Showing posts with label Ahmad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ahmad. Show all posts

20090216

Pas dan skandal seks pemimpin parti lawan — Ahmad Tajdid

FEB 18 — Bukanlah sesuatu yang wajar jika kehidupan peribadi seseorang didedahkan kepada umum, apatah lagi jika ianya menyentuh tentang aib seseorang. Apatah lagi jika “kejahatan” yang dilakukan itu dibuat di tempat tertutup dan pelakunya sendiri tidak berbangga dengan maksiat yang dilakukannya dan berasa malu jika kejahatannya diketahui orang.

Itulah sebenarnya hikmah mengapa tuduhan zina perlu ditampilkan dengan empat orang saksi. Dan saksi-saksi itu mestilah lelaki yang adil dan tidak fasik. Semuanya bertujuan untuk menjaga aib orang yang dituduh dan untuk memastikan tidak ada insan yang teraniaya dengan tuduhan itu.

Apa yang menimpa Adun Bukit Lanjan yang juga Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Elizabeth Wong adalah sesuatu yang malang. Selepas gambar separuh bogel yang dirakamkan ketika beliau tidur disebarkan kepada media massa, MMS dan internet, Elizabeth mengambil keputusan meletakkan jawatan Exco dan Adun walaupun beliau sebenarnya teraniaya.

Atas dasar prinsip, Elizabeth sanggup melepaskan jawatan kerana bimbang masalah peribadinya itu akan dieksploitasi oleh musuh-musuh politiknya untuk memburuk-burukkan organisasi politik dan kerajaan negeri yang diwakilinya.

Setakat ini, ramai yang menyatakan simpati terhadap apa yang dialami olehnya termasuk Pergerakan Wanita MCA. Bagaimanapun, ada juga pemimpin Umno yang mendesak beliau meletakkan jawatan.

Antara yang terawal memberi komen ialah bekas Menteri Besar Selangor yang juga calon Ketua Pemuda Umno, Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo. Turut sama mengalu-alukan keputusan Elizabeth untuk meletakkan jawatan ialah Ketua Menteri Melaka yang juga calon Timbalan Presiden Umno, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam.

Begitulah gelagat pemimpin Umno. Mereka sibuk dengan soal moral dan akhlak pemimpin-pemimpin bukan Islam (seperti yang menimpa Elizabeth dan Adun Bukit Selambau, V. Arumugam di Kedah), tetapi tidak pula prihatin dengan akhlak dan moral para pemimpin parti mereka sendiri, yang rata-ratanya berbangsa Melayu dan beragama Islam.

Ketika Mohd Khir Toyo menjawat Pengerusi Perhubungan Umno Selangor, tiga skandal peribadi membabitkan dua ahli Dewan Rakyat dan seorang ahli Dewan Negara Umno Selangor cuba dipendamkan beliau dari pengetahuan umum.

Khir tidak pula sibuk mendesak ketiga-tiga pemimpin Umno negeri itu supaya meletakkan jawatan, malah tempoh “senatorship” salah seorang daripada mereka dilanjutkan!

Dan sebenarnya, jika skandal seks dan moral para pemimpin Umno didedahkan satu persatu kepada umum, pastinya kita akan loya dan muntah apabila mendengarnya!

Bagi mereka yang agak ragu-ragu, percayalah... Ini bukannya “cubaan”, tetapi benar-benar kejadian!

Penulis tidak berhasrat untuk mengaibkan mereka, tetapi cukuplah untuk memberi amaran kepada para pemimpin parti tertentu supaya tidak bertindak di luar batasan.

Mungkin ramai yang mengenali Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad atau Abdullah Kok Lanas. Abdullah lewat kolumnya di sebuah akhbar berbahasa Melayu (ketika menerajui akhbar terbabit) pernah membangkitkan dilema yang dihadapi oleh para pemimpin parti sebuah negeri di Semenanjung untuk mencari seorang calon Menteri Besar. Calonnya sudah dikenal pasti, tetapi ada yang tidak bersetuju kerana bakal pemimpin itu dikenali sebagai seorang yang suka berpoya-poya ketika belajar di luar negara.

