Have A Meaningful Kaamatan and Gawai

Have A Meaningful Kaamatan and Gawai

'May this celebration of harvests remind us also to be grateful for the plenty we have achieved, and to appreciate one another for the hard work each of us have put in.'

Let us add value,

Kotobian tadau kaamatan & Selamat Ari Gawai Dayak 

How Irshad Manji renewed my faith in Islam by Mooreyameen Mohamad - TMI

MAY 25 — I am a lousy Muslim. I don’t pray Five times a day. I don’t even go to the mosque four times a month. I try to make it to the mosque with my dad once a year for Raya but even then, it’s patchy.

I work hard, I am mostly honest. And I try to treat everyone with kindness and fairness. I feel that I am a good person. But a religious person I am not. Because of my Malay dad felt that a Chinese vernacular school would provide me with a better education I missed out on religious classes.
Because of my fair complexion I had been wrongly judged as ethnically Chinese all my life. Which is all been very convenient because I go to work, I try to be honest and I pay my bills, and I don’t get any hassle with all the religious rituals of prayers and mosques.

But I also felt rather bad. I don’t feel bad because I am less “Melayu”; I am old enough to have accepted everything that I am, become proud of and be pleased with who I am. I don’t feel bad because I am missing out of the community; I have my own friends and Unifi connection.
But I do feel bad about not knowing much about Islam. I see that word on my identification card and it’s like a foreign word to me. Worse still, I had no desire to know it. It was too hard in all sense of the word — unapproachable, judgmental, it has a bad reputation globally, and so much violence and killing were done in its name.

I work hard, and I try to be honest every day. I honestly cannot imagine myself wanting to get to know something like that.

Until I met Irshad Manji. I first heard of Irshad Manji when her talk at some local university was cancelled. The title of her talk was going to be “Islam and Democracy”. My cynical eyebrows were raised and thought nothing more of it. Then she was attacked in Jakarta. I asked myself, is she another Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

I was in The Hague, The Netherlands when Theo van Gogh was killed for making a video that angered many Muslims. The guy who killed him, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim, said he had no regrets killing Theo van Gogh, whom he called an infidel.

This event shook The Netherlands; and I was an innocent bystander. Theo van Gogh was the great-grandson of Vincent van Gogh’s brother, and as such held a special place in Dutch society, who love their legacy of art, expression and creativity. His murder also highlighted the ease at which anyone with ill intentions can just walk up to their target and stab them to death.

Van Gogh was dead, his murderer caught and sentenced to life imprisonment. But who was to blame for all this? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was a member of Dutch parliament at the time, had to go under protective custody for her scathing criticism of Islam and how Muslim women were being treated. To the rest of us, the rest of us who work hard at our jobs and try to be honest on a daily basis — the problem was Islam.

It was Islam that gave Muslims the belief they can treat women the way they do; and because of that Ayaan Hirsi Ali became the bitter woman that she was, and because of her Theo van Gogh made this controversial film that angered more Muslims. This led to his murder in a public place, right in front of his house.

It was because of Islam that the Dutch people didn’t feel safe in their own country. It was because of Islam that the Dutch government had to spend (mostly Christian) tax payers’ money to clean up this mess.

The impact of the event went further than that. From then onwards I felt ashamed to be a Muslim. When people remember that I come from Malaysia, a Muslim country, I could also see a hint of fear in their eyes, brief as it were, irrational as it may have been. There I was, hard worker, honest 97 per cent of the time, being suspected of being capable of murder. Because of Islam.

Is Islam really like that? I wouldn’t know. I never had any meaningful discussion with anyone about it. My Muslim friends generally fall under two categories: those who think Theo deserved what he got because of his artist’s provocative interpretation of Islam, and those who would rather avoid the subject.

I don’t think Theo should have been killed, therefore I also avoided the subject. Yes, he made some rather shocking images that he intended as representation of what he thinks Islam is. But he was an artist — whose role in society is to provoke thoughts and conversation. Unfortunately, to the extremists, he provoked his own murder.

