I'm Malay First

This is a very good article written by a friend of mine. He chooses to remain anonymous but allows me to publish it. Thanks bro!

I am totally upset with the current issue of Muhyiddin v Lim Kit Siang regarding "I am Malay first". With all respect for your privacy and political stands, I cannot help but share with you my personal view on this.

Kit Siang's question, whether he realises it or not, is absolutely seditious and is indirectly posed to every Malay on this land.As if he deliberately wants to question our legitimacy as Malay! Why must we decide whether we are Malay first or Malaysian first? We are simply BOTH, what is wrong with that? Why can't he accept BOTH to be definitive features of us? This question is so childish; it is just like asking "whom do you love most - dad or mom?" Of course we love BOTH! Regardless whether we answer dad first or mom first, the reality remains both are dearest to us and we will never compromise or undermine any of them, isn't it?

Imagine if the same question is posed to someone of mixed parentage, like Eurasian - "Are you white first or Asian first"? The answer of course would be I am BOTH! Even if one said I am white first, Asian second or vice-versa, it doesn't change the reality and the fact that he fully recognises that he is of mixed parentage. Why must others make an issue with that? Can't we just accept everyone for what he/she is, and just work together like family for a better Malaysia, 1 Malaysia?

Kit Siang must realise that for the sake of peace and stability in Malaysia, Malay interest IS Malaysian interest, and Malaysian interest is Malay interest. If Malay's interest is not well taken care of, the majority race will continue to be left behind in the economic field and later vent their frustrations to create social and political problem which can be very costly to our beloved country. Similarly, if Malaysian interest is not catered for, Malay cannot benefit from overall peace and prosperity because the marginalised minority can cause instability and break up the country.

So there is nothing wrong at all if Muhyiddin wants to be Malay first, Malaysian second, as long he has full conscience that both are dearest to his heart. I remain respectful to him as a national leader and I totally abhor Kit Siang's conduct which has nothing to do with the people's interest and everything to do with scoring political points.

All Malaysians should condemn Kit Siang's cheap tactics and remain respectful of the rights of all Malaysia to be *religion* first, *race* first or Malaysian first - and let us all love Malaysia with every beat of our heart and till the last drop of our blood.

Anwar Tawar Zambry MB Perak

Saya tahu siapa yang dihantar oleh Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk bertemu Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir bagi menawarkan jawatan Menteri Besar Perak selepas PRU 12. Saya boleh dedahkan nama-nama mereka dan saya berharap mereka boleh berkata benar. Dua daripada mereka ialah Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat sekarang. Kepada Anwar, berkatalah benar walaupun ianya pahit!

Invictus

Invictus asalnya sebuah sajak yang ditulis oleh seorang penyair Inggeris, William Ernest Henley. Di tangan Clint Eastwood, Invictus menjadi sebuah filem yang hebat. Kehebatannya bukan pada sinematografi atau barisan pelakon yang jelita. Tetapi pada mesej dan jalan cerita.

Filem ini mengisahkan cabaran yang dihadapi oleh bekas Presiden Afrika Selatan, Nelson Mandela, dalam perjuangannya meruntuhkan tembok perkauman selepas pemerintahan rejim apartheid di Afrika Selatan. Beliau memilih untuk melakukannya melalui sukan ragbi.

Apa yang menarik dalam filem ini bukanlah kehebatan pasukan ragbi Afrika Selatan, Springbok, yang berjaya meraih kejuaraan piala dunia pada tahun 1995. Tetapi bagaimana Mandela berjaya mengikis perasaan benci kaum kulit hitam terhadap Springbok.

Springbok dianggotai oleh kaum kulit putih, kecuali seorang sahaja pemain kulit hitam. Kerana itulah Springbok dibenci oleh kaum kulit hitam. Pasukan ini adalah lambang kekejaman apartheid di mata mereka. Sebaliknya, bagi kaum kulit putih, Springbok adalah kebanggaan mereka.