Tidak payahlah bagi penulis mendedahkan siapakah pemimpin itu. Bagi mereka yang ingin tahu, buatlah carian sendiri di perpustakaan ataupun arkib untuk membaca tulisan Abdullah Kok Lanas.

Ketika menjelang pilihan raya umum 1995, isu khalwat membabitkan seorang pemimpin muda Pas hangat diperkatakan. Para pemimpin Umno menggunakan isu ini semaksimum mungkin untuk menjatuhkan maruah Pas. Bagaimanapun dengan kebijaksanaan para pemimpin Pas, isu khalwat itu dapat ditangani dengan baik. Pemimpin muda Pas itu didapati tidak bersalah oleh mahkamah dan menang di kawasan parlimen yang ditandinginya dengan majoriti lebih besar.

Di waktu yang sama, para pemimpin Pas dan Harakah menerima maklumat daripada sumber yang tidak diketahui tentang skandal seks membabitkan seorang pemimpin parti lawan Pas yang juga diwar-warkan sebagai calon Menteri Besar di sebuah negeri Pantai Timur Semenanjung.

Lebih memeranjatkan, pemimpin terbabit pernah menerajui sebuah institusi agama dan kerap kali menyerang Pas dalam pelbagai isu agama dan politik. Malah beliau jugalah yang sering “tumpang semangkuk” memberi komen dan mengulas tuduhan khalwat pemimpin muda Pas itu.

Penulis sempat bertemu dengan seorang pemimpin kanan Pas untuk mengesahkan maklumat yang diterima. Malah pemimpin Pas itu tidak menafikan maklumat yang diperolehi. Beliau bukan sahaja menjadi teman rapat pemimpin terbabit ketika kejadian itu berlaku, malah diminta menjadi wakil untuk meminang wanita tersebut bagi pihak pemimpin politik itu!

Bagaimanapun, skandal seks itu tidak dijadikan modal oleh Pas untuk memburuk-burukkan lawan politiknya. Meskipun begitu, para pemimpin parti tersebut diberitakan terpaksa mengadakan mesyuarat khas bagi membincangkan isu itu; khuatir jika ia dijadikan modal kempen oleh Pas negeri.

Dan ketika Setiausaha Perhubungan Pas negeri terbabit ditanya sama ada mahu menggunakan isu skandal seks itu dalam kempen pilihan raya, beliau penuh yakin berkata: “Itu bukan cara kita berpolitik.”

Isu skandal seks pemimpin bukanlah suatu yang asing dalam politik negara. Seperti kata Menteri Besar Kedah ketika menjawab soalan wartawan berhubung dakwaan salah laku moral yang melanda bekas Exco Kerajaan Negeri yang juga Adun Bukit Selambau, V. Arumugam: “Ada yang lebih teruk daripada itu, buat hubungan dengan suami dan isteri orang...”

Dan pastinya yang berperangai seperti itu ialah pemimpin Melayu yang beragama Islam.

Kita yakin kisah-kisah penarafan-X (x-rated) itu ada dalam “kocek” Ustaz Azizan. Cuma sebagai pemimpin sebuah parti Islam, beliau tidak tergamak meluahkannya di khalayak umum.

Bukan akhlak dan moral Pas untuk bertindak seperti Umno. Tetapi jika keadaan sudah menjadi tidak terkawal dan BN secara berterusan menggunakan tektik kotor ini... Apakah pilihan lain bagi Pas? — HarakahDaily.net

20080909

DARI BLOG RAPERA: HISTORICAL FACTS ARE TABOO? AHMAD ISMAIL DILEMMA



Datuk Ahmad Ismail's description of the pre-independence non-Malays as "penumpang" and "pendatang" in a speech that apparently was largely directed to a Malay crowd became somewhat the centre of a political controversy. Is it possible to discuss this objectively? After all, it is touted by various quarters that March 8th saw the Rakyat's awareness and maturity. So, lets see the degree of maturity of any comments on this posting which will be left unmoderated.

THE TALE OF THE SENSITIVE “CITIZEN”
by a Ceylonese Lawyer

It is an elementary principle in the law of contract, that a contract represents the meeting of minds. It entails the mutuality of obligations and of commitment. It is the law’s means of enforcing a traditional value of “keeping your promise”.

