MAHATHIR AND TRANSITION OF POWER

by

K.Siladass

"We don't know if the country is ready for a transition of power." So says Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. It must be shocking to many why he said this, and say it at this time. The country will want to know what he meant by, “if the country is ready for transition of power.”

When Mahathir decided to be part of Pakatan Harapan, and showed determination to bring change in the government, the people were ready for the change and indeed voted in PH instead of BN. That, in Malaysian context in no uncertain terms, confirmed the Malaysians' desire to effect and accept a change. A transition from corrupt government to incorruptible government. And where rule of law will be upheld.

We must also remember that on 8th March 2018 writing the Foreword for BUKU HARAPAN Mahathir wrote, among other things:

* we will rebuild the nation and fulfil the hope of the people;

* offer ourselves to shoulder the heavy responsibility of saving the country;

* we are always willing to listen to the advice and opinion of the people;

And most importantly Mahathir concluded by stating that we "cannot hope this regime (Najib's regime) will correct itself. The only way to correct the situation is by bringing in a new government that has the credibility to implement the promises in this manifesto. A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT WILL CORRECT THE MISTAKES OF THE CURRENT REGIME (Najib 's regime) (Words in brackets mine).

Thus on 9th May 2018 the people accepted the promise Mahathir made on behalf of Pakatan. They wanted the change. They were ready and showed their determination for change of power from the kleptocracts to those who were ready to do the cleaning and provide a government with justice.

Have the people changed their course? No they have not; instead, it was the government under Mahathir’s helm that had deflected from some of the important promises which could have been avoided. 

The Tanjung Piai by-election should be treated,as the people's reminder that, "if we have the courage, and were ready for a change, we still have the courage to whip you back to the correct way should you stray away.

The country was always ready to deny BN power, that is why PH is in. Only you can lose it if people's aspirations are ignored.

Go back to BUKU HARAPAN. Only that can help you back to sustain the trust of the people.

No one needs to fear to do the right thing.

Let fear haunt the wrong doers.

ZAKIR NAIK MUST LEAVE MALAYSIA

By K.Siladass

It is strange that Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was very quick to accuse Gong Dong, the Chinese educationist group as racists but maintains absolute brutal silence on the daring, mischievous and venomous accusation heaped by the Indian fugitive Zakir Naik on the Malaysian Indians. He has not spared our Chinese brethren, for he brazenly tells them to leave Malaysia. A foreigner whose purported criminal activities had prompted the Indian Government to initiate extradiction proceedings, has the temerity to challenge Malaysians. A foreigner is questioning the Indians’ loyalty and demanding that the Chinese should leave are matters that could ignite racial tension, yet there is no response from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The Indian run away fugitive who has been given Malaysian permanent-resident-status had been denied entry in many countries, and Mahathir himself has confirmed this. Mahathir should have studied the reasons why he is denied entry in various countries. The suggestion that foreign criminals could be safe in this country just as other criminals, or those who are suspected to be criminals, seems too real.

Zakir who has no respect for the laws of his country of birth has no qualms to question Malaysian Indians’ loyalty. By abusing the hospitality extended to him,he has thereby shown that his motive is to create discontent among Malaysians. Mahathir is not concerned about this and has not seen it important to condemn Zakir Naik, and he has not come to the defence of Malaysians from the unjustifiable attack by a foreigner, fugitive, wanted by his country.

It is heartening to note that not all Malaysians share Mahathir's intolerable silence. The President of the Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan, retired Brigadier-General Datuk Mohamed Arshad Raji has condemned Zakir Naik and warned him to keep away from controversy. Zakir Naik is dishonest with hidden agenda. Those who have joined in calling for his removal from Malaysian soil are Tan Sri Rais Yatim, a prominent lawyer, and former cabinet minister, the present minister for Youth and Sports, Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman, and Mahathir’s daughter Marina. The warning is timely and clear. Zakir has no place under the Malaysian sun. He has to go.

Mahathir should appreciate that Gong Dong is Malaysian by origin, it exists legally and is managed by Malaysian citizens and its concern should be treated with respect. Hurling insensitive remarks would not help.They are not fugitives or the likes of foul and venom spewing Zakir Naik.

Who should leave Malaysia, Kit Siang or Zakir Naik?

Ahmad Fadhki Shaari, MP for Pasir Mas wants Lim Kit Siang, DAP veteran and who has served, and continues to serve as a member of parliament since 1969 to leave Malaysia. This call comes in the wake of Kit Siang urging controversy-prone-preacher Dr Zakir Naik to leave Malaysia and return to India. The call by Pasir Mas MP as a comparison falls flat.

Kit Siang is a Malaysian citizen by virtue of his birth. Zakir Naik is an Indian citizen by birth and he has been given permanent resident status to live in Malaysia. Zakir Naik is a fugitive who had run away from law. Kit Siang is not a run away staying in Malaysia. People like Ahmad Fadhli who languish in false, fabricated and laughable history should know, or at least attempt to learn the truth, the historical truth.

