Star Editor-in-Chief Wong Chun Wai in his blog yesterday on “The realities of Malaysian politics” wrote:
-
“Anwar Ibrahim has revealed a signed document between himself, DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS’ Hadi Awang that none of us have heard of until now – an agreement to uphold the rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The Sept 8 agreement pledged to uphold Malay rights and the status of Islam as the official religion.
”Anwar also said that the social contract between the races were already agreed upon by all members of the coalition. He also revealed that the four-paragraph agreement could not be changed by any party, according to The Star.”
The imputation that I had signed on behalf of DAP a “secret” compact with the other Pakatan Rakyat leaders to uphold Malay rights and the status of Islam as the official religion as provided in the Federal Constitution is baseless, mischievous and unworthy of a professional journalist.
This is because Wong’s insinuation imported the innuendo that the DAP and I had all along opposed these two constitutional provisions but in a most opportunistic and dishonest act of political expediency, I had agreed in Pakatan Rakyat to a secret document “none of us have heard of until now” to support them.
The September 8 joint statement by Pakatan Rakyat leaders which Anwar referred to in the Star report yesterday, “Anwar: Pakatan committed to ensuring Malay rights”, which was signed by Anwar as the PKR leader, Datuk Husam Musa as PAS National Vice President and myself on behalf of DAP, was issued to all media, including the Star. I put it up on my blog the same day.
Wong has only himself to blame if he did not keep himself informed of what actually happened as getting properly briefed by Star reporters on the political beat.
But what is most mischievous, unprofessional and unacceptable is the insinuation that the DAP and I had concluded a dishonest and opportunistic secret agreement to uphold Articles 3 and 153 of the Malaysian Constitution on Islam as the official religion and Malay special rights when we had been opposed to these two provisions all along.
My position and that of DAP on Articles 3 and 153 had never changed in the past 42 years since the formation of DAP.
Although Article 3(1) states that “Islam is the religion of Federation” and did not specifically use the term “official religion”, the DAP and I had always supported Islam as the official religion and the constitutional guarantee for freedom of worship for other religions.
We have also never shifted from our stand that Article 3 does not provide the basis for an Islamic State which is contrary to the secular character of Malaysian nation-building agreed by the major communities on the attainment of independent nationhood and an important feature of the Merdeka “social contract”.
As far Malay special rights, I declared the DAP’s stand on Article 153 in my first speech in Parliament on February 23, 1971, where I said:
“The DAP has also been accused of opposing special rights for Malays. We again invite the government to produce a single instance from our speeches and statements to show that we have opposed efforts to raise the economic standards of living of Malays.
“As democratic socialists, we are dedicated to the abolition of poverty and economic backwardness regardless of race. We want to create a classless community of Malaysians based on fellowship, co-operation and service, where there is no exploitation of man by man, class by class or race by race.
“We support any measure which will help better the lot of the Malay poor. But we are strongly opposed to the use of Malay special rights to enrich the new Malay rich to make them richer, while the mass of peasantry and poor are exploited as ever.”
In my first speech in Parliament more than 37 years ago, I stressed that the basic problem in Malaysia was an economic and class one, and not a racial problem.
I warned: “Any attempt to impose racial theories and solutions to basically socio-economic problems of the have-nots is dangerous as it will pit one race against another, which must culminate in a racial holocaust. It will also be founded on the monstrous falsehood that all the haves in Malaysia are non-Malays, while the Malays are the have-nots.”
Those who are interested to know more of what I said in Parliament in that first debate after the lifting of 21-month suspension of Parliament following the May 13 riots should look up my first book, “Time Bombs in Malaysia” published in 1978 or wait for a 30-year Reprint expected by the end of the year.
Wong should make amends for the unfounded innuendos and the grave injustice of his mischievous and completely unwarranted imputation and insinuation against the DAP and myself – as it does not serve the cause of a rational national discourse to chart a new blueprint to create a more united, cohesive, progressive and prosperous Malaysian nation in the aftermath of the March 8 “political tsunami”.
#1 by Thinking Two on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 3:04 pm
Stop buying and reading The Star newspaper.
I have stopped that since the beginning of 2008.
He is just another crony of MCA.
#2 by bc on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 4:10 pm
This country is heading to doom in few years times if still insist on this bumiputra policy dragging other races to develop and blocking others races business to grow.
We have more democratic countires surronding Malaysia.
This bumiputra policy is blocking people to come in and people inside with brain to go out.
