Mariam Mokhtar on what happened to Umno after Tunku Abdul Rahman (repost)

The happiest PM in the world

Tunku Abdul Rahman (1903-1990)

The Tunku once described himself as “the happiest prime minister” when he was interviewed in 1983, by Peter Hastings, the foreign editor of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH).

Today, as we read about Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, and the tactics used against the rakyat, NGOs, civil liberty groups and the opposition, we see a man who resorts to foul play, even breaking the law if necessary, to prolong his political career and that of his party, Umno.

Perhaps, what the Tunku possessed and what his successors lack is a sense of humour. Behind the calm purpose of his jokes, Tunku was able to show his spirit of tolerance.

Tunku laughed when Hastings reminded him of the time an Islamic group had sought the Tunku’s support for adulterers to be stoned to death and he had replied: “There are not enough stones in Malaysia.”

In his biography, ‘Tunku: His Life and Times’, the Tunku is described as looking resplendent in his morning coat and top hat, when he posed with Think Big, the race horse which won the Melbourne Cup in 1975. Just before he went up to receive the winner’s trophy, Tunku swopped his top hat for a black songkok and as the cup was placed in his hands, said: “I thank God for our victory”, a phrase which he repeated later that night at the Victory Cup Ball.

Those who knew Tunku would remember that most of his dinners ended-up on the dance-floor. He revived the Ronggeng (a Malay dance) and foreign dignitaries were invited to dance with their Malay hostesses. With this method, he succeeded in diplomacy, both foreign and domestic, something which would be impossible to replicate in today’s intolerant Malaysia.

The current crop of Malay leaders would never dare emulate Tunku by pursuing their hobbies openly, or even attribute gambling successes to God. They’d rather lie, for the sake of political expediency.

Many Malays of today are two-faced. The pious façade they present to the public is only to advance themselves in politics or to gain commercial advantage. It is widely known that prominent Malays including high-ranking members of the civil service, including the judiciary and police, have private poker sessions. The only time they don’t hide from the public eye, is when they are abroad.

So, why is gaming in casinos and betting on horses prohibited, but corruption allowed? Why should politicians be allowed to play Russian roulette with taxpayer’s money but individual Malays prevented from gambling with their own money?

In the SMH interview, Tunku was asked his views on the Look East policy of the prime minister of the time, Mahathir Mohamad. Tunku said: “Look east? Why should I? I have always liked to look in all directions.”

‘I like people to be happy’

At a birthday party in Kuala Lumpur in 1987, Tunku abandoned his prepared text and towards the end of his speech repeated his scorn for Mahathir: “Whether we look East or West, we shall always be friends with England.”

Tunku told Hastings (SMH) about the influence of the Islamic traditionalists and drinking mores of the Malaysian politicians of the 80s: “It is changing. I used to provide scotch, brandy and champagne at my banquets. The people did not mind. They are tolerant, but Tun Razak, my successor, never liked it. He feared the political consequences. I like people to be happy.”

The Tunku comes across as a normal human being, one the rakyat feels comfortable with. He did not hide behind the veil of hypocrisy, unlike his successors.

Perhaps, the Tunku’s “what you see is what you get” attitude endeared him to the public, rather than the sham public face which many of his successors wear.

When Tunku was advised to stop drinking alcohol at one of the earlier Umno meetings, he said: “People must accept me as I am: my bad habits and my virtues. At the age of 48, I cannot change them.”

Like other prominent Malay families, Tunku sent his daughter to study as a boarder at the Light Street Convent in Penang. Today, church halls have to remove crucifixes and other emblems of Christianity when Umno leaders are present. Umno expects people of other faiths to respect Muslims and Islam, but thinks nothing of trampling on the rights of other faiths, or accusing them of taking over the country, simply to rile the Malays.

Mahathir exploited the vulnerability of the Malays and gave the Umno Malays legal protection, in the same way that wildlife organisations protect endangered plants and animals. Mahathir made it an offence for anyone to threaten the Umno Malays by changing the environmental, or other parameters, in which the Umno Malays would thrive.

Two weeks ago, Najib argued that successful Malaysian women risked making men “an endangered species”. He is wrong. What he meant was that Umno Malays are the world’s most protected species.

