We have just celebrated the 68th anniversary of our founding as a nation governed by ourselves. I try not to use the term “independence “ because technically speaking, only Pulau Pinang and Melaka achieved independence from direct colonial rule. The agreements the British had with the individual Malay Rulers only created Protectorates out of the Malay States. But although the agreements regarded us as independent and sovereign nations, we were subjugated and the British officials behaved like colonisers. Oh yes, setting the historical record straight is a monumental task. For instance, Sabah and Sarawak were never independent nations prior to Malaysia Day. That’s a narrative put up by politicians and played every time a state election in those states is around the corner. So it will take political will to set the record straight.
Yesterday, a vehicle belonging to JPJ that was in the parade, carried a placard bearing a love message for a budak Koleq – PMX. But is Anwar Ibrahim really PMX? To answer that question, we have to go back to a 1959 story about two budaks Koleq. They were PMI, PMII, PMIII and PMIV. That’s four PMs, but only two budaks Koleq.
Not many know that PMI – Tunku Abdul Rahman – was a budak Koleq, albeit for a short while. But, he was. He left after a quarrel with a member of another royal family after a football match. I think that that was how it went. But he was more known as a Sultan Abdul Hamid College alumnus. We all know that he headed the Alliance Party and won a landslide victory in the 1955 elections before “Merdeka.” But as with any election, voters would quickly realise that election manifestos are not Bibles, and disenchantment with the Alliance Party grew. “Merdeka” was euphoric and put everything on hold, but as the date for the Malayan Federation’s first general elections loomed, Tunku realised that he had to go to the ground to garner support.
In order not to be seen as using his position as Prime Minister or abuse his office to go campaigning, Tunku Abdul Rahman resigned from office. Yes, he resigned. He did not go on leave. He stepped down on 15 April 1959 and handed over the Premiership to another budak Koleq – Dato (later Tun) Abdul Razak, who became PM on 16 April 1959. If you ask Google AI, it will say that that’s wrong and that Razak was only acting PM. But Google’s intelligence is artificial. Razak actually took oath of office in front of the Yang Dipertuan Agong as PMII – Federation of Malaya’s second Prime Minister. The latter even sent a telegram to the former, thanking him for the trust and confidence. The following is an excerpt from the New York Times, 16 April 1959, page 4:
MALAYAN RESIGNS AS PRIME MINISTER
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaya, April 15—Tengku Abdul Rahman relinquished the Prime Ministry of Malaya tonight. Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein, takes over. His tenure of office is expected to last only until general elections toward the end of August bring Tengku (Prince) Abdul Rahman’s Alliance party to power again and the Prince returns to Government leadership.
Tengku Abdul Rahman said that the change in the Prime Minister’s post would not mean a change in policies.
Dato Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein, the incoming Prime Minister, is 37 years old, which makes him yet the youngest chief executive of a country in the British Commonwealth.
His predecessor resigned to devote himself full-time to campaigning in the first full Parliamentary elections. (End)
So, Razak was PMII from 16 April 1959 until the dissolution of parliament on 22 June 1959, and remained as a caretaker PM until a new cabinet was formed on 22 August 1959, returning Tunku as PMIII. Razak, of course, became PM again (PMIV) from 22 September 1970 until his death on 14 January 1976.
Razak, accepting his Instrument of Appointment from the first Yang Dipertuan Agong, after taking the oath of office on 16 April 1959
There you have it – 59 years before Tun Dr Mahathir, another SAHC alumnus, became PM again (PMIX) – two budaks Koleq, Rahman and Razak, had become the PM twice.
The JPJ placard should have read:
“I Love You PMXII”
That’s for the other budak Koleq who became PM. The title PMX should go to that guy from Muar High School. The one after PMIX.
But whatever it is, that placard should really have read “I Love You YDPA XVII” because the parade is for His Majesty as the Head of the Nation. The Prime Minister is only the head of the Executive Branch of His Majesty’s Government. JPJ’s Director-General heads a department in His Majesty’s Government. No one else takes precedence over the Yang Dipertuan Agong.
That ends our history and protocol lessons for this session.
(Note: “budak Koleq” is a self-given term by students and old boys of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar)
The 165-meter Chinese Coast Guard cutter Zhong Guo Hai Jing 5901 is the largest coast guard vessel in the world, and was spotted loitering some 60 nautical miles off Bintulu
Malaysia is prepared to negotiate with China over a dispute between them in the South China Sea, Bernama reported on Monday, citing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
As we are all aware, China claims virtually all of the 3.5 million sq. km of the waters of the South China Sea. Other claimants include Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and the Philippines, while Indonesia is an affected party through China’s blatant and frequent incursions.
“China is also staking claim over the area. I said as a small country that needs oil and gas resources, we have to continue, but if the condition is that there must be negotiations, then we are ready to negotiate,” he said.
Negotiate what?
Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is determined by Article 57 of Part V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that was adopted in 1982. A total of 167 countries and the European Union are parties, and that includes China.
Article 57 states that the breadth of the EEZ shall not exceed 200 nautical miles from the baselines that have been used to measure a country’s territorial waters. Our waters are very definitely more than 200 nautical miles from China’s baseline shores, in case the government, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose advice the PM depends on, doesn’t know about our EEZ.