It followed that when one side breached or repudiated his obligations under the contract, it was open to the innocent party to either press for performance or to itself decide to abort the agreement. For those unfamiliar with the law of contract these realities are ingrained in every culture on the premise that one “should do unto others as you would like others to do unto you”.

It is perhaps necessary that the recent statements by Ahmad Ismail be viewed under these spectacles.

In the land of Malaya, there existed a hierarchy of Malay Rulers who governed their citizenry. Across a period of time, colonization rose. With it came new opportunities and new burdens. It opened the gates of immigration and the beginnings of a modern state. The land of Malaya was handed an opportunity and a new challenge, the challenge of dealing with the unknown and the indeterminate. In this time the Rulers came to accept British Advisors in a framework that the Rulers still ruled albeit within limits.

After the war, a reassured Britain sought to exercise its colonial power through the Malayan Union instrument. The Rulers stood in a weak position to oppose it. If they did so, they ran the risk of being labeled Japanese collaborators. While the British were swift to get the Rulers to sign up in time the British government would to learn an important lesson in the art of Malay Statecraft, this took place through the subtle and sustained rise of dissent, clever diplomacy and footwork, ranging from the ulama, teachers, to the common people and ultimately to the birth of UMNO.

There were many facets to the Malayan Union plan, but few will disagree that a key component concerned the grant of citizenship to the migrant races and the curtailment of the powers of the Malay Rulers. In essence, these initiatives would have resulted in Tanah Melayu not being Tanah Melayu. It would have resulted in a situation where the Malays would have been a bare majority in their own nation or even a minority. They would stand with no guarantees in regard to the status, the migrant races who filled the commercial sector and the civil service would stand to rule what was in essence Tanah Melayu.

These experiments are not new South Africa tried to maintain such a status quo of white ruling minority. The colonial masters across history also tried to achieve like ends with a ruling minority reaping the wealth of a nation of the majority. These efforts failed. Thus it became evident that the Malayan Union was likewise doomed to fail. The British acknowledged it. The criticism of the Malayan Union plan rang strongly in England as well, with senior members of the British Civil Service taking a strong position against it.

Learning from this lesson the British moved towards the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948. Let us be clear that this was an agreement. While it retained some of the essence of the Malayan Union Plan, it did impose stricter citizenship requirements and it confirmed the special status of the Malays. It was a case of the Malays agreeing to a dilution of their sovereignty in the land of the forefathers in exchange for these guarantees. There can be little doubt that the right to citizenship of the migrant non-malays draws its origin from this very same agreement which confirms the status of the Malays, the status of the Malay language and of Islam. Prior to this the non-malays did not enjoy any political status whatever, they were not the subjects of the Malay Rulers nor were they the subjects of the British Crown. The 1948 Agreement gave them the legal right to citizenship.

It is interesting that even with the 1948 Agreement the practical effect upon Malay political power remained the same. Their hold on political influence had been diluted so had their share upon the national wealth. Let us be under no doubt, the tycoons that hailed from the migrant races did not rise to riches by inventing and patenting new products for the world market. They wealth came from the domestic economy of this nation and the wealth of this land. Yet the Malays seem to have placed such great trust in these safeguards that they were prepared to give away citizenship to these alien races for nothing more than a written assurance in an agreement and with this assurance they were prepared to sign away what would otherwise have been a complete political dominion of their lands.

When the country reached Independence these safeguards found itself into the constitution which was itself a complex balance of competing interests. When Malaysia was formed the indigenous races of Sabah and Sarawak were accorded the same safeguards and more.

