

No I am not fanning the flames of panic but merely outlining presciently where we Muslims are headed in the emerging paradigm. The capitulation of the likes of TB , MG Nur Aflah, Sofi Wahab et al and the power hungry leaders of PAS ( who have usurped the right to represent political Islam on behalf of the true believers) are harbingers of dire news for the local Muslim polity. No, I am not seeking the prolongation of the current soporific status quo either. Both sides have lost the Islamic moral right to governance. It is time for the military to move in and save the country from these opportunists.

Revert: A strongman is needed to bring back sanity to this country lest we are willing to hop from the laps of Lucifer into the arms of Satan himself.

Seribu Satu Soalan Buat saudara Anwar Ibrahim

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

A man is known by the company he keeps = Our character is reflected in our choice of friends.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Saudara Anwar Ibrahim
Saya tidak memusuhi saudara secara peribadi . Saya menulis ini sebagai seorang Islam yang neutral dan anti-politik murahan serta mewakili masyarakat marhaen yang sudah bosan dan jelik akan sandiwara politik yang menyelubungi tanahair kita. Pernah dalam nukilan saya yang lepas, saya ada bangkitkan tentang pegangan politik saudara dan hubungan saudara dengan kuasa-kuasa luar tertentu. Saya tidak ingin menyentuh akan kes undang-undang yang saudara hadapi. Itu pada hemat saya paling elok diselesaikan di kamar Mahkamah Syariah dan pihak yang bersalah menerima hukuman. Justeru itu, apa jua sandiwara yang dimainkan oleh pihak tertentu berhubung kes berkenaan adalah fitnah semata-mata sehingga dibuktikan benar.

Persoalan yang saya ajukkan pada saudara adalah berhubung maslahat yang di hadapi Ummah dewasa ini di bumi Allah yang bergelar Malaysia ini. Saya berharap saudara tidak melatah atau berdalih dalam menjawab kemusykilan berikut. Sepertimana saudara berkiblatkan kalimah : "lawan tetap lawan" diri ini pula menyahut bernaungkan panji-panji "benar tetap benar"!. Kita mulakan dengan senarai soalan berikut:

a) Apakah hubungan sebenar saudara dengan kuasa besar, Amerika Syarikat dalam konteks mencorak orde dunia baru? adakah saudara setuju dengan dasar Perang Salib moden yang dipelopori golongan neo-con AS dengan berselindung disebalik topeng demokrasi dan hak asasi?

b) Sehubungan dengan (a), pendirian anda berhubung kewujudan regim haram, Israel, di bumi Arab? Adakah saudara mengiyakkan atau menafikan sokongan kepada kewujudan Negara haram tersebut memandangkan anda adalah salah seorang yang menandatangani surat terbuka berhubung Sidang Kemuncak Annapolis.

c) Sejauh manakah saudara boleh memberi jaminan bahawa kerjasama dengan Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP) tidak akan menjejaskan kedudukan umat Islam di negara ini. Bukankah, dalam sidang perwakilan yang lepas, DAP dengan terang-terangan menolak perlaksanaan syariat dan mempertahankan kedudukan sekular sekarang berpandukan Perlembagaan yang sedia ada? Bukankah ini sedikit sebanyak mirip dengan perjuangan golongan tertentu seperti Kumpulan Artikel 11 dan IFC ? Juga suara-suara sumbang dari pemimpin-pemimpin tertentu gerombolan2 tersebut jelas mencabar keutuhan agama Islam sebagai agama resmi Persekutuan menurut Artikel 3, Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Adakah saudara sedia memberi jaminan bahawa kesucian dan keutuhan Islam dan institusi berkaitan tidak akan dinodai sekiranya saudara mewarisi tampuk pemerintahan kelak?

d) Kebelakangan ini, penulis blog tertentu seperti RPK dalam portal MTnya jelas mempersoalkan hukum hakam Islam serta memperlekehkan personalitas tokoh-tokoh tertentu yang berjuang menegakkan stariat Allah. Saya sedar penulis berkenaan ada berkempen sepentas dengan isteri saudara maupun secara individu untuk saudara dalam Pilihanraya kecil Permatang Pauh baru-baru ini apatah lagi memberi sokongan padunya kepada perjuangan saudara melalui nukilannya. Sudikah saudara menjelaskan pendirian saudara berhubung penghinaan RPK terhadap agama Islam? atau dapatkah di tafsirkan bahawa diam saudara berhubung perkara tersebut menandakkan persetujuan tersirat saudara akan tindak tanduknya. Juga apakah pendirian saudara tentang penulis blog beraliran sekular liberal dan anti-hadeeth yang lain? Adakah pendirian saudara diwarnai oleh hujah-hujah saudara dalam The Asian Renaissance yang boleh dipertikaikan itu? Kendatipun, saudara mendokong idealisma demokrasi, adakah ianya benar-benar dapat disuburkan dalam persekitran sosio-budaya yang serba kepincangan dan para pengundi mempunyai aksesibiliti yang terhad kepada sumber berita sahih (satu persoalan yang pernah ditonjolkan oleh Amartya Sen).

e) Adakah dasar ekonomi yang saudara canangkan realistik dalam persekitaran 'capital inflow' yang kian menyusut serta penyusutan ekonomi Amerika Syarikat yang menjadi pasaran ekspot yang kedua terbesar buat produk tempatan? Adakah hegemoni ekonomi Amerika akan berkembang di Malaysia dibawah pemerintahan saudara? Bagaimana pula dengan pendekatan saudara bagi bagi mengurangkan jurang 'Gini Coefficient' yang kian melebar antara kaum dan intra-kaum? Apakah pegangan ekonomi oleh masyarakat Cina akan terus disuburkan atau satu paradigma baru akan dicorak bagi memastikan penyertaan samarata (equitable) semua kaum dalam aktiviti ekonomi? Adakah penggantungan kepada kuasa pasaran/market forces semata-mata bakal menentukkan kelestarian dan keboleh tahanan ekonomi pribumi?Bagaimana pula pendirian saudara akan aliran keluar modal (capital outflow) melalui pemindahan modal (capital repatriation) oleh warga asing dan golongan comprador tempatan? Adakah kadar riba akan dinaikkan bagi menangani kemelut ekonomi kini sepertimana yang berlaku pada 1997/98.

e) Lebih penting lagi, adakah saudara berhasrat menegakkan sistem ekonomi Islam yang bebas riba? Adakah sistem matawang Malaysia akan bakal menggunakan sistem free float atau sistem fixed peg (samada hard or soft peg) atau managed float?

f) Adakah Asian Renaissance bakal menjadi leitmotif pentadbiran saudara ( jika saudara berjaya merampas takhta idaman dengan cara luar perlembagaan/extra consitutional). Bukan kah ini bercanggah dengan prinsip saudara utarakan dalam karya saudara itu? atau adakah matlamat menghalalkan cara?