Filem ini menampilkan keberanian dan keazaman politik Mandela untuk mengikis stigma perkauman ini. Walaupun terpaksa menghadapi tentangan hebat kumpulan ekstrimis kaum kulit hitam pada awalnya, Mandela memberi sokongan kuat kepada Springbok. Bagi Mandela, dalam membawa penyatuan di Afrika Selatan, tidak wajar baginya mengambil sesuatu yang menjadi kebanggaan mana-mana kaum.

Usaha ini berhasil. Kejayaan Springbok merangkul kejuaraan piala dunia telah meningkatkan rasa bangga rakyat Afrika Selatan terhadap negara mereka. Springbok bukan lagi lambang kekejaman apartheid, tetapi sumber inspirasi rakyat - baik kulit hitam atau kulit putih - untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa yang bersatu.

Keberanian Mandela berhadapan dengan kaumnya sendiri untuk melebur stigma perkauman yang tebal menjadikan Mandela seorang pemimpin yang hebat. Tindakan beliau menyokong Springbok, pasukan ragbi yang paling dibenci oleh kaum kulit hitam, memberi mesej yang kuat kepada rakyat Afrika Selatan untuk meruntuhkan tembok kebencian yang sekian lama membelenggu mereka.

Menonton filem ini, teringat saya kepada cabaran yang dihadapi oleh Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock dan Tun Sambathan di zaman awal selepas merdeka dahulu. Mereka terpaksa berhadapan dengan desakan, asakan dan tentangan yang hebat daripada kumpulan ekstremis kaum yang menuntut sesuatu yang lebih bagi kaum masing-masing.

Kalaulah bukan kerana keberanian pemimpin-pemimpin ini untuk berhadapan dengan kaum masing-masing, memupuk perasaan saling hormat menghormati antara kaum dan menegaskan keperluan kepada politik akomodasi dan toleransi, kita mungkin telah lama gagal dalam usaha untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa yang harmoni. Sekarang inipun, kita masih bergelut dengan cabaran yang sama.

Sifat berani inilah yang cuba ditonjolkan oleh Clint Eastwood dalam Invictus. Keseluruhan filem ini memaparkan keazaman dan kekentalan semangat Mandela untuk meruntuhkan tembok kebencian antara kaum dan memupuk rasa bangga pada sebuah negara bangsa yang bebas dan bersatu.

Biarpun tindakannya dicemuh oleh mereka yang skeptikal, Mandela tahu bahawa beliau seorang pemimpin. Sebagai pemimpin beliau tidak harus tunduk kepada cemuhan dan asakan. Sebagai pemimpin tugasnya ialah untuk memimpin rakyat ke jalan yang diyakininya benar. Bak kata Mandela dalam filem ini, yang dipetik daripada sajak Invictus, "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul".

Berapa ramaikah pemimpin seperti Mandela?

Invictus bukanlah filem bagi penggemar sukan ragbi. Ia adalah filem bagi mereka yang mahu mendapatkan inspirasi tentang bagaimana untuk menjadi pemimpin yang sebenar.

Berikut adalah bait-bait sajak “Invictus” yang menjadi sumber inspirasi Mandela ketika beliau berada dalam kurungan rejim apartheid.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Of Allah, Anwar and False Consciousness - Part II

In my previous posting, I argued that the brand of politics that Anwar is espousing now can only survive on three main pretexts, i.e. : (i) promoting unbridled human rights and freedom; (ii) sheer disregard of ethnicity and religion as the main marker of group identity and solidarity; and (iii) full acceptance of western secularism.

These three main pretexts underpin Anwar’s new political “ideology” that is supposed to drive his political ambition. Anwar portrays himself and the conglomeration of opposition political parties that he leads – i.e. Pakatan Rakyat - as defender of democracy and human rights; that the PR heralds a new vision of non-racial, free and united Malaysia; and that it respects individual rights to freedom of religion, conscience and belief.

