A Solution to the Article 11 Impasse

The Federal Constitution is flawed.

On one hand, it states that Islam is the religion of the country and that Islamic law and the Syariah Court holds sway over all matters pertaining to Islam. On the other hand the Constitution also states that all Malaysians shall enjoy the freedom to profess whatever religion they wish. The Constitution also holds itself as the highest law in the land.

Muslims feel aggrieved because of 2 things.

1. If the part regarding the freedom of religion in the Constitution is deemed to apply to Muslims, it opens the door to legal apostasy which cannot be challenged in the Syariah court.

2. The Constitution was drafted by men. The Quran, and by extension Islamic laws, descended from god. The Quran whups the Constitution, no contest.

However, that view conveniently forgets that nearly 40% of Malaysian are not Muslim. And for them, the Quran does not and must not supersede the Constitution.

But is there no possible reconciliation, like the Islamists and PEMBELA will have you believe?

NO, I believe that there is a way out. A win-win for everyone.

Let's see.

Non-Muslims are not concerned about the affairs of Muslims or the application of Islamic laws on Muslims. What they are concerned about, is when the affairs of Muslims intersect with the affairs of non-Muslims.

When that happens, the obvious result is that Muslims feel that Islamic laws and the Syariah Court should have jurisdiction - due to the simple fact that a Muslim is involved. And non-Muslims feel that the Constitution and the Federal court should have the final say - due to the equally simple fact that a non-Muslim is involved.

Herein, lies the problem.

So, instead of focusing on whether the Constitution should have precedence over Islamic law, or vice versa...

WHY DON'T WE, INSTEAD, FOCUS ON MINIMISING OR ELIMINATING THE INTERSECTION OF LEGAL AFFAIRS BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND NON-MUSLIMS?

How?

The paths of Muslims and non-Muslims converge when there is:
(a) Conversion of a non-Muslim to Muslim, and
(b) Marriage of a non-Muslim to a Muslim, which results in (a) Conversion.

So, the main issue is Conversion.

Conversions get complicated when the converts leave loose ends when they convert. For instance, what happens when a person converts but his/her non-Muslim spouse doesn't? This happens quite often when someone converts and doesn't tell their non-Muslim spouse until after the conversion. But by then, it's too late.

"If the pau's cooked, it's too late to take out the char siew" as my granddad used to say. Ok... maybe I just made that up. But let's not get bogged down.

What happens then? What happens to any kids they might have? What happens to their assets? Should the Syariah court or secular court decide on any disputes?

I think that since conversion is capable of causing so many subsequent problems if it's not done properly, the answer lies in tightening the conversion process in the first place.

For instance, currently, a person who wants to convert can do it all by his/her lonesome with the aid of the religious department. And no effort is made to ensure that the convert informs everyone connected to him/her of the consequences of the conversion; and nothing is done to ensure that he/she has made adequate arrangements to resolve those affairs concerning his/her non-Muslim spouse, children, heirs and assets.

Making sure that the convert resolves all his/her non-Muslim affairs prior to his conversion is ALL IMPORTANT.

Why? Islam is a one way ticket. Once a Muslim, there's no turning back. The punishment for apostasy is death. Due to the deathly serious repercussions of an exit from Islam (apostasy), the entry into Islam (conversion) is just as, if not more serious and must be accorded an equally definitive process.

The process of conversion must include complete legal resolution of EVERY aspect of the prospective convert's non-Muslim life where it might become a matter of secular & Islamic contention in the future. Anything less and the conversion cannot take place. Anything less must invalidate the conversion attempt!

Therefore, the answer is to compel a prospective convert to satisfactorily resolve all his/her non-Muslim affairs before conversion, for example:

• legally divorcing his/her spouse if the spouse will not convert with him/her, and distributing their marital property according to secular law,
  
• producing a written agreement between the prospective convert and the spouse as well as other logical legal guardians (like grandparents and siblings) regarding the religious status of any of their children (this point is important because if the convert dies, and his children were converted as well, they cannot be cared for in a non-Muslim home, even if those people are the children's closest living relatives, including the non-Muslim biological parent).
  
• resolving in a secular court any possible future conflicts arising from property jointly owned by the convert and a non-Muslim, or any property of the convert where secular laws and Islamic laws will treat differently in the event that a non-Muslim lays claim to it (eg. heir, family, business partner etc).