What loyalty to you expect people to be loyalty if the governments policy special privilege to only one race over the rest at no deadline. This is multi-races country.
Many non-bumiputra have waited 50 years, it is enough already.
Do not be foolish to drag all the people in this country to doom.
Withouth all the races working hard, this country can’t have enough money to run yearly.
If this country do not based in race for administration but based on performance, you can expect we can outrank the Singapore.
Which one you choose bigger cake to share or small cake share by all corrupted people first then the crumbs for the general people to beg the mercy by of the corrupted people to give more crumbs to eat to lives.
#3 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 4:13 pm
kenghuei Says:
>> It is a party fighting for democracy and an equal Malaysian Malaysia (similar to S’pore).
Malaysia is not like S’pore, that is why the latter was kicked out of the Malaysan federation in 1967! Ignoring the social demographics of Malaysia will be DAP’s last folly. Singapore is primarily describes as a Chinese state because of the 75% who are Chinese. Even in the work-place for example, it is insufficient to call yourself ‘Singaporean’ without the additional addage of racial identity. Like Malaysian Malaysia, Singaporean Singapore is not a practical or national identity.
>> For this to happen, you need full meritocracy, which means there should be no racial differentiation.
In S’pore, ‘meritocracy’ is fast becoming a by-word for elitism. There is clear racial differentiation in certain aspects of civil service, which I hope you are aware of (if not, then I am happy to elaborate).
>> So, it is really pointless to think about or rather impossible for DAP to go against these constitutional facts.
I agree and I would also add that DAP’s democratic/secular version will remain a pipe-dream as this struggle is not shared by the growing Islamised %. It would also be very arrogant to think that only DAP’s vision and values can overcome the racial barrier. Islam already provides a just and equitable solutiont to the ‘problems’ that the non-Muslim minority in Malaysia seeks. It would be more effective to challenge ill-perceptions of the Malays on the reality of what Islam promotes and calls for.
>> We do see progressive Islamic nations today like Turkey and Jordan
‘Progressive’ is but a word that has been created to antagonise Muslims as opposed to moderate. For the vast majority of Muslims, this word entails compromising the fundamentals of their faith which they will never do. Islam is dynamic enough not to barter it’s cemented foundations for the sake of being accepted by those who themselves fail to understand it. Politics is an inherent part of Islam (not vice versa) and every facet of daily life, whether social or economic or military etc. has been catered for. Until and unless you understand this comprehensiveness of Islam as a complete and growing way of life that is revising for many Muslims, you will not be able to understand how alien secularism is in Islam and thus rejected.
Malaysia is perhaps best described as having the potential to fulfill the conditions of an Muslim state. Such a state would be more beneficial for it’s non-Muslim citizens, but it is misinformation and dark propaganda that keeps people like you away from understanding what it really means in terms of rights, justice and equality etc.
Adios.
#4 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 4:17 pm
bc, I could not agree more, Malaysia’s achilles heel has always been not putting the most competent people in positions of authority and responsibility. With natural resources and infrastructure to match, it should rattle the government’s conscience as to why we lag behind many other developing nations!
#5 by cintanegara on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 4:21 pm
More democratic countires surronding Malaysia?
How about the recent statement made by Singapore PM that they are not ready to have non Chinese to be the PM ?
#6 by tohkinwoon on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 4:42 pm
Kit Siang is a true Malaysian who has since he joined politics, dedicated and committed himself to the struggle for a fair and just Malysian Malaysia. Let me share with you an experience of mine. About 30 years ago, I went to observe a meeting of the Dewan Rakyat from the public gallery. Kit Siang was then moving a private member’s motion calling on the then government to set up a Commission of Enquiry to find out why the failure rate among the Malay students in science and mathematics in the SPM examination was so high.He was concerned that if this trend was not corrected and corrected quickly, it will hamper the progress of the Malays and hence the nation. As a former teacher of science and mathematics before I became a university lecturer, I could vouch for his facts. It was his concern for the wellbeing of another community that touched me. From that point on, I never believed the vicious propaganda that he was a racist and an anti-Malay perpetrated by some of the mainstream media
#7 by Loh on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 5:47 pm
///Malaysia is perhaps best described as having the potential to fulfill the conditions of an Muslim state. Such a state would be more beneficial for it’s non-Muslim citizens, but it is misinformation and dark propaganda that keeps people like you away from understanding what it really means in terms of rights, justice and equality etc.///— Zak_hammaad
Does it mean also that no other state in the world has the potential? So, as Muslim state it would still be an experiment, as none existed before. How then can one foretell that it would be beneficial for non-Muslims? Granted that Muslim state might be better for non-Muslims, that would not be the case in Malaysia when as a secular state as provided by the constitution, the ruling government deprives the right of non-Muslims even before they have made this a Muslim state.