Didn’t Mahathir and Najib learn in school, that if you take an animal from the wild and domesticate it, the animal soon forgets to fend for itself?

Bred in captivity

Successive generations of Umno Malays have been bred in captivity and have become dependent on the food from their keeper. If released into their natural settings, Umno Malays will die. Like most caged animals, they have become lazy and obese. Their mental processes deteriorate because they lack the stimuli necessary for survival. Umno Malays could be weaned off their bad habits, but Umno will never allow that to happen.

If the zookeepers (Umno leaders) have no animals (Umno Malays) to take care of, then they are out of a job.

In today’s Malaysia, the fund for maintaining the Umno zoo is running low. The keepers have siphoned off most of the takings from the zoo. With food stocks running low, portions are small and feeding is erratic. The animals are distressed. They have been used to large meals, at any time of day, not just at feeding times.

These are dangerous times. The animals are waiting to pounce. One wrong move and the keeper becomes their next meal. Those of us watching from outside the cage would then be happiest. If Umno Malays refuse to be mentally liberated now, they run the risk of extinction.

---

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak', this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

[Published 15 October 2012 in Malaysiakini. Posted here 16 October. Thanks, Mariam! You are indeed a precious gem.]

Art Harun apologizes to Mukhriz Mahathir for being "a stupid Malaysian" (repost)

Pic courtesy of The Nut Graph

SORRY, DATUK, I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE ISA!

By Art Harun | Monday, August 03, 2009

Finally, I am in agreement with an UMNO leader. On the issue of the Internal Security Act, no less. In a Malaysian Insider report titled "Mukhriz defends ISA, says it's misunderstood," Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir has apparently lamented that the public has failed to see the benefit of the ISA. He was quoted as saying:

“The people cannot really see the benefits from ISA but if we realise that we are able to send our children to school and shop safely then we can see that all of these are from a government policy to provide protection to the people.”

One of the people whom Datuk Mukhriz was unknowingly referring to was, I must say, myself. Over the weekend I was thinking about what Datuk Mukhriz has said. And today, Monday the 3rd of August 2009, I conclude that all this while I have been a stupid Malaysian. I have been wrong all this while. Yes. I have to confess. I have misunderstood the ISA. Datuk Mukhriz, I bow in all humility to your wisdom and I must say I am not worth it. I am sorry.

All this while, I thought that a citizen's liberty is guaranteed by our Federal Constitution. And as I understood it, the Federal Constitution says that a citizen's liberty cannot be taken away other than in accordance with the due process of the law. And of course the law says that a person cannot be sent to prison until he or she has been found guilty by the Court and sentenced to imprisonment. That was what I understood.

I understood this from a year learning the Malaysian Constitution. And from another year of learning Comparative Constitutional Law where I studied the Indian, English and American Constitutions. And another year learning Administrative law. Also from a year of learning the subject of politics.

As I understood it too, when the ISA was debated in the Parliament, Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first Prime Minister as well as our Father of Independence, said this:

“My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent."

That was a promise, solemnly made to the Parliament. And the late Tunku was of course also the UMNO President at that time.

So, in my gullible and naive mind, I understood that the ISA would not be used to stifle opposition and silence lawful dissent. Furthermore, the then Home Minister, Tun Dr Ismail said:

"I am convinced that the Internal Security Act as practiced in Malaysia is not contrary to the fundamentals of democracy. Abuse of the Act can be prevented by vigilant public opinion via elections, a free Press and above all the Parliament."

I must admit therefore Datuk Mukhriz, that I was under the impression that the Malaysian public - and that includes me and other Malaysians - could criticise any abuse of the ISA by the Government. We could express our unhappiness in a free Press as well as the Parliament.

I was also under the impression that what Tun Dr Ismail had meant was that the public would have the freedom to express their displeasure over what they perceive as abuses of the ISA freely too. After all, what is the use of vigilance without the freedom to express the result of that vigilance?

Datuk Mukhriz, due to the above, I understood that the ISA would not be abused. I also understood that the ISA was to be used solely for the purpose of protecting the security of our nation. And if it was abused, I understood that I would have the right to protest against such abuse.