And only Malaysia has the sovereign right to explore and exploit, conserve and manage all the natural resources within its EEZ. Not any other country. Therefore by negotiating, are we not giving clout to China’s delusional nine-dash line?
Furthermore, there is a Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling made in the Philippines v China case in 2016 that has ruled against the latter’s claim over maritime areas within the nine-dash line. The Court ruled that China not only has China exceeded what is entitled under UNCLOS, but that China, among others, has no legal basis to claim rights to resources within the nine-dash line.
It is puzzling that the government does not know this, or has forgotten about it. I am surprised that it has also forgotten that the previous Pakatan Harapan administration in 2019 filed a formal submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, detailing information on the limits of its continental shelf, beyond its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). China, as always, rejected Malaysia’s claim and asserted its sovereignty and rights in the South China Sea with vague and ambiguous arguments.
If China cannot respect our rights given to us through legal means, why should we even care about what they think of our waters? Or are we so hard up for them to turn the billions in MOUs from the PM’s recent visit there into contracts?
If that is the case, are we not selling off our sovereignty like during Najjb’s administration?
“Melayu Islam diingatkan tidak terlalu selesa, angkuh hingga pinggirkan minoriti.”
Begitulah bunyinya tajuk utama akhbar Utusan Malaysia yang melaporkan perhimpunan bulanan Kementerian Kewangan yang dihadiri Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Dalam ucapan beliau, Anwar mengingatkan orang Melayu Islam supaya tidak meminggirkan kaum minoriti. Kata beliau, “Ketika lawatan saya ke Kemboja baru-baru ini, saya berbuka puasa bersama Perdana Menteri Kemboja yang menganjurkan majlis iftar dengan 6,000 umat Islam. Umat Islam di Kemboja hanya 10 peratus, tetapi diberi penghormatan dan saya juga diberi peluang memberi ucapan dan ke masjid di sana.” (Utusan Malaysia – 4 April 2023).
Tidak pelik sebuah negara bukan Islam meraikan masyarakat beragama Islam. Meraikan kaum minoriti merupakan salah satu tanda aras demokrasi bagi setiap buah negara. Sebagai contoh, kerajaan Israel yang dikenali sebagai anti-Islam juga pernah mengadakan majlis berbuka puasa.
Israel menghargai kebebasan beragama dan akan lakukan apa sahaja untuk membenarkannya – Benny Gantz
“Israel menghargai kebebasan beragama dan akan lakukan apa sahaja untuk membenarkannya,” kata Menteri Pertahanan Israel Benny Gantz tahun lepas (The Jerusalem Post – 26 April 2022).
“Saya lihat betapa pentingnya untuk kukuhkan hubungan di antara Israel dan negara-negara serantau dan kekalkan kebebasan beragama di Israel untuk penganut semua agama,” kata Menteri Luar Israel Eli Cohen semasa menganjurkan majlis berbuka puasa Ahad lepas (Jewish News Syndicate – 3 April 2023).
Saya lihat betapa pentingnya untuk kukuhkan hubungan di antara Israel dan negara-negara serantau dan kekalkan kebebasan beragama di Israel untuk penganut semua agama – Eli Cohen
Dari 18 hari hari cuti umum yang diumumkan kerajaan Kemboja, berapa harikah yang melibatkan lain-lain agama atau kaum? Jawapannya: 0.
Dari 15 hari hari cuti umum yang diumumkan kerajaan Israel, berapa harikah yang melibatkan lain-lain agama atau kaum? Jawapannya: 0.
Dari 12 hari hari cuti umum yang diumumkan kerajaan Kemboja, berapa harikah yang melibatkan lain-lain agama atau kaum? Jawapannya: 4 (tidak termasuk Thaipusam dan Good Friday).
Adakah Melayu tidak bertimbang rasa hingga wujudnya klausa-klausa dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menetapkan hak lain-lain kaum, contohnya Perkara 3(1) berhubung kebebasan beragama, Perkara 11, Perkara 152(1) dan 152(1)(a), dan juga Perkara 153?
We have all heard it before from the same person: “I have the numbers to become the next Prime Minister.” It was first uttered in April 2008, then again just before the Pakatan Harapan administration fell, and again yesterday. It has, thus far, come to a nought.
It may have come as a shocker for many. The KLCI fell 0.7 percent and closed nine points lower on Wednesday after the announcement was made. To be fair, the KLCI has been on bearish for almost a month now. It was at 1578.55 points on August 24th and is at 1496.48 points on September 23rd.
Other than that, Anwar’s claim has been met with scepticism. “We will have to wait to see if this is another episode of making claims that cannot be substantiated,” said Dr Mahathir over Zoom at Nutanix ASEAN CIO Virtual Summit about his former deputy who is famous for making repeated unsubstantiated claims of having support for the premiership. Many others think that it is just Anwar’s way to ensure that the voters in Sabah’s state elections will jump on the Pakatan Plus band wagon and support ‘the winning team.’