Ada banyak lagi soalan yang ingin saya ajukkan kepada saudara memandangkan pihak saudara yakin akan menerajui pemerintahan negara dalam waktu terdekat (satu andaian yang saya amat sangsi). Waima pun begitu, saya berharap saudara tidak kecut atau gelabah menjawab soalan-soalan diatas dan yang bakal menyusul nanti, inshaallah. Semoga saudara mengambil iktibar dari peristiwa-peristiwa silam yang pernah berlaku dalam bulan mulia ini dan insaf akan kekerdilan dan kefanaan diri saudara serta tunduk tawadduk kepada kebesaranNya. Semoga Allah swt memberi taufik dan hidayahNya buat saudara sekeluarga. Akhir kalam, jadikanlah AlQuran dan AsSunnah panduan saudara bukannya Asian Renaissance.

Antara Tuan dan Hamba : Penglipurlara Berulang Semula

Ketuanan Rakyat akan mementingkan rakyat dahulu, bukan mementingkan keuntungan maksimum. Rakyat itu ialah kita semua – bukan orang Melayu sahaja: Hishammudin Rais (http://malaysiakini.com/columns/86952)

Saya ketawa terbahak-bahak membaca nukilan si badut ini dalam ruangan pojok sebuah akbar picisan yang diterbitkan diruang maya. Dalam mengkritik kerangka ideologi songsang "ketuanan Melayu", penulis beria-ia menyelitkan propaganda untuk mewar-warkan ideologi "ketuanan rakyat". Pada hemat saya , kedua-duanya dari segi epistemologi adalah serupa kerana berpaksikan kepada paradigma tuan/hamba. Cuma bedanya terletak pada penjelmaan konsep berkenaan dalam alam nyata. Ketuanan Melayu berpaksikan konsep "racial supremacy" yakni gelaran ketuanan ditakrifkan sebagai empunya suatu bangsa manakala konsep "ketuanan rakyat" berpaksikan pada konsep ketuanan sejagat yakni kosnsep ketuanan tidak menjadi monopoli sebarang bangsa. Secara lahiriah dan dari kaca mata ekonomi, perkembangan ini mencerminkan keruntuhan suatu monopoli dan kelahiran satu alternatif atau lebih tepat lagi duopoli dalam pasaran politik tanah air.

Tetapi penulis tidak berusaha untuk menerangkan samada ketuanan seumpama itu benar-benar boleh wujud atau merupakan omong2 semata-mata. Kalau dilihat dari perspektif pemerintahan,nyata konsep "ketuanan rakyat" seperti jua ketuanan Melayu akan berkisar disekitar pardigma pemerintah dan yang diperintah. Dan jika diselidik dengan lebih mendalam, nyata sekali golongan bakal pemerintah ini terdiri dari golongan masyarakat atasan yakni bekas ahli politik, bekas golongan korporat, golongan elit agama, golongan elit intelektual dan seribu satu golongan elit ynag bersekedudukan semata-mata untuk berkuasa diatas pundak rakyat marhaen. Ketuanan rakyat apa mendenya kalau gitu, jika nilai-nilai keluhuran agama dan budaya diperkotak katikkan semata mata kerana kerakusan untuk berkuasa. Ketuanan apa mendenya jika nilai-nilai liberal sekularisma mewarnai persada politik dan persamaan apa mendenya jika punca-punca ekonomi dikuasai oleh golongan bourgeois yang baru dari segi nama tetapi yang serupa fikrahnya dengan yang baru lalu. Ketuanan rakyat apa mendenya apabila sesuatu kaum mendominasi persada politik di Pulau Pinang dan memegang peranan penentu kuasa (power broker) di Perak dengan kuasa vetonya tersendiri. Bagaimana pula dengan kisahnya di Kedah dan Kelantan.

Blogger ini berpendapat ketuanan rakyat itu adalah satu mitos atau lebih tepat lagi satu fata morgana yang dicanang2kan bagi mengabui mata masyarakat marhaen sepertimana ketuanan melayu sebelumnya. Kedua-duanya menyimpan hasrat yang serupa : eksplotasi untuk kepentingan diri yang mana legitimasinya di perolehi melalui kaedah demokrasi laknatullah

A Poser to AI

Much has been said about the credentials of Anwar Ibrahim as a potential PM. Fighter for the common man, civil society activist, democrat, free market advocate, victim of political persecution, Islamic moderate are some of the numerous appellations that have been heaped on this man from the boondocks of Permatang Pauh. In fact, he was credited for saving the Malaysian economy by no less than the International Crisis Group (a questionable assertion itself): see: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4238.

At home and abroad, Anwar is lionised as a true democrat, the indefatigable fighter of corruption, the ardent advocate of freedom of expression and the indomitable warrior against political repression. While questions can be raised about his more recent dalliances with the Law, the questions on the minds of this simpleton is : to paraphrase Eminem’s famous lyrics , Will the REAL AI stand up? (not Artificial Intelligence, of course!). Or are we seeing a slithery smooth Slim Shady in action?. Lets analyse the man himself as a public figure and leave out the pubic aspect to be contemplated upon by would be sleuths and wannabe CSIs.

We start off at Annapolis.

The following six are among the over 70 prominent signatories of a letter addressed to Bush and Rice prior to the Annapolis Summit which was staunchly opposed by the Iranian clergy (Sayyid Ali Khamenei) and Hammas. Read the letter here: (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Annapolis%20Summit%20Statement.htm) and note the six Moslem signatories,Anwar being one of them. Readers, set that off against Anwar’s own words below, Q: Anwar, how do you square this with your support for Annapolis:

Finally, he described the need for engagement between the Islamic world and the West, criticizing the “extreme” foreign policy of the United States and its refusal to negotiate with regimes like Hamas.“That policy is flawed,” he said, adding that “to refuse to engage is a recipe for disaster.” (see: http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/10/12/democracyForMuslims)

Now to the signatories:

1.Hutham Olayan
President & CEO, Olayan America Corporation; U.S.A. Member of International Board, USMEP

2. Adnan Abu Odeh
Former Political Adviser to King Abdullah II and to King Hussein of Jordan; Former Jordanian Permanent Representative to the United Nations

3. Fouad Makhzoumi
Chairman, National Dialogue Party, Lebanon; Member of International Board, USMEP, Chairman, Future Pipe Group; Founder Makhzoumi Foundation

4. Said Khoury
President, Consolidated Contractors International Company S.A.L., Greece; Member of International Board, USMEP

5. Anwar Ibrahim
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia

6. Fouad Alghanim
Member of International Board, USMEP


Excluding Anwar, there are 5 other signatories:

No 1 and 4 are big time capitalists(observe that no 4 is a president of a construction set up - usually the people who gain most after a huge war. Reconstruction.. remember. Just like Dick Cheney’s crony company (Haliburton) did after the Iraq war – shades of the military-industrial complex in action).

No 3 : see http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=20159 and appendix 3 below

No 2 – pretty obvious, as he is former advisor to the most Pro-American kings in the Middle East (remember King Hussein owes his survival and that of his dynasty to the Americans).

