Religion Colour-blind

An opposition parliamentarian told the Dewan Rakyat today that a divisive line still runs between the major races in the country and called for the abandonment of race-based policies.This was greeted by jeers from her Barisan Nasional (BN) counterparts.Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) said the government’s Islam Hadhari or civilisational Islam concept was not functioning.

To illustrate her point, she cited cases of wastage in government expenditure.
“Why are we still divided into bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras?” she asked when debating the motion of thanks on the royal address.

“Although our ancestors came here hundreds of years ago, we are still categorised differently from bumiputeras,” she said.
She said students are given different examinations despite coming from the same school.
“The non-bumiputeras have to take the STPM (examination) while bumiputeras are able to take matriculation.

This (divisiveness) has gone into education,” she added.
Fong noted that although race-based policies were meant to eradicate poverty, this has threatened national unity.
She said government projects were only tendered to bumiputera contractors.

“These are just a few examples The colonialists practiced a policy of divide and rule how different really are the policies today? We are all anak (children of) Malaysia. We can march forward together, but the government must stop race-based politics.

“There is just too much politics nowadays. Everything is being politicised to the point where it has slowed progress,” she added.
Fong then proceeded to criticise BN MPs for ‘wasting’ taxpayers’ money.

“Parliamentary briefings by ministries are now conducted in , where each table is charged RM1,000. They (the MPs) get mobile phones,” she said, drawing jeers.
“Why is this waste going on?

It’s not that we are jealous. We ( the opposition) don’t mind if we eat nasi bungkus.
“This is a waste of money.

We can hold the briefings in Parliament. Where is Islam Hadhari?” she added.

She also criticised the giving out of gold jalur gemilang pins to BN Mps.
“This is an example of wastage. The money could have been spent on schools in Sarawak or in Kinabatangan (Sabah) where there is no electricity,” she pointed out.

Fong also lamented that non-bumiputeras are perceived to be constantly questioning the status of Islam in this country.
“I have the utmost respect for Islam. It’s status is protected by the Federal Constitution.

My argument is to practice the slogans that you preach,” she added.
Later, Mohamad Aziz (Sri Gading - BN) attacked the opposition MP.
“Why does DAP always waste time raising such trivial matters.

Can’t they see that the government has done much for the people,” he said.
“Let DAP mull over their complaints if they can form a government,” he added.
Renounce corruption and discard abuse of power- that s the clarion call made by His Majesty King to AAB and other government leaders in the country.

 These were precisely the roots of the problem we are facing with the current batch of Umno leaders.
I understand that in Islam, the sin of corruption is a very serious one. And abuse of power is cruel and unjust to the victims and their families.

AAB and other Umno top guns must heed the call and response positively and immediately, instead of turning a deaf ear.
ACA must be given a new life to fight corruption and ISA, OSA and other draconian laws which were vulnerable to abuse of power must be discarded now.
The King also emphasised on the importance of Muslims living harmoniously with people of other faith.

I hope all muftis and the various religious departments will listen to the King and response and react positively.
But would the promoter of the so-called Islam Hadhari and other Umno and BN leaders heed the call of our King? God bless Malaysia.

Renounce corruption and discard abuse of power, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Mizan Zainal Abidin told those in government circles today.In a speech at the Putra Stadium in Bukit Jalil to commemorate the birth of Prophet Muhammad, Mizan called on those holding the trust of government to honour the mandate placed on them by the people.
He also said Islam taught and emphasised on the need to develop self-resilience, trust and transparency when discharging one’s duty, according to a Bernama report.

Present at the celebration were Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, his deputy Najib Razak, and other Muslim ministers.
Mizan also called on Muslims generally to unite while living harmoniously with people of other faiths.
“In the early age of Islam, the Prophet had forged good relations with the Jews and Christians and sealed treaties with non-Muslim governments.

In the message delivered to them, (the Prophet) expounded the goodness of Islam hence they accepted the fact that differences in religious beliefs and faiths were not a hindrance to harmonious living, the king said.
About 12,000 people participated in the parade that took place earlier at the Bukit Jalil National Sports Complex.
DAP Chairman Sdr Karpal Singh, who s also the MP for Bukit Gelugor, has taken the Umno-led BN Government to task on the issue of directing Non-Muslims to seek remedy in the Syariah Courts, thus disallowing them to seek justice with the Civil Courts .