Numbed by Anwar’s occasional antics, I hardly find his announcement believable, let alone a shocker. However, a statement that followed and made by another politician got the ‘WTF’ reaction from me. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, whose court case against him is far more solid than the one against Najib Razak, announced that UMNO and BN cannot stop any of its Members of Parliament wanting to support Anwar to form a government with Pakatan Plus. As a matter of fact, Ahmad Zahid said that he ‘respects’ the decision made by the UMNO MPs wanting to jump to the other side.
For a few hours there was silence on the part of Zahid’s supporters. And then came the spin – the statement is a ploy by Zahid to pressure Muhyiddin’s ‘greedy’ PPBM into asking for a dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election. In other words, according to his supporters, Zahid is extorting Muhyiddin for a general election to be called.
For the life of me, I find that the lamest excuse that I have ever heard in wanting to dissolve a Parliament. In order to try get a general election going, all it needs for UMNO to do is to leave the PN government, or maybe Zahid has never read and understood the Federal Constitution. Once the sitting Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Lower House, he shall tender the resignation of himself and that of his cabinet, or advice the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament. That is all it takes. No extortion needed, and UMNO does not have to be in an administration that DAP is member of. It is a bizarre statement coming from Zahid, the President of UMNO.
But Zahid, and his ill-read supporter should also remember this: Parliament can continue for five years from the date of its first meeting till its next dissolution, and in the meantime, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can appoint another member of Parliament whom, in His Majesty’s judgment, has the confidence of the majority of the House’s members. So, Zahid can threaten Muhyiddin but the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can still refuse to dissolve Parliament. That would be a double whammy for UMNO. And looking at how fluid things are, not one party would dare to go through a general election now until forced to in 2023. So, is UMNO ready to be partners with PKR, DAP and Amanah? I strongly doubt it.
UMNO’s No.2, Mohamad Hasan, said that UMNO is still part of the PN administration and shall continue to support it. “Any change in its stance must be decided by the party,” he said when commenting on the issue. Other UMNO MPs such as Nazri Aziz, Shahidan Kassim and Khairy Jamaluddin have all rubbished the claims.
A word of advice for UMNO. Winning seven by-elections does not mean that the whole country is now rooting for you. In a general election, the game is played differently. Majority of the urban voters are still against you. Sabah has not exactly accepted you. Sarawak still cannot trust your Muafakat Nasional partner, PAS. The nation only accepts Muhyiddin and his multi-party band of senior ministers. Not even the rest of Muhyiddin’s cabinet has the trust of the people. With Zahid trying to play big brother, the wounds of the last general election will bleed again, and people will remember the greedy UMNO that they brought down two years ago. You are now part of a government without having to wait another three years to go through an election – so be thankful.
As for Zahid, he should learn to behave more like a statesman than a numbnut. He often speaks before his brain could process the outcome. A party president is the person who sets the path on which the members in his party should follow. If he, as UMNO’s President, cannot control his MPs to form an administration with PKR and possibly DAP as he says, he has no business staying on as the party president claiming that he is looking after the interests of the Bumiputeras. Or is there a deal that he has made with Anwar for a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card? If that is true, then shame on him.
The political crisis started a long way back with one man thinking that the seat of the Prime Minister should be handed to him, while the incumbent felt that he should hold on to it for as long as possible. There was no Malay, Chinese, Indian, Jawi, UEC or Adib involved in the whole fiasco.
When His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong stepped in to solve the crisis, there were as many calls for the Parliament to be dissolved as there were for the incumbent to handover the premiership to his so-called designated successor. I wrote to friends the following:
“The Raja is the landowner. It is the constitutional prerogative of the Raja to choose whom in his judgment should lead the administration of HIS government. Our duty every five years or so is to vote for those whom we think should represent us. That is where our responsibility ends.”
His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did exactly that – solving the crisis according to what is accorded to him in the Federal Constitution. With the two warring parties claiming the right to the premiership, political parties went back and forth changing their allegiance to each of the party who in turn claimed that he has the most support.
His Majesty went on to call each MP for a private interview trying to see who supports whom. And many got trapped in that simple but virtually meaningless definition of ‘majority support’ thinking that the candidate with the most support should become the Prime Minister. However, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that gives such provision.
Article 43 (2) (a) of the Federal Constitution states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. In other words, exact number of support for any of the candidate is not a requirement for a decision to be made by His Majesty. The interview is only for him to gauge the level of support each candidate has.
The method used is similar to the ones used in Perak by the late Sultan Azlan Shah, and in Kedah several years later, to determine who can command the confidence of the most of the Dewan to become the respective States’ Menteri Besar. In all three crises, the maturity and wisdom of the Ruler is incumbent (Dr Zambry v Dato’ Seri Nizar [2009]5 CLJ 265) para 232. The method to determine the issue of “majority support” is the prerogative of the Ruler and is non-justiciable (op cit).
It is in my opinion that “majority support” was determined by the total number of MPs from any one bloc. There was the Anwar bloc – MPs who wanted Anwar to become the next PM. Then there was the Mahathir bloc – people who wanted the elder statesman to continue. And we had the Muhyiddin bloc – those who solidly supported Muhyiddin’s candidacy. Both the Anwar and Mahathir bloc had to combine to challenge Muhyiddin’s number of support. But whether they like the other bloc’s candidate that they were forced to accept is questionable. Hence, the one with the most unambiguous support would be Muhyiddin.