Today we are presented with a vogue euphoria of seeking to have “transparent dialogue” or “a debate” or “a round table” or a desire to “get it all out there in the open”. This is understandably fashionable in this new age of the Coffee Bean Court and the Boardroom of the enlightened ones who seem to place a premium on this vast beauty of openness in the comfort of their ethnically creased linen shirts and leather sandals. This carried us on course to a robust debate on the rights of Malays and Islam in the context of the Sharyiah Court’s jurisdiction. It led to a debate on whether there was such a thing as a social contract between the races. It led to a debate on how Muslims may renounce their faith apparently through a declaration by word of mouth. Placed in this background and in the spirit of openness, in all its beauty, one must appreciate where Ahmad Ismail is coming from. To him if his privileges as a Malay are called into question, then he too wishes to call into question the otherside of the agreement – the privilege of citizenship. Yes it has hurt the Chinese, it has scared other non Malays. But in moments like this we should realize a few factors:

i. we should realize how a Malay feels, when after having made the major concessions of citizenry and the consequent dilution of their political sovereignty in 1948, that they are now faced with these debates as to the standing of the only safeguards they had sought for these concessions;

ii. non Malays must now ask themselves how they feel when another race starts a debate upon a noble aspiration of free speech to question something that they hold sacred.

Much has been said of the arrogance of UMNO. Arrogance is relative, as is opportunism. In 1986 and in the elections that followed, most of the Barisan component parties survived on the wave of UMNO. Gerakan was humbled in Penang by the DAP in 1986, it retained its position then and in a number of succeeding elections with the support of UMNO. The MIC and MCA were no exception. But UMNO kept the faith. Penang remained with Gerakan despite Karpal Singh’s view that the CM’s post should devolve to UMNO. So did the distribution of Ministries. Yet I seem to remember that after one election where, non-Malay votes carried Barisan through, there was a popular rise of “requests” by trade guilds etc as a price for continued support. Yet again this time, in 2008 when Umno’s support slid, we see the rise of opportunism in some component parties. Some of these parties clung to UMNO for survival yet today they open debate disengagement.

If I was a Malay I would see myself in a position of increasing isolation. I would think that unless I was able to anchor sustained Malay support, I would remain at the mercy of fair weather friends. These sentiments exist in the minds of many. But some speak their minds others wait to see where the wind blows.

It is not about an apology and who apologises for whom. We need to make a choice. Either we accept the parameters of nationhood which form the nation’s foundations and build a sustainable future on them. Or we try to reinvest these foundations. If the past is to be an indicator, our country was at its lowest every time we did this. In 1948 – during the emergency, in 1969 – during the racial crisis, in 1987 when Lee Kim Sai of MCA openly questioned the Bumiputera status, in 1998 on the pretext of Refomasi and for the past few years when everything was up for graps, we now ask why is Singapore and Thailand forging ahead and why we are left behind ? The answers should be obvious. Our moments of greatest prosperity lay in those periods when we accepted our positions in society, counted our blessings, accepted the foundations of our nation, respected our differences and made the government work for us and made the government’s policies work for us, this spirit marked the booming 1990s and our rise from the 1997 recession.
by Maharaja

http://www.maharajablogger.blogspot.com

DARI BLOG RAPERA: HISTORICAL FACTS ARE TABOO? AHMAD ISMAIL DILEMMA



Datuk Ahmad Ismail's description of the pre-independence non-Malays as "penumpang" and "pendatang" in a speech that apparently was largely directed to a Malay crowd became somewhat the centre of a political controversy. Is it possible to discuss this objectively? After all, it is touted by various quarters that March 8th saw the Rakyat's awareness and maturity. So, lets see the degree of maturity of any comments on this posting which will be left unmoderated.

THE TALE OF THE SENSITIVE “CITIZEN”
by a Ceylonese Lawyer

It is an elementary principle in the law of contract, that a contract represents the meeting of minds. It entails the mutuality of obligations and of commitment. It is the law’s means of enforcing a traditional value of “keeping your promise”.

It followed that when one side breached or repudiated his obligations under the contract, it was open to the innocent party to either press for performance or to itself decide to abort the agreement. For those unfamiliar with the law of contract these realities are ingrained in every culture on the premise that one “should do unto others as you would like others to do unto you”.

It is perhaps necessary that the recent statements by Ahmad Ismail be viewed under these spectacles.

In the land of Malaya, there existed a hierarchy of Malay Rulers who governed their citizenry. Across a period of time, colonization rose. With it came new opportunities and new burdens. It opened the gates of immigration and the beginnings of a modern state. The land of Malaya was handed an opportunity and a new challenge, the challenge of dealing with the unknown and the indeterminate. In this time the Rulers came to accept British Advisors in a framework that the Rulers still ruled albeit within limits.

