Tag: Malaysia

  • Why “Creeping Islamisation” Is No Joke

    Why “Creeping Islamisation” Is No Joke

    If you were not bingeing on a TV show imagining a world where the Nazis had won, like I did, how did you spend your New Year’s Eve?

    Did you spend it indoors with your loved ones? Or perhaps you were one of the revellers who danced the night away, pausing only to admire the fireworks?

    Or maybe, seeking respite from the drizzle, you were planning to witness the countdown at the historic Dataran Merdeka? Only to bafflingly discover that the place was filled with thousands of men clad in robes and skullcaps chanting in Arabic?

    It would be too easy to dismiss and mock critics who highlight the so-called “creeping Islamisation” in Malaysia. Especially those who cite the event — the recurring Malam Cinta Rasul, or Love the Prophet Night — as a pointed example.

    After all, the notion of “creeping Islamisation” plays right into the narrative of anti-liberal reactionaries, who often speak of concerted attacks to undermine the position of Islam and the Malay race in this country.

    For them, it evokes their favourite caricature of a hysterical Malay-hating Islamophobe strawman who would rant against anything tied to the two topics.

    How could Islamisation creep up on you when Islam has been here for centuries? So, the argument could go.

    Or they would conflate being Islamic and Islamised, claiming that many Muslims were happily drinking the night away on New Year’s Eve, among other vices.

    Fact is, institutionalised Islamisation has been around for so many decades that even those who have not been completely indoctrinated, would have normalised the situation and can see nothing wrong.

    Islamisation has less to do with people becoming more pious or religious, than it is with Islam permeating into institutions and spaces that used to be secular and have no religious value.

    To the clueless, let me start the year right by painting a picture of Islamisation by using Malam Cinta Rasul as an example, and another “creeping faith” that haunts the dreams of paranoid clerics: Star Wars.

    Malam Cinta Rasul might be optional, it is not mandatory for all Malaysians, let alone Muslims. Nonetheless, it has now been held on a grand scale annually since 2013 — mostly on New Year’s Eve — not counting several other events sharing the same name in other states.

    This is only possible with backing from the state, and so it was. The event was organised by the Cheras Education Foundation, a foundation under Cheras Umno, led by influential grassroots chief Syed Ali Alhabshee.

    And the foundation can afford to do so, when it is backed by the state itself. Co-partners included the Federal Territories (FT) Ministry, Communications and Multimedia Ministry, the Kuala Lumpur City Hall, and the FT Islamic Council.

    Present as guests of honour at the event, complete with comfortable lounge seats, were Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, FT minister Tengku Adnan Mansor, Perak Mentri Besar Dr Zambry Kadir, KL Mayor Amin Nordin Abdul Aziz, and Syed Ali himself.

    Essentially, this means Putrajaya has no qualms holding an event that costs hundreds of thousands ringgit (last year’s cost was roughly RM200,000), for something that panders exclusively to Muslims.

    Doesn’t sound too ridiculous? Imagine then, Putrajaya co-organising a massive, costly Star Wars convention, and only Star Wars, year in year out.

    Not to forget, the event was held in a public space, commonly associated with New Year’s Eve celebrations which was completely accessible to people of all backgrounds. Or at least it was, before 2013.

    Drawing on the same analogy, this is akin to a Malaysian coming every week to his pasar malam spot, only to discover that suddenly the lot is used for a Star Warsscreening. For the next month, there has not been any pasar malam on that day of the week. Just Star Wars, week after week.

    Unconsciously, the public is made to perceive that such an Islamic-themed events — regardless of its actual religiosity — is a norm, despite its relatively late introduction to Malaysia.

    Not only that, by endorsing such an event, Putrajaya is promoting it as a “preferred” way to usher in the new year. Which spells good news for conservative killjoys who cannot stand others enjoying their non-Shariah-compliant celebrations.

    Once secular, the new year has now been co-opted as a day to assert Islam’s dominance, by the many Malays who came in droves, over the rest of the public.

    This, insidiously, carries repercussions beyond just ringing in the new year.