No one else has the right to choose a Prime Minister. The right claimed by Anwar Ibrahim to become a Prime Minister, and the so-called promise by Mahathir to hand over the premiership to the former, are against the Federal Constitution. Only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has that right, as prescribed in Article 40 (2) of the Federal Constitution. Conventions are not laws, and are therefore not legal. It is because of this illegal promise that got us into this trouble last week.
Even after the announcement by Istana Negara on the swearing-in ceremony of Malaysia’s 8th Prime Minister was made, there is still talks of numbers and majority made by the other party. But what is the point of scoring 50 goals after the final whistle was blown? And going back to Article 43 (2)(a) where it is the Constitutional prerogative of the King to choose an MP as the PM whom in his judgment commands the confidence of the member of the House, such SDs carry no weight whatsoever. It was just an attempt to create negative perception about the wisdom of the King.
We are certainly blessed to have a wise King who made full use of his rights in the Constitution and his freedom to consult to settle this chaos. Despite taking precedence above all other persons in the Federation, His Majesty did not forget to consult all the other Rulers. After all, he represents all the Rulers. And he stood his Constitutional ground, gentlemanly, when others did not.
Anwar demands for the seat of the Prime Minister (pic courtesy of The Third Force)
Anwar Ibrahim has been waiting for the past 22 years to become the PM. The closest he ever got there was 23 years ago when he became the acting Prime Minister for a short while. And then he got expelled from UMNO that was being led by Mahathir.
There may have been an understanding or even an agreement between Mahathir’s PPBM and PKR, DAP, and PAN that Anwar should become the PM after an X number of years of Mahathir being at the helm.
While Mahathir has never mentioned a specific date for a handover, Anwar has been selling the idea of him being the next PM to the public, forcing a perception that it is his right to take over the helm from Mahathir.
He even said to members of the press that he is open to the idea of Mahathir joining his cabinet. That is how cocksure he is of becoming the PM.
But, since when is the Prime Minister’s post the right of an individual? Even if a Prime Minister can determine his successor, only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the constitutional right to choose a Prime Minister.
Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution gives that right to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to choose a Prime Minister from amongst the members of the Lower House whom he thinks has the confidence and support of the majority of the members.
Back during BN days it became a convention that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong chose the one named by the incumbent, but that was then. That was a time when BN commanded the majority in Parliament.
Unlike the BN, this is a government of motley crew. Helmed by a Prime Minister from a party with the least number of seats, support from within can go either way.
And to get a sure majority support, the Opposition has to be roped in; something unthinkable during the BN days. However, given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, I doubt that it is in the best interest of the Opposition to back someone seen to have the support of the DAP.
To put Anwar Ibrahim in that post in ways other than those prescribed in the Federal Constitution would be a revolution, and there is nothing democratic about revolutions.
It is the sole right of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to choose a Prime Minister to lead his government. There is no other form of right agreed by all parties when this nation came into being. Dreamers can therefore continue to dream.
An asnaf family receives a symbolic key to their house from a Lembaga Zakat Selangor representative
The issue of the distribution of Zakat to non-Muslims is still not over. Today, I saw three news articles of statements on the issue made by the CEO of Zakat Pulau Pinang, the Mufti of Negeri Sembilan, and the Mufti of Pahang. All of them stressed that Zakat is not to be distributed to non-Muslims.
“It cannot be given to non-Muslim individuals. If it is to be given to non-Muslims, it will be done through NGOs or associations that conduct dakwah (Islamic outreach),” said Datuk Seri Dr Abdul Rahman Osman, the Mufti of Pahang.
Many, some Muslims included, do not understand the meaning of Zakat. It is a mandatory religious obligation decreed by Allah SWT for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. Its role in society is to preserve social harmony between the wealthy and the poor through a more equitable way for the redistribution of wealth.
I wrote two days ago (Zakat is for the Rulers to decide) that as the Head of the religion of Islam in their respective states, the affairs of Islam come under the purview of the Rulers – their Constitutional prerogative. And it is because of this prerogative prescribed by the Constitution that had the Sultan of Selangor issue a media statement on the issue.
His Royal Highness is very concerned about the number of Muslims who fall into the categories of poor, hardcore poor and the needy. A check in all the nine districts of Selangor through a page maintained by the Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU), the number stood at 21,621 people in 2009, 50,947 in 2018, and up until the end of September 2019, it was 54,568 people. On average, 3,300 Muslims enter the list of Zakat recipients every year!
Selangor has the highest GDP in Malaysia. In 2010 it was RM177.7 billion. In 2018 it was RM322.6 billion. Although its labour force has increased from 3.2 million in 2015 to 3.5 million in 2018, its percentage of the unemployed has also increased from 2.4 percent (77,900 people) to 2.8 percent (99,600 people). Rapid urbanisation in a short span of time and migration of workforce from other states into Selangor have contributed to escalating economic and social costs – rentals, housing, transport, land. This has in turn imposed the burden of employment generation causing an increase in unemployment, the inability to offer higher wages, and incidence of poverty.