No 6 : a member of USMEP, a US-funded organisation and so are 1 and 3. USMEP ( I digress briefly here) :

US Middle East Project (USMEP) is devoted to exploiting the Middle East economically after the military targets (through a series of wars.. starting with Kuwait and Iraq with Iran next) are achieved. This strategy (i.e economic control) is mapped out in the policy document below which poses several scenarios (table 7) based on their knowledge of incomes (table 6). It should be noted that since the report was generated in 2002, oil prices has almost quadrupled in value (about US 30 to US 125 yesterday). See: http://www.usmep.us/reports/Harnessing_Trade_and_Development_and_Growth_in_the_Middle%20East_2002.pdf

After reading the report which comes after the appendices; note the people involved in preparing it (page 74), the who’s who in government, intelligence, academia, banking and finance). Then scroll down, on page 77, is the Board of USMEP, the names sure rings a loud bell doesn’t it, the echoes of which will chime to the summit of …yes… Annapolis.

What I am getting at is that these are staunch US of A supporters. People who will not raise a voice lest a finger against obvious the US' flag ration of international law and tenets of justice whenever the situation favours them. Much less, people who are not willing to comment on the rape of Civil Liberties in the US via the Patriot’s Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) and the subtle suborning of the US constitution via National Security Directive No 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) released in 2007 which surely debunks Zakaria’s (2008) assertion that this is not a War Presidency.. yes it isn’t for now…… but its sure waiting to soar out of the West Wing, once a fledgling hawk (chicken hawk?) flaps its wings.

Stage Directions: Out Obama and McCain! (Good performance for the US.. plebeians though!)

Back to Anwar, there has been a discernible shift in his beliefs ever since he joined UMNO in 1982, whether it had been there all along before that is impossible to know. But, since 1990, this perceptible shift has accelerated:

a) Adoption of free market approach to structure the economy, leading to infusion of foreign capital, both short and long term especially through capital account liberalisation. This not only led to rapid economic growth which Malaysia enjoyed but also set up the bubble economy (through the sudden upsurge of short term speculative capital inflow facilitated by loose monitoring and controls) that burst in 1997. (More on this in an upcoming post based on a series of policy studies)
b) He was instrumental in masking the real American gameplan when he rejected Huntington’s (1996) (actually an extension of Lewis’ (1990) idea :see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199009/muslim-rage) critique of Fukuyama (1992) analysis of history. In fact, it is interesting that Anwar (1994) in the asian Renaissance called for the adoption of a civil society, later coined as Masyarakat Madani at about the same time that the movement for the export of democracy worldwide gathered steam besides advocating for a dialogue between civilisations.
c) His adoption of IMF style reforms ostensibly to reform and restructure the economy. His “astute” economic stewardship led to the raising of interest rates , the slashing of public spending by 18% which together choked off money supply and raised unemployment rates and foreclosures and bankruptcies. Ironically, Anwar also had earlier implemented the very capital controls, that he later criticised Tun Dr Mahathir for imposing in 1998, way back in 1994 albeit on a short term basis but with no discernible impact.(read this policy document for a backgrounder: Ariyoshi, Akira, Karl Habermeier, Bernard Laurens, Inci Ötker-Robe, Jorge Iván Canales-Kriljenko, and Andrei Kirilenko (2000). Capital Controls: Country Experiences with Their Use and Liberalization, IMF Occasional Paper 190) Further, it is interesting to note that in the 1998 crisis, Anwar sided with the views of Michael Camdessus who was diametrically opposed by Joseph Stiglitz (see the appendix below) in thought and policy direction. Anwar questions Mahathir’s bailout but is strangely silent over the LTCM rescue and there is nary a whisper from Anwar about the more recent Bear Sterns arrangement as well as the Federal Reserve support to Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

d) Al Gore’s support for him, sounds pretty obvious now in hindsight as it is evidence that the US had vested interest in Anwar all along. After all did he not follow their IMF game plan. After his release, Anwar was embraced by the American right (note his appointments by American Universities and public think-tanks, the close relationship with Wolfowitz a right wing hawk and architect of the Iraq invasion).
For a description of his role in the Wolfowitz affair in the World Bank, read Ethics Committee Case No2 and President's Paper, p.102, Jun 2, 2005, World Bank available here at : http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21297772~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html. Also see appendix 1.
e) His realignment of Malaysian politics involved neutering the Islamist by getting
them to forget about the Islamic state concept and adopt the better governance,
civil society initiative. He embraced the notion of Western style liberal democracy
not only in thought but also in practice. The non-Moslem membership of
PKR consisting of liberal social democrats like Elizabeth Wong, R. Sivarasa,
Christine Liew, Low Gwo Burne, etc just to name a few and the presence of civil
society groupies like the Hisses, the MISsies and HelAngs) among his coterie
of ardent supporters is a testament to this. Further, the alliance with like minded
people in the DAP (the old style socialist like LKS and KP and young turks like
Jeff Ooi, known anti-Islamic state activists) throws the spotlight on his true
intentions.

f) Anwar is a signatory of the A Common Word Between Us and You. Click on the links regarding the background of the other signatories and make your own judgements. Also tarry about to read the reactions:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Common_Word_Between_Us_and_You.)

g) The arrest of Anwar has provoked an outpouring of support for him again from mostly American related interests: here are some examples:
1.http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ICG/c6017d03ff013afeba9de97389272061.htm
Scroll down to the signatories and don’t some of the names again ring a bell.

2. The appeals presented by Camdessus et.al and of course the public opprobrium delivered by Condo Rice. Doesn’t all these people sound so familiar?

And familiarity will eventually breed contempt if taken to the extremes…oh sly wolf…, dig the author of this article. His name sure sounds very familiar…ain't it?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733757_1735709,00.html

interesting to note this from the article :

When he was finally released from prison in 2004, U.S. policy on Iraq was unpopular in Malaysia, and Anwar was harshly critical. It would have been easy for him to disown our friendship, but he is not that kind of person. He kept the channels of dialogue open, even while making clear our disagreements.

Wonder whether Anwar's criticism was due to the prevailing angst against America among the local Moslem polity which thus shaped his rhetoric or actually an act of sincerity?

So Anwar, having established the events as they have unravelled thus far, my simple query to you is this: what is your real stance or who are you really ? A straight answer will do and don’t sell us Moslem plebs goods that are short of substance and long on charisma. We are not that easily hoodwinked.

Revert: Well folks, don’t be enraptured by all these talk about a new, free and egalitarian Malaysia on the horizon, be prepared, instead, for Rapture oops…. rupture in the months ahead as the war machine cranks up in the Middle East and gets into full swing after a “staged event” in the USA. Strange that someone should keep harping about Sept 16 . Ain’t that fishy what with a distant buddy about to get his moment of epiphany very soon (Lewis even fixes 27 Rejab which this year falls on 30th July) and presto we will be under world wide martial law and a govt led by a technicolor chameleon beholden to the . .. go figure that one out.

So will the real Anwar please stand up unless you are affecting an elaborate Taqiya, the likes of which will even out-flummox the Shia!

Buffalo (bellowing) : me thinks… we poor sods should watch our backs… Jangan tak pandang belakang! oh my dear master…...



APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENTS *( excerpt of the record)

23 October 1, 2006 Anwar Ibrahim letter to CleveIand requesting transfer of
Riza
24 December 14 note from Coll to Cleveland approving request as consistent
with agreement
25 December 14 confirmation signature from Cleveland to Ibrahim

AND HERE IS Anwar’s letter ( original : pg 24 onwards till close at page 26 for the full picture) http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21297772~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html )


Ms. Robin Cleveland
181 8 H St. NW,
Washington DC 20433
Dear Ms. Cleveland:
I am writing to request the transfer of the secondment of Ms. Shaha Riza, British citizen, employee of the Bank, from the Bureau of Near Eastem Affairs at the US Department of State to the Foundation for the Future which she was in charge of establishing.

While assigned to the Foundation for the Future, Ms. Riza will work in the Washington DC office of the Foundation. Ms. Riza will be Senior Advisor to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the Foundation for the Future. Her responsibilities will include, but are not limited to:

9 Continue to seek and solidify the engagement of international and regional partners
e Recruit staff for the DC office. –
Supervise the registration of the Foundation and the opening of offices in the region.
Supervise the recruitment of the Foundation's senior management from the region.
Supervise the recruitment of the Foundation's staff and consultants in the region including their training.
0 Supervise and assist in identifying programs and groups that will receive grants from the Foundation.
Supervise the implementation of the policies and procedures governing programmatic, financial, administrative and development activities as approved by the Foundation's Board.

Ms. Riza's secondment to the Foundation will be subject to the same arrangements agreed to with the State Department.
After reviewing it this document, please sign it and return it to me via fax at (703) 464 5163. We look forward to continue our work with Ms. Riza on this important initiative. Should you have any questions or concerns please contact me at (703) 464 5161.


Yours sincerely,
Chairman
Foundation for the Future



APPENDIX 2
Excerpt from the New Republic : What I Learned at the World Economic Crisis accessible at :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/critics/2000/whatilearned.htm
By Joseph Stiglitz*
About the Author: Joseph E. Stiglitz was Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1996 until 1999, during which time he became quite critical of World Bank policy. Under pressure to keep quiet, he resigned in protest. He is the author of the book 'Globalization and its Discontents', a critique of the major international financial institutions.
………The last set of financial crises had occurred in Latin America in the 1980s, when bloated public deficits and loose monetary policies led to runaway inflation. There, the IMF had correctly imposed fiscal austerity (balanced budgets) and tighter monetary policies, demanding that governments pursue those policies as a precondition for receiving aid. So, in 1997 the IMF imposed the same demands on Thailand. Austerity, the fund's leaders said, would restore confidence in the Thai economy. As the crisis spread to other East Asian nations--and even as evidence of the policy's failure mounted--the IMF barely blinked, delivering the same medicine to each ailing nation that showed up on its doorstep.
I thought this was a mistake. For one thing, unlike the Latin American nations, the East Asian countries were already running budget surpluses. In Thailand, the government was running such large surpluses that it was actually starving the economy of much-needed investments in education and infrastructure, both essential to economic growth. And the East Asian nations already had tight monetary policies, as well: inflation was low and falling. (In South Korea, for example, inflation stood at a very respectable four percent.) The problem was not imprudent government, as in Latin America; the problem was an imprudent private sector--all those bankers and borrowers, for instance, who'd gambled on the real estate bubble.
Under such circumstances, I feared, austerity measures would not revive the economies of East Asia--it would plunge them into recession or even depression. High interest rates might devastate highly indebted East Asian firms, causing more bankruptcies and defaults. Reduced government expenditures would only shrink the economy further.
So I began lobbying to change the policy. I talked to Stanley Fischer, a distinguished former Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor and former chief economist of the World Bank, who had become the IMF's first deputy managing director. I met with fellow economists at the World Bank who might have contacts or influence within the IMF, encouraging them to do everything they could to move the IMF bureaucracy.
Convincing people at the World Bank of my analysis proved easy; changing minds at the IMF was virtually impossible. When I talked to senior officials at the IMF--explaining, for instance, how high interest rates might increase bankruptcies, thus making it even harder to restore confidence in East Asian economies--they would at first resist. Then, after failing to come up with an effective counterargument, they would retreat to another response: if only I understood the pressure coming from the IMF board of executive directors--the body, appointed by finance ministers from the advanced industrial countries, that approves all the IMF's loans. Their meaning was clear. The board's inclination was to be even more severe; these people were actually a moderating influence. My friends who were executive directors said they were the ones getting pressured. It was maddening, not just because the IMF's inertia was so hard to stop but because, with everything going on behind closed doors, it was impossible to know who was the real obstacle to change. Was the staff pushing the executive directors, or were the executive directors pushing the staff? I still do not know for certain.
Of course, everybody at the IMF assured me they would be flexible: if their policies really turned out to be overly contractionary, forcing the East Asian economies into deeper recession than necessary, then they would reverse them. This sent shudders down my spine. One of the first lessons economists teach their graduate students is the importance of lags: it takes twelve to 18 months before a change in monetary policy (raising or lowering interest rates) shows its full effects. When I worked in the White House as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, we focused all our energy on forecasting where the economy would be in the future, so we could know what policies to recommend today. To play catch-up was the height of folly. And that was precisely what the IMF officials were proposing to do.
I shouldn't have been surprised. The IMF likes to go about its business without outsiders asking too many questions. In theory, the fund supports democratic institutions in the nations it assists. In practice, it undermines the democratic process by imposing policies. Officially, of course, the IMF doesn't "impose" anything. It "negotiates" the conditions for receiving aid. But all the power in the negotiations is on one side--the IMF's--and the fund rarely allows sufficient time for broad consensus-building or even widespread consultations with either parliaments or civil society. Sometimes the IMF dispenses with the pretense of openness altogether and negotiates secret covenants.
When the IMF decides to assist a country, it dispatches a "mission" of economists. These economists frequently lack extensive experience in the country; they are more likely to have firsthand knowledge of its five-star hotels than of the villages that dot its countryside. They work hard, poring over numbers deep into the night. But their task is impossible. In a period of days or, at most, weeks, they are charged with developing a coherent program sensitive to the needs of the country. Needless to say, a little number-crunching rarely provides adequate insights into the development strategy for an entire nation. Even worse, the number-crunching isn't always that good. The mathematical models the IMF uses are frequently flawed or out-of-date. Critics accuse the institution of taking a cookie-cutter approach to economics, and they're right. Country teams have been known to compose draft reports before visiting. I heard stories of one unfortunate incident when team members copied large parts of the text for one country's report and transferred them wholesale to another. They might have gotten away with it, except the "search and replace" function on the word processor didn't work properly, leaving the original country's name in a few places. Oops.
It's not fair to say that IMF economists don't care about the citizens of developing nations. But the older men who staff the fund--and they are overwhelmingly older men--act as if they are shouldering Rudyard Kipling's white man's burden. IMF experts believe they are brighter, more educated, and less politically motivated than the economists in the countries they visit. In fact, the economic leaders from those countries are pretty good--in many cases brighter or better-educated than the IMF staff, which frequently consists of third-rank students from first-rate universities. (Trust me: I've taught at Oxford University, MIT, Stanford University, Yale University, and Princeton University, and the IMF almost never succeeded in recruiting any of the best students.) Last summer, I gave a seminar in China on competition policy in telecommunications. At least three Chinese economists in the audience asked questions as sophisticated as the best minds in the West would have asked………………

Appendix 2
As I argued in the LRB (16 August 2007), the assiduously promoted story of Israel’s pursuit of peace and its search for a Palestinian ‘partner for peace’ was fashioned to buy time to establish ‘facts on the ground’: settlements that would so completely shatter the territorial and demographic contiguity and integrity of Palestinian land and life as to make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible. In this, Israel’s leaders have succeeded so well that Olmert, who claims finally to have realised that without a two-state solution Israel will become an apartheid entity that cannot survive, has not been able to implement even the smallest of the changes he promised in Annapolis.
The above excerpted from : “Grab more hills, Expand the territory” by Henry Siegman from the USMEP website which pours cold water on the promises made by the Israelis at Annapolis.. whither now Anwar??