And as stated earlier, no conversion is possible if these matters are not fully resolved beforehand. In the event that the religious authorities fail in their due-diligence where a conversion is accepted, but the said resolutions required for the conversion are subsequently found to be insufficient or omitted at any time in the future - the earlier conversion must be deemed to be retrospectively invalid and any disputes that arise are to be adjudicated by a secular court.

There will be no more conversions at the deathbed, no more conversions for spontaneous marriages, no more quickie conversions period. This is very consistent with upholding the sanctity of Islam as it is the best guarantee that Islam embraces converts who sincerely love the religion. The stringent pre-conversion process helps Islam weed out those who want to convert for insincere ulterior motives, and these are most likely the ones who want to leave Islam later on when things don't turn out as they planned. The results of this process also greatly reinforces one of the basic tenets of Islam which is to be fair and just in its dealings with all people, including non-Muslims.

Therefore, if we require that all possible affairs of prospective converts which entangle non-Muslims to be resolved before conversion, the effect will be that:

• all Muslims will be subject only to Islamic laws and the Syariah Court on matters concerning religion, as is their wish. This is possible as converts will only be those who satisfy the stringent conversion requirements. Resulting in no possibility that they may become subject to the secular court.
  
• all non-Muslims will be subject only to the Constitution, secular laws and courts, as is their wish. This is possible as any non-Muslims with affairs connected to converts, would have had those affairs already been resolved in a secular court before the said conversion. Resulting in no possibility that they may become subject to Islamic laws and the Syariah court.

So, everyone's happy. The Constitution is not amended and status of the secular courts confirmed. The status of Islamic laws and Syariah courts upheld. Also upheld are equal rights for non-Muslims.

Well, everyone's happy except those in the religious department, maybe. They'll have a lot more due diligence work to do, besides catching adulterers, issuing fatwas and campaigning against Kongsi Raya.

Burying one's head in the sand - RPK of Malaysia-Today.net

A good article by RPK, who's the editor of Malaysia-today.net about Malaysia's racial/religious divide. With Article 11, Moorthy & Nona, UPM - no doubt things are hotting up. The PM's directive to stop all talk does seem like a man cornered. His Islam Hadhari seems damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Either way, Malaysia loses.

Below's the full text but visit the original link in Malaysia-Today to read the comments, some of which I think are especially lucid.

http://www.malaysia-today.net/Raja_Petra/2006/07/burying-ones-head-in-sand.html

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Burying one's head in the sand
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Article 11: Stop the forums

Article 11 forums to discuss inter-faith issues must stop immediately because they are deemed to cause tension in our multi-religious society, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.

The Prime Minister said the Umno supreme council had expressed its utmost concern over inter-faith issues that were being debated by Article 11, an umbrella body of 13 non-governmental organisations, through forums on Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

"If the discussions are not kept in check or contained, they are bound to raise tension in our multi-religious society. Religious issues are even more sensitive than ethnic issues," he told reporters after chairing the Umno supreme council meeting here yesterday. - The Star

PM tells all parties to stop discussing status of Islam

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Tuesday told all parties to stop any discussion that questioned the status of Islam as the country's official religion as provided in the Federal Constitution.

He said discussion of the issue, if not kept in check, would create a tense situation among the country's multi-racial and multi-religious people.

"The issue of religion is very sensitive, more sensitive than the issue of race, so the press should be responsible and not blow it up. - Bernama

Religious right vows to uphold status of Islam

Malaysia's religious right is preparing to fight back against what it sees as a liberal tide sweeping the judiciary and viewed as a threat to Islam's position in the country. More than 50 groups representing Muslim lawyers, clerics, professionals and students met a week ago to plan a campaign and launch legal challenges to protect Islam. They formed an umbrella body known as Pembela Islam (Defenders of Islam).

Three court cases were at the root of their unhappiness. The first was that of a Hindu widow who had unsuccessfully challenged the Islamic authorities to prove that her late husband had converted to Islam. In another case, two weeks ago, Malaysia's Federal Court ruled that three Malay boys could not wear the Islamic turban to school. But the case which has received the most scorn from Islamic conservatives is that of Ms Lina Joy, a Malay who is seeking to drop Islam as the religion on her identity card.

