Open Letter to PM by Jacqueline Ann Surin

Friday, 02-06-2006

Dear friends,

CH Khoo sent me the following letter written by Jacqueline Ann Surin that published in The Sun. Jacqueline is my friend, I’m proud of her for speaking out as a Malaysian citizen and a journalist.

teresa

An open letter to the PM

[the Sun Online Jun 01 2006]

DEAR Prime Minister Abdullah, When you first came into power after the 2004 general election, you promised us that you would be prime minister for all Malaysians.

In fact, I still have the letter you sent out to voters before the elections that promised you would fulfill your duties with sincerity, integrity, efficiency and fairness.

It was a letter that moved people, including staunch Opposition supporters.

There was hope that a new leadership which was more conciliatory, more willing to listen to differing views and more just was in store for the country.

And people invested in that hope by voting the Barisan Nasional back into power with a clear majority.

But recent events, including your administration’s reactions to these events, have been deeply troubling. The most recent has been the disruption of a peaceful and legitimate public forum in Penang organised by a group of non-governmental organisations that wanted to help people reclaim their rights under the Federal Constitution.

It was unfortunate, but really no longer inconceivable, that those who opposed such a civil discussion should frame their opposition in ways that incite hostility, threaten violence and make false accusations in the name of Islam, a religion that in fact promotes peace and justice.

What is actually more troubling is that as prime minister, you have also publicly announced that these issues of Constitutional rights are “sensitive” and the organisers of such events must be careful not to tread on “dangerous ground”, lest the government has to use the Sedition Act against them.

Why would you lend legitimacy to the argument that Malaysians should steer clear of discussing issues which affect us all as citizens, whether Muslim or non-Muslim?

By continuously telling Malaysians these issues are “sensitive” and “dangerous”, isn’t your administration really creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren’t you in fact supporting the argument that these issues should not be discussed?

Additionally, Malaysians have been reminded by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz that it’s not for no reason that the word “amok” comes from the Malay community.
Non-Muslims ¬ and that easily translates to non-Malays in this country ¬ are told we cannot speak out about the way Islam is used to formulate laws and public policies in this country even though they affect all of us.
We are told that not just the Sedition Act can be used, so can the Internal Security Act which allows for detention without trial.

In fact, I found it deeply paradoxical that Nazri could repeat the threat of the ISA at an international meeting of experts on Islam and human rights last month.

How can an unjust law be Islamic? We know it cannot, and yet, it would seem your administration is wielding it as a way to silence citizens in a democracy.

The way I see it, naming something “sensitive” and “dangerous” is just a disingenuous way of saying, “This is not open for dialogue and discussion. We might tolerate your views but only to a certain extent.”
What that extent is, is left to be seen. We hope your election promises will be kept for all Malaysians, but really, many of us are more fearful than reassured.

From a non-Muslim perspective, the events leading up to the need for public discussions such as the Article 11 forum in Penang, have been disconcerting and troubling.

The painful injustice suffered by S. Shamala who found that her estranged husband could unilaterally convert their children to Islam, and the widow of M. Moorthy who discovered she could not bury her husband according to Hindu rights, are real and frightening.

But those instances of injustice are not being framed as “sensitive” by non-Muslims. They are not being used to threaten violence or incite hostility in order to silence discussion of the issues at hand.
Ad d i t i o n a l l y , w h e n yo u upheld the decision for the tudung to be used in police parades, did you consider how it would make non-Muslims feel? How can it still be a surprise then that most non-Malays will not join the police force?

Really, I don’t need to be a Muslim or a Malay to have a stake in this country. But even that might be delegitimised because in more ways than one, I’m a minority.

And I’m constantly reminded that my views and concerns must give way to the privileges and rights of the dominant race, and a specific interpretation of the faith they profess.

But really what I want to ask you is this: Why do I have to constantly feel afraid in my own country? Why am I continuously told I have less rights to discuss important issues affecting my community?

You promised to be prime minister for all Malaysians. We hope you will remember that promise.

