Anwar Ibrahim and others
Al-Jazeera: Malaysia's Anwar 'to be charged'
Malaysia's de facto opposition leader is expected to be formally charged in court with sodomising a male aide, lawyers for Anwar Ibrahim have said.
Sankara Nair, the lawyer, told Reuters on Wednesday he had information that his client "will be charged for sodomy" after being asked "to answer charges" in court.
First off - Let me say that I am not and was never a supporter of Anwar Ibrahim.Ok, call me a naive or whatever but seriously I never thought that the police and the AG department would dare to charge him especially after all the so-called conspiracy theories and all kind of stories that you can find on the net. Plus there hasn't been any serious evidence found of his "crime". I am pretty sure our police keep a close eye on our local bloggers too, especially Raja Petra. It is really mind boggling to think that this is going to happen again. Sigh.
One thing for certain is that if Malaysia is Pakistan, people like Anwar would've been shot long time ago. But the reality is, Malaysia is not Pakistan. If the Malays, by nature are similar to our Pakistani fellows, Malaysia would have been declared Republic of Malaya 10 years or so before our actual Merdeka date and all our Malay Sultans would've been overthrown from their crown and chased away from their Istanas. And should that event take place, Ahmad Boestamam would probably be our first Prime Minister in mid 1940s instead of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra.
Ha ha. Wishful thinking eh. But it did not happen. Why? Because the nature of the Malays are soft. The nature of the majority Malays were that they still look upon the anak Rajas and the aristocrats (golongan bangsawan) as their payung and leaders. That is perhaps one of the many reasons why if you read any Malay history books, there has never been a revolution, though some might argue that the Jebat revolt against the Sultan of Malacca and the killing of Sultan Mahmud (Mangkat Dijulang) in 1699, as some of the important historical event where the rakyat revolted against injustice and cruel ruler.
In modern time, I think the closest that the Malays had in creating a revolution was in Brunei in the early 1960s by the Partai Rakyat Brunei, led by A.M. Azahari. But the revolt against the Brunei government was successfully thwarted by the British army assisted by Commonwealth troops.
Note that by writing this piece of blog entry, I am not at any time suggesting that we should have a revolution or that we should replace our established constitutional monarchy system.
Faisal Tehrani, one of my favourite local author, has written an interesting historical novel, entitled 'Saasatul Ibaad' soon to be released on 30th August. According to the synopsis from his blog, it is a story about the so-called Malay revolution during the time of the legendary Sultan Mahmud (Mangkat Dijulang), last descendant from the Sultan of Malacca, who was killed in 1699.It's been quite a long wait 'cos I've been waiting for him to write a historical novel for many years already. The last historical novel by Faisal Tehrani that I read was 'Surat-Surat Perempuan Johor' and that was way back in 2005 and I'll probably keep my RM17 MPH rebate for this book. Below are the book synopsis taken from Faisal's blog.
"Dokumen sejarah menunjukkan peristiwa Sultan Mahmud Syah mangkat dijulang adalah merupakan satu pemberontakan atau revolusi yang begitu mengejutkan sekali dalam kalangan umat Melayu. Ia berlaku pada tahun 1699, seratus tahun sebelum revolusi Perancis berlaku pada tahun 1799. Keberanian umat Melayu waktu itu untuk menderhakai kepimpinan korup moral waris keturunan Demang Lebar Daun cukup menggamamkan. Umat Melayu dengan nekad bangun menggantikan penguasa zalim tersebut dengan seorang pembesar yang wara'. Sejarah juga menunjukkan umat Melayu bersatu secara spontan untuk menolak Sultan Mahmud Syah, kerana kegemaran songsang dan pembunuhan."
Although I haven't read the book yet, but based on his previous books that I have read, I think I'll enjoy reading it. But I beg to differ with the usage of the term 'revolusi..di kalangan umat Melayu'. Faisal might understood or has a different idea of the term revolusi, but to me, there was no real revolution. What happened was just a change in the leadership. Unlike the French revolution, what happened in 1699 was an individual revenge. It was totally not some kind of a huge protest by the masses against the Sultan or against the feudal system. In contrast with the French revolution after effects, there was no real change in the social structure of the society. And politically, the feudal system was very much still in place.
Alright, think I'll read the book first before commenting further. :)
Adios.
Comments
Yep I have just finished reading the book. I admit that some of my comments here were a bit premature. Sorry for that.
Faisal's explanation about the Malay revolution saying that it was not a 'matlamat' but merely a 'proses' is justified and acceptable. :)
"..because the thought of not having an armed struggle for our independence is shameful"
Look, revolution wouldn't mean anything if it doesn't achieve it's target or matlamat. Same goes for Independence. Merdeka berdarah tak ada makna kalau pengisiannya kosong. Soekarno memang hebat sebagai tokoh kemerdekaan, tapi dia gagal dalam ekonomi negara.
Singapore tak ada pun armed struggle for independence, but look where they are now..
Lastly, do you seriously think Malaya or Malaysia would be a democratic country if the Communist succeed in their revolution and ruled our country?? No way, man. There is no such thing as democracy in the Communist world. Look at Cuba, China, the former Soviet, North Korea..