Over the weekend, two small demonstrations were held here and in Johor Baru to protest against her case. - The Straits Times

Article 11 forum disrupted again

JOHOR BARU: A forum organised by the Article 11 Coalition here yesterday (22 July 2006) was cut short on the advice of the police as some 400 demonstrators gathered outside the forum venue. The "Federal Constitution: Protection for All" forum which was scheduled to run from 9am to 1pm at Hotel Selesa here, wrapped up at 11.15am following a "friendly recommendation" from the police.

Yesterday's protest was the second the coalition had encountered since it started a road-show on constitutional rights regarding religion. In May, the umbrella group for 13 non-governmental organisations held a similar forum in Penang which also attracted protesters and was again cut short on the advice of the police.

But this time the organisers are not complaining. - New Straits Times

Malaysia to set up racial conflict warning system

Malaysia plans to develop what could be the world's first computerised early-warning system on racial conflict. National Unity and Integration Department director-general Azman Amin Hassan said it will be installed in an operations room at the department's Putrajaya headquarters and will process a database of information and reports on unity in every district.

The system will assess how prone each area is to incidents involving race and religion, he said. Districts will be colour-coded on a map, with 'red' areas the most prone to strife. 'The system will monitor every inch of Malaysia. If we know which areas are prone to conflict, we will have a better chance to prevent an incident,' he said.

No date has been set for the system's roll-out. - New Sunday Times

What do the five news items above tell us? I do not know what it tells you, but it tells me that Malaysia is moving closer and closer to civil strife. What can be considered civil strife, a 'milder' form of civil war, is a conflict between those of the same nationality or ethnicity. Inter-ethnic conflicts of the same nationality would of course also qualify. And there are normally at least three things that can bring about civil strife. One would be economic, next race, and finally, the most potent of all, would be religion. Malaysia, unfortunately, has elements of all three.

My previous episode of No Holds Barred was a 'letter' to Walter. I am sure everyone knew that it was a fictitious letter, but whether Walter really exists or not, I am of course not telling. What did you 'see' in that letter? Did you not see a reflection of yourself? And what about those many outraged responses in the Blog from both sides of the racial divide? Did the responses not reflect what is within their minds?

When one goes to a psychiatrist for therapy, he or she just makes us lie down on the couch and asks us to spill out what ails us. For all you know, he or she may not even be listening. But it is not whether they listen or not which counts. It is enabling us to reveal our innermost thoughts -- which under normal circumstances we would never reveal to anyone, stranger or otherwise -- is where the therapy lies. Somehow, we would unabashedly tell a psychiatrist everything. Maybe it is because we believe that telling our shrink what we would never tell any other living soul is going to cure us, so we do it.

Okay, so what then was the purpose of the 'Dear Walter' piece and how does this relate to 'therapy'? Well, basically I wanted everyone to 'see' how they felt about their follow Malaysian. It is not that we do not already know mind you. Even before the 'Dear Walter' piece there were more than enough racial-religious postings that lay bare what Malaysians really are. In fact, we really did not need 'Dear Walter' to reinforce this belief that Malaysians are intolerant bigots of the worst kind.

I once knew an American chap and his lovely Thai wife who lived in Malaysia for quite some time. And what he told me about 20 years ago not only jolted me, but still prevails until today. In fact, it is worse today than it was 20 years ago. "There are more racial prejudices and intolerance here in Malaysia than in the Deep South," said my American friend. "And things in the Deep South are really bad as it is."

Wow! I never thought of that. I mean, I knew that in the Deep South of the USA things can be very bad. But you are actually saying that Malaysia is worse? How can that be?

"Hey!" said my American friend. "You are local, so you don't get to see it. Chinese or Indians would never dare speak ill of your race or religion in front of you. But this does not mean that they don't talk badly about the Malays or Islam. It just means you do not hear them saying it. And you Malays say the same about the Chinese and Indians. But you talk amongst yourselves, never in front of the Chinese or Indians; the same for the Chinese and Indians as well."

"But then I am an American, not Malaysian, so I hear all sides talking -- Malays, Chinese, as well as Indians. I get to hear what everyone says, something you will never get to hear."