When May 13th riot riots broke out in Kuala Lumpur Kit Siang was away in Kota Kinabalu. He heard of the riots whilst he was there. He could not return as Kuala Lumpur was under curfew, therefore he landed in Singapore. It was then evident that many politicians have had been arrested and detained under the much hated Internal Security Act. And it was very obvious that Kit Siang would be arrested. Here comes the crux of the difference between Kit Siang and Zakir Naik. Kit Siang braved the arrest and returned to Kuala Lumpur fully aware that he will be arrested and detained without trial for an indefinite period. He could have stayed away by not returning to Malaysia. He desisted such a notion.

Now let us look at Zakir Naik's position. He is wanted by Indian authorities to answer criminal charges that had been made against him. There is a warrant for his arrest. He will get a trial, not that he will be detained without any trial. The whole world is watching and is monitoring the Zakir Naik show. Zakir himself has imposed conditions to the effect he should not be detained on arrival in India. So what we have is a situation where Zakir Naik chickens out when it comes to facing the realities of law; but not Kit Siang who bravely walked into facing harsh detestable laws knowing too well he will be detained without any trial.

Member of Pasir Mas (Ahmad Fadhli) should go and read history and learn to distinguish between sand and gold. Sand will be washed away but gold will remain where it is. Zakir Naik is sand, Kit Siang is gold and will remain where he rightly belongs.

K. Siladass

AGEISM-NEED FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION LAW

Speech by K. Siladass

at MCHA Conference on 24^th July 2019 on Healthy Ageing

The general consensus is that it is not the culture of the Asians to be disrespectful to the elders – be it the parents or grandparents, or generally, elderly persons. The younger generation revere the elders, and hold them in high estimation. There is an Arab proverb which says, if you do not have an old man at home buy one.

The great Roman statesman, orator, lawyer ad philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero tells us that during the great Olympiad all seats in the stadium had been occupied, and when an elderly person showed up, the youngsters stood up as a mark of respect and offered their seats. These were the common features in a civilized society. It was unnecessary to enact laws to teach, regulate and instil good manners, to honour the elderly.

Today, even Asian countries are enacting laws to protect their senior citizens. Was it necessary? If that is a wrong question to ask, would it be proper to assume that Western education has actually altered Asians’ mindset, especially relating the veneration extended to the elders, generally. In dealing with the Western education I am mindful of the benefits the human kind had derived through it: but what could be very distressing is the changes that had occurred after two world wars which had indeed caused attitude related difficulties that seem insurmountable.

We, Asians know that there were discriminations everywhere, even after countries had been decolonized the new national government were slow or totally disregarded any notion to eradicate every form of discrimination. And discrimination were of varied kind, and nationalism was gaining popularity. And there was strong movement towards racism, and racism blended with religion became too popular. And because popular too. We were growing accustomed to racism, and sexism. The West was arming itself against discrimination wherever it may be found. United Nations and human rights organization were devising methods to combat discrimination of every form. And Asians too were looking at the ways discrimination could be arrested: notwithstanding the fact, in Asian countries legalized discrimination was a norm, in the name of race or religion, or both.

There was one area where US seemed uncomfortable and that is the abuse and discrimination against elders. Although, race discrimination was rampant one incident showed that discrimination is not confined to race, or religion for that matter. The elders were being discriminated in a subtle manner and this was highlighted by Robert Neil Butler in his article “Age-Ism: Another Form of Bigotry.”

Butler referred to the National Capital Housing Authority’s proposal¹ to purchase Regency House, a high-rise apartment building in Chevy Chase for the elderly poor, and held hearings on its proposal. The hearings were attended by middle class and middle-aged white citizens of Chevy Chase and they were against the purchase of luxury housing with a swimming pool on the roof of the Regency Hotel for older people who were not accustomed to luxury. Some of the statements made at the hearings were published in the local newspapers and they were:-

                        “You would open the door for people who don’t know how to live.”

“Slums are made by the people who live in them.”

“It (public housing) has to come sometimes but not this time or in this place.”

“I am not against old folks, believe me.”

“Who wants all those old people around?”

Butler went on to explain that the use of Regency House for the elderly poor carried implications beyond Chevy Chase: The classic or scapegoat explanation for prejudice turns upon the unconscious effort to justify one’s own weaknesses by finding them in other – in other races, religious, or nationalities. Personal insecurity, once generalized, becomes the basis of prejudice and hostility.²

Butler added:

“Age-ism describes the subjective experience implied in the popular notion of the generation gap. Prejudice of the middle-aged against the old in this instance, and against the young in others, is a serious national problem. Age-ism reflects a deep seated uneasiness on the part of the young and middle-aged-a personal revulsion to and distaste from growing old, disease, disability; and fear of powerlessness, ‘uselessness’, and death.