It is interesting that the core value for good people such as justice and equality has been mentioned. UMNO claims that when there is no special privilege treatment for Malays, there was no equality as in a golf game, used by TDM for comparison. It was said privilege for a 15-year period was needed, and subject to review. On the eve of reviewing the privilege provision, organized events resulted in the advent of NEP for 20 years. 38 years have passed, and yet NEP continues. Malaysians have not understood what it means to be really just and equal, indeed.
For what was said to be true, either UMNO leaders are not true Muslims; they are not fit to be Muslims and not fit to be in the government.
#8 by shamshul anuar on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 6:33 pm
Dear Cintanegara,
That is what we call law of human nature. We may be willing to accomodate different belief, faiths, customs. We may be willing to elect a minister from different race but when it comes to the top post, we ussually are quite reserve.
Hence, the statement by Pm of Singapore. My point is that naturally the biggest community in Singapore, the Chinese would likely to prefer a Chinese as PM. Just like Malaysia where PM is likely to be a Malay male ( Muslim).
Nothing surprising about it. So far only Christians become British PM. Similarly while Australia prides itself as a land of free and democracy, it is unlikely a Muslim to be elected as its PM.
Simply because Malays are not likely to elect a Chinese as their leader does not mean that they are racist. They are just like all of us. Just as it is suicidal for Malays to think that DAP will elect a Malay as its SEcretary General. All Malays understand that even being a Chinese is not enough in DAP. You must be of blood relationship to the Emperor. Hence, why other senior leaders were “bypassed” in DAP. That is also the reason why Penang DAP Chairman did not get the coveted post of Ketua Menteri of Pulau Pinang.
So, before Uncle Lim talks about racial preference, why not get rid of nepotism. You know, putting his son first before other senior leaders. No need to talk about non Malay being PM. Solve the glaring weakness in your party first.
#9 by ryan123 on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 7:29 pm
cintaUMNO:
The fact is based on racist reason or meritocracy? For UMNO racists like you, the reason is pure simple.
Try not to rationalize cronism, corruption, racism. And I bet that you will live a happier life.
#10 by Thomas Lee on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 8:49 pm
One rule everyone needs to observe is to deal with the issue at hand and not attack a person’s character.
Both Kit and Chun Wai are my good friends, and throughout the years I have known them, they are gentlemen who will attack issues and not persons.
Kit has never said any unkind word against any person, although he will not hestitate to challenge the person’s faults and oppose his views. Even in his attack on the person’s views he has always been very careful with facts and figures. He doesn’t condemn any view without justification.
Take the case of Lee Lam Thye, who quit the DAP. Or Kua Kia Siong. Kit didn’t say anything bad against them for abandoning the party. He even told other party leaders not to attack the characters of these two persons. He had also never hit out personally against those in the KOKS (Knock Out Kit Siang) plot, but bear the hurt without damning these former party leaders, many of them groomed by him personally.
Even when dealing with BN leaders, he doesn’t attack them on their character but on their misdeeds such as immorality and corrupt practices.
He is gentleman enough to greet the prime minister at the latter’s open house each year.
I don’t think Kit was attacking Chun Wai personally. He was simply reacting angrily against what he perceives as the distortion of facts.
That is Kit, a gentleman par excellence.
As for Chun Wai, I can vouch that he is also a gentleman and true journalist. Although we don’t see eye to eye on many political issues, I have much respect for him as a journalist of integrity.
To allege that he was given the top job of editor-in-chief and awarded a datukship because of his being alleged a running dog of the MCA and BN is a very unfair and unkindest cut.
I have been a journalist for nearly 35 years and I can say that Chun Wai reach the pinnacle of journalist by sheer hard work and demonstrative abilities. He is intelligent, articulate and, you may be surprised to know, humble to boot.
No, I am not saying all these to curry favour because I need the contract job in Star. I am a God-fearing Christian who will not allow injustice and unrighteousness to flourish, even against those I disagree with. I will stand up and defend anyone unjustly condemned.
I may disagree with what Chun Wai wrote but I respect his God-given right to write what he believe to be the right thing.