That is true to a point I suppose. We would try very hard not to run down another race or religion in front of 'the other chap'. We would of course say many unkind things about them if they can't hear what we are saying. But if they are within earshot, then we would restrain and refrain and not hurt their feelings. It is just not 'nice' to insult someone to his or her face. But we will do it behind their backs without remorse.

Malaysia Today allows, in fact at times encourage, this slinging match. And why do we do this? Is it to stir sentiments and try to trigger civil strife? Definitely not! In fact we would like to see the opposite. But burying our heads in the sand and pretending that all is peachy and honky-dory would never achieve this. It would be just like a pit-soil fire. The fire slowly burns below the surface unbeknownst to anyone. Then, after days or even weeks, the fire suddenly breaks through the surface. And by that time there is very little you can do. Feelings are like an iceberg. What you see above the surface is only 10%. The other 90% is hidden, lurking below the surface waiting to sink the unsinkable Titanic that the owners said, "Even God Himself cannot sink." Hey, never place a bet with God. God always wins.

And that is Malaysia. You see a lot of intolerance and hatred in Malaysia Today's Blogs. But what you see is merely a scratch on the surface. It is not even the 10% of the iceberg. It is not even the smoke from the pit-soil fire. Take my word for it. The Malays have not heard even 1% of what the Chinese and Indians think of them. And vice versa on what the Malays think of the Chinese and Indians as well. So, what do we do? Do we silence everyone? Do we say 'loose lips sink ships' and shut everyone's mouths? Do we make it illegal to 'talk bad' about another race and religion and arrest and jail all those who do? Will this eliminate the intolerance and hatred and make everyone suddenly love each other? Sure, and pigs can fly.

No, not talking about it will not make it go away. Banning racial and religious slurs will not make Malaysians understand each other better. Sure, slandering another race and religion does have its downside as well. It certainly does not make things better. In fact, it may even increase the divide. But allowing it to surface would show the powers-that-be how dicey race relations in Malaysia has become. The government can legislate behaviour all it wants. It can clamp down hard and detain under the Sedition Act all those who make 'dangerous' statements that may trigger civil strife. But it will not make Malaysians love each other. It will just send the hate underground. And anything stifled is even more dangerous. It will build up and, one day, explode. A smouldering fire can be controlled. An explosion is devastating. And Malaysia is heading for an explosion. Let the powers-that-be be warned.

There is great discontentment building up. The non-Malays (meaning non-Muslims as well) are determined to take their case to the nation. The 'Chapter 11' seminars in Penang and Johor recently are but one case in point. The Moorthy, Lina Joy, and many other incidences are unsettling both Malays and non-Malays alike. The Malays too have their own road-shows planned and are challenging efforts of the Chapter 11 group, IFC, SIS, etc, to bring about greater religious liberalisation; meaning freedom of religion for all, not only for non-Muslims.

Do I have any solutions to offer? Unfortunately I do not. All I am saying is that things are moving in a very dangerous direction. What you read in Malaysia Today's Blogs is nothing. That does not even begin to describe the problem. The problem is deeper than that. And unless something is done super-fast, then get ready for problems.

The Malays will not compromise on the issue of murtad (apostasy). Islam is a one-way street. If you are born a Muslim then you die a Muslim, or die if you leave Islam. The same goes for those who convert to Islam later in life. There is no compromise here and Malays would go to war to uphold this. So when the non-Muslims organise road-shows or movements such as IFC, that is interpreted as an act of war and retaliation becomes halal. This is something the non-Muslims have not comprehended yet.

Even the government is lost as to what to do. It knows it cannot ignore the issue. But then what can they do about it? If the government agrees that there should be freedom of religion and those who wish to leave Islam should be allowed to do so, then it would have a rebellion on its hands. On the other hand, if the government agrees that Islam is a one-way street and no murtad would be allowed, it would also have a rebellion on its hands.

Now you know why I refuse to be in government even if I was able to get in (which I would not be able to anyway). Being in government is no vacation. There is this serious problem hanging over our heads with no solutions in sight. Either the government agrees that Malaysia is an Islamic State and it implements Islamic laws such as the anti-murtad law, or it agrees that Malaysia is a Secular State and go along with those seeking religious liberalisation. Either way is going to see conflict.