Against the backdrop of this ideological construct, Anwar stepped up his attack on the “old” religious and race-based political ideology. First, he ridicules the concept of “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy) in favour of “Ketuanan Rakyat” (People’s Supremacy). It is unclear what Anwar really means by “Ketuanan Rakyat”. Does he mean “Kedaulatan Rakyat” (People’s Sovereignty or Popular Sovereignty) – i.e. definitive decision making power rests in the hands of the people - or total rejection of the special position of the Malays, which may not necessarily be contradictory with the concept of people’s sovereignty? However, as Anwar uses “Ketuanan Rakyat” as an antithesis to “Ketuanan Melayu”, the answer to this question must be total rejection of “Ketuanan Melayu” and, impliedly, any view that relates the Malays with any kind of special position they may enjoy as the sons of the soil.

Second, to solidify his new ideological construct, Anwar finds a new brand of Islam that fits neatly into the brand of new politics that he is espousing. This new brand of Islam is essentially different from the canons of religion that he used to propagate when he was the President of ABIM. That “old” brand of Islam, which stresses the supremacy of Islam over and above anything else, can no longer serve as the main catalyst of political change that Anwar expects to materialize.

So, what is the brand of Islam that Anwar is espousing now?

I believe that the brand of Islam espoused by Anwar now is akin to what American anthropologist Professor Robert Hefner identifies as “Civil Islam”. This brand of Islam promotes the privatization of religion – i.e. religion must be confined to the realm of one’s private life and never to enter the public sphere – as the main condition for the nurturing of democratic culture in Muslim societies.

Under this brand of Islam, the Muslims must regard Islam as just one of the many religions that co-exist in the material world, without any claim to its supremacy whether in private or public life. Gone were the days when Islam is regarded as the most supreme religion and no other religion is more supreme than Islam (Islam ya’lu wa la yu’la ‘alaih). Simply put, if Muslims expect liberal democracy to flourish in their society, they must accept the fundamentals of western secularism without exception. Anything less than this is unacceptable.

I believe that Anwar’s recent views on Islam are identical with this brand of Islam. One of them is his criticism against the Federal Court decision in Lina Joy’s case. In an interview with foreign media some time ago, Anwar said that the Federal Court was wrong in not allowing Lina Joy’s application to change her religion without first obtaining a certificate from the Shari’ah court. This, Anwar maintained, is as a blatant encroachment of her right to freedom of religion and conscience. The interview is available on the Youtube.

This criticism runs counter with the view held by a majority of Muslims, including Anwar’s young brothers in ABIM who spearheaded the campaign against Lina Joy’s application. To these Muslims, Lina Joy’s action is tantamount to apostasy, nothing more and nothing less. This is certainly not a Right but a grave sin in Islam.

Furthermore, in a speech he delivered in Perth last year, Anwar even interpreted preservation of religion, which is one of the main objectives of religion (Maqasid Al-Shari’ah) developed by Imam Al-Shatibi, as freedom of religion. Understood in its western liberal context, freedom of religion also entails freedom to change one’s religion and freedom not to practice any religion at all. Anything less than this is undemocratic and uncivilized.

Then came the Allah controversy. This is an explosive issue that warrants Anwar’s response as the leader of the opposition coalition. His stand is the policy of the coalition on the matter of religion. Again, as the leader of the opposition coalition, he must respond to this issue in such a way that it fits neatly not only into the brand of Islam he is promoting, but also the brand of politics that the opposition is espousing.

Naturally, it is beyond comprehension to expect Anwar to say that Muslims have exclusive right to use the word Allah. Saying this is tantamount to deconstructing the pillars of the “new ideology” that he is constructing.

First, it negates the notion of unbridled human rights and freedoms that form the basis of his ideological construct. Confining the right to use the word Allah to Muslims only encroaches upon the right of non-Muslims to use the same word, regardless of whether the usage is theologically correct or incorrect. After all, as Civil Islam entails, religion is a matter of one’s private life.

Second, promoting the exclusivity of Muslims in using the word Allah confirms religion and to certain extent ethnicity as the main marker of group identity and solidarity. In this regard, maintaining that the word Allah can only be used by Muslims, a vast majority of them are Malays, emboldens Muslim’s identification with race and religion, which negates the notion of non-racial politics that Anwar himself is trying very hard to promote.