“Cultural attitudes in our society reinforce these feelings. We have chosen mandatory retirement from the work force and thus removed the elderly from the mainstream of life. Age-ism is manifested in the taunting remarks about “old fogeys,” in the special vulnerability of the elderly to muggings and robberies, in age discrimination in employment independent of individual competence, and in the probable of inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

At that time, in 1969, Butler confined ageism as parallel to racism. But in 1987, Butler defined ageism “as a process of systematic stereotyping and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin colour and gender.”³

Butler did express his concern about “the probable inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

Since the term ageism had evoked considerable attention, as the literature on ageism had been steadily increasing, but not plenty as that on racism or sexism. The database Psychinfo, contained 3,111 articles on racism, 1385 articles on racism, 1385 articles on sexism and only 294 articles on ageism.⁴

The articles on ageism devote much attention on examining Butler’s definition which seemed too wide. There are suggestions that ageism should be restricted aimed at protecting the elders from abuse and humiliation. And in deserving cases they should be respected and their talent recognized with proper reward.

There is admittedly some confusion as to the definition of the term ageism, and it has been pointed out that it “is distinct in many ways from other isms.”⁵ I am inclined to this view as racism is against other races altogether whereas sexism is against women generally. Ageism is relative to age. A person when he is young, strong and useful society will like him or her: but, when aging process reaches a point of no return the discrimination is too obvious. This could be seen from some of the ways elderly people had been dealt with.

A letter to The Guardian in 1989 complained that the writer’s aunt sought medical treatment from the NHS for her varicose veins which had begun to be painful. The specialist told her that she could not have the operation to replace the damaged veins with artificial ones because it was not advisable for a person of her age to have an operation! Furthermore, the operation for varicose veins was essentially a cosmetic one and therefore normally reserved for younger women who needed to keep their husbands happy. The letter ended with a question: “Is this official NHS policy?” ⁵

We are not to be left out in this type of saga in Malaysia. Thomas Foo in his letter to New Straits Times wrote:

“A week ago, my wife, who is in her 70s, had a fainting spell after her walk. I took her to a private hospital, where the doctor recommended that she be admitted for some scans and tests. It turned out that there was nothing serious. I went to the admission counter to process her admission procedures. In spite producing a credit card to pay for the bill, I was asked to act as a guarantor and to produce another guarantor. My sister-in-law, a retired headmistress, offered to be a guarantor, but she was rejected since she was above 60. This requirement is disturbing as elderly people without children or those with children living abroad will have problems looking for guarantors.”

There are a plethora of description demeaning the elderly: for example: “dirty old man”; “second childhood”; “old age symptoms showing”; “fussy old man”; “grey tsunami” and other terms.

Aside the demeaning description of the elderly there have been remarks suggestive that the elderly had outlived their usefulness. The improved life span, to those who complain that the elderly are a burden on the economy have not been very kind. We have a British novelist Martin Amis who compared the growing army of elderly to “an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops.” Christopher Buckley, is an American author, and both, Amis and Buckley encourage euthanasia. Amis has offered “a Martini and a Medal,” and Buckley suggested “tax breaks” for euthanasia volunteers.

The Economist editorial pointed out that “Amis and Buckley are right to warn about the threat of the ‘Silver tsunami’. Most people understand about the ageing society in the abstract. But few have grasped the size of tsunami or the extent of its consequences.”

The comparison of aging with tsunami was indeed distressing least to say; for, how could one equate the natural aging with disaster which is also natural. Tsunami causes disasters, and how could old age cause similar violence. Was the editorial suggesting that aging would have terrible consequences such as that of tsunami in Japan?

But, it would be wrong to single out Economist alone who had embarked on a journey to vilify the elderly people: In June 1989, The Guardian in its editorial categorically stated that, “we must see old men, constitutionally and not in further chaos, defeated and removed.”

If we look at all these we could reasonably conclude that abuse against elderly person is rampant in this country. And ageism has also entered into Asian region.

India, which is known as the bastion for respecting and honouring elderly people had to pass laws to protect the elderly. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 makes it a legal obligation of children to provide for their elderly parents, abandoning them is a criminal offence. The Indian law aim to protect biological, adoptive or step-parent, grand-parents, or senior citizens over 60 years who cannot maintain themselves, can claim maintenance.

Senior citizens who do not have children can claim maintenance from an adult relative who is in possession of their property or will inherit the property on their death.

Malaysia too has similar problems. Children abandoning parents after taking away their savings or have property transferred to them. Most of the disabled old parents end up in charitable homes. I would urge the Government to look to India as a model to enact similar law as the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 so that the elders will not be left in the lurch.