    This endorsement of a seemingly Islamic way of life as the only “right” way for a Malay to live will result in an ugly divide and demonisation, especially when Malays have no way of shedding the “Muslim” label in the first place.

    Left unchallenged, it would solidify the position of Islamic dogma as the basis of the country’s governance.

    We see it in Islamic agencies Jakim and Yapeim’s impunity, even in the face of public uproar over its lack of transparency in handling funds.

    We see it in the Langkawi homes where the roofs were painted over simply for resembling a cross at a certain angle.

    We see it in the clergy wing of Islamist party PAS, suggesting that marrying children off is the best way to prevent sexual crimes.

    We see it in Terengganu, which like some other states have banned vaping, but only after the National Fatwa Council deemed it “haram” for Muslims.

    We see it in the civil court handing over the power of child custody in cases of forced Muslim conversions, to the Shariah courts. A decision which PAS Youth has proudly claimed as a “victory” against liberals, although it is more likely a trumping win against non-Muslims.

    Yes, Malaysians are yet to turn more Islamic.

    But slowly and bit by bit, unnoticed by most, there is a shift on imposing Islamist views on matters where religion previously had no place. That surely qualifies as creeping, and does not sound as funny.

    * This is the personal opinion of the columnist, Zurairi AR.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

     

  • Secret Documents Reveal Extent Of Negotiations For Separation

    Secret Documents Reveal Extent Of Negotiations For Separation

    Museums play an important role in a nation’s history. They serve as repositories of national history, preserving and showcasing artefacts and documents central to our shared understanding of the past, so that we can better understand our present.

    Curators and public educators in charge of museums and their exhibitions also play a key role in shaping our sense of the past, and hence our sense of self, and our shared national identity.

    In this respect, there is a small but vitally interesting exhibit titled We Built A Nation at the National Museum of Singapore’s gallery on local history, the Stamford Gallery.

    It may lack the glamour and scale of the international exhibition from the British Museum now displayed in our National Museum of Singapore. But our local exhibit has great historical significance for Singapore and adds to our understanding of the circumstances that led to our independence.

    The Stamford Gallery and the other newly opened galleries in the National Museum feature the history of Singapore starting from pre-colonial days to the Japanese Occupation and the post-World War II era.

    The first part of the Stamford Gallery features the birth of the nation of Singapore. The copy of the Proclamation of Independence is displayed behind a glass panel on a wall. This document is mounted in a simple, minimalistic manner.

    The printed Proclamation of Independence – an independence that arose as a result of the federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form the independent state of Malaysia, was signed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

    It states: “Now I, Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare, on behalf of the people of Singapore, that as from today, the 16th day of September, 1963, Singapore shall be forever a part of the sovereign democratic and independent State of Malaysia, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and more equal society.”

    That last sentence would prove portentous. The hope for a “more just and more equal society” was one of the key points that contributed subsequently to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

    The pursuit of a “more just and more equal” society, a “Malaysian Malaysia”, by the Singapore leaders and members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention was not supported by Malay leaders of the central government in Malaysia. The progress towards a “more just and more equal society” would occur in the independent nation of Singapore, separated from Malaysia.

    Inside the gallery are a few selected papers taken from the previously classified “Albatross” file. “Albatross” referred to Malaysia. How did the name come about? The merger with Malaysia did not yield the intended benefits, “and it became an Albatross round our necks”, explained Dr Goh Keng Swee in a 1980 oral history interview.

    This formerly top secret file contains highly confidential documents kept by Dr Goh, who was one of the founding fathers of modern Singapore. He was a trusted right-hand man of Mr Lee and served as Finance Minister, Minister for Defence, Minister for Education and Deputy Prime Minister. He played a leading role in the negotiation for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

    He kept the Albatross file safely over the decades. This file provides details of the thinking and efforts linked to the separation and formation of Singapore, as an independent nation.

    The glass case contains three important documents from the Albatross file that reveal vital aspects of our history.

    LETTER

    The first is a letter handwritten by Mr Lee.