Third, if Anwar is to say that only Muslims can use the word Allah, he will eventually have to concede that the government has the authority to restrict the right of the Herald’s editor to use the word Allah in the weekly publication. This certainly militates against the notion of privatization of religion - the banning of religion from the public sphere and its retreat into the realm of individual’s privacy – that forms the third pillar of Anwar’s ideological construct.

This is something that Anwar must avoid at all cost if he wishes to drive his political ambition on the strength of the new brand of politics. However, already there are ruptures in the opposition coalition regarding this new brand of politics. Although Anwar is successful in enlisting the support of the more secular-liberal section of the opposition politicians to push his political agenda further, the Islamically inclined started to question his personal credentials. Zulkifli Nordin’s recent outburst is just a tip of the ice-berg that reflects internal resentment against Anwar’s new brand of politics.

The question is, given the political context within which Anwar attempts to build his political platform to drive his personal ambition, is this new brand of politics sustainable or self-destructing?

Of Allah, Anwar and False Consciousness

Since the past few weeks, my fingers have been itching to put my thought to paper on the current issue of Kalimah Allah. I only have a window of opportunity tonight, and I will do so without qualms.

To begin with, as a Muslim, I do not subscribe to the argument which says that it is correct for non-Muslims to use the word Allah to refer to the Christian god simply because the Christian Arabs have been using the word prior to the Islamic era. This argument is lame and lacks intellectual rigor.

Though the Christians have been using the word Allah, or any of its variants, to refer to the Christian god since the pre-Islamic era, the word has been “Islamized” with the coming of Islam.

Surah Al-Ikhlas rectified the error of the usage of the word Allah by the Christians. Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Allah is the one and only God. This is what Islam means by the word Allah. This is what the Muslims understand by the word Allah. If someone believes that god has a son, or not the One and Only, that god is not Allah. This particular belief cannot be justified in Islam.

There is no truth in saying that the Muslims are monopolizing the word for the sake of monopolizing, for their failure to understand the faiths of other people. Even the Christians say that “Allah” does not mean God in Christianity. Dr. Louis A. Turk, a lead translator of the Bible into the Indonesian language, in his article “A Sharp Two-Edged Sword for Indonesia”, has this to say:

“Allah is not the common name, and does not mean God. Instead, Allah is a proper (personal) name for Islam’s God”

“So what a word means to the Muslims here (Indonesia) is important – when they read an Islamic term in the Bible, they are going to think it means what it commonly means to the vast majority of the vast population. This is especially true for the word Allah. It is wrong for a translator to try to make a word mean something different than what the word means to 88 percent of the population”.

The Muslims are not blindly possessive of the word for their own ignorance. Even right-minded Christians do not think and believe that Allah means God in Christianity.

Those Muslims who are adamant to say that the word Allah means other than what the vast majority of Muslims understand are resorting to its usage in the pre-Islamic era, the period of the jahiliyyah. Those who have received the light of wisdom, of hikmah, will never do so unless out of desperation, albeit a political one.

Now, I shall turn to my main subject.

In essence, the crux of the issue is not about the right of non-Muslims to use the word Allah, or the exclusive rights of Muslims to claim possession of the word. It is more than this. It brings to the fore the inevitable eruption of the tectonic plates of the political madness that for a long long time have been lying underneath the Malaysian political landscape.

To elucidate this point, let us see what Zulkifli Noordin, the PKR Member of Parliament for Kulim Bandar Baru had to say in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times today (27 Jan 2010).

“When this issue (the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims) came out, Anwar called me and said he knew my stand, but tried to be polite. But I told him, Datuk Seri, you are a Muslim leader with Islamic credentials and people never forget that. You know very well there are two contrasting views, so why didn’t you take a neutral and non-partisan stand?”

Well, everybody knows that Anwar had not taken a neutral and non-partisan view about the issue. Anwar even accused Zul Nordin of going off the limit when the latter lodged a police report against Khalid Samad, the MP for Shah Alam, for insulting Islam.