Karpal is right. It s not the question of whether the Syariah Courts were able to dispense justice. It s the rights of the people of different faith not to be subjected to by a set of laws tailored for the Muslims.

Such judgement has caused much disquiet and unhappiness among the people of differenth faiths and could be very damaging for our multiracial and multi-religious society. It s the duty and responsibility of the Umno-led BN Government to resolve this highly sensitive issue.
Meanwhile, the Malaysian Cousultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism issued a statement on the same matter.

I have reproduced the statement by the Chairman of MCCBCHST in this blog.
An opposition Dewan Rakyat member has called on the government to take up and resolve issues involving the overlapping of civil and Syariah court jurisdiction.
Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) said it was about time the matter be looked at and a solution found.

Referring to the case of R. Subashini, he said it was perplexing that the Court of Appeal could ask the plaintiff, who is a Hindu, to seek remedy in the Syariah Court in regards to the dissolution of their civil marriage and the conversion of their child.
Does this mean there is an extension of Syariah laws to non-Muslims?

he queried in his debate on a Motion of Thanks on the Royal Address.
Karpal, who is DAP chairman, also said the time had come for Parliament to take up the matter and resolve it.
This matter, though sensitive, must be discussed in this hall in an objective manner, he pleaded.

He added this was essential as other similar cases, like that involving the late S. Rayappan, have been on the increase of late.
Touching on corruption and the judiciary, Karpal said Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had spoken out against corruption in the Judiciary.

This shows that there is corruption in the judiciary, he said, adding that was a need to now establish an Independent Judicial Commission.
Earlier, the wheelchair-bound Karpal took on several BN MPs who criticised him for belittling the King’s speech.
Karpal had said the speech was not the King’s own, because as a Constitutional Monarch, it was the government which drafted his speech.

He had said there was no mention of anything on corruption.
Md Alwi Che Ahmad (BN-Ketereh) pointed out that paragraph 40 ofthe King’s speech did touch on integrity and corruption.
Karpal replied: But there is nothing specifically of cases that were mentioned.

Karpal refused to give way after being pressed by Md Alwi who then retorted: You have been here for 20 years and you do not know the rules ah!
Both BN MPs and opposition MPs then mixed it up.
Deputy Speaker Yusof Yaacob had a tough time controlling the situation, prompting Karpal to tell him: Can you control these creatures (makhluk) .

As things began to settle, Karpal touched on the corruption of the national language.
Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa. However the national language is littered with words corrupted, particularly from the English language, he said.

He took to task Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka for allowing the national language to be corrupted.
Are there no other words than coming up with Integrasi, Innovasi or Reformasi. Are all these not from the English language?

, he asked.
Even when I refer to Tuan Speaker, it is corrupted, he said much to the amusement of all in the Dewan.
Karpal then targetted Barisan Nasional component leaders, first with People’s Progressive Party (PPP) president Datuk M.

Kayveas, saying he was nothing more than a political con man.
Barisan Nasional in the coming election should give the PPP seats in the Kinta Valley, he said.
He also criticised Works Minister Datuk Seri S.

Samy Vellu and Deputy Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for not being exemplary leaders.
MAJLIS PERUNDINGAN MALAYSIA AGAMA BUDDHA, KRISTIAN, HINDU, SIKH DAN TAO
MALAYSIAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY, HINDUISM, SIKHISM AND TAOISM
Secretariat: Buddhist Maha Vihara, 123 Jalan Berhala, Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur Fax 03 22739307 Email:
PRESS STATEMENT ON COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON SARAVANAN v. SUBASHINI
In the wake of the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Saravanan A/L Thangathony v.

Subashini A/P Rajasingam [Rayuan Sivil No. W-02-955-2006] we, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, are greatly disappointed that once again, the non-converting non-Muslim wife of a convert to Islam has failed to get relief from our Civil Courts.
Hitherto, in the case of Shamala a/p Sathiaseelan she was told by the High Court that it had no jurisdiction to declare as unlawful her young children’s conversion into Islam without her knowledge or consent and was advised to seek the assistance of the Islamic authorities.

