1. Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
Not easy for gov't to repeal ISA, says Najib, 12 April 2012
by Aidila Razak
Letting go of the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 has been a difficult thing for the government.
Saying this at the police headquarters in Bukit Aman today, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said it was especially difficult for Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein.
“It was not easy for the home minister to give up the powers to detain individuals but he did so willingly because he understands the rakyat’s expectations,” he said.
The Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012, which is to replace the ISA was tabled for first reading on Tuesday.
Najib also thanked the Inspector General of Police Ismail Omar and his force for supporting the move to repeal the ISA, which allows detention without trial.
“The force did not oppose it but hoped that the move will not impede on their job... dealing with global terrorism, extremists and crime syndicates,” he said.
Najib said the job of the government and the police is to find that delicate balance between observing fundamental human rights and national peace and security.
He said it these expectations from the rakyat are “not unreasonable” and “can be achieved”.
Najib was officiating the new office tower in Bukit Aman built at a cost of RM435 million.
The tower includes a clinic, a creche and a Permata early childhood education centre for children aged one to five.
He also announced that a new hall for Bukit Aman which will be “included in next year’s budget”.
The PM later presented cheques to 20 former police personnel who had served during the Emergency.
2. The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com)
Separation of mosque and state, 12 April 2012
by Azrul Mohd Khalib
I was at first saddened and then began to be really angry (unfortunately, this is becoming more and more frequent as of late) at news of a seminar originally titled “Pemantapan Aqidah, Bahaya Liberalisme dan Pluralism Serta Ancaman Kristianisasi Terhadap Umat Islam. Apa Peranan Guru? (Strengthening the Faith, the Dangers of Liberalism and Pluralism and the Threat of Christianity towards Muslims. What is the Role of Teachers?)”, the seminar involved 300 teachers in Johor being indoctrinated on their role in strengthening the Islamic faith.
Once again, we and those who we entrust are held hostage by people who see a phantom menace in the shadows of their own inadequacies, fear and bigotry.
Explain to me how it is acceptable for a religious body to collaborate with a government agency dealing with the educating of children and young people, to organise a seminar for educators with the intent to cultivate fear, distrust and suspicion of another faith.
How can we tolerate people educating our children to point their fingers at a group of people of a different faith and say that, because of who they are and based on unsubstantiated accusations of proselytisation, they are a threat to us and our way of life?
Unless I am wrong, Muslim and non-Muslim taxpayers pay for the salaries of the officials of the Johor Mufti Department, the Jabatan Agama Islam Johor and the Johor Education Department. How is this sort of seminar acceptable or even tolerated? This seminar was allowed to continue, with no censure or rebuke uttered by the government. Many have therefore concluded that this was a government sanctioned event.
Not too long ago, I wrote about religious fascism in Malaysia. The fact that this seminar targeted educators suggests an insidious motive and agenda on the part of the organisers. By targeting the teachers of our national schools, they are aiming to inculcate their prejudicial and bigoted values into the students of these schools. These students are our children. Why are we allowing this to happen?
Make no mistake. Islam in Malaysia is not under attack by the Christians or any other faith. It has nothing to do with Islam and being a Muslim. But what was done that Saturday and other similar activities have everything to do with bigotry and the need to dominate and subdue others.
Being conservative is not a bad thing. But these people give conservatives and Muslims a bad name.
Religious leaders are expected to behave in a way as befits the position entrusted to him by his congregation and community. By fanning the flames of paranoia and distrust, they betray this trust. They undermine the spirit of harmony, co-existence and social contract in which Malaysia was and continues to be built upon.
The unrepentant behaviour and sentiments of the Johor Mufti Datuk M. Tahrir Kiai Samsudin and his department are extremely regrettable and does not reflect in the majority of Muslims in this country. We need to denounce their dogma, reject their hate and let them know that they do not speak for us.
The administration of religion may have been a state affair but the federal government was entirely within its right to instruct the 300 teachers to not attend such a seminar. Yet, the Ministry of Education did not do so.
The deafening silence from both the prime minister and the education minister is unacceptable.
It was also disappointing that the best that the head of the Special Committee to Promote Inter-Religious Understanding and Harmony, Datuk Azman Amin Hassan, could manage was a change in the title of the seminar. The seminar should have been cancelled. The issue was also not resolved as he believed.