But Zul Nordin goes on to say:

“At the moment, I still limit (myself). You never see me criticize Anwar. I still appreciate that he is my boss although in this “Allah” issue, the pressure is so enormous on me to criticize him, but I say no. But if it is fated that I am out of PKR, may be it will be a different ball game altogether”.

The one million dollar question is - what is the current “political ball game”?

Zul Nordin is a seasoned politician by now and he must know what he exactly meant.

This is my version of the political ball game.

Many Islamically-inclined PKR enthusiasts believe that Anwar is a credible Muslim leader. Anwar for them, in flesh and blood, is an ardent Muslim activist. He will never, they believe, abandon the Islamic cause for which he was known to be its main exponent before. His relationship with Muslim scholars like Totonji, Qardawi, Jamal Barzinji, just to name a few, reinforces this belief.

But what about his relationship with Paul Wolfowitz - the well known neo-con architect in the Iraq war? The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas will say: “We know that very well. Wolfowitz is a criminal of the highest order. But Anwar’s relationship with him is just a ‘political ball game’. Anyway, Anwar is the one and only moderate Muslim political leader in the world who can relate well to the West. He is doing a great contribution to the Ummah, especially at this trying time. In flesh and blood, he is still our brother in Islam, syeikh”.

I will take this excuse with a pinch of salt. What if I say Anwar is the one and only friend of the neo-con who can relate well to the Muslim world? What if I say, in flesh and blood, Anwar is no longer an ardent Muslim activist who die-hard Anwaristas used to believe before?

Well, this may sound a bit too harsh to some people. But I believe many out there hold this view. And Anwar knows about this too.

But more than this, even if Anwar is not a neo-con darling, and he is very much still an ardent Muslim activist, which I wish he is, will he be able to do what the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas want him to do?

I will say NO he CANNOT. Why?

The brand of politics that Anwar is espousing for now will not allow this to happen. This brand of politics will only survive on the pretext of promoting unbridled ‘universal’ human rights, sheer disregard of ethnicity and religion as the main marker of group identity and solidarity, and full acceptance of western secularism.

Even when his staunch supporters in the former ABIM or his critics in the more conservative camp in the current PAS or his loyalists in the more Islamically-inclined faction of PKR want him to champion for the cause of Islam that they understand, Anwar will never be able to do so. And, even if he so does, he will fail miserably. So he will not.

The point is the brand of Islam that these Anwaristas believe in does not fit well into the brand of the “new politics” that Anwar is espousing.

But why do many Islamically-inclined Anwaristas fail to understand this?

I guess I have the answer. I may be wrong, but I will state my case anyway.

The Marxists believe that the proletariats have long suffered from a kind of mind subjugation that frustrates their vision for a worldwide revolution of the workers. This subtle subjugation is called “false consciousness”. The proletariats understand very well that the more they succumb to capitalism, the more they are alienated and oppressed.

However, they resolve the experience of alienation and oppression under capitalism through a false understanding of the natural need to compete with others for limited goods. By doing so, consequently, workers all over the world failed to unite and pin capitalism down.

I am not a sympathizer of Marxism, let alone a Marxist. But I believe the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas are enduring a similar fate of being in the state of “false consciousness”.

This “false consciousness” is perpetuated by Anwar through his charming charisma; sometimes little words he borrowed from Qardawi or Zuhaili to lend Islamic legitimacy to his political stance – rejecting other more authoritative and intellectually sound arguments; and the rumblings of organic intellectuals like Khalid Samad and Zaid Ibrahim.

The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas realize that there is something wrong somewhere, that they are in a great dilemma, that they risk abandoning their fundamental conviction about the religion, about the da’wah, the politics. But the more they think about it, the more they ponder upon it, the sense of confusion, of desperation, of hopelessness, will set in.

They resolve this state of confusion by staying true to the promise of reformation, to the hope of the return of the past glory, to the good faith they have in brother Anwar.