……       end      ……

Notes:

¹See Age-Ism: Another form of Bigotry

²ibid

³In the Encyclopedia of Aging

⁴Thomas Nicolai Iversen, Lars Larsen, Per Erik Solem: A conceptual analysis of Ageism

⁵Quoted by Bill Bytheway and Julia Johnson in their article On Defining Ageism

MR. PERFECT, LIM KIT SIANG

by

K. Siladass

My association with Lim Kit Siang began more than half-a-century ago: 1968 to be precise. He was then the organising secretary of the newly formed Democratic Action Party, (DAP). DAP was registered as a political party on 18^th March, 1966 and the founding members were C.V.Devan Nair,Dr. Chen Man Hin, Dr. S. Seevaretnam, D.P.Xavier, Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin among others.

At that time, Devan Nair was the sole-spokesman in Malaysian Parliament holding the DAP flag; having been elected under the People’s Action Party ticket in 1964 when Singapore was in Malaysia. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia on 9^th August 1965, but the UMNO-led Alliance government was unhappy with his presence in Malaysian politics.

To many in the ruling party, Alliance, the presence of Devan Nair in Malaysian Parliament was an irritating relic of Lee Kuan Yew’s entry into the Malaysian political scene, which in a way introduced a brand of political thinking, which involved the economic well being of all Malaysians, and mutual respect, thus moving away from race based politics pursued by Alliance, its partners, and the extreme leftist ideology advocated by socialist parties that had found common ground in forming Socialist Front.

The political philosophy of the Alliance was not only outdated but did have the effect to stifle the growth of multi-racial unity and importantly religious harmony. UMNO believed in unity based on race and religion and its own pattern of culture. Having built a strong Malay base, UMNO thought it will be in a better position to accumulate unrivalled political power, and economic empowerment of the Malays. The philosophy of power sharing was accepted as the most fundamental base for governance in this country, and improvement of the economic status of the Malays was acknowledged as a national programme but that does not mean the rest should be discarded. However, the economic empowerment of Malays did not translate the policy correctly, for, the actual beneficiaries were a handful of Malays who were cronies of those in power.

The expulsion of Singapore was not received well even in UMNO quarters. There were some in that party who thought that the draconian Internal Security Act now repealed and substituted with worst provisions was enough to deal with the types of Lee Kuan Yew and keep Singapore within Malaysia. Although this was possible, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman was not inclined to such a course. He preferred expulsion. Now, having seen the back of Lee Kuan Yew, Devan Nair was looked upon as his sole spokesman in Malaysia. Whenever and wherever Devan Nair addressed public rallies people thronged to hear him, as if he was carrying some message from Lee Kuan Yew.

When Lee Kaw, the first DAP member of the Johore Legislative Assembly and I with few others decided to form DAP branch in Kluang followed by other branches in North of Johor, Devan Nair did attend some of the public rallies. When going to one such rally in Kluang and seeing the huge crowd, Devan Nair jocularly remarked, “Shall I tell them (the crowd) that I have no message from Kuan Yew?” Devan Nair accepted the political reality of the day. His continual presence in Malaysian politics will be exploited by DAP-adversaries to hamper its growths as a strong opposition to UMNO-dominant-Alliance.

In fact by 1968, Devan Nair reduced his DAP political activities in Malaysia and Goh Hock Guan emerged as the Secretary-General of the party. Malaysian Parliament was dissolved at the end of the first quarter of 1969 paving way for general elections in early May. And Devan Nair, as Malaysia’s torch-bearer of democratic socialism decided to pass on the torch to Dr. Chen Man Hin, Goh Hock Guan and Kit Siang. Devan Nair would return to Singapore to continue with his crusade in trade unionism.

During the formative years of DAP, Kit Siang and I would travel in his Fiat 1100 to various parts of Johore to establish DAP branches.

The 1969 general elections came and the results showed that the opposition had made significant inroads into the then Alliance’s strongholds. The Socialist Front had earlier decided to boycott the election. It was the final political harakiri, the Labour Party of Malaya had committed. It paled into oblivion and eventually disappeared from the Malaysian political scene altogether. DAP established itself as a party with appreciable followings in Malaysia, and a force to be reckoned with.

Election results in Penang showed that the opposition Gerakan had gained majority of seats to form the State Government. In Perak and Selangor, Alliance had lost its majority and the signs were clear that the opposition coalition could form State Governments. Alliance could not wrest Kelantan away from PAS. However, riots broke out on May 13^th. In actuality, Kit Siang had on 13^th May, 1969 morning, left KL for Sabah to assist the election campaign of a panel of independent candidates in Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan and Tawau. It was whilst speaking at a public rally at Kota Kinabalu on 13^th night he learnt of the riot on the same day. On 14^th May 1969, Kit Siang was served with an order to leave the State of Sabah as he had criticised Dato Mustapha, the then Chief Minister of Sabah at a public rally.

As there was only one flight then between KL and Sabah, Kit Siang took the flight on the following day eg. 15^th May 1969 and landed in Singapore as KL was already under curfew and Subang airport was closed. Kit Siang returned to KL on 18^th May 1969 and was arrested on landing.