Should I be saying all this? Should I be openly writing something like this on the Internet? If there was such a thing as the Internet at lunchtime on 13 May 1969, I would have posted a message warning all and sundry that later that day a riot was going to erupt. I would have done so because for the first time in his life my father had come home from the office before the sun went down. He came home in the afternoon to be exact. And he came home because he had been warned that a riot was going to erupt and that he should stay home. And maybe, just maybe, that posting of mine would have limited, if not prevented, the riot from happening. And maybe, just maybe, some of the friends I lost on 13 May 1969 would still be around today. But I certainly would have gone to jail for that posting. The end result would have been worth it though if I go to jail to prevent at least one life from being lost.

Well, a riot is not about to erupt today. It will not erupt tomorrow, next week, or even next month. But if the present state of affairs is not addressed, it would erupt in time. The only question is when. And all Malaysians better be aware of this. Things are not peachy and honky-dory. Things are very tense. And things are going to develop over the next few weeks and months that will make it even tenser.

And don't say I didn't warn you as much as I may sound like a doomsday soothsayer.

Oh, by the way, just to digress a bit, the second time my father came home from the office early was the day he was not feeling well. He suffered a heart attack a few hours later and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Yes, the two occasions my father came home early from work were days of tragedies -- one a national tragedy and the other my personal tragedy, but tragedies nevertheless, and tragedies that would haunt me for the rest of my life.

UPM prevents submission of memo on mob incident

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), political parties as well as student groups today (July 25, 2006) failed in their attempt to submit a memorandum to Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) on the July 17 incident in campus. UPM public and international relations director Assoc Prof Dr Jambari Ali, who was present, told that only 3 members were allowed to meet them in their office. The memorandum submitters wanted 6.

When they couldn't come to an agreement, the memorandum guys left without submitting the memorandum!

????? What the hell is going on with UPM, the NGOs and these other groups of "leaders" and "opinion-makers"?

I mean, how childish can grown ups get? I say I can, you say I cannot, so I don't friend you?

UPM were simply game playing by limiting the number of people entering their office. A show of authority and control. The memorandumers were stupid to be stubborn on such a trivial thing. What's the damn difference, 3 or 6? You were here to submit a memorandum. Not have the leaders of all the groups get their pictures taken in the UPM office. Actually, you could have posted the damn memo to them and just copied the press. To leave without submitting the memo is dumb.

Meanwhile, Jambari, when asked why the media was not allowed to enter the campus to cover the event, said: "It's very difficult to allow everyone to come in. We have to be very careful as we don't want any misunderstanding to happen."

Pressed on what is the policy of the university towards the media, he said: "You all should only report good news, not always report bad news."

Damn. That last remark must be the mother of all dumb ass things to say to the media. Jambari should get a new title. UPM Public & International Relations Director and Chief Goof-Up of the Dept of Whitewashing Embarassing Incidents.

Full article in the sun: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=14882

Proposed Trade Guidelines. NEP-eeing on business.

The Sun, today, carried an article called "MCA blasts Distributive Trade guidelines". It details the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry's proposed trade guidelines that will affect some 400 types of retail businesses. The guidelines states that all retailers, wholesalers, and specialty stores would be asked to restructure to meet a minimum 30% bumiputra requirement, to raise its paid-up capital to at least RM1 million and to ensure the composition of the directors and employees reflect the racial composition of the country.

In other words all retailers, wholesalers and specialty stores (which are mainly Chinese family owned, btw) will need to "attract" 30% bumiputra ownership (where potential bumi candidates can just sit back wait for the highest "bidder", with no real incentive to contribute anything to the biz. You need them to comply with the guidelines, they don't need you).

When you have a compulsory rule like that, will the bumi partner actually pay cash to buy 30% of the company or does he expect the existing shareholders to hand him 30% of the company for free, or else they don't comply with the law? Even if he does pay, would it be market value or a token sum? Remember, this is NOT an arms length transaction. You need him. He doesn't need you.

Take a step back, out of La-La-Land, back into the real world. Isn't this just a more polite way of getting robbed?

And which bumis can we really expect to benefit from this? The poor Malay farmer in Kelantan who works hard each day making ends meet, or the politically well connected Datuk with the mansion on Kenny Hills with his trophy wife and Mercedes Benz? Won't that be the same bunch of vultures already feeding off the NEP?