Then the widow of Everest hero, Sgt. M. Moorthy also failed to get relief from the High Court on the ground of jurisdiction.

Following an uproar from civil society, the Right Honorable Prime Minister had declared that although Article 121(1A) of the Constitution would not be amended, laws will be amended to remedy the situation.
Though it has been more than a year since then, there have been no amendments to any law as yet to clarify the jurisdiction of the Courts.
It is our duty to inform the authorities that there is growing discomfort amongst the non Muslim citizens of Malaysia, who form 45% of the population, many of whom feel that the judiciary are failing in their constitutional duty to ensure the equal protection of the law for all Malaysians.

In Subashini’s case, the husband converted to Islam and converted the eldest son, aged 3, to Islam without the wife’s knowledge or consent. The husband then applied to the Syariah Court for custody of the son, again with no notice to the wife. The wife then presented a petition for divorce and ancillary relief and applied to the High Court for an injunction restraining the husband from (i) converting the children of the marriage to Islam and (ii) commencing or continuing with any proceedings in any Syariah Court with regard to the marriage or the children of the marriage.

The High Court initially granted an injunction after hearing only the wife who at that time did not know of the substance of the Husband’s applications in the Syariah courts. This injunction was continued whilst the case was heard in the High Court. After the husband submitted his evidence, and after the High Court heard both parties, it refused to give the injunction.

However, the High Court granted an interim injunction to the wife pending the hearing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, known as an “Erinford Injunction”.
The majority decision of the Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s appeal and set aside the Erinford Injunction with costs, effectively shutting the door on Subashini’s rights as a mother to prevent the Syariah court making a determination as to her marriage and as to the custody of her children.
To add to her problem, the majority have ruled that Subashini, a non-Muslim, must apply to the Syariah Court, instead of applying to the High Court.

Of particular concern to us is the statement by YA Dato’ Hasan Lah, JCA that the High Court and the Syariah Court must be regarded as having the same standing in this country.
We are also concerned to note that in his grounds of judgment YA Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar, JCA quoted a verse from the Quran and appeared to be elevating the role and prominence of Islamic law and the Islamic judicial system in Malaysia. We would respectfully remind members of the Judiciary that the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and the High Courts in Malaya and in Sabah and Sarawak are all civil courts and Judges of those courts take an oath of office to uphold the Federal Constitution, which guarantees all persons, including non Muslims, the fundamental liberty of professing and practising their faiths in peace and harmony.

It is very clear and specific in the State legislative list in the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution that the “Syariah Courts … shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam …”.
The learned Judges in the majority appear to note that requirement in their judgments, but with respect appear to contradict themselves by then requiring the non Muslim wife to go to the Syariah courts. We express our objection to any requirement for non-Muslims to have to go to the Syariah Court for relief as such courts apply Islamic theological law.

Religious laws cannot be applied to people who do not profess that religion.
The Court of Appeal in this case and civil courts are expanding Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. We are also concerned that Syariah Courts are usurping functions which are not theirs.

Consequently, non-Muslims are unable to obtain relief when the Syariah Court makes an order which interferes with their fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. Our highest court had declared in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v.

P.P. (1988) 2 MLJ 55 that Article 3 of the Constitution was never intended to extend the application of Syaria to the sphere of public law.

We object to any interpretation of our Constitution or our laws that deprive any person of his fundamental liberties, and deny access to a non Muslim to the High Court applying the general civil law.
We urgently call on the Government to immediately make the necessary legislative amendments to safeguard the rights of all Malaysians and to ensure non Muslims have full and proper access to justice in the civil courts.
 When the Non-Muslims choose the Civil court over the Syariah court, it s about their rights.

They were not questioning whether the Syariah court is fair or otherwise. It s unfair to disallow the Non-Muslims of their rights to refer their cases to the Civil court. No one should deny that the Civil court has a different set of laws from the Syariah court, and the non-Muslims were more comfortable with the Civil court.