May 13^th riot had caused immeasurable damage with loss of lives and property. Many reasons were attributed to the cause of riot, lies, fabrications distortions were aplenty. One reason among those false and fabricated ones was that Kit Siang had provoked the riot by his conduct, and this falsity has been perpetuated among the Malays even up to now. The actual reason, as truth unfolded did show that neither DAP nor its leaders were the cause but the loss of power in certain States, and the diminishing people’s support led some irresponsible persons to ignite the riot.

A state of emergency was declared and in consequence of which [Tun] Razak became the Director of the National Operation Council. Parliament was suspended, and with it,all fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution were also suspended.

In the meantime, Razak had brokered a coalition of all parties in the country both in Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia, hence Gerakan led by Dr. Lim Chong Eu, People’s Progressive Party then led by S. P. Seenivasagam and PAS, and other parties came under one umbrella called Barisan Nasional. DAP stayed out. Had DAP joined the Barisan at that time, the then leaders of DAP such as Dr. Chen Man Hin and Lim Kit Siang would have been made Federal Ministers. Aside that, the party would also have found itself in the State Executive Councils at least in the States of Perak and Selangor. But, DAP elected to stay away from Barisan Nasional, as it was alleged that there was some differences between MCA and DAP over the number of ministers each party should have; but that friction was put to rest when DAP firmly chose not to join Barisan Nasional. Soon after this development Hock Guan resigned from DAP as a result of which Kit Siang became the Secretary-General. Goh Hock Guan’s departure did not have any impact on the party.

As far as I was concerned, I decided to read law and, in late 1974, left for England.

In 1976, Kit Siang came to London to take his final Bar examinations. He had begun to read law whilst in detention. I had not seen Kit Siang ever since his detention following the May 13^th incident. The meeting between us in London was a reunion after a long period. I managed to get him a room in the London House at Mecklenburg Square where I had been staying.

The Bar examinations arrived, and Kit Siang was very enthusiastic, energetic and very confident that he could make it through. First day was good. He was happy with his performance. Second day too saw his confidence peaking the height of delight. Now, it could be the third day of the examinations that he felt hopeless and miserable. According to him he had faired poorly on that day’s examination paper. We had a long chat over dinner. He was determined to give up. I did tell him that he should concentrate on the remaining papers and not brood on his performance on one paper. Would he listen? It was too difficult to change his mind.

During his brief stay in London House, Kit Siang would come to see me at about five every morning to collect hot water. When we took leave after dinner on the evening of his disappointed performance, I told him, “I will see you in the morning Kit. Good night.” His reply was not convincing. But, I had a nice feeling that he would show up.

At five in the morning, as I had expected Kit Siang came to collect hot water. I then knew that he will complete his remaining papers. “Ok. Since I’m already here, let me finish it,” he said. He finished the remaining examination papers and before leaving for home he left some cash, his examination index number and his house telephone number to contact him once the results were out.

The results were out and Kit Siang passed with distinction. Shocking. Here was a candidate who was at the verge of throwing in the towel, yet had made it with astounding excellence.I called Kit Siang and informed him of the splendid results. And what did I get? “Stop Sila. Don’t joke!”

I repeated the result, yet, he wouldn’t believe. “Are you drunk?” was another insinuating arrow from him. He asked for the index number, which I repeated. Correct. Name: K.S. Lim. No! That’s not my name was his response. I told him that the Council would not publish the full name. Still he wouldn’t believe. The conversation ended. About half an hour later Kit Siang called and interrogated me further on the results. I thought Kit Siang was not in a mood to believe me.

A few days later, I received a telegram from Kit Siang. He was coming to London and requested me to meet him at Heathrow. From the time I received him at the airport and during the train journey to Chancery Lane, his suspicion did not abate. He was under the impression that something was amiss. He was sure that he had failed a paper so how could he pass with distinction? Unbelievable.

I remember it was on a Saturday that he arrived in London. We got down at Chancery Lane. He insisted that we go to the Inns of Court’s office to see the results. It had been few days since the results were published. The notification may have been taken down. All these factors did not prevent him from going to the office. We did go to the Inns of Court’s office at Gray’s Inn, it was closed.

On Monday, he went to the Lincoln’s Inn Treasury and, to his delight learnt that he had indeed passed with distinction. I am sure he then believed that I had correctly seen the results, and was not influenced by alcohol content when I conveyed the pleasant message, a few nights ago. That was not the end of the matter. He wondered whether he could see the paper that he had miserably performed and understand how it was marked. I laughed at his strange attitude. “They won’t show you.” I said.

Kit Siang was called to the Bar of England and Wales, and when he left for home, he was still unsure how he got through with distinction. That was Kit Siang, a man with steely determination and who believes in impeccable performance.

I have always found him to possess a kind of dedication in whatever he does. He is never satisfied with his own performance. On being successful in effecting a change of government with the co-operation of other parties at the last general elections, he was modest, displaying his inherent disassociation with false hopes. I was not surprised when he said, “I am surprised we won.” That is Kit Siang, Mr. Perfect.