Appendix 3 (from the Lebanese news web portal : NOW Lebanon at : http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=20159
Wolf Blitzer and Fouad Makhzoumi, fast friends But for the present, smaller parties like the Solidarity Party and the Lebanese Peace Party, despite their grand ideas, ultimately have little say in the goings-on of government; whether or not the 2009 parliamentary elections will change that, only time will tell. Similar associations, however, do use their party status to good advantage abroad, oftentimes lobbying in the US or Europe in unique and creative ways. Take, for example, the National Dialogue Party of Lebanon, a one-man show chaired by wealthy Lebanese businessman Fouad Makhzoumi.
According to reports filed with the US Secretary of the Senate, the National Dialogue Party paid just over $300,000 in 2006 to the top-tier Mississippi-based lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith & Rogers to “provide guidance and counsel with regard to foreign-policy matters before the US Government.” Furthermore, in 2004 and 2006, Future Pipe Industries, Inc. – a multimillion dollar company chaired by Makhzoumi – paid US Foreign Service Officer Cheryl Steele an undisclosed amount to lobby on its behalf, mostly for industry-related reasons, but also to advance “the Middle East peace process.”
Makhzoumi’s investments rewarded him with multiple summer 2006 appearances on CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer. However, instead of calling for an immediate ceasefire before his nearly one-million-strong audience of American viewers, he used these guest appearances to denounce not only Hezbollah but also Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his government as weak and ineffective.
Both Fouad Makhzoumi and Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, however, declined to comment for this article or to add further details.

References:
1. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in International Crisis group at http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4238.
2. FAILURE RISKS DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES (first published in the New York Book review in Nov 2008) accessible at : http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Annapolis%20Summit%20Statement.htm)
3. National Security and Homeland Security Directive available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html and commentaries : Who will rule the country after the next 9/11? - Slate.com NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency - Analysis by William H. White.
4. Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations?, in "Foreign Affairs", vol. 72, no. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 22-49
5. Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996
6. Tusicisny, Andrej, Civilizational Conflicts: More Frequent, Longer, and Bloodier?, in "Journal of Peace Research", vol. 41, no. 4, 2004, pp. 485–498.
7. Francis Fukuyama The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992.
8. Lewis, Bernard, The Roots of Muslim Rage available at : http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199009/muslim-rage
9. Ariyoshi, Akira, Karl Habermeier, Bernard Laurens, Inci Ötker-Robe, Jorge Iván Canales-Kriljenko, and Andrei Kirilenko (2000). Capital Controls: Country Experiences with Their Use and Liberalization, IMF Occasional Paper 190. ( includes a review of Malaysia’s Imposition of Capital Controls in 1994 and 1998)
10. Zakaria, Fareed : America Needs a War President Newsweek, July 21, 2008.
11. Ethics Committee Case No2 and President's Paper, p.102, Jun 2, 2005, World Bank available here at : http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21297772~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html
12. Harnessing Trade and Development and Growth in the Middle East, 2002 available at: http://www.usmep.us/reports/Harnessing_Trade_and_Development_and_Growth_in_the_Middle%20East_2002.pdf

Keputusan yang Mengecewakan

Keputusan Majlis Syura PAS adalah sesuatu yang mengecewakan dan menunjukkan kedangkalan PAS berpolitik apatah lagi dalam senario politik semasa. Bukankah PAS suatu ketika dahulu mewar2kan akan menegakkan Hukum Hudud di negeri yang diperintahnya. Nah, apabila peluang terserlah didepan mata PAS menolaknya secara angkuh dengan menegaskan iltizamnya untuk bersama PR dan secara tidak langsung bersekongkol dengan golongan liberal -sekularis dan sosialis.

Blogger ini tidak pernah menyarankan bahawa PAS bercantum kembali dengan UMNO dalam BN ala2 tahun 70an dahulu. Blogger ini cuma menyarankan penubuhan pakatan yang berbentuk fleksibel ( a loose coalition) bagi tujuan mengorak langkah kearah perlaksanaan undang2 Syariah dan sistem pemerintahan Islam samada secara menyeluruh atau sekurang2nya keatas orang Melayu/Islam (lihat: http://syamil-revert.blogspot.com/2008/07/politik-islammelayu-di-persimpangan.html and http://syamil-revert.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-pas-and-bn-umno.html). InshaAllah, pendekatan berhikmah ini akan mampu menyerlahkan halatuju dan maksud sebenar ajakan UMNO bermuzakarah. Pendek kata kalau UMNo bersetuju dengan salah satu dari dua kaedah yang disarankan maka jelas mereka ikhlas dan wajib keatas PAS menyokong usaha kearah memartabatkan hukum Allah di bumi ini. Jika tidak, PAS berhak agar tidak berwala pada UMNO serta berusaha mengukuhkan kedudukannya sebagai alternatif ketiga dalam politik tanahair. Itu sahaja, bukan susah untuk di fahami. Namun apa pun, keputusan PAS itu adalah hak mereka cuma alasan yang diguna pakai tidak logik kerana:

a) adakah individu dan paradigma politik yang mewarnai peristiwa tahun2 70an sama seperti sekarang. bukankah pemimpin PAs ketika itu yakni Allahyarham Datuk Asri (1)berbeza dalam kaedah berpolitik dan bersiasah syariah. Malah, dapat dikatakan mereka berdua jauh lebih moderat dari saf kepimpinan sekarang. Jadi wajarkah suasana sekarang dibandingkan dengan suasana ketika itu.

b) apakah PAs sendiri tidak sedar dengan kemelut yang melanda parti tersebut pada awal tahun 90an apabila bersekongkol dengan serpihan UMNO : Semangat 46 dan PBS serta DAP. Bukankah senario waktu itu agak mirip dengan situasi ketika ini. Dimanakah kebijaksanaan PAS ketika itu yakni " tidak akan dipatuk oleh ular yang sama......?. Bukankah kesudahannya sesuatu yang menghampakan. Bagaimana pula dengan 1999? Bersekongkol kembali dengan buangan UMNO dan kesudahannya macam mana? PAS tidak perlu melatah apabila orang lain mengatakan bahawa ia tidak bijak berpolitik kerana ia adalah hakikat yang tersirna jelas dalam lembaran sejarah PAS.