The so-called Islam experts have got it all wrong. Please rethink, our brothers and sisters of the Islam faith.
PETALING JAYA (March 22, 2007): Islamic experts said non-Muslims should not be prejudiced against syariah courts, as Islam is a religion which assures justice for all.

They said non-Muslims should not be worried about appearing before the syariah court to resolve matters concerning Muslims or Islam, as it is not given that the court will side with the Muslim party.
These are the views of two  state muftis and a syariah court lawyer, who  practises civil and criminal law. They said that if the civil court had decided for a non-Muslim to seek justice at the syariah court, he or she should do so without any fear or prejudice.

They were referring to the Court of Appeal decision last week to dismiss the appeal by R. Subashini, a Hindu, to stop her Muslim-convert husband, Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, from going to the syariah court to dissolve their marriage and convert their children.
In the majority decision by a panel of three judges, Subashini was told to seek recourse through the
The syariah court should have jurisdiction over only Muslims, said the Bar Council s newly-elected president Ambiga Sreenevasan.

It is the Bar Council s view that where one party is a non-Muslim, the matter must be heard in the civil courts. This is in accordance with the law as it has stood for many years, she said today.
She was referring to the Court of Appeal decision last Tuesday (March 13) which dismissed non-Muslim R.

Subashini s appeal to stop her Muslim-convert husband - Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah - from going to the syariah court to dissolve their civil marriage and convert their children to Islam without her permission.
In the majority decision by a panel of three judges, Subashini was told to seek recourse through the Syariah Appeal Court.
Justices Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datuk Hasan Lah dismissed Subashini s appeal while Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram dissented.

Citing the Tan Sung Mooi case in the Supreme Court in 1994, which clearly decided that conversion to Islam does not allow a person to avoid his legal obligations under his non-Muslim marriage, Ambiga said Subashini s case again highlighted the fundamental issue of a denial of access to justice to a non-Muslim spouse where the other had converted to Islam.
This case shows that a real problem exists that has to be resolved swiftly, she said.
She added that asking Subashini to go to the Syariah Appeal Court was in effect asking her to be subject to a court which applied a theological law she did not believe in.

The All Women s Action Society (Awam) executive director Honey Tan Lay Ean, in a press statement, said the decision was disturbing .
She said while Suriyadi had commented that Muhammad Shafi was well within his Constitutional right in bringing the matter to the syariah court, it was contrary to the Federal Constitution which clearly states that syariah laws apply only to Muslims.
We ask: What of Subashini s rights and the rights of her children?

Tan also expressed concern that the rights of the children had been shunted aside. Both parents must have a say in deciding their children s religion. If there is no agreement, the children can choose their religion upon turning 18.

Until then, there should be no change in the children s religion, she said.
She said a non-Muslim woman would not feel secure in marrying and having children if her husband could potentially threaten to convert and take away their children.
Awam fears that violent husbands could use this threat to prevent women from reporting cases of domestic abuse, forcing them and their children to suffer in silence, she said.

Women Aid s Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah also expressed concern that the judgment was confusing and raised alarm bells as it appeared that the rights of the non-converting spouse was retrogressive.
On the same note, Suara Rakyat Malaysia executive director Yap Swee Seng called on the judiciary not to abdicate its duties and responsibilities, and check attempts to use the syariah court for a quick and easy fix such as cases of dissolution of marriages, custody battles and disputes over the religious upbringing of children.
He said the most appropriate court to handle a dispute between Muslim and non-Muslim parties was the civil court.

The Federal Constitution is the highest law of the land.
Because the Constitution is the country s supreme law, as stipulated in Article 4(1), all other laws and powers conferred by law must be constitutionally consistent.
Unlike Pakistan s constitution, which states that all laws must be consistent with syariah - as derived from the Quran and the Hadith - our Constitution does not stipulate this.

This is what makes our nation a secular one, no matter the kind of rhetoric our politicians resort to.
That may be stating the obvious but, sometimes, the obvious needs repeating, especially in the light of the Court of Appeal s majority decision in the R. Subashini case last Tuesday (March 13).