    It stated: “I authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other Federal Ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in the Central Govt any proposal for rearrangements of Malaysia.”

    This letter granted Dr Goh the authority to negotiate on behalf of Mr Lee with Malaysian leaders such as then Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs, Dato (Dr) Ismail Abdul Rahman; and the then first Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

    From July to early August 1965, Dr Goh had a series of negotiations and meetings with Tun Razak and Dr Ismail.

    Dr Goh and Mr Lee played a major role in the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and the birth of Singapore as an independent nation. The timeline above the display lists the developments from July 1964 to August 1965.

    MEMO FROM PM

    The second key document is a typewritten “Memorandum from the Prime Minister” marked “Top Secret”. It revealed Mr Lee’s thinking and considerations in 1965. In the first paragraph, he noted the potential constitutional rearrangements.

    He stated: “It will not be long before we will have to take a decision on the future of Singapore and of Malaysia. I believe that soon after the Puasa month we will have to respond to an open move by the Tunku. It will demand that we take a public position.”

    Tunku Abdul Rahman was then the Prime Minister of Malaysia. He also played a leading role in our separation and independence. Puasa month refers to the Muslim fasting month.

    Mr Lee pointed out: “Before we make this decision we should be clear in our minds on the options open to us and on the consequences not only of the short term but also the long term of each and every one of the possible decisions we make.”

    Earlier, on Dec 19, 1964, Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed to Mr Lee possible constitutional rearrangements. On Jan 22, 1965, Tunku wrote to Dr Goh offering complete autonomy except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs, if Singapore gave up the Federal Parliament seats.

    In this top secret memorandum, Mr Lee analysed the situation and effects.

    He noted: “When the Tunku first informed Keng Swee in December last year (1964) of his desire to have Singapore “hive off” from Malaya, it generated considerable excitement amongst us first because this showed their realisation that we cannot be

    fixed in Malaysia and the supremacy of Malay communalists assured forever. Next, it gave us an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues.

    We might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya.”

    Tunku’s offer to “hive off” would provide Singapore “an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues”. Mr Lee was concerned about racial tensions. He noted in this memorandum that Singapore “might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya”.

    He highlighted that the “greatest attraction of this rearrangement is our hope to get the benefits of all worlds – the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL. The picture of a prosperous and flourishing Singapore doing better than the rest of Malaysia is most attractive”. KL refers to Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia.

    In some ways, his optimistic view of Singapore’s development was prescient and visionary. Mr Lee also acknowledged one of the trade-offs which was to “give up our ability to influence events in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak”.

    It could be interpreted from this memo that Mr Lee was receptive towards this “hiving off” of Singapore as it reduced the problems linked to communal conflicts, while providing room for autonomy, political stability and economic growth in a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”.

    His analysis in the secret memo and his handwritten letter disclosed his thinking with regard to the “hive-off” proposal and possible “rearrangement”, as well as the behind-the-scenes efforts to secure the well-being of Singapore. He was open to negotiations that could lead to Singapore benefiting from “political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL”.

    HANDWRITTEN NOTES FROM DR GOH

    The third notable document consists of detailed notes handwritten by Dr Goh of his meeting on July 20, 1965, in Tun Razak’s office from 11.05am to 11.55am with the two Malaysian leaders, Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak and Home Affairs Minister Ismail.

    Dr Goh noted that only Mr Lee, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Edmund William Barker and himself were privy to this negotiation. He warned: “Any premature leak will jeopardise (the) scheme.”

    During this second meeting on the process of separation, Dr Goh persuaded his Malaysian counterparts that the only way out “was for Singapore to secede, completely”, and “it must be done very quickly, and very quietly, and presented as a fait accompli”.

    These three documents from the Albatross file highlight that the Separation was a negotiated process between the two parties from Malaysia and Singapore.

    In the past, popular descriptions of Singapore’s history tended to portray Singapore as being “booted out” or “expelled” by Malaysia. The exhibition of the Albatross documents, and the narration of events accompanying the exhibits, provide a more nuanced view.