Pendek kata, PAS tidak strategik dalam menggembeling kuasa yang dikurniakan Ilahi untuk melaksanakan syariatnya. Maka tidak hairanlah kalau kuasa itu dicabut kembali oleh empunyanya dan Ummah dibiarkan terkontang kanting tiada berpedoman. Justeru, penulis ini :(lihat:http://nuraflah.blogspot.com/2008/07/pengikut-pas-jangan-mudah-diperbodohkan.html
yang menegaskan kebenaran hakikat kuasa Allah menaikkan atau menghancurkan sesuatu kuasa juga perlu akur pada firmanNya yang bermaksud : Allah tidak akan merubah nasib sesuatu kaum melainkan mereka merubahnya sendiri. Renung-renungkan lah.

Blogger berpendapat bahawa keengganan PAS bertitik tolak dari tarbiah assabiyah yang diterapkan kedalam pendokong mereka yang mengakibatkan mereka tidak dapat memisahkan diri dari emosi kebencian dan meneliti sesuatu dari sudut yang hak maupun batil. Masalah yang serupa juga menulari sanubari pendokong UMNO sehingga kekadang mereka melafazkannya dengan kebencian kepada simbol-simbol Islam seperti warna hijau, wa'nauzibillah (warna kesayangan Rasulullah dan bukan milik sebarang parti) tanpa menyedari kesannya keatas akidah dan pegangan agama. Mungkin ini akan mengguris hati pembaca muslim tetapi inilah hakikat yang tampak pada pemerhati berkecuali seperti saya dan yang membuahkan seribu satu kepiluan dalam diri yang fana ini akan mengapa 60% umat islam tidak mampu bersatu untuk menjunjung syariat Ilahi.


Akhir kalam, blogger ini akan terus mendoakan selagi kudrat dikurniakan Ilahi agar Ummah menyatukan saf dan berjemaah dalam menghadapi Kuffar, inshaAllah.

Rujukan:

1. Farish Noor (2004). Islam Embedded: The Historical Development of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS (1951 - 2003), Vol. I & II, MSRI

Abim sokong muzakarah- Malaysiakini-Ulasan Saya

Salam,

Terlebih dahulu ingin saya tegaskan bahawa saya menukilkan yang berikut bukan dari segi ketaksuban (partisanship) pada mana-mana pihak yang terlibat kerana saya tidak yakin dengan kaedah demokrasi tetapi hanya sebagai seorang Muslim yang khuatir tentang gelombang fitnah dan perpecahan yang melanda umat Islam/Melayu di bumi Allah ini.

Sorotan dari Malaysiakini: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/86574

Abim sokong muzakarah
Jul 22, 08 7:08pm
Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim) sentiasa menyambut baik hasrat mana-mana pihak untuk mengadakan muzakarah dalam erti mewujudkan budaya komunikasi antara pemimpin politik Melayu/Islam bagi membincangkan hal-hal yang disepakati bersama merangkumi kedudukan Islam dan umat Islam di negara ini."Abim sentiasa konsisten dengan pendirian bahawa kemelut yang melanda umat Islam di negara ini boleh ditangani dengan lebih berkesan jika ada saluran perbincangan yang sihat antara pemimpin politik Melayu/Islam dalam menanganinya," kata Presidennya, Yusri Mohamad.Menurutnya, perbezaan ideologi dan persaingan politik tidak seharusnya menghalang pemimpin politik Melayu/Islam daripada memelihara hubungan dan saluran komunikasi sesama mereka dalam hal-hal kepentingan bersama."Hubungan antara mereka tidak sepatutnya terhad kepada kritikan dan serangan dari jauh," katanya dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.Beliau mengulas laporan mengenai muzakarah yang antara pemimpin tertinggi PAS dengan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi selepas pilihanraya umum 8 Mac lalu.Timbalan Presiden PAS, Nasharuddin Mat Isa dan dua lagi pemimpin parti itu dilaporkan telah mengadakan pertemuan dengan perdana menteri, dan menurut Presiden PAS, Datuk Seri Haji Hadi Awang, perbincangan itu mendapat restu majlis syura parti itu. 'Duduk bersama'Sehubungan itu, Yusri berkata, ada waktu-waktunya, pemimpin Melayu/Islam patut duduk bersama, bertukar pandangan dan nasihat menasihati dalam suasana yang lebih positif, yang tidak semestinya terdedah kepada pengetahuan umum."Ianya juga tidak semestinya hanya didorong dan terbatas kepada persoalan penyatuan atau penggabungan."Sekiranya usaha mengadakan muzakarah antara pemimpin PAS dan Umno, yang sedang hangat diperbincangkan pada ketika ini diletakkan dalam konteks di atas, Abim berpendapat bahawa ianyaa dalah sesuatu yang membina dan wajar digalakkan."Terserahlah kepada para pimpinan parti-parti terbabit untuk menentukan kaedah dan pendekatan terbaik untuk melaksanakannya," katanya.Abim juga, kata Yusri, berpandangan bahawa usaha-usaha mewujudkan saluran komunikasi dan perbincangan itu wajar turut melibatkan pemimpin dan tokoh politik Melayu/Islam terpilih yang berada di luar PAS dan Umno."Kita mendoakan dan berharap agar budaya dan senario politik umat Islam di negara kita sentiasa terpelihara dan meningkat ke tahap yang lebih progresif dan positif dari masa ke semasa.


Ulasan:

1. Pendirian blogger ini tentang muzakarah tersebut, jelas tersimpul dalam nukilan semalam (lihat: http://syamil-revert.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-pas-and-bn-umno.html)

di mana saya mengutarakan bahawa intipati sebarang muzakarah hendaklah berpaksikan kepada penegakkan undang-undang syariah sekurang-kurangnya ke atas masyarakat Islam.

2. Bahawa keikhlasan sesuatu pihak hanya dapat dinilai melalui niat dan iktikadnya dalam menegakkan (1) dan ini hanya terserlah jika ia bersetuju menegakkan syariah di bawah negeri yang dikuasainya dengan sokongan padu pihak yang lain. Dalam ertikata lain, UMNO bersetuju meluluskan rang undang-undang Hudud dan Qisas di kesemua negeri yang ditadbirnya melalui prosedur perlembagaan 2/3 di mana perlu. (Begitu juga PAS di negeri-negeri dibawah kuasanya terutama Kedah dan Kelantan). Ini akan mencerminkan keikhlasan memartabatkan syariah serta secara tidak langsung mengukuhkan kedudukan Islam/Melayu di negara ini.

3.Bahawa kesungguhan ini dijelmakan diperingkat persekutuan melalui pindaan perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui kaedah :

(a) 2/3 yakni BN + PAS berdiri satu saf dalam usaha ini atau

(b) gabungan UMNO +PAS + PBB : 116 kerusi bagi meluluskan pindaan perlembagaan tesebut menggunapakai takrifan Ibrahim & Joned (1987) yang di perkuat oleh Aziz serta Bari. Jika berlaku "judicial challenge" kepada penafsiran ini maka membawa maslahat tersebut untuk ditentukan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui satu sijil kecemasan ( Certificate of Urgency spt yang diperuntukkan dibawah Tatacara Mahkamah (Courts and Judicature Act)).