Christchurch’s Tragedy,

Interfaith Humanity

Whilst the world is immersed in the tragedy that had struck the Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, a very simple understanding between a Muslim and a Hindu in one corner of the earth has given us hope that all is not lost, and there is still hope to eradicate misunderstanding and foster good relationship based on humane reasons and understanding. Two men were suffering from kidney ailment and both needed kidney transplant for their survival. One was Nadeem, a fifty-one years old Muslim and the other was a fifty-three years old Ramswarth Yadar, a Hindu.

Both the families of Nadeem and Ramswarth looked for donors but were unsuccessful. However, Dr. Hemal Shah, head of Nephrology at Saifee Hospital suggested the option of swap transplant. Ramswarth’s blood group (A) matched with Nazreen’s (Nadeem’s wife), while Nadeem’s matches with Sutyadevi’s (Ramswarth’s wife).

Following a month long discussion, the families agreed to swap the kidneys, and the transplants were successfully carried out. The two families, Hindus and Muslims have become life long friends. According to one source, as reported in the Indian Media, “Mumbai is not new to inter faith swap transplant. In fact, the city is home to the country’s first successful swap transplant in 2006, coincidentally involving a Hindu and a Muslim family.”

Perhaps this is the life-story peoples of different faiths should learn and digest the message. Religion should not be blind to love, kindness and compassion.

Interference with Judiciary

          I refer to your story, “Judiciary Not Immune to Interference”, (NST 22.2.2019). That story indeed evokes pertinent points calling for profound deliberation.

          The primary principle to remember is that there must not be any interference from any quarter with the judiciary. Any interference must be shot down as a calculated move to undermine the judiciary and its independence. The view that the judiciary is vulnerable to outside influence is a weak argument aimed at justifying disgraceful means to deflect the course of justice.

          The present complaint against the judiciary, apparently is not confined to conversion issues i.e. a non-Muslim converting to Islam, as had been highlighted; however, it is one of the reason which had been taken as an example to demonstrate that the judiciary can be vulnerable.

          Prior to Independence the civil courts dealt with all the problems whether they be Islamic or non-Islamic. This trend continued even after 31st August 1957 when the Federation of Malaya gained Independence and when Malaysia was created on 16th September, 1963.

          Perhaps we must first ask the question what do we mean by court? In the evening of the twentieth century the English Master of the Rolls asked: “What is a court?” And he answered: “This remarkably ugly room is called a court, but it is not the ugly room that is a court. It is a court because “we [judges] sit in it” (the word in brackets mine).
       
The learned Master of the Rolls did not venture further to define what is meant by “judges”. Perhaps that was unnecessary as it was well ingrained principle that judges had to be honest, incorruptible and be faithful to justice and not to the dictates of his whims and fancies. History is peppered with instances where judges have been faithful to their offices and refused to lean towards unfair practices. We have one judge who bravely declared that the king is not above the law. This was some centuries ago, and it happened in England. But, there had been also cases where judges have failed to live up to the demands of correct attitude of their oath of office.

          Now reverting to our own judiciary our courts have come away far from the ugliness or discomfort of the building the judges sit, which we call courts. The courts are fitted with modern facilities, and are comfortable.

We could ask did Malaysia have judges whose quality of honesty, incorruptibility had been suspect? Have the judges omitted to honour their constitutional duties? The answers must be in the affirmative; for, in the year 1966, on the eve of his retirement, the then Lord President of the Federal Court. Tun Sir James Beveridge Thomson wrote,

          “But though there have been changes in organization the highest standards in the actual administration of justice have at all times been maintained. That is because both Judges and practitioners have acted on the basis that the only standard of professional conduct and integrity is the highest.”

          And he added,

          “And what has been a source of particular pride to myself has been the way that the new generation of local Judges have held on high burning even more brightly the torch handed to them by their predecessors. The future holds no ground for fears or doubts.”

          It might have been observed that Thomson was referring to “the highest standards in the administration of justice”, which had been maintained at all times. He went on to define the quality of the highest standard in the administration of justice, because, both, the judges and practitioners have acted on the basis that the only standard of professional conduct and integrity is the highest”.

          Thomson was confident as can be seen in the penultimate paragraph of his message where he expressed the source of particular pride to himself has been the way that the new generation of local judges have held high in burning even more brightly the torch handed to them by their predecessors.” (See [1966] 1 MLJ xxvii at xxviii)

          The generation of local judges who handled the burning torch were those who believed in rule of law and maintained highest standards in the administration of justice. They are Tun Syed Sheh, Tun Azmi, NC Sharma, Tan Sri SS Gill, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani, Dato H. Ong, Dato H.S. Ong, Tun Suffian, and a host of others.

          Thus, we can see that the judiciary was maintaining its tradition of disallowing any outside interference; but, things changed as from 10th June, 1988 when Article 121 of the Federal Constitution was amended whereby the hitherto judicial power which had been vested in the judiciary was removed. Having removed the judicial power from the courts it inserted a new clause numbered (1A) which said that the High Court [Civil Courts] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts.