When we talk about the poor, hardcore poor and the needy, we no longer talk about people begging on walkways or even the homeless. We now look at those earning less than RM2,000 a month, with very little or no savings, and cannot survive two to three months without work. This is the reality that we now face – rapid urbanisation presents an increase in the number of the urban poor. Those who are particularly vulnerable are those with low education level, low-skilled, handicapped, single parent, the youth, the elderly, orphans who have to leave their orphanage when they turn 18. These are the people His Royal Highness is very concerned about.
Take the Petaling district for instance. In 2009, 2,478 Muslims qualified for Zakat aid. By 2015, 7,248 Muslims in the district were qualified for Zakat aid. In 2018, it was 7,781. By the end of September this year, that number is 7,858.
The amount of aid distributed in Selangor was RM279.2 million in 2009. By the end of 2018 it was RM414.6 million..
The same pattern can also be seen in Pahang where in 2015 its population was at 1.61 million. That increased to 1.66 million in 2018. With about 75 percent of its population being Muslims, Zakat aid distributed in 2015 was RM113.4 million. In 2018 it was RM140.8 million. A 3-year study led by Emeritus Professor Chamhuri Siwar of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia between 2008 and 2011 found that the highest incidence of hardcore poverty in rural Pahang was observed among the Malays (97.33 percent), while for the urban areas of Pahang it was again the Malays (72.22 percent).
Therefore, as the Head of State and Islam, His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor was right in pointing out that although Islam emphasises on humanity, Zakat aid collected from Muslims are only to be given to Muslims in need who fall into the eight categories mentioned in my earlier article. His Royal Highness added that in Selangor there are still many Muslim people who fall into both the rural and urban poor categories and are in dire need of Zakat aid. This is because almost 60 percent of its population are Muslims and its population increases by about 100,000 annually.
Zakat is a matter of Islam, for Muslims. Article 11 (3)(a) and (b) of the Federal Constitution states that Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs and establish and maintain institution for religious or charitable purposes.
What Anwar Ibrahim et al. should have advocated was for the establishment of similar tithe collection institutions by respective religions instead of peddling articles of Islamic affairs for his own popularity and political mileage.
Can Zakat be distributed to non-Muslims as mooted by Anwar Ibrahim?
A week ago Port Dickson MP Anwar Ibrahim mooted Zakat reforms saying the non-Muslims should also be included as Zakat recipients. He said this at the International Seminar on Islamic Zakat, Wakaf and Philantrophy in Selangor.
His statement incurred the wrath of the Sultan of Selangor who, through a statement issued, said that Zakat (tithe) can only be distributed to eight categories of the needy that include the hardcore poor asnaf, poor asnaf, and mu’allaf who are Muslims.
Asnaf is defined as a party that does not own any property and whose work cannot meet the demands for basic needs and therefore is eligible to receive Zakat aid collected from Muslims. A mu’allaf is an individual who are non-Muslims who have the hope of converting to Islam or those new to Islam whose faith still needs to be supported or reinforced.
Based on the above-definitions, the Sultan added that Zakat can only be given to a non-Muslim mu’allaf based on the principles of asnaf Mu’allafati Qulubuhum (those whose heart has accepted Islam). This principle is based on the Quran where Allah SWT said, “Zakat expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect (Zakat) and for bringing hearts together (for Islam) and for freeing captives (or slaves) and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the (stranded) traveller – an obligation (imposed) by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Quran 9:60).
Both the Mufti of Perlis and Pulau Pinang have made a statement supporting this. In a television interview the Mufti of Perlis said that Perlis had issued a fatwa to enable non-Muslims to receive tithes under the concept of asnaf Mu’allafati Qulubuhum in 2017.
“This means that Perlis follows the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h not only to help (the non-Muslim asnaf) but also to hopefully embrace Islam,” said the Mufti. He added that the decision of the fatwa rests on the Ulil Amri (leader – the Raja of Perlis).
The Mufti of Pulau Pinang said that non-Muslims who are poverty stricken can obtain assistance from other governmental resourcees such as the Welfare Department. Distributions should only go to non-Muslims if collections exceed what was needed for Muslim recipients.
He said that according to the Quran, Zakat could be extended to non-Muslims with the purpose of making them to favour Islam, to encourage them to help Muslims against the latter’s enemies, or for them to sympathise with Muslims. This was because the contributions come solely from Muslims who pY the tithe as a religious obligation.
Malaysia, being a country that has Islam as its religion as prescribed in the Federal Constitution holds to the doctrines of Imam Shafie who in his book Al-Umm said the following:
“The Mu’allaf (those whose heart have received Islam) are those who have accepted Islam. Zakat is not given to the musyrik to entice them to Islam. If there are those who say that during the Battle of Hunayn the Prophet had distributed collections to the Musyriks, those are the distribution from fai (spoils of war) or from his own property. Not from Zakat collection.” (Al-Umm, 2/388. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi).
As mentioned in the above paragraph, the religion of Malaysia is Islam. The Ruler of the states that have a Ruler as Head of State, is the Head of the religion of Islam. In states where there is no Ruler, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the Head of the religion of Islam. Matters of the religion of Islam come under the purview of Their Majesties. It is a pity that a seasoned politician such as Anwar Ibrahim does not know his position when mooting such reform.