But sadly, those who fail to get rid from this quagmire will slowly be sucked into the black hole of intellectual corruption and perpetually immersed in the hollowness of the arguments of the organic intellectuals, who are in not for a revolution (I believe the word revolution used by Zul Noordin in his NST interview is too noble a word to be applied in that context), but an intellectual conspiracy to corrupt the minds of unsuspecting believers – Muslims or Christians alike.

These organic intellectuals – be they Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus – share one thing in common. Religion. They truly believe in the sanctity of unbridled universal human rights and freedom over and above anything else. This is their Religion.

Only those who take the time to pause, have a deep breath, and listen carefully to what their conscience wishpers will find a way out from this predicament, this false consciousness.

Perhaps, this is what Zul Nordin and others who are in the same ‘political ball game’ have to do. And the time is now.

Otak di Lutut

P. Gunasegaram dalam ruangan “Question Time” di akhbar The Star bertarikh 28 Ogos 2009 mengkritik hukuman sebat ke atas peminum arak di bawah undang-undang jenayah syariah di negara ini. Kononnya undang-undang ini adalah lapuk dan perlu dihapuskan.

Untuk menguatkan pandangannya, dia memetik hujjah "ilmuwan Islam" yang mengatakan tiada dalil al-Qur’an yang menetapkan hukum sebat ke atas peminum arak.

Malah, katanya lagi, semua undang-undang yang menghukum “jenayah moral”, iaitu “jenayah” yang dilakukan dalam ruang peribadi serta tidak menyakiti orang lain, perlu dihapuskan. Dia menyenaraikan beberapa bentuk jenayah seperti liwat, seks oral, zina dan khalwat.

Saya ingin melihat kedua-dua isu yang dibangkitkan dari kedua-dua sudut perundangan Islam dan Barat.

Dalam perundangan Islam, Al-Qur’an dan Hadith adalah dua sumber primer undang-undang. Jika terdapat dalil dalam mana-mana sumber ini mengenai kesahihan sesuatu undang-undang, maka ianya adalah undang-undang yang sah.

Hukuman rotan ke atas peminum arak memang tidak disebut dalam al-Qur’an, tetapi disebut dalam hadith yang sahih. Jadi, ianya adalah satu bentuk undang-undang yang sah.

Tujuan hukuman pula bukanlah untuk menzalimi atau menyakiti. Ia sekadar satu iktibar kepada si pesalah dan orang lain. Disyaratkan si perotan tidak boleh mengangkat tangan melepasi paras ketiak ketika merotan. Ini menunjukkan kaedah merotan yang ringan dan sivil. Berlainan pula dengan hukuman rotan dalam undang-undang sivil yang nampaknya kurang sivil.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, model yang dijatuhi hukuman rotan kerana meminum arak pun, dengan sukarela ingin menjalani hukuman kerana dia tahu hukuman itu adalah untuk memberi iktibar kepadanya dan orang lain, bukan untuk menzaliminya.

Hanya penulis-penulis dalam Wall Street Journal, New York Times dan The Star yang mengkritik hebat hukuman rotan dalam undang-undang Islam tidak faham maksud undang-undang Islam atau sengaja buat-buat tidak faham.

Soal samada pesalah moral patut dihukum atau tidak pula adalah debat lapuk dalam jurisprudens Barat. Debat ini tidak akan membawa kita ke mana-mana.

Malah kalau diikutkan pandangan kuno bahawa seseorang itu hanya patut dihukum sekiranya dia menyakiti orang lain, kita akan dapati banyak juga undang-undang yang telah diterima umum oleh masyarakat moden pada hari ini menjadi tidak sah.

Bukan sahaja mereka yang meliwat tidak patut dihukum, mereka yang memberi dan mengambil rasuah juga tidak patut dihukum. Penerima dan pemberi rasuah tidak menyakiti antara satu sama lain. Kesalahan mereka hanyalah kesalahan moral.

Begitu juga dengan undang-undang yang mengharamkan pengambilan dadah. Penagih dadah tidak sepatutnya dihukum menurut piawai kuno ini kerana mereka tidak menyakiti sesiapa. Mereka bahkan seronok apabila khayal. Kesalahan mereka hanyalah kesalahan moral.