To my own surprise, I was quite shaken by the event and expressed my confused feelings in a painting: I Did Not Kill Theo Van Gogh. Because I felt I had to say that to people. Here I was — a non-practising Muslim, a Muslim in name but not in action, a Muslim only for official form-filling purposes — being tarred with the same brush as inarticulate, violent murderers and extremists whose spheres of existence never ever overlapped with mine, as far as I knew or cared.

The one good thing about living in a country that is not yours is that when it all gets a bit too much, you can just leave and go back to your own.

Back in Malaysia, people are generally not violent, at least as far as I believe. And the best thing is, there is even less talk about Islam, except in archaic and irrelevant terms. Which suited me fine because when you are trying to avoid a subject, there’s nothing more convenient than the subject matter experts talking about it in irrelevant terms.

Then I heard Irshad Manji describe her religion. She described compassion, generosity, love and liberty, and Ijtihad, critical thinking within Islam. She talked about how young confused Muslims reconcile their modern problems with Islam, through interpretations that is modern and inclusive.
She clarified the common confusion between culture and religion, which I, and many of my generation, are struggling with because so many of us live in multicultural societies that are not Arab-centric.

For one who had been viewing the Muslim world with trepidation, fear and suspicion, I thought Irshad Manji offered sorely needed hope. For one who had been disappointed and shy about the violent behaviour of my fellow Muslims, I was excited that Irshad Manji offered calm and compassion. For one who had been at a loss about what to do with my belief in God, I finally found a way through Irshad Manji’s illuminating insights.

For the first time in my life, I was excited about being a Muslim. I am excited about reading the Quran. I feel I want to reach out to other young Muslims and talk to them about being modern Muslims. We are not medieval tribes protecting our turfs against the invasion of barbarians wielding swords and sabres, attempting to pillage our huts, women and children.

We are intelligent, creative, curious, questioning, impatient to create a peaceful world for ourselves that is as free from the baggage of the past as possible. We are not and don’t want to be racist, separatist, divisive, bigoted, sexist.

We want to be compassionate, humble, inclusive, and accepting. We thrive on diversity; we thrive on knowledge, openness and love in all its shapes and forms.

According to Irshad Manji, all that is possible within Islam.

Why anyone would ban such a strong, positive advocate of Islam, is beyond me.

* Mooreyameen Mohamad reads The Malaysian Insider
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

source form TMI

Speak up against disgraceful behaviour by Wong Chun Wai - The STAR

Many of us who may be highly vocal against one side are not prepared to register our unhappiness over what is wrong when it does not suit our political palate. 

IT’S incredibly disgraceful. It’s a form of harassment, plain and simple, and any decent-minded Malaysian should know when to draw the line. The protests outside Bersih co-chairman Datuk S. Ambiga’s house should stop.

I do not think any politician or non-governmental organisation leader, regardless of their political allegiance, would want to see a protest outside their homes.

For that matter, none of the protesters outside Ambiga’s house would be amused if they woke up one fine morning to find over-weight people doing butt exercises outside their gates.

If these protesters believe they have helped Barisan Nasional with their silly antics, someone had better tell them they haven’t.

So, BN secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor understandably condemned these protests, describing them as unbecoming of Malaysians, and urged authorities to put an immediate end to them.

“We understand that you are upset because of Bersih 3.0 but this country has laws. You want to sue Ambiga, go ahead, but gathering in front of her house to cook things she doesn’t eat (beef burgers), showing your backside, then organising a pasar malam – what is all this?” he asked.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said such protests were wrong and that although these people were affected by Bersih 3.0, it did not give them the right to harass Ambiga.

We need to stand up and speak up against what is not right. It has nothing to do with politics, but respect for plain decency and privacy.

I think the protesters have made their point and they should now stop troubling City Hall and the police with plans for more protests.

Ambiga, I am sure, has many admirers for standing up for what she believes in. However, there are also many who do not share in her political enthusiasm.

While the majority of those who took part in Bersih 3.0 were peaceful and law-abiding, a large section was also rowdy and out to create havoc. Ambiga should have come down harder on such rowdiness but she didn’t.