I also understood that the Court would have the power to check and balance out any abuse of the ISA by the government. This the Court could do by issuing a writ of habeas corpus in order to release a person who has been wrongfully detained under the ISA by the government. The Court could look into the exercise of the government's power under the ISA and decide whether such power has been correctly exercised or whether such power was exercised in good faith.

That was what I had understood all these while. And Datuk Mukhriz, sadly, I had been proven wrong. You are right. I have misunderstood the ISA all this while.

First of all, your father, Tun Mahathir Mohammad, had taken away the powers of the Court to look into the exercise of the power under the ISA and decide whether such power was exercised correctly or in good faith.

Your father changed the law and the Federal Constitution to render the Court lame and impotent. The Court could now only look into whether the government has filled in the right form before a detention is made. Or whether the Home Minister has used a comma and a full stop at the correct place in such a form. Your father has rendered the Court to be an instrument of checking only instead of an instrument of checks and balances. Your father had deemed it fit to render the Court as a proof reader. That is your father's idea of a democratic society.

So, I am sorry, I have misunderstood the ISA.

Then I found out that the ISA actually could also be used, and was in fact used, to detain immigration document forgers, counterfeiters, opposition leaders and the likes. As at the end of 2007, a staggering 10,711 persons have been arrested under the ISA and a total of 4,370 detention orders have been issued pursuant to the ISA. A total of 46 detainees continue to be detained at the Kamunting Detention Camp as at 5th December 2008.

I also learned that your father had orchestrated Operasi Lalang under which 106 persons were arrested and 40 were detained. I also learned that while anybody deemed as a threat to national security from the opposition parties must be arrested or detained under the ISA, such arrest or detention is not necessary if the threat to national security comes from a member of or leader from UMNO or the BN.

I have also learned that the ISA could be used to detain anybody for no reason whatsoever. Teresa Kok, for instance, was arrested under the ISA for apparently protesting to a mosque for reciting the azan too loudly. She was arrested although she said she did not do so. Even the mosque committee said she did not do it. But she was arrested under the ISA and was detained for about a week anyway. Then she was released without any further action.

Then Raja Petra Kamaruddin was also arrested and later, detained under the ISA for insulting Islam and for writing an article deemed seditious. He was so arrested and detained even though the police admitted that his article was not investigated upon to ascertain the truth of the contents or otherwise. That was a new lesson for me.

Luckily a brave Judge, in Justice Datuk Syed Helmy of the Shah Alam High Court, freed him.

Around the same time, I also learned that the ISA could also be used to arrest people in order to protect their personal safety. Remember a journalist by the name of Tan Hoon Cheng?

Your father also had detained a Malay man whose name was Hilmi Noor for some odd and strange reason. He was said to have converted to Christianity and by doing so he was accused of "disrupting the Malay culture by being a Christian.” Datuk, that was also a new lesson for me about the ISA.

On top of all that, I had always understood that the ISA's purpose was to arrest and detain people from carrying out whatever plans they have which threaten national security. It is preventive in nature and not punitive. But later, I learned that detainees could be tortured while under detention under the ISA.

A learned High Court Judge, Justice Datuk Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus (now a Court of Appeal Judge, finally, after years and years of service and being stepped over many many times by his juniors), in a case known as Abdul Malek Hussin v Borhan Hj Daud & Others [2008]1 CLJ 264, found as follows:

"On this issue, upon a careful evaluation of the entire evidence before me, it is my finding of facts that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving to the court on a balance of probabilities that he had been assaulted in the manner he alleges and by the individuals that he has named or identified. The plaintiff alleges that he was first assaulted by the first Defendant after the arresting team moved him from his home. He was arrested in front of his home after which a search of his home was done and various documents and a personal computer removed. He describes the assault in his evidence. He says he was slapped three times by the first Defendant after he was unable to take the first Defendant to the location of his (the plaintiff's) car. The plaintiff also said that he was blindfolded, and his head was forcibly covered with a T-shirt and forced to bend forward down between his legs in the car as he was taken to the IPK, Kuala Lumpur. The first Defendant denies these allegations. He only admits that he instructed L/Cpl Johari to place "cermin mata gelap" on the plaintiff, and that the purpose being "adalah bertujuan untuk menutup penglihatan plaintiff bagi mengelirukan plaintiff". The plaintiff then describes the circumstances of the second assault. In summary, he describes how in an air-conditioned room on the first floor of the IPK he was stripped naked, blindfolded, verbally abused and then physically assaulted. He was hit several times on the face and head. Most of the blows and kicks were directed at his body and legs. His legs were hit with a hard object. He fell over several times as a result of the blows. At one instance when his blindfold slipped, he identified one of the assailants as the second Defendant in person - Tan Sri Rahim Noor. The plaintiff also said that after the episode of physical assault, some urine-smelling like liquid was poured into his mouth while his mouth was forced open. Throughout the ordeal he was forced to remain naked. His penis was hit and an object pushed against his anus. He was made to stand in front of an air-conditioner and drenched with water - this treatment was done for almost an hour. The ordeal finally ended at about 4am. According to the plaintiff when the blindfold was removed he saw the first Defendant and other Special Branch officers in plainclothes. The first Defendant warned him not to make a police report regarding what had happened. The plaintiff also asked for medical treatment from the detaining officer but access to a doctor was only provided three days later on 29 September 1998... In my judgment, based on the evidence before the court, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff's case is more credible and ought to be accepted."

It is clear as daylight dear Datuk, I have misunderstood the ISA. I am sorry.

Last weekend, between 20,000 to 30,000 people came out to show their unhappiness over the ISA. They had wanted to demand the ISA to be abolished by presenting a memorandum to our King. Yet, they were met with water cannons, tear gas, batons and riot police with full gear, ever ready to shout and scream, even to beat them up and arrest them. Even 16 and 13 year olds were arrested and detained.

I thought Tun Dr Ismail already said that the public may be vigilant about the ISA and may express their opinion peacefully.

Again, I have misunderstood the ISA. And I am sorry.

[First posted 5 August 2009]

No MAY 13, No "Ketuanan Melayu"

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:41:20 +0800
From: "Antares"
Subject: Re: UNMASKING THE HORNETS

Those in power will do ANYTHING it takes to remain in power. This is a basic Machiavellian truism. Exceptions to the rule occur, of course, but all too rarely. It takes a Prince Siddhartha to turn one's back on the false and treacherous allure of earthly power and embark on a personal quest for truth and enlightenment.

Or perhaps a prince like Tunku Abdul Rahman who resigned a sad and broken man after May 13 rather than battle those within Umno who wanted him out.

Shortly before his death, the Tunku confided - in a series of intimate interviews with K. Das, former bureau chief of the Far Eastern Economic Review, who was working on the Tunku's official biography - that what happened on May 13, 1969, was really the implementation of a contingency plan to prevent the political opposition (in this instance the DAP and PAS) from forming a parliamentary majority after the 1969 general election. The Tengku actually named FIVE individuals who were the key conspirators.*

Strategies had been laid long before the general election to spark off "racial riots" - in the event of a poor showing for the ruling party in the polls - that would precipitate the declaration of a state of national emergency (temporary martial law and the hasty formation of the National Operations Council) - and the nullification of the 1969 election results. The loss of a few hundred lives was deemed a necessary sacrifice to ensure Umno's continued dominance and the political survival of the Alliance (now the Barisan Nasional).

The plan obviously worked. By declaring it a "sensitive" issue, the May 13 plot effectively acquired the status of a national taboo, thereby protecting its perpetrators from a royal commission of inquiry and charges of criminal treason. 35 years down the line, not one of the five key conspirators has ever been exposed and charged with complicity in this deadly and repugnant sandiwara.

This sort of strategem is actually standard practice - and since "winners" rewrite history as they please - it often takes ages before such skeletons are excavated from the dusty remains of political cupboards, centuries later.

Take the infamous Gulf of Tonkin "incident" which led directly to America's invasion of Vietnam... or the JFK assassination of November 22, 1963: the whole thing is still shrouded in mystery and much discussed amongst "conspiracy theorists." Despite the Freedom of Information Act in America, and a slew of well-researched books on the subject, the general public still unthinkingly accepts that JFK's assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald. Same thing with RFK (Robert F. Kennedy) and MLK (Martin Luther King).