          The late Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Ibrahim explained that the “important effect of the amendment is to avoid for the future any conflict between the decisions of the Shariah courts and the civil courts which had occurred in a number of cases.” He then went on to list out some decisions which had been inconsistent with Shariah law. There was not any suggestion that Shariah law should acquire a status superior to that of the civil courts nor was the latter’s jurisdiction and power challenged. Where the parties to a dispute are all Muslims no problem would arise, but where all the parties are not Muslims and the dispute goes to the core of their matrimonial relationship, that is to say that in the cases of conversion only Shariah court have jurisdiction ignores the crux of the problem relative to jurisdiction.

          However, things came to a point of complete confusion when children under the age of eighteen were converted to Islam at the instance of one parent. Article 12(4) of the Constitution used the word “parent” and judges began to interpret that word ignoring the interpretive principles clearly spelt out in the Constitution itself and the Interpretation Acts 1948 & 1967. There also rose a question which court has jurisdiction when the question of conversion is in issue involving children. If there had been proper compliance respecting simple human feelings at the conversion stage, there would have been little dispute as to which court, Shariah or otherwise, has jurisdiction; but when the threshold of the conversion itself is challenged due to serious flaws, for example, when the consent of both parents of the children under eighteen years old had not been obtained, then, the question should be properly dealt with in civil courts. This was necessary as one spouse’s conversion to Islam after going through a civil marriage and having offspring, it is only fair that the civil court should bring an end to the civil marriage and the issues of custody of his children of his marriage, their religious education and education in general are dealt with. These are humane considerations transcending religious beliefs.

          When the interpretive tools were jettisoned and judges went on a spree ignoring their constitutional oath things got out of hand and injustice became the home of the judiciary. Were the judges faithful to their constitutional oath or faithful to their religion? Moot question, and only the judges themselves will have to answer conscientiously.

          Now looking at the events as revealed by Datuk Dr Haji Hamid Sultan, and the earlier disclosure by Dato Syed Aidid when he was serving as a judge, there had been occasions when judges were not able to exercise their mind consistent with the facts of the case. The complaints are not restricted to conversion cases but cover a large spectrum of judicial bias or blunder. Needless to emphasize that the complaints are very serious and need to be addressed and it would not be proper to take a stand that the judiciary is vulnerable to outside interference. Such a feeling should not have arisen in the first place, and it had no place in a democracy in which judiciary holds a very important position.

          The judiciary must be independent and for it to be so it has to have judges, who are honest, incorruptible, dedicated to the constitutional oath they had taken. Short of it would be unacceptable. Judges should be independent and be free to express their conscientious judgments. There should not be any interference – whether it be financial, prospects of promotion or protection of tenure in office, or divine pleasure. Judges should be faithful to the justice of the case, not to their faith, the consideration of which are different and personal. Dispensation of justice is for public good, not for amelioration of the religious morality.
 

 K.Siladass

What were the roles played by the races of Malaya during and after the Japanese occupation?

by

K.Siladass

Nowadays, it seems, race bashings, accusing, and abusing other races and religions, especially the Chinese and Indians and non-Islamic religions have become a norm; yet, the authorities seem not to be concerned at this blatant violation of the law, and lack of respect for constitutional safeguards.

In the midst of all the provocative allegations, some have started to add, as if fueling the flames of racial and religious hatred, that it is only the Malays who fought against the Malayan Union and that the non-Malays opposed it only when they realised benefit would accrue to them. We can understand if this suggestion had emanated from those whose knowledge in history is suspect. But, what must irk us is that such allegations come from those who are supposed to be well-endowed with education. Unless, they, for some reasons of their own, which cannot be wise, have chosen to turn a blind eye to history; or have no inclination to recognise the avert and covert acts of non-Malays during the Japanese occupation; with the co-operation of our Malay brethren.

Writing about Malayan Union, Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Y. Andaya, the authors of "A History of Malaysia" have this to say:- (at page 267)

"Although the Chinese and Indian Communities could see that the Malayan Union promised certain advantages, they also did not give it unqualified approval. When the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) was formed in August 1946, its leadership initially supported the Malay position." 

A.J. Stockwell in his meticulous monograph: "British Policy and Malay Politics During the Malayan Union Experiment 1942-1948'' (at p. 62) says that the ''Malay press gave the October announcement [about the creation of Malayan Union] a cautious approach, the most radical Malay group welcomed it enthusiastically."

Stockwell adds: (at p.62)

"… the majority of the people were at this time pre-occupied with the problems of survival; ‘rice riots', shortages of food and clothing, industrial conflict and general hardship rather than the constitutional future of the country were their immediate concerned. Until early 1946 the Malayan Communist Party (the political arm of the MPAJA) was able to take advantage of these problems to dominate what political activities there were in the peninsula."