It is clear that the actions of the protesters outside her home cannot be defended. Likewise, those who attended Bersih 3.0 with the intention of starting a street battle do not deserve to be defended.

Malaysia, unfortunately, has become so politically divided that we do not see right and wrong in the correct perspective. Blind loyalty rules the day and we are in danger of sliding down its slippery slope. Many of us who may be highly vocal against one side are not prepared to register our unhappiness over what is wrong when it does not suit our political palate.

It is wrong to beat up Bersih 3.0 protesters, wrong for protesters to beat up policemen and certainly wrong to beat up journalists on duty.

Let’s stop assuming that every protester wearing a yellow T-shirt or a law enforcement officer in a blue uniform is an angel.

Stone-throwing and disrupting the ceramah of a rival political party surely cannot be right. It should not be tolerated and the police must not allow this trend to continue. This is just plain rowdiness. It does not matter whether Barisan members have been provoked; surely, there must be a better sense of restraint.

Similarly, why have Ambiga, the opposition politicians and their supporters been silent on the heckling of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak when he spoke at an investment promotion event in London?

It was wrong – plain and simple – but yet they seem ready to overlook such uncouth behaviour because it involved Bersih 3.0 supporters.

Or are we going to hear that they are government agents and planted by the Special Branch, which now seems to be another excuse to defend bad behaviour?

The political temperature has hit near boiling point. The sooner the general election is called, the better it will be for all of us.

Let’s get it over and done with. The silly season, as newsmen call the election period, has come earlier than expected. Let Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat settle this once and for all so that we can all go back to our normal lives.

Source from The STAR online

Roger Tan, Bersih and the Bar Council

1. Unswayed by fear or favour

As much as we do not like the judiciary to be perceived as pro-government, we also do not want the Bar to be perceived as pro-opposition.

ON May 11, the Malaysian Bar passed a motion containing 12 resolutions related to the April 28 Bersih 3.0 public assembly by an overwhelming majority. The decision of the House with 939 votes in favour and 16 against is to be respected. The argument that it is not representative of the 14,000-member Bar has no basis whatsoever as Section 66 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA) is clear, that is, a motion is carried if a majority votes in favour of it.

With that above overriding principle, let me, however, put on record the reasons, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not support the motion.

First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that Resolution (12) was amended to include, inter alia, that (1) the Bar is concerned by and does not countenance any acts of violence in a public rally and that such action by participants is not an appropriate response to the police; and (2) the Bar is equally concerned by reports that certain persons had crossed through the police barriers to Dataran Merdeka.

But this is a complete opposite of the language used to condemn police brutality and the manner in which the assembly was handled by the police on that day. I felt that merely expressing concern against the other law breakers is not strong enough. The Bar, in my view, must be seen in the forefront in upholding the rule of law regardless of whether they were police or protesters who had broken the law. If the Bar wanted to inveigh and condemn police brutality, the Bar must also do likewise against actions of those protesters who had behaved more like rioters and anarchists in assaulting policemen and jumping on and damaging police vehicles.

Read the rest of the article here

2. Loyarburok responds to Roger Tan

This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga,Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-Opposition. This is because of the Bar's press statements and its Extraordinary General Meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally.

The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan's article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in The Sunday Star on 20 May 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim  because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan's article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as SUHAKAM.

However, SUHAKAM relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event.

The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos.

The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves.

Read the rest of this article here 

3. An Answer to Loyarburokkers

I knew this was coming because as I said it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in “Unswayed by fear or favour” last Sunday in The Sunday Star. I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early yesterday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga, tweeted that their joint statement, “Bar’s resolution proper”, The Star, May 23, 2012 was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I empathise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply, which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Out of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one of whom I follow on Twitter. On April 28, the day the Bersih 3.0 assembly was held, this monitor, albeit not based in Kuala Lumpur, had tweeted, inter alia, the following whilst undertaking monitoring duties:

> Heading to @bersihxxx at Dataran xxx #Bersih. This is it, we love this nation. God save #Malaysia! We want clean & fair elections!