Saya yakin dengan pendekatan seumpama ini maka impian menegakkan Syariah sebagai undang-undang persekutuan ( "the law of the Federation") akan menjadi kenyataan. Tetapi ini mesti didahului dengan ketetapan politik kedua belah pihak yang bermuzakarah. Jika ketetapan ini tiada, maka apa jua muzakarah yang sedia dan bakal dilaksanakan adalah ibarat ' bersiul di angin senja' kerana tidak berupaya menggerakkan agenda perlaksanaan syariat di bumi Allah ini.

Ada sesetengah blogger yang memihak pada PAS berkata muzakarah tersebut tidak perlu kerana PAS sudah diterima oleh masyarakat kuffar dan UMNO berada dalam keadaan nazak dan mengguna muzakarah sebagai helah.

Ini adalah satu pendustaan kerana jelas

1. yang menentang keras muzakarah sekarang adalah golongan kuffar terutama yang berpendirian liberal sekular. Lihat sahaja reaksi mereka dalam pelbagai blog dan nukilan.

2. data menunjukkan bahawa peratusan undi PAS hanya sebanyak 14.05% (15.2% = 2004)dan PAS meraih kemenangan kebanyakkannya dikawasan majoriti Melayu (kecuali WP). Data juga menunjukkan dari segi jumlah undi, PAS hanya menambah bilangan undi sebanyak 89196 (1,140,676 (2008) - 1,051,480 (2004). Setelah difaktorkan sumbangan undi dari Kedah dan Perak, agak2nya berapa banyaklah undi PAS dari golongan bukan Muslim?

Jadi, PAS tidak seharusnya terpedaya dengan hujah bahawa bukan Islam sudah mendekati PAS malah boleh disifatkan bahawa bukan Islam lebih mendekati PKR dan DAP!. Tambahan pula adakah ahli PAS masih tidak serik dengan golongan yang melaknat Nabi junjungan kita malah Allah SWT sendiri seperti yang agak ketara dalam beberapa blog populis tajaan golongan liberal sekular apatah lagi penentangan terbuka sekalipun terhadap sebarang desas-desus tentang perlaksanaan syariat . Di manakah iman anda?.. tepuk dada tanya diri. Adakah janji kekuasaan duniawi telah mengabui mata hati penyokong PAS pada janji kedamaian ukhrawi. Adakah PAS rela melihat Ummah diporak peranda dengan amalan murtad, zina dan segala bentuk kekejian semata-mata hendak menjaga hati orang lain?.

Berkenaan UMNO pula, adakah PAS menidakkan kemungkinan mereka telah insaf dan bertaubat. Jika PAS sangsi, maka ia boleh menyarankan pelupusan elemen-elemen yang tidak menyenangkan ini melalui satu proses "putsch" atau "purge' yang akan mengembalikan sinar ketakwaan dalam parti berkenaan, jika itu yang dirasakan perlu.

PAS tidak perlu menyerapkan diri kedalam Barisan jika ini tidak disenangi oleh segelintir pemimpin tertinggi PAS tetapi PAS harus bijak mengatur strateji dengan menempatkan dirinya sebagai 'the third force" dan menggunakan pengaruh yang ada sebagai "leverage" untuk merealisasikan impian tertegaknya syariat di bumi Allah yang bernama Malaysia ini. Dan bukankah itu yang menjadi asas perjuangan PAS? Akhirkata, : Allah tidak akan merubah nasib sesuatu bangsa melainkan mereka berusaha merubahnya sendiri" Jadi : Bersatulah wahai umat Islam/Melayu kerana dunia kian laju meredah zaman menuju ke penghujung usianya

Wassalam.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PAS AND BN (UMNO)

Caveat: While I have eschewed democracy as a tool to achieve social justice and other goals and am generally blase about its illusionary attractions, i am writing this with being a Moslem as my locus standi. I hope that the farmer's view is also given due cognisance in the scheme of things even though the salt of the earth are often trod upon by the intellectual heels and rational shoes of nattily dressed legal eagles who are nifty with words and condescending in thought and attitude to say the least.

"Days after the political tsunami on March 8, Umno president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and PAS leaders huddled together in a building in Kuala Lumpur for a secret meeting........

So goes the blurb in Malaysiakini about a clandestine tete-a-tete between UMNO and PAS leaders to prevent the crown jewel of Malaysian politics from being besmirched by the hands of the DAP. (for the malay version go here: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/86471) While the move would be lauded by those from the somewhat blinkered perspective of racial supremacy, the bigger question of establishing a Muslim pseudo-theocracy recedes into the background obfuscated by the mists of short term glory. In my opinion, a more valid and beneficial approach would be for PAS to leave the PR and chart the hitherto uncharted third way as a fulcrum to balance the contending political worldviews of both the BN and PR, worldviews which i am afraid are still firmly rooted in the secular paradigm. PAS should acknowledge the fact that they essentially triumphed due to a perceptible shift in the Malay vote bank(Nay.. no mountain of dubious evidence would shift my rock solid contention that PAS ,essentially, did not make much headway with the non-muslim electorate.) Pray, what are the meat and bones of the third way, siree?

Essentially, my dear buffalo, the third way posits the judicious leveraging of political power to gain concessions from whichever party that affects towards the reigns of power. Simply put, it would mean PAS using its minor gains in Perak and Selangor to reap maximum mileage for Islamisicing the country- in short a drive towards an Islamic pseudo-theocracy.How can this be effected? The best way forward seems to be via the BN. I put forth my proposal in the following paragraphs for discussion and debate.

PAS has got a firm grip in Kelantan and to a lesser extent in Kedah. In the latter, a loose alliance of BN + PAS would mean the equation of power would transform itself to 30(BN + PAS) to 6 (PKR + DAP), exceeding the minimum 24 needed for 2/3 control. Excluding Sabah, Sarawak and Penang, the same scenario can be replicated in all the remaining states excepting in Perak : 35 (BN + PAS) & 24 (PKR + DAP) and Selangor where major realignments are unavoidable: 28 (BN + PAS) & 28 (PKR + DAP). And therein lies the beauty of political skullduggery: for PAS to leverage this new found strength to demand for the enactment and imposition of Syariah in all these states on MOSLEMS (for starters) in exchange for political/legislative support in Perak and Selangor. With such enactments in place, the next move would be to ratify these arrangements at the federal level. Preposterous as it may seem, there seems to be two ways out of this conundrum:

a) A constitutional amendment through which PAS throws it support behind the 140 seats that BN has and hey presto.... you wake up to a sharia shangrila.Provided that, and here is the catch, the non-Muslim parties within the BN are amenable to such an arrangement.
If such acquiscence is not forthcoming, then the onus falls on the BN to offer on the platter, goodies to their Non-Muslim counterparts (MCA, MIC, UPKO, PBS etc) such as a renegotiated NEP minus the onerous provisions that have so alienated the non-malays, provisions for the protection of chinese, tamil and indigenous education until tertiary level, a more open and equitable sharing of wealth or anything to that effect that will still the winds behind the DAP/PKR sails and in the process deracialise the prevailing political paradigm.

b) For UMNO + PAS & PBB ( total seats in Parliament : 116, sufficient for a wafer thin majority of 12) to go it alone and implement the sharia en bloc based on the constitutional interpretation as offered by Ibrahim and Joned (1987) who aver that Malaysia is an Islamic state for all intents and purposes be it from the historical perspective {a fact noted too by Harding (1996)} and by Aziz (2006) from the constitutional viewpoint. It follows that this is sufficient ground for circumventing the constitutional 2/3 requirement in order to impose the Syariah on Muslims and Non-muslims alike. However, such a move is fraught with difficulty as Article 3(4) and Article 4 will be brought into the equation and we will have a right ol constitutional mess, wouldnt we? even though a ruling by the Federal Court on the legal niceties can clarify the issue.