In the landmark decision, the Hindu woman was told by the Court of Appeal that she had to seek recourse through the Syariah Appeal Court to stop her estranged and Muslim-convert husband from dissolving their marriage in the syariah court, and converting their children to Islam without her permission.
This, despite the fact that both Subashini and her formerly Hindu husband, Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, were married in a civil ceremony in 2001, and hence, should logically and justly be governed by civil laws in ending their marriage and resolving issues such as custody and inheritance.
Since marriage is a contract, then the terms of reference that both spouses agree to upon entering such a contract, cannot and should not be overturned by new terms of reference that are a result of one spouse s conversion to another religion, in this case Islam.

Indeed, to suddenly impose new terms of reference on a spouse, who chose neither a new religion nor agreed to new conditions that are disadvantageous, is grossly unjust and contradicts Islam s exhortations for justice and fairness.
What recourse, then, do couples have if one spouse converts? Section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 already empowers the civil courts to deal with such situations.

Nobody disputes the legality of the Law Reform Act. Indeed, the law ensures that the interests of all parties in a dispute are protected according to the agreed terms of their civil marriage.
Hence, the civil court s decisions thus far in Subashini s case is highly problematic.

By allowing the converted spouse to have his civil marriage dissolved and to obtain custody of his son in the syariah court, the civil court is, in fact, turning its back on the non-Muslim spouse.
What s more, the Court of Appeal s majority decision that a non-Muslim spouse must seek remedy in the syariah court, is unconstitutional.
Schedule 9, List II (1) of the Constitution stipulates clearly that the syariah courts, which are constitutionally subordinate to the civil courts, only have jurisdiction over persons professing the religion of Islam .

How then can Subashini seek recourse in the syariah courts? And why isn t the civil court upholding her constitutional and civil rights?
Malaysians should also remember that three years ago, the High Court told S.

Shamala, a Hindu, that she could not seek redress in the civil courts to declare null and void her children s unilateral conversion by her Muslim-convert husband, and advised her to seek the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan s help instead.
Out of desperation, Shamala fled the country with her two children.
Following that, M.

Moorthy s family was also told they could not seek justice in the civil courts because Moorthy had allegedly converted to Islam.
In Subashini s case, however, the civil court has gone one step further by telling a non-Muslim to submit to the syariah court. Not only is the Court of Appeal abdicating its responsibility to protect a citizen s rights and interests as provided for by good law, it is also ignoring the Constitution by enlarging the syariah court s jurisdiction where none can exist unless there is law to that effect.

Such a judgment not only undermines the Constitution that this nation was founded on, it also fuels the fear that our Constitution is being hijacked by an Islamist agenda.
Hence, the need to repeat the obvious. The Federal Constitution is the highest law of the land, and we would all do well to respect its supremacy.

Cuma kata beliau DAP yang tidak mahu bekerjasama dengan PAS seperti berlaku pada pilihan raya umum lalu.
Beliau juga berkata, masyarakat minoriti di negeri ini boleh melaksanakan kegiatan mereka dalam bidang ekonomi, sosial dan budaya tanpa sekatan.
Mungkin mereka (DAP) masih terpengaruh dengan kempen Amerika Syarikat yang mendakwa Islam bersikap ganas, ujarnya.

Beliau juga melahirkan rasa syukur kerana pakatan PAS dengan Keadilan semakin utuh sekarang.
Bagaimanapun katanya, media memainkan peranan memburukkan PAS dan Islam.
Beliau berkata, sekarang tidak ada masalah dalam hubungan PAS dengan DAP.

Beliau juga menjelaskan kedatangannya ke Kelantan bagi mengukuhkan lagi mauafakat antara PAS dan Keadilan.
The government has painted a rosy picture of the country’s economy but a survey discovers that the sentiments on the ground are rather thorny.The continued rise in living costs and inflation top the list of concerns among voters, according to the survey by independent opinion research firm Merdeka Centre.

It was conducted from October to December last year.
Of the 1,025 respondents, 32 percent said they feel the effects of the country’s economic performance.
As for the ‘top issue of the day’, respondents listed, among others, price hikes, inflation, economic slowdown, unemployment, poverty and development issues.