    Together, the picture they paint is that of Singapore’s leaders negotiating the terms of Singapore’s exit with Malaysia’s leaders. It might have been Tunku who first proposed that Singapore “hive off” in December 1964, but by the time negotiations were seriously under way in July 1965, it is clear that Dr Goh and Mr Lee were striving to make the best of the situation.

    Dr Ismail, a key Malaysian leader, who was a first-hand witness and participant of these historic developments, stated that “in spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement”. Leaders of both countries thus played vital roles in the formation of our independent nations and the paths ahead.

    A museum’s presentation of the past requires interpretation and curation. The Albatross file exhibits deepen and broaden our understanding of our past and present as an independent nation, with a vision of a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”. This 1965 vision of Singapore as “prosperous and flourishing” remains highly relevant today.

    As we journey towards the next 50 years with our leaders, let us stay united and dedicated to fulfilling and upholding this vision, as well as the ideals and values of our National Pledge.


    •The writer, Edmund Lim, is a Singaporean pursuing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

     

  • Malaysian Opposition Will Scrap High Speed Rail Project If Elected

    Malaysian Opposition Will Scrap High Speed Rail Project If Elected

    Malaysia’s opposition alliance said yesterday it will scrap a planned High Speed Rail (HSR) line between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur if it won federal power, and replace it with a railway connecting two key cities in East Malaysia – Tawau in Sabah and Kuching in Sarawak.

    The proposal to ditch the HSR project and pump the estimated RM35 billion (S$11 billion) saved into East Malaysia was presented by Pakatan Harapan (PH) on the sidelines of a Parliament session, ahead of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s tabling of the 2016 Budget tomorrow.

    The opposition claimed the HSR line would largely benefit only those working in and around Kuala Lumpur and in Singapore, and that the project is unnecessary at this point because Kuala Lumpur and Singapore are already served by excellent air and road links.

    Selangor MP Ong Kian Ming, a member of PH’s Budget drafting committee, argued that the HSR would likely cost more than a rail network linking Sabah and Sarawak, and would significantly add to Malaysia’s debt levels if both were to be built together.

    “HSR is not as important given that there are many cheaper and affordable options to travel between Malaysia and Singapore. The multiplier effects would be lower compared to a new railway network in East Malaysia and hence, the preference for the second cheaper and more necessary rail project,” he told The Straits Times.

    Sabah and Sarawak have long been stronghold states of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition. With Sarawak state polls to be called by next year, the move by the opposition is seen as a concerted play for East Malaysian votes. National elections are due in 2018.

    Democratic Action Party chairman Tan Kok Wai said the new railway and other financial benefits to be allocated to Sabah and Sarawak in the opposition’s “alternative Budget”, are meant to develop the two states “long neglected” by BN.

    The HSR plan has gained traction, with about 150 firms responding to Malaysia’s Land Public Transport Commission and Singapore’s Land Transport Authority’s Request For Information exercise this month.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • I Am Muslim I Don’t Have A Ticket To Heaven?

    I Am Muslim I Don’t Have A Ticket To Heaven?

    Nine year old Alicia who goes to Sekolah Kebangsaan Sri Hartamas came home from school last week and asked her mom if she will end up in hell when she dies.

    “Mommy, Lina said her teacher told the Agama class that when we die, the Malays will go to heaven and non-Malays will go to hell. Is it true?”

    Eleven year old Yasmin who goes to Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Desa was confused over who her friends should be and decided to seek her mom’s advice.

    “Ummi, my Ustaz says it is haram to be friends with Olivia and Annie. He said it is because they are not Muslim. But I like Olivia and Annie, they are my best friends. Will God be angry with me if I talk to them?”

    Both incidents you just read about aren’t made up. The names have been changed to protect the identities of the children but the stories are very much real.

    I can understand how confused those two girls are because I was confused myself having experienced it some 30 years ago.

    “Bangsa lain tak sama dengan kita. Agama pun lain, perangai pun lain. Kalau kamu rapat sangat dengan depa tu, nanti terikut-ikut pula dengan perangai buruk,” my ustazah reminded me in my primary school days.