In the words of the Sultan of Selangor: do not take advantage of and use the affairs of the religion of Islam to gain popularity or win the hearts of certain parties.
Kuala Yong near Jeli, Kelantan is a laid back but picturesque place. Located some 100 kilometres west of Kota Bharu, the village was once the seat of a global controversy that is still being spoken about today – the Pergau Dam affair.
The Pergau Dam affair was about treachery – Mahathir’s style.
It involved an arms scandal as well as aid for the poor that turned into what is now the Pergau Dam.
Allegations of bribes being passed to the then-Prime Minister of Malaysia was abound. But as with the allegations of tens of billions of Ringgits squandered by Mahathir, he never challenged these allegations either.
The Pergau Dam story started with then Secretary of State for Defense George Younger’s agreement with the government of Malaysia in 1988 that the Britain would provide aid in the amount of 20 percent the value of arms sales from Britain to Malaysia. This aid would come in the form of a dam project, despite a subsequent assessment from economists and engineers of the Overseas Development Administration (ODA – the UK’s development arm at the time, which reported to the Foreign Secretary) who found that the dam would not be a cost-efficient way to increase the production of electricity.
In 1991, then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, authorised the expenditure of £234 million from the aid budget anyway, to maintain a deal made by the defence secretary and approved by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and later John Major. The World Development Movement called for a judicial review of the funding of Pergau Dam on the grounds of a law which states that aid can only be used for “promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country….or the welfare of its people”.
The British High Court ruled in 1994 that the project was not of economic benefit to the Malaysian people; the deal linked aid directly to commercial contracts and was unlawful.
The Sunday Times ran a story that the dam contractor, George Wimpey International, had paid an initial bribe meant for Mahathir to the tune of USD500,000 (approximately RM1.25 million then). Instead of challenging the newspaper in a court of law, Mahathir got Anwar, who was his Deputy then, to announce ‘Buy British Last II‘.
Lim Kit Siang, Mahathir’s present best friend, jumped at the opportunity to slam the latter. He openly challenged Mahathir to sue the Sunday Times in a court of law – something Mahathir never did.
Although the amount of bribe stated by Lim Kit Siang varied from what was reported by the Sunday Times the last two lines of the above screen capture of Kit Siang’s article shows that monies were transferred to ‘account numbers in Switzerland to which fees related to contract award are to be paid.‘
When the Pergau deal and alleged bribes transfers took place in 1984-85, Mahathir’s right-hand man Daim Zainuddin was the Finance Minister. Coincidentally, it was said that Daim owned, or was in control of, at least a bank in Switzerland, if not more. This was also how, according to Edmund Terence Gomez and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Daim’s company called Baktimu Sdn Bhd was able to obtain a RM40 million loan from the Union Bank of Switzerland to buy a 33 percent stake in Sime UEP for RM75 million in CASH!
Daim only recently divested from the banking business in Switzerland through his company, ICB Financial Group AG.
Could Daim have been involved in providing the accounts into which these payments were credited?
Neither Mahathir nor Daim has come forth to explain, let alone sue especially the Sunday Times for running that story.
In the words of Lim Kit Siang when his struggle then was for the people:
Baru-baru ini kita dikejutkan dengan kehadiran seorang diplomat dari Israel ke sebuah persidangan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu di Kuala Lumpur. Pihak pembangkang dengan segera telah menghentam kerajaan kerana telah membenarkan perkara tersebut berlaku seraya mengatakan bahawa kerajaan bersikap hipokrit dalam memperjuangkan hak-hak Palestin tetapi pada masa yang sama telah menjemput seorang warga Israel untuk datang ke Malaysia.
Lantas Kementerian Luar Negeri telah mengeluarkan sebuah kenyataan untuk menerangkan perkara tersebut. Di dalam kenyataan tersebut, Wisma Putra menerangkan bahawa segala jemputan ke persidangan tersebut telah dilakukan oleh pihak Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu melalui Artikel III kepada Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah yang telah dibuat di antara kerajaan Malaysia dengan pertubuhan tersebut.
Kenyataan ini juga menerangkan bahawa sebagai negara tuan rumah, Malaysia terpaksa menerima kehadiran delegasi dari Israel walaupun berkeras tidak mahu. Malangnya, sebagai memenuhi kehendak diplomasi pelbagai hala, Ianya tidak bermakna Malaysia telah mengubah pendiriannya terhadap Israel dan Palestin.
PKR PERLUKAN PENGARAH KOMUNIKASI YANG BARU
Saudara Fahmi Fadzil, Pengarah Komunikasi PKR telah membidas kenyataan Wisma Putra. Di dalam laman Facebooknya, Fahmi telah mempersoalkan kuasa Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia untuk menafikan mana-mana individu yang tidak dikehendaki untuk masuk ke negara ini.
Saya berasa amat kecewa kerana sebagai seorang yang memegang jawatan penting, Fahmi tidak memahami undang-undang. David Yitzhak Roet, diplomat Israel yang telah ke mari, adalah merupakan seorang diplomat dari negara Israel yang memegang passport diplomat yang bermakna beliau adalah merupakan seorang diplomat bagi negaranya.