“Although the economy has always been the top concern for a large number of voters, this however has heightened since the in the first quarter of 2006 and has remained high since then,” said Merdeka Centre director Ibrahim Suffian when contacted.
He said the discontent over this issue was already apparent in a poll conducted last April, a month after the price hike was announced, where more than 60 percent of the respondents said the economy affected them the most.
Apart from fuel, there were also price increases for electricity and water supply last year.

The government had also announced that effective Jan 1, the toll rates for five highways will be increased.
The price hikes led to a public outcry and numerous demonstrations were held.
The latest Merdeka Centre survey revealed that the economy had varied effects on the different communities.

Sixty percent of the Malay respondents said they were satisfied with the government’s overall management of the economy but 39 percent were dissatisfied.
As for the Chinese, 55 percent gave the thumbs-up while for 41 percent, it was thumbs-down.
The Indians registered the highest dissatisfaction rate over this issue.

Sixty-three percent were unhappy while only 34 percent were satisfied.
Overall, the dissatisfaction for the government’s economic management rose from 39 percent last March to 47 percent in October.
According to the Chinese respondents, they have been affected by the ‘directionless economy’, rising inflation and a sense of pessimism among the Chinese business community.

The Indian respondents said they were also affected by the rising inflation and lack of access. They also felt the community lacked credible representation outside the ruling Barisan Nasional.
Despite the odds, half of the respondents were optimistic about making ends meet in future.

Nineteen percent expected to see a decline in their personal financial situation while 21 percent said it will be stagnant for them.
Seventy-one percent of the Indian respondents are confident that the government will be able to provide solutions for the problems affecting them.
However, 53 percent of Chinese and 46 percent of Malay respondents believe that the government was incapable of solving the country’s woes.

As for the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP) unveiled by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi last March, only 25 percent of Chinese respondents believe they will benefit from the five-year economic blueprint. As for the Indian and Malay respondents, the figures were 67 percent and 38 percent respectively.
The issue of corruption was also a major complaint, with 72 percent of the respondents rating the present situation as ‘unfavourable’.

However, the survey noted this will not affect the voting behaviour.
“Low-level corruption affects non-Malays more than the Malays. A plurality of Malays accept patronage as part of ‘development’,” read the survey.

Apart from the economy, respondents, especially those in urban areas, were concerned with crime and public safety as well. Social and moral problems were also major concerns for the Malay and Indian respondents.
The Chinese and Indian respondents also felt that their rights and equality in education were the most relevant issues to them.

The survey also found that ethnic relations remained positive on the surface but the potential for fissures still exist.
About 50 percent Chinese and 41 percent Indian respondents were also worried about the Islamisation of Malaysia where Islamic values and rules of conduct are gradually incorporated into public life.
On the contrary, 63 percent of the Malay respondents wanted to see greater Islamisation take root.

Seventy-nine percent of the Indian respondents and 58 percent of the Chinese respondents also felt that their respective political parties are ineffective in voicing the concern of their communities in respect to Islamisation.
The poll findings raise the question if the government led by Abdullah will be able to repeat its 2004 general election success?
Merdeka Centre’s Ibrahim said despite the dissatisfaction of the respondents over several issues, the general public appears to be contented with the present government.

“Overall public satisfaction has improved. Despite (some) issues, the majority of the public remains appreciative of the status quo,” he added.
 The NGOs in Malaysia were very busy and often bogged down by too many burning issues at hands thanks to weak leadership of this man on the left.

 We were forced to spend our limited resources, energy and time on campaigning against numerous Umno-led Barisan Nasional government policies and privatisation projects concerning the rights and wellbeing of the rakyat incinerator in water catchment area, illegal high-tension transmission towers in residental areas, unequal treatment of mother-tongue education, press freedom, freedom of religion, judiciary and police reforms, privatisation (read price increase) of water, healthcare, tolls, fuels and now FTAs.
On the surface, bilateral FTAs are fair and square to the two nations committed to the agreement. Both countries can buy and sell whatever products and services between them on the same set of rules and conditions.

It s a level playing field so to speak. But the problem lies in the unequal strength of the two countries. Just like a 5 footer with a body weight of 60 kg has to fight with a 6 footer of150kg in the boxing ring.