    It seems to me that nothing has changed since my days at school. With every new Education Minister syllabuses, policies and guidelines change as well, but the core teachings never seem to change. Each Education Minister tries to outdo their predecessor but all they do is create a bigger mess.

    Despite making press statement after press statement about unity and tolerance, our younger generation is taught the supremacy theory right from school. A few days ago, our new Education Minister, Dato’ Seri Mahdzir Khalid blamed the social media for inciting racial sentiments…but it is not just social media that is at fault. Instead of nurturing young minds to love and bond with each other, we are spawning hatred, fear and discrimination from within the system itself.

    Why are we brainwashing our children if unity is what we hope to achieve?

    The Honourable Minister also claimed to be in the midst of identifying programmes to foster racial ties among primary school children. He plans to gather students in one place, so that they can communicate, assimilate and get to know each other.

    Excuse me, but isn’t that one of the objectives of sekolah kebangsaan?

    We provide our children a platform to communicate and assimilate throughout their 6 years in primary school and 5 years in secondary school. But how can we eradicate racism when we have half brained teachers who teach absolute nonsense to our children?

    We begin to segregate our children at age seven, sending off non-Muslims to learn moral and good behaviour while we teach Muslim students that the nons will go to hell because they are immoral. Seriously, aren’t our teachers and education officers the ones in need of lessons on unity and tolerance?

    With all due respect, Dato’ Seri Mahdzir, perhaps you could begin your new portfolio by setting a good example to all our educators out there. Send your message of harmony, unity, tolerance and love, loud and clear. You may want to begin by apologising for your insensitive remarks about Christians…

    To all Muslim parents, I urge you to talk to your children about what goes on in their Agama classes. Let it be known to them that being born a Muslim doesn’t necessarily entitle anyone to a ticket to heaven– even if you happen to be an ustazah or a minister – most especially if you are not kind, respectful and caring!

     

    Source: www.freemalaysiatoday.com

  • Lone Chinese Family In Muslim Village Loves Malay Tradition

    Lone Chinese Family In Muslim Village Loves Malay Tradition

    PARIT BUNTAR: The Ng family is one of a kind in Kampung Tebuk Haji Musa, being the only Chinese in the 3,000-strong Muslim village.

    “No issue at all. I have lived here for decades. They come to my house for Chinese New Year and we go over for Raya. Ada kenduri, kami campur sekali. Biasa lah!(When there is a feast we all get together. It’s normal!),” said the Ng family patriarch Air Chin, 61, better known as Ah Khaw in the village.

    The Malay way is second nature to the family, if not the norm.

    On Sunday, his youngest daughter, 28-year-old Siau Hooi, tied the knot with factory worker Lim Choon Yong, 37, in Malay customs. The accountant is the youngest among four siblings.

    The bride and groom were decked out in Malay splendour for their wedding.

    “We decided to reflect our friendship with our neighbours by holding our wedding ceremony in their tradition,” Ah Khaw said.

    “Most of the villagers, about 2,000 of them, attended the wedding. The family of the groom too was supportive of the Malay-style wedding.

    “When Siao Hooi’s two older brothers held their weddings in 2007 and 2010, they also married the Malay way, bersanding and all.

    “My neighbours helped and chipped in whichever way they could. There was a gotong royong effort,” Ah Khaw added.

    Berita Harian yesterday highlighted the couple’s wedding on Monday and reported how the neighbours thought nothing of extending a helping hand – from assisting with the bridal costumes to cooking up a delicious meal.

    Ah Kaw said the family would hold a Chinese wedding dinner on Wednesday at a restaurant nearby before Siao Hooi returns to Singapore, where her husband is working.

    Siau Hooi said she was proud to wear the Malay bridal costume.

    “It is a memory worth a lifetime for my husband and I. I attended Chinese primary and secondary schools but I grew up with my Malay neighbours,” said Siau Hooi.

    “We are very close to each other,” said Siau Hooi.

     

    Source: www.thestar.com.my