Then there was the story (planted by PR firm Hill & Knowlton) about Saddam Hussein's troops snatching infants from their incubators in Kuwait, which swung public opinion in favor of Emperor Bush I's 1991 Operation Desert Storm. And now we have September 11, 2001 as America's very own "May 13."

Race riots, my foot. May 13 was really just "Plan B": a carefully orchestrated mengamuk.

Yup, it's Chicken Run all over!
______

* One of the five May 13 conspirators is still alive and plotting - and among the others, some of their offspring are still active in politics. So I won't name any of them without proper legal backing or documentary evidence. However, I can drop a heavy hint: two of them subsequently became prime ministers. How did I come by this info? I collaborated with K. Das in 1986 on a book of political quotes and we had a few good conversations over the years.

Vernon Emuang forwarded this Malaysiakini essay by Sim Kwang Yang:

It would seem to be a clear case of sedition when a political butterfly dressed up in hornet's armour tried to revive the ghost of May 13 in the recent Umno general assembly, to the thunderous applause of all those present.

Speeches during Umno general assemblies are more likely to be carefully orchestrated representations of their mainstream thinking, rather than the spontaneous cut and thrust of creative ideas. So we - who are excluded from the inner sanctum of Umno faithful - have to assume that their perennial call to arms is an integral part of Umno ideology. After all, May 13 was the cornerstone upon which the grand superstructure of the NEP had been erected for the past 35 years.

The Tunku on how "May 13" began

The May 13 incident as personally related by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaya/Malaysia and "Bapa Merdeka"

From his residence in Penang, 1972:

“It was clear to me as well as the police that in the highly charged political atmosphere after the police were forced to kill a Chinese political party worker on May 4th, 1969, something was bound to happen to threaten law and order because of the resentment towards the Government by the KL Chinese on the eve of the general election. This was confirmed at this man’s funeral on the 9th May when the government faced the most hostile crowd it had ever seen.

Therefore, when the opposition parties applied for a police permit for a procession to celebrate their success in the results of the general election, I was adamant against it because the police were convinced that this would lead to trouble.

I informed Tun Razak (pictured right) about this and he seemed to agree. Now, without my knowledge and actually “behind my back,” there were certain political leaders in high positions who were working to force me to step down as a PM. I don’t want to go into details but if they had come to me and said so I would gladly have retired gracefully.

Unfortunately, they were apparently scheming and trying to decide on the best way to force me to resign. The occasion came when the question of the police permit was to be approved.

Tun Razak and Harun Idris, the MB of the state of Selangor, now felt that permission should be given knowing fully well that there was a likelihood of trouble. I suppose they felt that when this happened they could then demand my resignation.

To this day I find it very hard to believe that Razak, whom I had known for so many years, would agree to work against me in this way. Actually, he was in my house as I was preparing to return to Kedah and I overhead him speaking to Harun over the phone saying that he would be willing to approve the permit when I left. I really could not believe what I was hearing and preferred to think it was about some other permit. In any case, as the Deputy Prime Minister in my absence from KL, he would be the Acting PM and would override my objection. Accordingly, when I was in my home in Kedah, I heard over the radio that the permit had been approved.

It seems as though the expected trouble was anticipated and planned for by Harun (shown left) and his UMNO Youth. After the humiliating insults hurled by the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, and after the seeming loss of Malay political power to them, they were clearly ready for some retaliatory action. After meeting in large numbers at Harun’s official residence in Jalan Raja Muda near Kampong Bahru and hearing inflammatory speeches by Harun and other leaders, they prepared themselves by tying ribbon strips on their foreheads and set out to kill Chinese. The first hapless victims were two of them in a van opposite Harun’s house who were innocently watching the large gathering. Little did they know that they would be killed on the spot.

The rest is history. I am sorry but I must end this discussion now because it really pains me as the Father of Merdeka to have to relive those terrible moments. I have often wondered why God made me live long enough to have witnessed my beloved Malays and Chinese citizens killing each other.”

[From Raja Petra Kamarudin's blog, Malaysia Today]