Seseorang yang cuba membunuh diri juga tidak patut dihukum. Dia tidak menyakiti sesiapa melainkan menyusahkan pihak polis dan bomba. Undang-undang yang menjadikan cubaan membunuh diri sebagai satu jenayah adalah tidak sah.

Banyak lagi undang-undang lain yang boleh disebut. Tetapi Gunasegaram hanya menyebut undang-undang liwat, zina, khalwat dan minum arak!

Saya fikir, apabila kita menulis, otak kita patut diletakkan di kepala, bukan di lutut.

Mungkin lebih banyak ""Question Time" perlu diberikan kepada seorang penulis untuk bertafakkur sebelum dia mula meletakkan mata pena di atas kertas.

Mansuh PPSMI: Mengapa Keliru?

Pengumuman YAB Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Pelajaran untuk memansuhkan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) mulai 2012 disambut baik oleh ramai pihak. Para pejuang bahasa terutama sekali menarik nafas lega dengan pengumuman ini.

Namun begitu, ada juga pihak yang tidak sabar menunggu sehingga 2012 untuk memansuhkan PPSMI. Mereka ini sebaliknya menggesa agar dasar PPSMI dimansuh mulai 2010.

Antara yang paling lantang menyuarakan hal ini ialah Sasterawan Negara Datuk A. Samad Said. Beliau malah menggunakan pentas PAS semasa kempen Pilihanraya Kecil Permatang Pasir baru-baru ini untuk mengutuk kerajaan berhubung “penangguhan” keputusan memansuhkan PPSMI.

Akhbar Harakah keluaran 28-30 Ogos 2009 mememetik kenyataan Pak Samad yang menyifatkan “keputusan kerajaan menangguhkan pemansuhan dasar PPSMI di semua peringkat sehingga tahun 2017 sebagai penghinaan berterusan terhadap bahasa kebangsaan”.

Saya tidak pasti samada Pak Samad tersalah faham atau wartawan Harakah tersalah lapor. Yang saya pasti, PPSMI akan dimansuhkan secara berperingkat mulai 2012 di mana murid Tahun 1 dan Tahun 4 di sekolah rendah, dan Tingkatan 1 dan Tingkatan 4 di sekolah menengah akan mula mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam bahasa Melayu. Murid Tahun 1 dan Tahun 4 di SRJK(C) dan SRJK(T) pula akan mempelajari kedua-dua mata pelajaran tersebut masing-masing dalam bahasa Cina dan Tamil.

Tidak timbul soal penangguhan pemansuhan PPSMI sehingga 2017. Yang saya faham, pemansuhan PPSMI secara berperingkat akan sempurna pada tahun 2017. Ini bermakna, pada tahun 2017 nanti, semua murid di sekolah rendah dan menengah kebangsaan akan mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Melayu. Semua murid di SRJK(C) dan SRJK(T) pula akan mempelajari kedua-dua mata pelajaran ini dalam bahasa Cina dan Tamil. Inilah yang dinamakan pelaksanaan berperingkat. Ketika PPSMI diperkenalkan dahulu, pelaksanaannya dilakukan secara berperingkat juga.

Dalam melaksanakan dasar yang sepenting ini, perkara utama yang perlu diambil kira ialah kepentingan murid, bukan sentimen. Kejayaan pelaksanaan sebarang dasar awam bergantung kepada persiapan yang rapi dan kesiapsiagaan pelaksana dasar. Sentimen yang berapi-api perlu ditolak ke tepi. Isu pelaksanaan dasar perlu dilihat dari sudut pandang yang praktikal.

Pemansuhan PPSMI ini misalnya melibatkan beberapa isu praktikal seperti penggubalan kurikulum, penyediaan buku teks, latihan mengajar dan kesediaan murid. Perlu diingat bahawa pemansuhan PPSMI bukan sekadar “kembali mengajar dalam Bahasa Melayu” tetapi juga pengenalan Dasar Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia dan Memperkukuh Bahasa Inggeris (MBMMBI) yang melibatkan pengenalan beberapa mata pelajaran baru, penggubalan kurikulum baru dan perubahan jadual waktu.