> Bye-bye BN! RT @xxx: Water cannons and tear gas fired. Bye bye BN.

> Don’t associate with them. Agent provocateur RT @xxx: #Bersih #Malaysia Unruly mob attacks police patrol car http://....

It follows that the political and social beliefs as well as the prejudices of these monitors are material to ascertain if the integrity and independence of their final report could be described as incontrovertible. Unfortunately, we were not provided with the names of these 80 monitors.

A fortiori, my political affiliation is not relevant compared to the monitors’ simply because I did not volunteer to assume such a heavy responsibility of being an independent monitor during the assembly.

Further, my MCA membership, albeit dormant, is a public knowledge and I have written several articles in that capacity anyway. Neither have I made any attempt to hide it. The fact remains that at least I do not pursue any political agenda under the guise of any organisation, be it political or non-governmental.

Of the many articles I have written, majority of them are critical of government policies and supportive of the Bar; the last being my support for the continuing professional development proposed by the Bar Council. (See “Lawyers must constantly improve skills”, March 9, 2012 in The Star)

The eight are probably oblivious, either deliberately or otherwise, of this fact — but hopefully not because they felt that was the natural thing I should do. In fact, I am in the least bothered by their insinuation that the stand I took in my aforesaid article was because of my MCA membership. As the saying goes, truth fears no trial and it is their assertion that is nothing but a fallacy.

…

Read the rest of this article here

LGE & Tunku Aziz – The Real Story; The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back

Accordingly Tunku Abd Aziz has over the last few years been at loggerheads with LGE especially during their central committee meetings, with the latter constantly ignoring the former’s advice and recommendations.

In the last central committee meeting the heat went boiling especially when discussing Bersih 3.0 and the events that led to rioters and police retaliation. LGE again ignored Tunku’s concern, and simply brushed the topic aside moving to the next agenda. The usually gentlemanly Tunku lost it and shouted at LGE, “Lu ingat ini DAP bapa lu punya ka?”. There was a moment of awkward silence in the room with all eyes looking at LGE. LGE turns to look at his father LKS and then trained his eyes on Tunku. He smiled and nodded… (yes).

The End.

Note: For the less perceptive among readers, the above is a parody :)

Of patients, patience and care for the world by Soo Ewe Jin - The STAR

THERE are many who think that our world is getting too divisive. That people are disagreeing about everything under the sun, and are increasingly resorting to silly antics to make their point.

We can, under such circumstances, feel despair, or we can perhaps take a look at things from a different perspective.

And there is no better place to start than to visit someone in the hospital. But instead of going straight to his room, you should explore the hospital a bit.

At the accident and emergency unit, you see people in life-and-death situations. There is a lot of activity there as anxious relatives and friends mingle with overworked doctors and nurses.

You might want to take a detour to the orthopaedic department. Here you may observe patients with plaster casts sharing stories about road accidents and how many broken ribs they have.

At the oncology ward, you will see patients young and old, of different creed and walks of life. And if you listen, you hear stories about how non-smokers can get lung cancer and that hair loss due to chemotherapy is only temporary.

A visit to the childrens oncology ward is bound to bring tears as you see youngsters still full of joy even as they go through treatment.

If you start feeling a bit depressed, head to the maternity unit. There you can see rows of babies, and happy fathers peering through the glass windows rejoicing in the new additions to their families.

And I would certainly recommend a visit to the blood bank where we will be reminded that whatever the colour of our skin, the colour of our blood is still the same red.

Just as the patients come in all sorts of shapes and colours, so, too, do the doctors, the nurses, and the hospital staff.

If you can forgive some of the complaints about bad service, you will agree with me that in the hospital, all are committed to helping the sick get better in a very cosmopolitan environment.

Besides teaching us that illness throws out biases, a hospital tour can also give us insight into how we can be good visitors.

When we visit someone in hospital, there is always the danger of saying and doing the wrong thing.