After the war, a reassured Britain sought to exercise its colonial power through the Malayan Union instrument. The Rulers stood in a weak position to oppose it. If they did so, they ran the risk of being labeled Japanese collaborators. While the British were swift to get the Rulers to sign up in time the British government would to learn an important lesson in the art of Malay Statecraft, this took place through the subtle and sustained rise of dissent, clever diplomacy and footwork, ranging from the ulama, teachers, to the common people and ultimately to the birth of UMNO.

There were many facets to the Malayan Union plan, but few will disagree that a key component concerned the grant of citizenship to the migrant races and the curtailment of the powers of the Malay Rulers. In essence, these initiatives would have resulted in Tanah Melayu not being Tanah Melayu. It would have resulted in a situation where the Malays would have been a bare majority in their own nation or even a minority. They would stand with no guarantees in regard to the status, the migrant races who filled the commercial sector and the civil service would stand to rule what was in essence Tanah Melayu.

These experiments are not new South Africa tried to maintain such a status quo of white ruling minority. The colonial masters across history also tried to achieve like ends with a ruling minority reaping the wealth of a nation of the majority. These efforts failed. Thus it became evident that the Malayan Union was likewise doomed to fail. The British acknowledged it. The criticism of the Malayan Union plan rang strongly in England as well, with senior members of the British Civil Service taking a strong position against it.

Learning from this lesson the British moved towards the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948. Let us be clear that this was an agreement. While it retained some of the essence of the Malayan Union Plan, it did impose stricter citizenship requirements and it confirmed the special status of the Malays. It was a case of the Malays agreeing to a dilution of their sovereignty in the land of the forefathers in exchange for these guarantees. There can be little doubt that the right to citizenship of the migrant non-malays draws its origin from this very same agreement which confirms the status of the Malays, the status of the Malay language and of Islam. Prior to this the non-malays did not enjoy any political status whatever, they were not the subjects of the Malay Rulers nor were they the subjects of the British Crown. The 1948 Agreement gave them the legal right to citizenship.

It is interesting that even with the 1948 Agreement the practical effect upon Malay political power remained the same. Their hold on political influence had been diluted so had their share upon the national wealth. Let us be under no doubt, the tycoons that hailed from the migrant races did not rise to riches by inventing and patenting new products for the world market. They wealth came from the domestic economy of this nation and the wealth of this land. Yet the Malays seem to have placed such great trust in these safeguards that they were prepared to give away citizenship to these alien races for nothing more than a written assurance in an agreement and with this assurance they were prepared to sign away what would otherwise have been a complete political dominion of their lands.

When the country reached Independence these safeguards found itself into the constitution which was itself a complex balance of competing interests. When Malaysia was formed the indigenous races of Sabah and Sarawak were accorded the same safeguards and more.

Today we are presented with a vogue euphoria of seeking to have “transparent dialogue” or “a debate” or “a round table” or a desire to “get it all out there in the open”. This is understandably fashionable in this new age of the Coffee Bean Court and the Boardroom of the enlightened ones who seem to place a premium on this vast beauty of openness in the comfort of their ethnically creased linen shirts and leather sandals. This carried us on course to a robust debate on the rights of Malays and Islam in the context of the Sharyiah Court’s jurisdiction. It led to a debate on whether there was such a thing as a social contract between the races. It led to a debate on how Muslims may renounce their faith apparently through a declaration by word of mouth. Placed in this background and in the spirit of openness, in all its beauty, one must appreciate where Ahmad Ismail is coming from. To him if his privileges as a Malay are called into question, then he too wishes to call into question the otherside of the agreement – the privilege of citizenship. Yes it has hurt the Chinese, it has scared other non Malays. But in moments like this we should realize a few factors:

i. we should realize how a Malay feels, when after having made the major concessions of citizenry and the consequent dilution of their political sovereignty in 1948, that they are now faced with these debates as to the standing of the only safeguards they had sought for these concessions;

ii. non Malays must now ask themselves how they feel when another race starts a debate upon a noble aspiration of free speech to question something that they hold sacred.