Ini bermakna, David Roet tidak boleh dikategorikan sebagai “pendatang yang tidak diingini” (undesirable immigrant) mengikut Seksyen 8(k) Akta Imigresen, 1959/1963. Mari kita undur beberapa tapak untuk memahami keadaan sebenar sebelum mempercayai segala kebebalan yang ditulis oleh Fahmi tadi, atau kenapa Malaysia tidak membantah, dan juga kepada persoalan mengapa Malaysia tidak batalkan sahaja persidangan tersebut.
Pertama sekali, persidangan ini dalah sebuah persidangan yang dianjurkan oleh pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah di antara pertubuhan tersebut dengan Malaysia telah ditandatangani pada bulan Mac 2017.
Setelah perjanjian tersebut dibuat, penganjur (UN Habitat) membuat lain-lain persiapan berhubung keperluan persidangan tersebut. Hanya pada bulan Jun 2017, UN Habitat telah menghantar surat-surat jemputan kepada Menteri Luar Negeri setiap negara ahli pertubuhan tersebut termasuk Malaysia dan Israel.
PBB ada mempunyai satu format Perjanjian Negara Tuanrumah yang seragam untuk digunakan oleh agensi-agensi di bawahnya, termasuk UN Habitat. Cuma susunan Artikel adalah terpulang kepada agensi-agensi tersebut, di antaranya menyebut:
“Konvensyen Mengenai Keistimewaan dan Kekebalan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu yang diterima pakai oleh Perhimpunan Agung pada 13 Februari 1946, yang mana negara tuan rumah adalah satu pihak, hendaklah terpakai bagi Persidangan tersebut. Terutamanya, wakil negara-negara akan menikmati keistimewaan dan kekebalan yang diberikan di bawah Artikel IV Koenvensyen tersebut.”
Dokumen di atas menerangkan dengan jelas bahawa wakil-wakil setiap negara yang menghadiri persidangan yang telah dijalankan di Kuala Lumpur, hendaklah diberikan keistimewaan dan kekebalan yang telah kita persetujui sebagai salah sebuah negara ahli PBB yang telah mengiktiraf Konvensyen tersebut.
Ianya tidak berakhir di situ:
“Semua orang yang disebut di dalam artikel II (artikel III dalam perjanjian dengan Malaysia) hendaklah mempunyai hak untuk masuk dan keluar dari negara tuan rumah, dan tiada halangan dikenakan terhadap perjalanan mereka ke dan dari kawasan persidangan.”
Semua di atas adalah berkenaan dengan Konvensyen Vienna Mengenai Hubungan Diplomatik, 1961, yang dipersetujui oleh Malaysia, dan juga Akta Hubungan Konsular (Konvensyen Vienna), 1999. David Roet adalah diplomat yang dihantar oleh negaranya. Maka, Malaysia tidak banyak pilihan kerana telah menandatangani perjanjian tuan rumah, serta perlu menghormati konvensyen Vienna.
Kalau itu sahaja yang boleh diketengahkan sebagai hujah-hujah, maka saya rasa amat elok sekali sekiranya parti tersebut menukar Pengarah Komunikasi mereka memandang Fahmi Fadzil begitu dangkal daya pemikirannya.
TIDAKKAH KERAJAAN MEMBANTAH JEMPUTAN YANG DIBUAT KEPADA ISRAEL OLEH PBB?
Ramai penyokong pembangkang serta mereka yang termakan hasutan pembangkang dalam isu ini bertanyakan tidakkah kerajaan membuat bantahan terhadap jemputan kepada Israel oleh PBB?
Saya petik laporan sebuah akhbar Israel, The Jerusalem Post, yang menyebut:
“Malaysia yang ternyata anti-Israel membenarkan penyertaan Israel dengan penuh marah hanya setelah Israel mengenakan tekanan diplomatik yang hebat sehingga ke pejabat Setiausaha Agung PBB, Antonio Gutteres.
Ini adalah kerana dengan menaja sebuah acara yang berkaitan dengan PBB, Malaysia menjadi suatu kewajiban bagi Malaysia terhadap PBB untuk membenarkan penyertaan dari semua negara.”
Jelas Malaysia telah berkeras untuk tidak membenarkan penyertaan Israel tetapi terpaksa akur dengan perjanjian yang telah dipersetujui.
Walau bagaimanapun, ianya berbeza bagi rakyat biasa Israel. Pada tahun 2015, Malaysia telah tidak membenarkan dua orang peluncur layar dari Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Pelayaran Belia Sedunia. Keputusan kerajaan ini telah dibantah bukan sahaja oleh Persatuan Layar Israel, malah oleh badan pelayaran dunia.
Pada tahun 2016, Malaysia telah enggan mengeluarkan visa bagi pasukan ping pong Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Ping Pong Sedunia yang telah diadakan di sini.
JADI, SIAPA YANG MENYOKONG ISRAEL?