Read more on this article

Towards a shared destiny by Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi - The STAR

THE last week has been a time of reflection for me about the significance of May 13, 1969, to the future of Malaysia as a nation.

The date has been variously described as “the darkest chapter in the country’s 54 years of independence”, as a “traumatic event” and as a “dark blot in the nation’s history”. Indeed it was all of these.

For a few days in 1969 our primordial instinct of distrust of “the other” held sway; subconscious prejudices, angers and jealousies found expression; desire for vengeance took hold; organised violence was used by a small section of the population to express dissatisfaction with the social order. Mob rule replaced the rule of law.

Fortunately, we have made many strides since then.

The identification of race with social and economic function has been almost obliterated. The vibrant economy has united our disparate racial groups. By encouraging entrepreneurship and allowing the minority communities to provide leadership in the economic arena, twin objectives have been achieved: the economy has developed fabulously and every community has acquired a stake in the country.

For many decades till the 1990s we were regarded by many Asian and African societies as an exemplar of how a deeply divided, plural society can survive and thrive politically, economically and socially.

Not all is well, however. Since the nineties racial and religious polarisation has reached alarming levels.

We have become a “nation of strangers”. It is time, therefore, for building ethnic bridges and dismantling walls; for healing and reconciliation; and for developing a vision of unity.

I couldn’t say it better than Datuk Azlina Aziz (wife of Datuk Seri Nazir Razak).

“It is time for engagement, for listening, for cutting the invisible barbed wires that separate ‘them’ and ‘us’ and extending a hand over the divide to those who may disagree with your views but have as much of a stake and future in the country as you do”.

As we approach 55 years of political freedom what can we do to restore moderation, to recapture the spirit of 1957 and to reintroduce our winning formula for living together?

We need to improve knowledge of the Constitution’s glittering generalities, especially its provisions on inter-ethnic relations.

The lack of familiarity with the basic charter’s provisions is glaring even within the top echelons of the civil service, the police, parliamentarians and politicians.

If we read about the making of the Constitution, we will see that by far and large the forefathers of our Constitution were animated by a remarkable vision and optimism of a shared destiny among the various peoples of the peninsula. “Out of Many, One” was perhaps their creed.

Their life was enlightened by a spirit of accommodation, compassion and tolerance. They abjured ideological purity of the political, economic and religious type.

They walked the middle path of moderation. They gave to every community a stake in the nation.

No group received an absolute monopoly of power or wealth. Every community received something to relish and cherish. Pluralism was accepted as a way of life and the unity that was sought was a unity in diversity.

The Constitution, even in its “ethnic provisions”, sought to avoid extreme measures and provided for a balance between the interests of the “bumiputra” and “non-bumiputra” communities.

Regrettably, a wide gap has developed between theory and practice. In both the public and private sectors, ethnicity reigns supreme. The absence of a Civil Rights Act or a Race Relations Act prevents sanctions against ethnic considerations that transgress constitutional provisions.

Both sides of the divide are to blame for ignoring the painstaking compromises and the gilt-edged provisions of the Constitution. Lack of legal literacy about the Consti-tution contributes to the eclipsing of the basic law.

Instead of constitutional moderation, the demagogues, the racists and extremists of all communities preach their own sectarian interpretation of our “document of destiny” and fan fears and suspicions.

Extremism has become mainstream and moderation is seen as capitulation to other races and religions and as a betrayal of one’s own community.

Our secondary schools and universities must have a familiarisation course on the basic features of the Constitution and the reasons for the many delicate compromises contained therein.

Knowledge of the Constitution is a prerequisite to good citizenship.

Such knowledge will also help to moderate extremism and to give appreciation of one of the world’s most unique and hitherto successful experiments in peaceful co-existence in a nation of dazzling diversity.

At another level, the education system needs to bring kids together, not to separate them on grounds of race, religion or language. If young people do not learn together, how will they live together?

In schools, colleges and universities, inter-faith studies should be encouraged as a step towards understanding, tolerance and unity. Most prejudices are born out of ignorance.