Another more plausible alternative would be to weasel in thru the loophole.

2. The Loophole

Of course the non muslim retort to (1) above (sans Karpal's inevitable amuck) would be an unequivocal nein based on their interpretations of several provisions of the constitution (articles 8 and 11 come to mind). Such an interpretation can be evinced from the arguments put forth by Faruqi (2005) who marshals case law, convention, traditional adat and the constitution to support his view (much of which is debatable as i will show in another post):

Adat: One must also note the very significant influence of Malay adat (custom) on Malay-Muslim personal laws. In some states like Negeri Sembilan, adat (custom) overrides agama (religion) in some areas of family law.

Article 4(1): Under Article 4(1) the Constitution and not the syariah is the supreme law of the federation. Any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Article 162(6): Under Article 162(6) and (7) any pre-Merdeka law which is
inconsistent with the Constitution, may be amended, adapted or repealed by the
courts to make it fall in line with the Constitution.

Definition of ‘law’: Article 160(2) of the Constitution, which defines "law", does
not mention the syariah as part of the definition of law.

Article 3(4): Though Islam is adopted as the religion of the federation, it is clearlystated in Article 3(4) that nothing in this Article derogates from any other provisionof the Constitution. This means that no right or prohibition is extinguished as a result of Article 3.

Sufian, on the other hand, argues that the Malaysia's secular nature though not implied in the constitution is nevertheless clear from the White Paper tabled in relation to the constitution. However, despite his conviction that Malaysia is a secular state, Faruqi(2005) qualifies his assertion with this statement:

However there is plenty in the Constitution to suggest that Malaysia is, at least
partly, an Islamic state. (Faruqi : page 6)

and uses traditions, practices and jurisdictional issues to support the argument, a viewpoint also asserted by Bari (2007). It follows that Faruqi's view augmented by the provisions of article 121 and the interpretations provided by Ibrahim and Joned by themselves provide a loophole for the imposition of the Syariah on the Malay-Muslim polity at least (if a challenge is mounted, then a recourse to the judiciary would be sufficient to repulse it easily). A loophole that an UMNO +PAS + PBB loose alliance can explore and exploit. And exploit PAS must for the current situation does afford a golden oppurtunity to do so. In this regard, PAS can compel such a scenario if it plays its cards astutely and the test of UMNO's sincerity in extending the olive branch would only be apparent if they agree to do PAS' bidding in both the legislature as mentioned above and in enforcement:

It must be remembered, however, that section 20(1) and (2) clarify that in the
performance of his duties, a police officer is subject to the orders and directions of
his superiors in the Force and not the order of the State executive. (Faruqi : pg 15)

If PAS does pull it off, it would be coup d' etat of sorts over their erstwhile nemesis, UMNO and indirectly over the DAP. And only the granting of such concessions would make any muzakarah and future rapproachment worthwhile. If not, it would be better to remain the neutral rather than be associated with the lowdown Burnes, MISsies, fool parliamentarians etcetra that people the PR bog!

But me thinks this is all easier said than done as for so long Islam has been hijacked by diverse parties with equally diverse vested interests, the syariah has become a plaything for all and sundry. Only a sincere implementation of it on Muslims (at least) will show that UMNO and PAS are committed to safeguarding the Ummah from the onslaught of the secular-liberalists (who themselves are intent of subverting Islam via the judicial process..more on this later). To do otherwise, would merely reinforce the perception that shadowplay, that traditional Malay art, has truly not disappeared as an artform from the stage altogether but is rather alive and kicking in the political arena and further strenghten the view that democracy will never allow for the fruition of ........ go figure!

Revert: Well life's a bildungsroman my buffalo....... not a skimpy novelette!!

References

1.Ahmad Ibrahim & Ahilemah Joned, The Malaysian Legal System (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur,1987) p.54.


2. Faruqi, Shad Saleem(2005): Jurisdiction of Federal and State Authorities to Punish Offenses against the Precepts of Islam : A Constitutional Perspective available at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law/jurisdiction_of_state_authorities_to_punish_offences_against_the_precepts_of_islam_a_constitutional_perspective.html#_ftn15

3. Mohamed Suffian Hashim, ‘The Relationship between Islam and the State in Malaya’, Intisari, Vol. 1. No. 1, p.8.

4. Mohamed Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, second edition, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers, 1976.

5 .Shamrahayu A. Aziz. Islam As the Religion of the Malaysian Federation: The Scope
and Implications. IIUMLJ, 2006, 14 (33).

6.Harding, A., “Law, Government and the Constitution of Malaysia" (MLJ) (1996), p 136.

7.Bari, Abdul Aziz : "British Westminster System in Asia — The Malaysian Variation
US-China Law Review, Jan. 2007, Volume 4, No.1 (Serial No.26) ISSN1548-6605,USA

Whistling in the Wind

There is a tendency amongst some political charlatans to spin yarns about the March 8 events being a watershed in local politics. I use the word “charlatan” because this group of analysts are quite inclined to see the political tsunami with a rose tinted glass of change, new politics and all that hogwash without one iota of evidence that this seismic event is due a genuine political awakening among the local electorate. If one analyses the results in toto, one may note that there has not been a significant shift in the rural heartland excepting in Kedah and to a certain extent in Perak and Selangor, (I am leaving Kelantan out of this discussion for it warrants a separate post by itself). Yet, that has not doused the excitement of the opposition that they have made substantial gains in breaking the hegemony of UMNO in particular over the Malay electorate. What is pertinent to note was that UMNO did reasonably well in the circumstances. This is not to absolve the dominant ruling party of any blame for the overall performance of the coalition which was clearly dismal to say the least and whose trouncing was due to the commissions and omissions of UMNO itself as well as of its allies in the BN.

It should be noted that the slide in BN hegemony only came about because of a shift of entrenched voting patterns amongst Chinese and Indian voters plus the desertion of traditional Malay vote banks in the semi-urban and urban enclaves. The shift in voting patterns among these communities and areas had, in my opinion, more to do with disaffection with certain events, the unfulfilled promises of yore and the impact of a slowing and increasingly stumbling economy. What has happened is that Malaysian have not embraced the notions of civil society, social justice etcetera with fawning alacrity but rather voted more out of disillusionment and anger, emotional responses, that do not in any way portend the development of critical evaluation of policy and politics. In fact, it would be safe to surmise that with some tweaking of current policies, the infusion of new personnel and a window dressing of sorts coupled with an economic recovery, the so-called winds of change may merely be a passing fart in the air….. momentarily stunning to the senses but a fart all the same. In another blog, I will try to analyse the reasons for the state by state “transformation” so touted by the opposition to be winds of change.