Won't this be yet another affirmative action that simply widens the gap between the rich bumis and the poor ones who really need the assistance? Where the rich get richer by imposing policies that help themselves, but in the name of their poorer brothers who don't realise that their supposed champions are the real culprits keeping them poor, ignorant and in poverty. If the rich elite don't maintain a healthy inventory of poor, impoverished cousins - how else will they come up with excuses for a policy like this? What did they call it during the last general election... a leakage!

And the composition of directors and employees to reflect the racial composition of the country simple means that all these Chinese family companies automatically become managed and controlled by Malays. And I'll bet you that it's the same guy who lives in his mansion on Kenny Hills with his trophy wife and Mercedes Benz. And the compulsory nature of the guidelines also means that you can't fire him if he screws everything up. Besides, since the board of directors need to be in line with the country's racial composition, he probably has a majority to get you fired.

When applied to existing companies, what happens to the existing directors and employees? Are they retrenched to make way for the compulsory bumi hires?

I wonder if it's a coincidence that Chinese family businesses are heavily invested in this industry? Since they must know that such compulsory guidelines simply and totally destroys the very fabric of a family owned business, is it a move to dismantle what is seen as another arm of "Chinese dominance" in the economy?

This stinks. This stinks really bad!

A Slap on the Wrist forthcoming for UPM Hoodlums?

From the rash of articles that have popped out of the woodwork about the UPM canteen incident, I am able to distil 3 headings for this blog.

1. The incident at UPM is not the first or only incident.
2. The reaction from UPM's faculty is muted.
3. What is the real issue here?!

1. Other incidents.

There have been other similar incidents in UM and USM, besides UPM.

UPM (the incident with the video).

Below are excerpts from news reports about the basis of the incident:

UPM's Students Progressive Front (SPF) coordinator and student Ooi Tze Min, 22, described how some 50 members of the ruling student body allegedly humiliated him and six others in one of the canteens.

The SPF had set up a counter to assist new students but was told to leave because they were not recognised by the university and its student body.

There are also pictures of Ooi pasted at bus stops around the university with a caption blaming him for the student unrest.

“All we wanted to do was to help new students in financial difficulties, and getting the used to their new surroundings and bus routes,” Ooi said.

“We did not do anything wrong, yet we were shouted at and bullied,” he added.

Wong Teck Chi, described how three members of the UMANY association were bullied after identifying and helping new students at the 12th residential college.

“Our members had their bags taken and were prevented from leaving by college and student affairs officers,” he said.

He said they had reported the incident to the safety department.

USM

Lee Huat Seng claimed that university officials had told first-year students on July 12 not to participate in any SPF activities the next day.

“The authorities threatened students with cancelling their PTPTN loans if they were found attending such activities,” he said.

It seems that the established student organisations and faculty of our local universities don't welcome new organisations. Even if the objective and activities of those organisations are simply to help new students acclimatise to uni life etc. Why the dislike? Why the over-reaction? Is there a co-relation between the fact that these new societies generally comprise non-Malay students and the established ones are fully Malay and pro-establishment (which is comprised of a predominantly Malay faculty anyway)?

2. Official reactions.

Universiti Putra Malaysia has described the bullying incident at its canteen as “a very unfortunate incident."

All the students should stay cool," said its academic and international affairs deputy vice-chancellor Prof Dr Radin Umar Radin Soladi.

"We are very concerned with what happened." He added that the student affairs department was investigating the matter. “The whole sequence and all aspects of the incident will be looked at before anyone is reprimanded," he said. Prof Radin said the students could have discussed the problem with mutual respect.

“I was made to understand that a number of boys involved had just finished a rugby game and were probably pumped up because of this,” he said. Prof Radin added that from an academic point of view, there would be greater focus on teaching students soft skills such as having mutual respect for one another.

The very muted reaction of UPM's faculty has a very bad stink that a slap on a wrist is on the cards. What has a rugby game got to do with anything? Bringing it up is just ridiculous.

Some comments on the internet have identified some of the individual gangsters in the video to be the offspring of certain communal political party leaders, who could be in a position to orchestrate just such a slap on the wrist. These allegations are of course unverified.