With greater knowledge and understanding we learn that it is not differences that cause disunity.

It is intolerance of differences that leads to disunity and violence.

As a nation we are farther apart today than we were 54 years ago. Knowledge of the Constitution’s delicate provisions dealing with inter-ethnic relations can help provide some understanding of the give and take that lay at the basis of our supreme law.

If we have to go forward as a united nation, we need to go back to the spirit of moderation, accommodation and compassion that animated the body politic in 1957.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. His book ‘The Bedrock of Our Nation: Our Constitution’ was launched by zubedy ideahouse earlier this month.

Let's Recolor May 13 advert in The STAR tomorrow

May 13, 1969, is a solemn reminder of the importance of our Perpaduan.

On that day, Malaysians lost their lives. At the same time, we must not forget that the majority of Malaysians helped and protected each other with no thought of ethnicity, religion, background. We must remember that though some of us lost our balance, the majority of Malaysians stayed true to Unity.

This is the force we need to keep going. This is the potency of Unity we must celebrate and keep strengthening. As with other days to commemorate our nation like Hari Merdeka, Hari Malaysia and other Malaysian festivals, let’s make each May 13 a day to breathe new spirit and re-launch our quest for Unity; a time to remember Unity as our priority.

On May 13, let’s organize gatherings, Unity parties and kenduris; let’s meet on the middle path of empathy and reconciliation with one another. Let’s share stories between the older generation and the younger ones, reflect on where we are today, and remember - whatever our differences, we share One destiny.

Each year on May 13, zubedy tries to do a small part to breathe new life into our spirit of Unity. We have done this since 2009 through books – books to deal with our issues, speak to Malaysian hearts, and call for reconciliation – books to Unite people. In the same way, this year we want to recolor May 13 with three new books to

Unite Malaysians.

 

1.PERJALANAN… ke arah Satu Malaysia by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. 

A collection of essays in Bahasa Malaysia written between 1996 and early 2011 on Unity among Malaysians. This book addresses the challenges we must face in our quest for Unity, the importance of understanding our nation’s history and background,  and the key to solutions we must find in our journey… towards Unity.

“Keadilan yang menyeluruh, yang tidak hanya cenderung pada kaum X atau kaum Y adalah kunci penyelesaian yang dikehendaki dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum. …Tetapi mesej yang lebih penting ialah usaha untuk menyatupadukan masyarakat berbilang kaum adalah suatu perjalanan – suatu perjalanan yang berliku-liku; yang penuh dengan rintangan dan halangan. Ini adalah perjalanan yang akan mengambil masa yang mungkin tiada destinasinya… Namun, kita harus terus beriltizam untuk memperbaiki tahap kemesraan kaum dari semasa ke semasa.”

2. The Middle Path by Anas Zubedy.

 

Easy-to-read articles explaining issues that have concerned us as a society in the past few years, taken from a middle path perspective. This book revisits subjects like the NEP, voting, one stream schools, can a non-Malay be PM, how to deal with public rallies like Bersih, and the bond between Malaysians. It speaks to the heart, draws the discussions away from extremes and brings it to a path of intelligence, accommodation, reconciliation and Unity.

‘…Choosing the middle path takes us to a way that is not extreme, but measured in every way. When we balance the right principles with the right pragmatism, then we can take steps that move us forward…The middle path is a way to keep things in check which requires more careful thought, more intelligence and more willful deliberation to find the best ways to move forward.”

 3. The Bedrock of our nation: Our Constitution by Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi

A focus on the spirit of accommodation that animated our Federal Constitution; from its drafting and its deeper meanings, to how it serves us in emerging issues like our social contract; the special position of Malays, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities; freedom of religion; and inter-ethnic

relations.

“As a nation we are farther apart today than we were 54 years ago. Knowledge of the Constitution’s delicate provisions dealing with inter-ethnic relations

can help to provide some understanding of the give and take that lay at the basis of our supreme law. If we have to go forward as a united nation, we

need to go back to the spirit of moderation, accommodation and compassion that animated the body politic in 1957.”