The title may have changed but the “niat” or intent as well as the content remained in the spirit of the original. This clearly suggests that when a group wields the bludgeon of the Islamic faith, we are helpless, impotent and must comply. They feel no need for apology. They believe that they have done no wrong.
Maybe this is exactly why the founding fathers of the United States of America found it necessary to ensure the separation of church and state. It was to protect and prevent individual faiths such as Islam from being abused and misused by persons and entities intent of using one’s religious beliefs to dominate, impose, bludgeon, intimidate, subdue and threaten others.
In our country, we find that a small minority of unelected individuals who bestow upon themselves as champions of the faith and feel that they are unaccountable to anyone, are basically attempting to hijack relations and sow distrusts and fear between communities particularly between Muslims and Christians. They have intruded into public policy making far beyond their scope and mandate of religious affairs. Where and when does it stop? Where is the separation of mosque and state?
The paranoia that exists is one of our own making. We have allowed a group of ill-informed, ignorant and bigoted individuals to lead us down the yellow brick road towards their vision of a future where one ethnic group and one faith dominates above all.
The original seminar title clearly indicates that the organisers saw pluralism as a threat to Muslims in this country. They don’t believe in pluralism and diversity. They don’t believe in a modern Malaysia. So why are we allowing them to be in the driver’s seat?
・The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.
・Azrul Mohd Khalib works on HIV/AIDS, sex and human rights issues. He is becoming cynical and is in danger of losing his sense of humour and mind. He also runs and is battling an addiction to the "A Song of Ice and Fire" book series. Azrul can be contacted at azferul@gmail.com.
3. Global Public Square(http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com)
Zakaria: Explaining the Arab world's democracy deficit, 10 April 2012
by Fareed Zakaria, CNN
As Egypt's election campaign gathers pace, we are seeing the rise of candidates from Islamic parties, one more radical than the next. Across the Arab world, the promise of a new birth of freedom has been followed by a much messier reality.
It raises the question in many people's minds: Why does it seem that democracy has such a hard time taking root in the Arab world?
As it happens, a Harvard economics professor, Eric Chaney, recently presented a rigorous paper that helps unravel that knot. Chaney asks why there is a "democracy deficit" in the Arab world and systematically tests various hypotheses against the data. He notes that such majority-Muslim nations as Turkey, Indonesia, Albania, Bangladesh and Malaysia have functioning democratic systems, so the mere presence of Islam or Islamic culture cannot be to blame.
He looks at oil-rich states and again finds that some with vast energy reserves, like Saudi Arabia, lack democracy, but so do some without – like Syria. He asks whether Arab culture is the culprit, but this does
not provide much clarity. Chaney points out that many countries in the Arab neighborhood seem to share in the democracy deficit - Chad, Iran, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - yet they are not Arab.
Then Chaney constructs a persuasive hypothesis based in ancient history and modern economics. He notes that the democracy deficit today exists in lands that were conquered by Arab armies after the death in A.D. 632 of the Prophet Muhammad.
Lands that the Arabs controlled in the 12th century remain economically stunted today. This correlation is not simply a coincidence. Arab imperial control tended to mean weak civil society and a large role for the state in the economy. Chaney documents the latter, showing that the government's share of GDP is 7% higher on average among countries that were conquered by Arab armies than among those that were not. He also finds that these countries have fewer trade unions and less access to credit - features of a vibrant civil society.
There are less medieval factors. It has long been apparent that the dictatorships of the Middle East form close alliances with religious leaders to crowd out other leaders and groups. Indonesia, the country with the world's largest Muslim population had religious parties just as Egypt did. But it also had powerful groups that were less religious, more moderate and entirely secular. All these groups competed for influence on an even footing, something that is not happening in the Arab world.
Chaney's analysis reminds us that the real problem in a country like Egypt is that the military continues to keep power concentrated, undivided and unchecked. It maintains the central role in the economy. The chief challenge in the Arab world remains to create a vibrant civil society, which means political parties and also a strong, self-sustaining private sector.
The dysfunctions in the Arab world have ancient roots, going back over a thousand years. But this does not mean that the region is impervious to change. History, and the habits it engendered, are democracy's biggest foes in the Arab world. But as these habits change, things should improve. It is a prescription for the very long term, but at least it is a prescription.
For more of my thoughts throughout the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to visit the Global Public Square every day. Also, for more What in the World? pieces, click here.
Post by: CNN's Fareed Zakaria
(End)