"..because the thought of not having an armed struggle for our independence is shameful"
perhaps the use of the word "shameful" is inappropriate..perhaps i should use the word "sad"
I like to state here that i'm a muslim with leftist tendencies... i don't support communism.. for me capitalism,socialism,communism etc is a failed system...
before anything let's just put ideologies aside...
Democracy is broad subject matter. Nak ukur "true democracy" pakai kayu ukur siapa? Amerika? Great Britain? Indonesia?
tak ada satu bentuk sistem demokrasi yang betul2 perfect. tengok Indonesia pasca Suharto 1998, kacau bilau, huru hara. Sebab apa? Sebab rakyat tak pernah menikmati kebebasan total sebelum itu. Macam budak asrama penuh di kampung, lepas dapat masuk universiti di bandar terus terasa dapat kebebasan nak buat itu ini segalanya.
Tak dinafikan demokrasi adalah sistem politik terbaik. Tapi ianya harus mengikut acuan tempatan bukannya ala Barat. Sebab itu pendemokrasian di Iraq gagal. Sebab itu Aung San Suu Kyi pun mengaku tentera Junta akan sentiasa menjadi sebahagian daripada kerajaan (this by no means I'm supporting the military junta.never). But Su Kyi is a realist. Myanmar yang berbilang bangsa dan berbilang suku kaum akan hancur/kacau bilau seperti Iraq kalau menerima fahaman demokrasi acuan Barat.
Demokrasi hanya alat memerintah. Manusia/pemimpin politiklah yang harus memacu demokrasi itu dan menentukan arah dan hala tuju. Sebab itu pada saya tak ada salahnya demokrasi di Singapore sebab itu adalah kaedah yang terbaik untuk Singapore (walaupun tak 100% perfect). Sometimes we have to sacrfice a little bit of freedom for the sake of nation's security. Lebih-lebih lagi negara yang berbilang bangsa dan agama. Kebebasan total tak ada makna kalau ekonomi merudum, inflasi melambung, rasuah, negara huru hara, rakyat bergaduh..
Inilah pertama kali saya dengar komen Tok Bahaman, Tok Janggut dll tak dapat pengiktirafan sebab mereka melawan British? Pelik benar. Saya sejak sekolah rendah lagi dah khatam semua buku2 pahlawan-pahlawan Melayu ni. Semua pun tahu dan iktiraf perjuangan mereka melawan British. Ini jelas dan nyata. Cumanya perjuangan mereka bersifat tempatan, contohnya tak puas hati sebab British kenakan cukai tinggi terhadap hasil tani, British rampas tanah rakyat dsb. Perjuangan mereka bukan menuntut kemerdekaan Semenanjung Tanah Melayu. Mereka tidak juga berjuang menggabungkan Walhal perjuangan UMNO dan Perikatan dulu bersifat nasional dan memang nak menuntut kemerdekaan. Saya tak menafikan perjuangan pemimpin kiri dulu, tapi jangan sampai nak menafikan terus peranan Tunku dan UMNO dalam memerdekakan Malaya. Fakta sejarah semua ada. Jelas.
Ramai orang berjuang menuntut kemerdekaan, ini tak dinafikan. Parti-parti berhaluan kiri, Komunis, PAS, Parti Negara & IMP dan banyak lagi, tapi Perikatan pimpinan Tunku dan rakan2lah yang berjaya menang pilihanraya dan membentuk kerajaan, sekaligus memerintah negara. Oleh sebab itulah Tunku lebih mendapat publisiti sebab dia Perdana Menteri. Kalau Ahmad Boestamam menjadi Presiden Malaya tahun 1945 atau kalau mana-mana pemimpin kiri dulu menang pilihanraya, sudah tentulah mereka ini yang akan lebih menonjol. Simple logic.
I rest my case. dah boleh buat another blog entry pulak ni.
kalau nak ekonomi lebih mantap, baik malaya ni stay under british rule... dlm pemikiran sesetengah org malaya pra-merdeka ialah "kalau british ni takde camne kita nak makan"... kita pun tahu sebab utama beri kemerdekaan kpd malaya kerana mereka tahu kalau satu malaya ni lawan habislah pelaburan mereka..pasal tulah mereka "berbincang" dgn org2 malaya yg mereka tahu bleh menjaga kepentingan mereka di malaya pasca merdeka...
mungkin brader tgk merdeka dari segi material...saya lebih menjurus kepada pengisian...
saya takkan setuju dgn kenyataan ini... perlembagaan dan undang2 wujud adalah kerna nak melindungi setiap hak rakyat tak kira masa aman atau kacau bilau...
Dalam Islam,menahan sesaorang tanpa bukti adalah zalim dan berdosa... rasa2 nya pak lah sebagai imam "hadhari" patut sedar hakihat ini...
demokrasi bukan alat...tapi adalah hak rakyat...kebebasan adalah hak & fitrah setiap insan...
kenapa kita perlu terikat pada fakta,sejarah dan lojik??? kita pon tahu ni sume ditulis oleh "pemenang"... apa kata kita tukar paradigma...kita perjuangkan KEBENARAN walaupun pahit...
i really value your comments though we might disagree...haha.. have a nice day...salam