Pada 25 Mac 1997, seramai 2,000 orang penunjuk perasaan telah berarak ke Jabatan Perdana Menteri untuk menyerahkan satu memorandum kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu membantah keputusan kerajaan Malaysia untuk membenarkan pasukan kriket Israel untuk menyertai Kejohanan Kriket Sedunia yang dilangsungkan di Kuala Lumpur. Pada 30 Mac tahun yang sama, seramai 2,500 orang penunjuk perasaan telah menyerbu padang kriket di mana pasukan Israel dijadualkan bermain serta membakar papan-papan tanda iklan berkenaan kejohanan tersebut.
Anwar Ibrahim yang kononnya memperjuangkan Islam ketika itu, dalam sokongan terhadap bosnya berkata, sukan dan politik tidak sepatutnya dicampur-adukkan.
Pada tahun 1993, Mahathir yang ketika itu merupakan Perdana Menteri telah menulis sepucuk surat kepada Perdana Menteri Israel, Yitzhak Rabin mengenai Perjanjian Oslo I.
Mahathir’s letter to Yitzhak Rabin in December 1993
Ianya mungkin sukar dibaca. Jadi saya sediakan terjemahan kepada transkrip surat tersebut seperti berikut:
Yang Berhormat
Encik Yitzhak Rabin
Perdana Menteri Israel
JERUSALEM
Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih di atas surat anda pada 17 Oktober yang memaklumkan kepada saya tentang Perjanjian Prinsip dan Pengiktirafan Bersama di antara Israel dan PLO.
Kerajaan saya menyokong perkembangan positif ini dan memandangnya sebagai langkah pertama ke arah merealisasikan penyelesaian menyeluruh kepada masalah Timur Tengah. Sebagai demonstrasi sokongan Malaysia terhadap pembangunan ini negara saya telah diwakili pada Persidangan Penderma untuk menyokong Perdamaian Timur Tengah yang diadakan di Washington dan seterusnya memberikan sumbangan kewangan yang sederhana kepada rakyat Palestin untuk membantu tugas baru mereka. Kerajaan saya juga telah menawarkan bantuan teknikal untuk Palestin di bawah Program Kerjasama Teknikal Malaysia.
Sebagai perkara prinsip umum Malaysia bersedia untuk membangunkan hubungan dengan Israel pada masa yang sesuai. Dalam pada itu, kami ingin melihat kemajuan yang ketara dalam pelaksanaan perjanjian damai.
Masalah di Timur Tengah terutamanya isu Palestin telah menjadi punca ketidakstabilan di rantau tersebut dan saya berharap perjanjian yang dibuat baru-baru ini di antara Israel dan PLO akan menyumbang kepada keamanan yang kekal di kawasan itu.
Saya menanti hubungan normal dengan Israel.
DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Sepertimana yang terkandung di dalam dua bahagian surat tersebut, Mahathir menyatakan hasrat untuk mengadakan hubungan yang normal dengan Israel. Pada tahun 2014, Presiden Obama telah mengadakan hubungan normal dengan Cuba. Ini berakhir dengan penyambungan perhubungan diplomatik di antara kedua-dua buah negara tersebut. Mahathir telah menyatakan hasrat untuk memulakan hubungan diplomatik dengan Israel. Bahagian akhir yang digaris di bawah itu telah ditulis sendiri oleh Mahathir dengan menggunakan sebatang pen.
Berlanjutan dengan perkara tersebut, Chua Jui Meng dari PKR yang pada ketika itu merupakan Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri berkata Israel boleh menjadi destinasi pelaburan Malaysia (Shanti Nair, Routledge, 1997 p.252).
Hasilnya, pada tahun 1999, eksport Israel ke Malaysia berjumlah USD107 juta. Pada tahun 2000, ia adalah USD732 juta, dan USD615.5 juta pada tahun berikutnya. Pada tahun 2002, laporan Kementerian Perdagangan Israel mengenai hubungan perdagangan dengan Indonesia dan Malaysia menasihatkan warga Israel yang berminat untuk menjalankan perniagaan dengan syarikat Malaysia bahawa “tiada sebarang bangkangan untuk mengadakan perhubungan perdagangan selagi ianya dibuat secara senyap-senyap“.
Di akaun Twitternya pula, Mukhriz juga menyatakan bahawa “Di atas permintaan daripada pelabur asing yang besar di sini pada tahun 1996, Kabinet mengarahkan MITI untuk meluluskan import dan eksport ke Israel.”
Kabinet tahun 1996 yang dimaksudkan adalah kabinet yang dipimpin bapanya, Mahathir Mohamad. Tulis Mukhriz lagi pada tahun 2011:
“Apabila kita meluluskan pelaburan langsung asing, bukanlah untuk kita mengenakan syarat bahawa mereka tidak boleh berdagang dengan Israel. Sesetengah pelaburan ini berjumlah berbilion Dollar di negeri-negeri di bawah Pembangkang.”
Ini bermakna negeri-negeri di bawah pentadbiran pihak pembangkang pada tahun 2011 telah menerima pelaburan langsung asing dari Israel. Pada tahun tersebut hanya tiga buah negeri yang berada di bawah pembangkang, iaitu Kelantan, Pulau Pinang dan Selangor. Dan saya tak fikir Kelantan terlibat dengan dana dari Israel.
Jadi, siapakah sebenarnya pencinta Israel yang wajib kita sanggah?
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.