Yes, they both have to compete under the same set of rules and conditions. But even a child can tell you that such a fight is lopsided and unfair to the weaker opponent.
In theory, Malaysia can sell our computers and sofwares to the Americans.

The Amricans , like wise, can sell their computers and softwares to Malaysians. But what kind of computers and softwares we could offer to the consumers in America? If we allow government procurement to be free up, is there a Malaysian company that can compete with the US giants, whether in the US or back home?

The minute we enter FTA with America, Malaysians would not be allowed to buy generic drugs anymore.Can our patients here afford to buy the patented drugs which were much more expensive?
Many countries  have suffered badly after entering FTA with US.

Mexico, Australia, Latin America and Singapore, just to name a few. For instance, some 2 million farmers in Mexico lost their jobs because they could not compete with the American farmers.
So, we need AAB to gives us a report on the pros and cons of entering FTA with America.

Malaysians have a right to know how much we will gain and how much we will lose if we sign the FTA. We will then decide whether we should support or reject the FTAs. That s in the interest of all Malaysians and the Umnio-led BN Government has no right to keep us in the dark before signing the FTA with America.

The AAB administration must be condemed for signing a lopsided FTA with Japan quietly without consultation with the rakyat and the Parliamentarians. They now wanted to rush into agreement with the US, again without consultation with the rakyat and the Parliamentarians. Minister Rafidah Aziz has not bothered to respond to the coalition of NGOs despite of numerous requests for meeting and dialogue.

Here s a campaign which need your participation. Your participation will certainly make a difference.
Despite numerous letters and memorandums sent on our concerns, the government has not addressed our concerns. The government is just pushing through the talks very fast without getting feedback from the civil society, unions, NGOs, parliament members and the people of Malaysia.
In this process, the Malaysian citizens or the parliament are not aware what is being negotiated and what we are trading off. We are not even sure whether they have done their cost and benefit analysis as they claim to have done and what is the outcome.
If the FTA is signed next year, Malaysians are going to face more economic problems, increase in medicine prices, job losses, local industry unable to compete with US companies and the list goes on. (To know more: )  
The Coalition Against FTA is urging all NGOs, community organizations and concerned citizens to fax in their protest letters against the Malaysia-US FTA on the  3rd January 2007 to the Prime Minister s office and Dato Rafidah s office.

Fax in as many protest letters as you can, if possible please get each member of your organization to fax in the protest letter to the PM s office and Dato Rafidah s office. A sample letter has been included for your reference.  
 After reading several racist remarks made by certain Umno leaders and also listening to the debates put forward by many delegates at the Umno assembly, it appears to us that many Umno leaders and delegates have completely forgotten about the five important principles set out in the Rukunegara.
Everyone of them would claim that he or she believes in God. But are they truthfully following the teachings of God or actually behave like little Gods themselves?

ISA and several other draconian laws are unIslamic. Corruption, lying, cheating and bullying tactics were not halal in God s laws but how many Umno leaders were not guilty of it?
They would certainly claim that they are loyal to the King and the Nation.

But judging from the behavior of people like the owner of Istana Idaman (Zakaria Md Deros, Umno Klang division chief cum state assemblyman of Pelabuhan Kelang) and the Menteri Besar of Selangor, we were not so sure. Can corrupt politicians who live like parasites of the society consider themselves as loyal citizens of this country?
On the question of whether they uphold the Federal Constitution or otherwise, one just have to look at the way mother-tongue education and religious freedom was being treated by the Umno leadership.

How about Rule of Law? Ask the close one eye Jasin MP and Raja Zakaria and the other local councilors whether they have followed the laws or putting laws in their hands.
And how about being cultured and well-mannered?

Ask the journalists who covered the DAP protest outside the Istana Idaman for the answer. They will tell you how difficult it was to differentiate between Umno members and gangsters. They have even called their partners in the Barisan Nasional coalition kurang ajar and biadap .

And also look at what they did and said about their former President Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Some of them think Dr M is not a jantan . 

-- Author information is disabled per default. Uncomment and fill in your details if you want to use it. A little something about you, the author.

Nothing lengthy, just an overview.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Religion category.