Subsequently, when the full impact of the Malayan Union was realised, the Malayan National Party, which had initially supported the Malayan Union, withdrew its support. (See Stockwell at p. 76). So much for the position initially adopted by the Malays and non-Malays. Taking the political situation of that era into consideration and the British attitude to negotiate only with the Sultans and subsequently with UMNO, the views of the non-Malays were totally ignored. Besides, with Britain’s single-minded concern to preserve its military bases in this region and to wipe out Communist influences, the British were prepared to sacrifice the interest of the non-Malays.

Despite all the dangers that were faced by the non-Malays, whether they were communists or otherwise; they did everything within their means to resist the Japanese. Anti-Japanese activities were not confined to armed struggle but they were others eg. taking care of the people without racial and religious prejudice when food was scarce and protecting innocent people from the sword-wielding Japanese. It may sound like a trivial affair today but it is worth noting it today for they exposed themselves to severe reprisals from the Japanese.

When the Supreme Court of the Malayan Union was opened on 1^st June, 1946 by the Chief Justice Willan, he pointed out:

“As regard the records of the various Courts I am happy to say, that apart from Penang, the losses might have been more serious. In this Court our thanks are due to the members of the Court staff, particularly to Mr. Mahadevan my secretary, and to Mr. Samuel, now acting as Assistant Registrar, for their devotion and loyalty under difficult circumstances in preserving the major portion of the records in the Registry and also the Court libraries.”

The speech by Willan CJ can be found in 1946 [MLJ] at page xlvi.

The Mahadevan referred to by the Chief Justice is none other than the father of Dato Mahadev Shankar, a former Court of Appeal Judge in modern day Malaysia.

What should irk us here is that while there is so much reference made to Malayan Union and the struggle against it, the exemplary role of the Chinese and Indians during the Second World War is glossed over and made to look as insignificant and irrelevant.

The truth is that when the Japanese invaded Malaya, the British who were unprepared for this sudden assault had to retreat and prepare to retaliate against the Japanese. They believed that Singapore, the proud citadel, as they claimed would be sufficient to resist the Japanese advance. At last everything fell. British supremacy had been dealt with a serious blow. At that point of time there was not any political party to galvanise the people's support to resist the Japanese occupation.

The only party that had operated, albeit illegally, was the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). It was well organized and seemingly had an effective network. The MCP offered to work with the British against the Japanese but this was spurned by Sir Shenton Thomas, the governor of Singapore. Subsequently, there was a change of mind and the British agreed to work with the MCP. This collaboration saw the British supplying arms and training members to the MCP. And the vehicle which helped this venture was the Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Association (MPAJA). It is true that the MCP was dominated by the Chinese, but there were also Malays and Indians deeply involved in it. Rashid Maidin and CD Abdullah are well known communists for their role in resisting the Japanese.

The British, in their grand effort to contain Communism spreading in Malaya, decided to take harsh measures against their wartime ally, the MCP. If we look at the history of the Second World War, and the problems Malaya and the people faced, it cannot be denied that the Chinese-dominated MCP played a very important role and had always been a thorn in the flesh of the Japanese. The Malays and Indians who cherished freedom fought against the Japanese and many perished. However, some historians have chosen to give measured credit or completely blacked out of the MCP's role; the destruction of human lives, largely Chinese, followed by the Indians and lastly the Malays is a historical fact that cannot be erased. Thus, to say that the non-Malays have not contributed towards the general struggle against British Colonialism and Japan's expansionism is but a convoluted representation of history.

There may be a grain of truth that the non-Malays saw the benefit that could be derived from emigrating to this country, but that thought did not gestate during the Malayan Union epoch. That thought must have germinated when Sir Francis Light founded Penang Island and established a factory there on behalf of the East India Company. Since the Malay Archipelago was not richly populated and lacked the human capital for industries, such a state would not ensure the success that Francis Light had envisaged. He had to rely on a foreign workforce. That pioneer workforce must have seen the benefit that could be harvested from this region and they would have dreamt that this region could be turned into a viable place to work, live, raise families and settle down. They worked for the future, but whether the future that was controlled by the British colonialists treated them fairly and in a dignified manner is a moot point. The pain they suffered did not end, and their descendants have yet to be freed from such a pain. When will this end?

The accusation that the non-Malays only opposed the Malayan Union when they discovered the benefit is against history and cannot be supported. It is made to antagonise the non-Malays and to create hatred in the minds of the Malays, a method Adolf Hitler adopted to promote and instill German nationalism, that is Nazism a propaganda pregnant with lies and distortions condemning the minorities for the failures and pitiable state of the majority.

It is patently mischievous and contemptible to sideline the contributions by the Chinese and Indians on the overall struggle against the British and the Japanese. The minority communities are aware that those who are embarking on this dangerous trend are a minority themselves as the majority of Malays have distanced themselves from this sordid dissemination of falsehood.