Much has been said of the arrogance of UMNO. Arrogance is relative, as is opportunism. In 1986 and in the elections that followed, most of the Barisan component parties survived on the wave of UMNO. Gerakan was humbled in Penang by the DAP in 1986, it retained its position then and in a number of succeeding elections with the support of UMNO. The MIC and MCA were no exception. But UMNO kept the faith. Penang remained with Gerakan despite Karpal Singh’s view that the CM’s post should devolve to UMNO. So did the distribution of Ministries. Yet I seem to remember that after one election where, non-Malay votes carried Barisan through, there was a popular rise of “requests” by trade guilds etc as a price for continued support. Yet again this time, in 2008 when Umno’s support slid, we see the rise of opportunism in some component parties. Some of these parties clung to UMNO for survival yet today they open debate disengagement.

If I was a Malay I would see myself in a position of increasing isolation. I would think that unless I was able to anchor sustained Malay support, I would remain at the mercy of fair weather friends. These sentiments exist in the minds of many. But some speak their minds others wait to see where the wind blows.

It is not about an apology and who apologises for whom. We need to make a choice. Either we accept the parameters of nationhood which form the nation’s foundations and build a sustainable future on them. Or we try to reinvest these foundations. If the past is to be an indicator, our country was at its lowest every time we did this. In 1948 – during the emergency, in 1969 – during the racial crisis, in 1987 when Lee Kim Sai of MCA openly questioned the Bumiputera status, in 1998 on the pretext of Refomasi and for the past few years when everything was up for graps, we now ask why is Singapore and Thailand forging ahead and why we are left behind ? The answers should be obvious. Our moments of greatest prosperity lay in those periods when we accepted our positions in society, counted our blessings, accepted the foundations of our nation, respected our differences and made the government work for us and made the government’s policies work for us, this spirit marked the booming 1990s and our rise from the 1997 recession.
by Maharaja


20080831

Gerakan wants stern action against Ahmad Ismail over 'seditious' remarks

Gerakan, a component of the Barisan Nasional (BN), has called for stern action against Bukit Bendera Umno division head Datuk Ahmad Ismail over his recent “seditious” remarks on the Chinese community.

During a ceramah in Permatang Pauh on Aug 25, Ahmad was alleged to have said the Chinese were mere squatters or temporary residents of the nation and therefore, it was impossible to achieve equal rights amongst races in the country.

“Many Malaysians are disappointed with the mild statement by Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when commenting on the seditious statement by Datuk Ahmad Ismail.

“They (Malaysians) had expected a strong rebuke, especially on Aug 31, a day all Malaysians celebrated the country’s independence.

“After 51 years of independence, any further doubt of loyalty of any Malaysian of any ethnic origin and the questioning of citizenship is beyond the understanding of all Malaysians,” Gerakan secretary-general Datuk Seri Chia Kwang Chye said in a statement today.
In the run-up to the Permatang Pauh parliamentary by-election last week, Ahmad allegedly made the remarks and yesterday, Abdullah commented on it when he said he would “tell him (Ahmad) not to do it again.

“You know, in a campaign all sorts of things can come up. I don’t think he meant it. I will make sure to tell him not to use it again,” Abdullah had said yesterday.

Chia said Ahmad’s statement was outdated and racially provocative, adding that any sign of the Barisan Nasional tolerating any outrightly racist and provocative views would give the wrong signal to the people.

“Ahmad Ismail should not only retract what he uttered and also apologise to all Malaysians but also be disciplined so as to prevent such divisive statement or action from being repeated. Such archiac views can further divide a multi-ethnic country like Malaysia,” he added.

Meanwhile, Gerakan vice-president Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan, in another statement, urged the UMNO and Barisan Nasional (BN) leadership to review its stance against Ahmad.

He called on the police to investigate the matter as the MCA and Gerakan Youth had lodged a police report against Ahmad. — BERNAMA

Alexa Traffic Rank

Subscribe to dunia-politik

Subscribe to dunia-politik
Powered by groups.yahoo.com