Bukan sahaja waktu pembelajaran dalam bahasa Melayu akan bertambah dengan pemansuhan PPSMI, malah komponen sastera Melayu juga akan diberikan penekanan. Justeru, saya tidak nampak berlaku pengkhianatan berterusan terhadap bahasa Melayu. Pemansuhan PPSMI dan pengenalan MBMMBI sebenarnya merupakan sebahagian daripada langkah untuk meletakkan kembali Bahasa Melayu di tempat yang sewajarnya dalam sistem pendidikan kita.

Kesemua ini memerlukan perancangan dan persediaan yang rapi. Penyediaan buku teks umpamanya. Tidak cukup sekadar menterjemahkan buku-buku sekarang, atau mencetak kembali buku-buku sebelum 2003 untuk digunakan di sekolah-sekolah. Kementerian Pelajaran mungkin perlu menggunakan buku-buku terbitan baru untuk disesuaikan dengan silibus baru. Alang-alang hendak mencetak buku teks baru, kandungannya pun elok diperkemaskan lagi.

Benar PPSMI diperkenalkan dalam masa yang singkat. Tetapi lihatlah apa hasilnya. Pelaksanaan secara tergesa-gesa merupakan satu faktor mengapa dasar ini tidak berjaya mencapai matlamat sebagaimana yang dihasratkan.

Untuk memastikan pemansuhan PPSMI dan pengenalan MBMMBI tidak dibuat secara tergopoh-gapah, kerajaan mengambil pendekatan soft-landing. Kedua-dua mata pelajaran tersebut akan diajar dalam dwi-bahasa mulai tahun 2010. Ini bermakna, secara tidak langsung, langkah awal pelaksanaan dasar baru ini sudahpun ‘bermula’ pada tahun 2010.

Di samping itu, murid kohort terakhir PPSMI akan dibenarkan mempelajari Sains dan Matematik dalam dwi-bahasa. Ini adalah untuk mengurangkan sebarang kesan negatif yang mungkin timbul akibat perubahan dasar secara drastik.

Mereka adalah murid yang akan berada di Tahun 4 pada tahun 2012, 2013 dan 2014; Tahun 5 pada tahun 2013, 2014 dan 2015; Tahun 6 pada tahun 2014, 2015 dan 2016; Tingkatan 4 pada tahun 2012, 2013 dan 2014; dan Tingkatan 5 pada tahun 2013, 2014 dan 2015.

Ini bermakna proses pemansuhan PPSMI akan lengkap seratus peratus pada tahun 2016 di sekolah menengah dan 2017 di sekolah rendah. Dengan strategi soft-landing ini, pusingan lengkap pemansuhan PPSMI mengambil masa selama lima tahun di sekolah rendah dan empat tahun di sekolah menengah.

Pusingan lengkap pelaksanaan PPSMI pula mengambil masa selama enam tahun. Jika dibandingkan, pemansuhan PPSMI mengambil masa yang lebih singkat berbanding pengenalan dasar itu.

Ada juga pihak yang meragui keihklasan kerajaan untuk memansuhkan PPSMI. Akhbar Harakah keluaran yang sama memetik kenyataan seorang pemimpin mahasiswa yang bimbang kerajaan tidak akan memansuhkan PPSMI.

Saya tidak fikir begitu. Setelah bersusah payah meyakinkan rakyat bahawa PPSMI bukanlah satu dasar yang baik, adalah tidak masuk akal untuk meneruskan dasar ini menjelang 2012. Ini satu tindakan membunuh diri.

Malah, bukan sesuatu yang mudah bagi sesebuah kerajaan untuk mengakui kelemahan sesuatu dasar yang telah dilaksanakan bagi tempoh yang agak lama. Apakah keberanian politik yang telah ditunjukkan dengan keputusan memansuhkan PPSMI hendak disia-siakan begitu sahaja? Saya sekali lagi tidak fikir begitu.