My plea to fellow Malaysians is that we should learn to respect and even love each other, irrespective of colour, creed, culture, conviction and class. Attack the issues but not the person.
Remember everyone of us is a creature of God, a kalifah Allah.
#11 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 10:37 pm
cintanegara Says:
>> How about the recent statement made by Singapore PM that they are not ready to have non Chinese to be the PM ?
PM Lee Hsien also stated that a 2-party system is not suitable for S’pore and gave an examplified reason to this end in last Tuesday’s Home supplement of the ST. Comparing Malaysia to our southern neighbours is not politically sensible.
#12 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 20 November 2008 - 11:00 pm
Loh Says:
Does it mean also that no other state in the world has the potential?
Not entirely, but Malaysia remains a viable example because of it’s social and economic structure.
>> So, as Muslim state it would still be an experiment, as none existed before.
That is not what I said. History is witness to what we term as the perfect (and open) governance under early Islamic rule. The fact that this was taken away from the Muslims due to their own subsequent weakness and corruption does not mean it did not exist. It does not exist today that is for sure.
>> How then can one foretell that it would be beneficial for non-Muslims?
Good question, for answers, you will again need to look into the pages of history and see the benefits that non-Muslim citizens enjoyed under a Muslim state. One example we may recall is the command of the Prophet on his death bed: “Observe scrupulously the protection accorded by me to non-Muslim subjects”. Another narration reports: “whoever oppresses non-Muslim subjects, shall find me to be their adversary on the day of Judgement (against the oppressing Muslims).” – The directions as well as the practice of the Prophet constitute the highest law for Muslims equally to the Qur’an.
History has witnessed the coexistence of Jewish and Muslim populations under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate for 13 centuries. Jewish citizens of the Islamic state enjoyed living standards that were at par with their fellow Muslim citizens. Non-Muslim and Muslim citizens both had protected access to welfare, peace, tranquility and security, as documented by Will Durant in his book “The story of civilization”.
Also, the early Caliphates were not totalitarian and in fact societies were not highly regulated at all! The ahkam (ruling) in regards to Islamic governance is classical and not new. The practical jurisprudence of it fills volumes and it’s there as a dymanic guide for all peoples and places for all times.
>> …that would not be the case in Malaysia when as a secular state as provided by the constitution,
Care to provide reference for this?
>> …the ruling government deprives the right of non-Muslims even before they have made this a Muslim state.
How are the rights deprived when Islam more than restores those rights? Are you saying that non-Muslims are happy with the current perceived prejudices and limited rights and would accept the status quo than something that is better? If you think that the Muslim majority is willing to relinquish political power and patriotic pride (that in some cases smacks in the face of the faith they claim to adhere to), then you are mistaken. Only Islam can rectify their lot and in the same manner improve the situation of the non-Muslims in all spheres of daily life. Islam is broadly about rights and limitations; and for the sake of social cohesion and peace and security (that all Malaysians so desire) it has laid out these legislative principles.
I totally understand and agree with your stance on the NEP, this is not a religious matter but a political decision that has been made outside of the jurisdiction of Islam. As I said before, the Muslims are in much need of a true representation of their faith that non-Muslims are; this would right all the wrongs they continue to experience.
Let’s agree for example that UMNO are fit to govern, what is the practical and realistic alternative? I know Malaysians are never prone to bloody revolutionary methods to change leadership as is the case in other countries, but don’t think that democracy or secularism will provide you with this chance either. These latter values are simply tools by which governments cement their power without any regard for national welfare. Take Algeria as a textbook example if you will from amongst many.
Just as you may claim that Muslim states are not a solution for all people and places and times, likewise democracy and secularism are neither monolithic entities nor suitable for all people and places and times. The difference is that former has never been given a real chance to flourish under the watchful eyes of the powers that be and the latter is being imposed upon those who do not identify with it. Values and systems are moulded according to the customs and norms of a people.
Night night.
#13 by wtf2 on Friday, 21 November 2008 - 7:38 am
this so called editor guy should be in his midlife phase – people who’d lived a trivial life till then will either try to strike it big – like the way UMNO politics is play: by creating a lot of controversy and attention – or continue to live a nondescript live ekking out a menial living salary.
So this i say to him – if you can’t make a living to your satisfaction – please find another job and don’t try to belittle others by spreading misinformation and behaving like a misfit with an impressive title.
#14 by Loh on Friday, 21 November 2008 - 3:38 pm
From the Federal Constitution:
Quote:
Article 3 Religion of the Federation.