A Malaysian citizen. Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun.

警隊烏龍

警隊烏龍

本周最大的烏龍,莫過于大馬皇家警察把屬于警隊內部傳閱、反對政府成立「警方投訴及違例行為獨立委員會」(IPCMC)的會訊,刊登在其官方網站上。

有關會訊的內容,除了敘述皇家調查與改進警察部隊委員會建議政府成立IPCMC的來龍去脈、警方對該委員會報告書其中24項建議的批評、警方代表與首相兼國內安全部長針對皇家調查與改進警察部隊委員的報告書和IPCMC與首相進行的對話內容,以及他們反對IPCMC的十大理由。

有關會訊和網站的內容其實是非常令人驚訝的。在皇家警察代表與首相所進行的對話里,它敘述各階層高官反對成立IPCMC的理由,某位警官甚至對首相說,如果IPCMC成立的話,警察協會的成員將進行的系列抗議杯葛行動,包括以手機互傳短訊表達不滿、按時上下班、拒絕100元津貼而要像其他公務員那樣的每星期工作5天和每天工作8小時、廢除隨時服務的精神而只進行主要工作吧了、在2008年大選投票給在野黨、要在野黨為他們在國會爭取權益、要警官協會領導層及警隊領導層集體辭職,因為他們無法為警員們爭取權益、任由罪案率上升、查案警官集體辭職等。警方對于其他政府機構的弱點沒受到抨擊,但是警隊成為被針對的對象,同時國內安全部對警方被批判保持緘默感到沮喪。

在上述談話里,最令人注目的莫過于警方要「在2008年大選投票給在野黨」和「要反對黨議員為他們在國會爭取權益」這恐嚇了。警方的首要職責是維護國家治安,在政治上,他們原本就應該是中立的,他們效忠的對象應該是國家,而不是執政黨,因此警察在大選時投票給那一個政黨是他們的人權與自由,投票給在野黨并不表示他們不效忠國家或不效忠警隊,此外,在野黨的國會議員在抨擊警方濫權和貪污之余,也經常都在國會為警察部隊的薪金和福利發言,因此警方把投靠在野黨列為抗議IPCMC的行動,也真反映出他們民主意識的薄弱。

在上述皇家警察的網站內容曝光后,國會在野黨領袖林吉祥便針對警隊威脅要在來屆大選投票支持在野黨的聲明,而發文告要回教黨表態是否支持IPCMC的成立,因為在上期國會會議,回教黨議員完全沒對IPCMC表明立場。令人意外的是,除了回教黨秘書長卡馬魯丁向電子報「今日大馬」表明該黨支持IPCMC的立場是無可質疑之外,回教黨其他領袖看來卻對此保持緘默和模棱兩可。

雖然全國總警長經已對該會訊刊登在網站里公開向政府道歉,并表示警隊對目前政府的效忠,而上述反對IPCMC的文章,在媒體大肆刊登后,已從大馬皇家警察的網站里卸下,但是警方這烏龍,也真讓普羅大眾有機會對警方部隊對皇家調查與改進警隊服務委員會的建議,特別是對IPCMC的激烈反應的態度有更進一步的認識。他們看來已把自己定位為不可挑戰和不可被監督的部隊,也就因為許多警員具有這樣的態度,因此民眾才對皇家警察有這么多的埋怨。

我真難以想象,警察部隊的代表竟然會對身兼國內安全部長的首相阿都拉作出這樣的恐嚇,而我們的好好先生型的首相也竟然無動于衷?如果馬哈迪還擔任首相和國內安全部長的話,我們的皇家警察是否敢這樣對他說話呢?

警方網站的烏龍,實際上已傷害到警方的形象,它也再次挑起人們對警方霸權的不滿,如果警方愿展開民調,他們肯定發現肯定越來越多的馬來西亞人會要政府成立
IPCMC,因為極度的權力帶來的便是極度的腐敗,這是自古不變的道理。

(2-6-2006)