3. The real issue.

It's not about the registration and certification of clubs and societies. It's not about misunderstandings or differences in opinions between organisations. The relationship between the SPF, UMANY or whatever with other 'registered' clubs and societies are not the concern. It's not even an issue.

It is about the fact that there are certain groups of students who feel that their viewpoint is the singlular acceptable viewpoint. And even more importantly, it's about the fact that they feel they are entitled to bully, threaten, intimidate and curb the rights & freedoms of other students based on their own prejudices.

And it's about the fact that a potentially violent situation (certainly a definite situation of criminal intimidation, reckless endangerment and issuing of threats to afflict bodily harm), might end with the wrongdoers getting off scot free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Our government, our universities, our leaders must display some courage to tackle incidents like this headon. Make these monsters examples to deter future such incidents by putting them in jail. They are all above 18, and need to be responsible for their crimes. And if their parents protest, put them in jail too for raising animals instead of children.

A Force to be Proud of...

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Deputy IGP) of the Royal Malaysian Police Force (Polis DiRaja Malaysia or PDRM) Tan Sri Musa Hassan has outlined a 5 year plan to improve the image, efficiency and competence of the police force.

The draft of the 5 year plan will be sent to all federal police directors, state chief police officers and district police chiefs and followed by a brainstorming session by top-ranking officers. The target will be to put the plan into action by the end of this year. Recommendations made by the Royal Commission will apparently, also be incorporated.

This includes ways:

• to improve the frontline services at police stations;
• to enhance the quality of investigation and reduce errors in investigation papers;
• to build a community policing network; and
• to build an exhibit store where evidence will be kept in order to reduce the possibility of evidence going missing before cases go to court.

OK. This sounds like a plan. But can it be implemented and implemented well?

And it's very much a plan to improve the operational aspects of the force. I hope the software aspects of the police force will not be ignored. Besides improving the image, efficiency and competence of the force, the basic ethics and mindset of the force need to transformed as well.

Our police officers need to realise that besides actually keeping the Malaysians safe - it is equally important that they behave in a manner that makes us feel safe. They need to be proud of the job they do and realise that doing it sincerely & incorruptibly, is as important or more important than, doing it competently.

An earlier blog regarding this very point is here.

PM: No one influences my decisions, my son-in-law not my adviser.

Talk about taking the bull by the horns. In his most direct comment in the ongoing Mahathir vs Abdullah Badawi saga, the PM has stated unequivocally that "No one influences my decisions, my son-in-law not my adviser".

The Sun carried this story in an afternoon update of its online edition.

If this is true, it'll blow gaping holes all over Tun M's allegations, Raja Petra Kamaruddin's Khairy Chronicles, as well as sean-the-man.blogspot.com's theories.

Ah, but then... any man accused of being a puppet will obviously deny the strings tied to his limbs.

So, while it's good that the PM's broken his ill-advised "elegant silence", but it'll be his actions, independent, swift and without fear or favour, that will eventually dispel any lingering doubt.

He's talked the talk, now it's time to walk the walk. Lots of people are watching.

The UPM Canteen Incident.

The Sun reveals the background of the incident in UPM's canteen on 17 July 2006 (video above). A video of the incident (you can watch it in the post below) has since been circulating furiously on the net. There are at least 10 copies of the video (including mine ;) published on youtube.com alone.

So, what do we have?

Ostensibly, the article makes it sound like it's an administrative turf fight between the student council and an "as yet" unregistered student organisation. An act of vigilantism even.

But what to you see in the video? I see nothing besides a large group of men (who happened to all be Malays, by the way) harassing, jeering and forcibly evicting a small group of men and women (who so happened to be all Chinese - the Sun left out these pertinent ethnic details for some reason) from a public place ie. UPM's canteen. And all the smaller group did was set up a table and few chairs in the canteen to mete out assistance to students. There's no mention what kind of assistance was involved or if they had any other objectives being there.

When the victims refused to move, the gang resorted to physically pushing them around, even the women weren't spared. Although no blows were thrown, it was only due to the passiveness of the group being bullied. Due to the video's poor audio quality, I couldn't make out exactly what was being said in but near the end, the big dude in the red shirt was shouting "Belah!" into the faces of the victims while chesting into them, American football style. Have a look at the video and see for yourself.