(1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
Article 11. Freedom of religion
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purpose of a religion other than his own.
(3) Every religious group has the right-
(a) to manage its religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
Article 8 Equality
1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or any employment under a public authority, or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
Article 12. Right s in respect of education.
(1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth-
(2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children in its own religion, and..
(3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship other than his own.
Unquote
The above serves to show that Malaysia is a secular state, though the term is not used.
#15 by zak_hammaad on Friday, 21 November 2008 - 5:54 pm
Loh, your info above does NOT show that Malaysia is a secular state. In fact it shows quite the opposite. Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings over religious ways of thought.
Definition of this word further elaborate that a secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings.
None of this has ever been true of Malaysia, nor is it the case. the word “secular” is NOT MENTIONED at all in our country’s constitution. Additionally, the inherent problem you find in the constitution is that is it open to so many interpretations, with clauses and sub-clauses that seem contrdictory or aborigatory.
Furthermore, the article on Malay Special Rights is mentioned explicitly in Article 153; this contradicts Article 8 that you cited above.
There is no consensus in the interpretation of the constitution of Malaysia (on being secular or not). I, for one, have heard from Constitutional expert like Dr Aziz Bari, which argues otherwise. In fact, Dr Aziz Bari himself insisted that the Malaysian constitution is silent on it’s ideology.
On July 17, DPM Najib said that Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic nation with its own interpretation. He said the country had never been affiliated to secularism but was always driven by the fundamentals of Islam as it is clearly stated in the constitution that Islam is the official religion.
“We have never been secular because being secular by Western definition means separation of the Islamic principles in the way we govern a country” he further added “We have never been affiliated to that position. We have always been driven by our adherence to the fundamentals of Islam…”
He also said that Malaysia does not want to be stereotyped with the Western definitions of a secular and a non-secular state.
Good day.
#16 by frankyapp on Saturday, 22 November 2008 - 12:21 pm
Mr,Loh, article 11,freedom of religion,does it includes malays ? Cos I know many malays who wanted to change their islam religion have been threatened by the Islamic authority of the government. Can you enlightened me ?
#17 by zak_hammaad on Saturday, 22 November 2008 - 1:31 pm
frank, freedom of religion covers all Malaysians. But since the M’sian constitution defines a Malay (from other things) as a Muslim, it becomes legally impossible to choose another religion as it would be impossible to change one’s race; such are the apparent ills of mixing race with religion! I would however, like to point out that cases involving Malay Muslim converts is rare and incidents that do get reported are often blown out of proportion to serve the interests of one party or another.
Article 11 covers all Malaysians; however since Malays are defined as Muslim (and are hence already Muslim), this clause no longer applies because within Islam, there is no recourse for apostacy. The Qur’anic directives speaking of freedom of choice and there being ‘no compulsion in religion’ is general and applies to all people. However, once one chooses to become a Muslim, he/she has excercised this right and freedom to choose. Thereafter, they can not renegade on the choice unless they are are found to be mentally unstable or coerced.
I hope this helps clarify some confusion that exists out there.
#18 by Loh on Sunday, 23 November 2008 - 11:24 am
///Furthermore, the article on Malay Special Rights is mentioned explicitly in Article 153; this contradicts Article 8 that you cited above.///— Zak_Hammaad
Good point; the original version of article 153 had a clause that it was subject to review after 15 years. That was a caveat. The Article was intended to be removed when protection for the weaker section of the society was deemed unnecessary.
///On July 17, DPM Najib said that Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic nation with its own interpretation. ///—Zak_Hammaad
Najib said it in 2007 that is 50 years after the constitution have been in place. But Tunku the founder father of the nation said it much earlier that the country was a secular state, and he and his colleagues in UMNO wanted it that way. So if we are going to support an argument based on personality, Tunku should outweigh Najib. Tunku accepted that taken together, with provision of the Islamic religion as the Religion of the federation, the country was with those exceptions, an Islamic state.
From the explanation presented, Zak could be correct to say that Malaysia is not completely secular in its support to the Islamic religion, but the constitution does not prescribe for governance based on Islamic laws. It is therefore not an Islamic state. On the scale between secular and Islamic, it should therefore be leaning towards secular, as the founder of the country the Tunku had clearly expressed it to be.
UMNO controlled government has most of the time 2/3 majority in the parliament. Who knows that in desperation for power, they might work to change it, in the future? One wonders whether all Muslims want the country to be an Islamic state.