The police have attributed it all to a "misunderstanding" and since no one was "assaulted" but only "pushed and jostled", the matter will be left to UPM to handle internally.

Hmmm... do you need to be actually "assaulted" first for the police to act?

True, there was no punching and kicking but does that mean that I can now gather 50 of my friends - push people around & pull their chairs out from under them while they're sitting on it, and completely surround them while shouting god-knows-what into their faces - and get away with it?

How can that NOT be a crime?!

I do not agree with the police's stand and I can see the consistency in their choice to act or not. During the Article 11 forum in Penang, the police displayed a similar reluctance to take action against the wrongdoers. However, when acting against the opposition-led protest against the price hikes, the police showed no such reticence.

I can't say I'm not disappointed by the police's (and by extension, the government's) reluctance to tackle this issue, and others like it, head-on.

Make an example of these hoodlums.

Show the public that any sort of violence to enforce a personal viewpoint will not be tolerated. No matter how noble you think your intentions are.

Show the wrongdoers that there will be consequences to their misdeeds. And that those consequences will be swift and uncompromising.

Show Malaysians that it is still safe to send their children to university without fear of them being bullied, harassed and subject to prejudice.

Show us that there's still hope.

Racist tendencies in our universities?

Seems like our Malaysian universities are getting more than their fair share of the spotlight recently. And none of the attention is positive!

Initially, it was the "Ethnic Relations" textbook, oops 'teaching guide' which apparently singled out the Chinese opposition parties to have caused the 1969 May 13 race riots and Indian youths having caused the Kg Medan incident some years back. Learned professors whom the text was attributed to suddenly all backed away, denying that they were ever involved in drafting it. And all fresh after returning from his holiday, PM Abdullah Badawi today said that the text will be withdrawn.

Then in reaction to the above textbook becoming a public issue, local university students revealed that there were other compulsory subjects they had to take in university like Malaysian Studies, Islamic Civilisation, Malaysian Citizenship and languages.

According to The Star, a fresh graduate of UPM said she had encountered biased content in the compulsory Islamic Civilisation unit when she was studying. “I found the textbook very condescending towards the other religions, and the lecturer would highlight these parts,” she said.

A Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia graduate too said how his lecturer handled the Islamic Civilisation class made him feel very uncomfortable. “He made me hate going to the class. In the end, I skipped the class and because of that I lost credit points, which affected my overall results,” he added.

And now, the latest is a video that's been circulating on the internet recently. It depicts a bunch of Malay boys, presumably students, chasing out a few Chinese boys and girls, presumably students as well. According to merdekareview.com, this occured in a cafeteria in UPM (University Putra Malaysia) on the 17th of July 2006. The video clearly shows the racist remarks and actions verging on violence.

Whatever the provocation, tens of students from single race against a few from another race is simply racial bullying. The government needs to put its foot down and show the people that they are committed to national unity. I hope the belligerent students will be persecuted to the limits of the law and given a public flogging. Make them an example that racial bullying will not be tolerated.

I think it's very clear that race relations are deteriorating in our schools and universities. Even the curriculum is subtly promoting a brand of racism. The national education system, with its emphasis on only one race and one religion and racially lopsided teacher and student populations, has clearly taken our young generation down a very dark road. Something needs to be done, and it needs to be done fast. Too bad the keris waving, ultra Malay, Education Minister has no interest to do so. Pak Lah, the ball's in your court. I hope you do your best to reign it all in.

Behind Mahathir vs Abdullah, there's Najib vs Khairy

This is an interesting article from Singapore's Today newspaper.

Hmmmm... some of you might realise I don't read much else ;p in Singapore. But it's free, and it gets delivered to my office at lunchtime. Besides, every 80 cents I save not buying The Straits Times is 80 cents I get to put aside for the COE to my dream Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X.

Anyway, it's one of the few mainstream articles by a journalist (instead of a PAS Vice President) that links Khairy to the whole thing, and formalises the possible rivalry between him and Najib to become the future PM of Malaysia.

Never mind if the article is fact based or pure conjecture. Give it a read as it's a good summary about what's been going on for the past couple of months. And with Tun M and AAB due to return to Malaysia soon, a refresher is useful to prep us for the next round of Politikus ala Malaysia.