JIWA ‘KEHAMBAAN’ MELAYU MENGHALANG PEMBAHARUAN

Prof Madya Dato’ Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin

Dalam semangat sesetengah pihak untuk menegakkan ‘kedaulatan melayu’ maka berbagai-bagai slogan kemelayuan dikeluarkan. Ada yang kata kita berbangga menjadi melayu sebab kitalah kaum asal di Nusantara ini. Ada yang kata kita berbangga menjadi melayu kerana sejarah kesultanan dan kepahlawanan melayu. Apatah lagi ketika dunia hanya tinggal beberapa belas raja, sembilan daripadanya dimiliki oleh orang melayu.

Ada yang kata orang melayu itu istimewa disebabkan adat dan budaya. Berbagai-bagai lagi yang disebutkan dalam menuntut kemuliaan dan ketinggian kaum. Namun bagi saya, kemuliaan orang melayu yang sebenar dan kekal adalah kerana mereka menganut Islam. Mereka tidak kekal mulia dengan adat atau kesultanan atau budaya atau apa saja, mereka akan kekal mulia kerana akidah Islam dan jika mereka berpegang kuat dengan Islam.

Hari ini budaya dan bahasa melayu sudah banyak yang dilupa, sejarah kesultanan atau kepahlawanan melayu pun banyak perkara yang wajar dinilai semula. Adapun Islam, ia agama Allah yang sejagat, bukan hanya khusus di alam melayu atau hanya untuk orang melayu. Keberkatan dan kemuliaan akan dikurniakan kepada sesiapa yang berpegang dengannya sekalipun tanpa sejarah bangsa dan raja.

Firman Allah:

Ketahuilah! Sesungguhnya wali-wali Allah, tidak ada kebimbangan sesuatu menimpa mereka, dan mereka pula tidak akan berdukacita. (mereka itu) orang-orang yang beriman serta mereka pula sentiasa bertaqwa. Untuk mereka kegembiraan dalam kehidupan dunia dan akhirat; tidak ada sebarang perubahan pada kalimat-kalimat Allah (janji-janjiNya), yang demikian itulah kejayaan yang besar. Dan janganlah engkau (Wahai Muhammad) didukacitakan oleh kata-kata mereka (yang menentang); kerana sesungguhnya segala kemuliaan bagi Allah; Dia lah Yang Maha Mendengar, lagi Yang Maha mengetahui. (Surah Yunus: 62-65).

Jikalah kepahlawanan melayu hendak dijadikan teladan, saya fikir banyak perkara yang perlu ditapis. Hang Tuah yang kononnya hidup pada zaman kegemilangan Kesultanan Melaka tentu tidak relevan lagi di zaman kita untuk dianggap wira dan teladan. Wataknya itu mungkin sesuai untuk masyarakat yang berpegang kepada feudalisme yang taat patuh kepada golongan bangsawan secara membuta tuli.

Daulat Raja

Hal yang sama berlaku juga dalam sejarah bangsa-bangsa feudalistik yang lain. Cerita tindakan Hang Tuah membawa lari Tun Teja dari Pahang untuk memenuhi ‘selera’ Sultan Melaka ketika itu, bukanlah tindakan yang terpuji. Ia salah dari segi nilai kesopanan, apatah lagi jika dinilai di sudut ajaran Islam.

Namun, masyarakat melayu ketika itu barangkali dapat menerimanya disebabkan kehendak ‘sultan’ atau ‘raja’ dalam masyarakat melayu itu mengatasi segala-galanya. Bahkan sultan atau raja bagi mereka mengatasi undang-undang dan peraturan. Dalam sejarah, bahasa dan adat yang digunakan oleh orang melayu di hadapan sultan atau raja menggambarkan sikap berlebih-lebihan dalam memuja raja serta menghina atau ‘menghambakan’ rakyat.

Ia sudah pasti tidak serasi dengan ruh ajaran Islam yang membebaskan manusia dari perhambaan sesama manusia atau makhluk, kepada mengabdikan diri hanya kepada Allah. Dalam sejarah atau ‘lagenda’ kesultanan melayu juga, bukan sedikit tindakan sultan atau raja melayu yang amat menyanggahi keadilan, tidak masuk akal, sekaligus bercanggah dengan Islam.

Orang melayu dalam banyak keadaan mendiamkan diri dan berkata: “Kita rakyat, baginda raja”. Falsafah raja adalah ‘jelmaan tuhan’ yang dianuti oleh sesetengah agama, walaupun tidak disebut dalam masyarakat melayu, namun ia menjelma dalam penghayatan. Sehingga perkataan ‘daulat raja’ difahami sesetengah masyarakat bahawa tuhan menurunkan bencana kepada sesiapa yang tidak menghormati raja.

Bahkan adat-istiadat istana itu sendiri seperti cara ‘mengadap atau menyembah duli’ bukan berasal dari ajaran Islam. Walaupun Islam masuk ke dalam istana dan masyarakat melayu, tetapi berhubung dengan adat keistanaan, banyak yang belum berjaya diislamisasikan.

Tidak dinafikan golongan agama, ada yang berjaya mempengaruhi dan menasihati sesetengah raja melayu. Terdapat juga sultan-sultan melayu yang berpegang dengan Islam dan disanjungi kebaikan dan keadilan mereka. Namun, dalam banyak keadaan jiwa feudalistik melayu menghalang atau melambatkan proses mengislamisasikan pemikiran melayu berhubung dengan raja. Anasir itu ada yang berlarutan sehinggalah ke zaman moden ini.

Tokoh-tokoh politik berbangsa melayu samada pro-islam atau apa saja, bagaimana ‘sakan’ pun mereka mengkritik kerajaan; dari segi belanjawan, pembaziran, tindak-tanduk, pembahagian projek, kepatuhan kepada undang-undang dan agama dan berbagai hal yang lain, apakah mereka sanggup bertanya hal yang sama jika dikaitkan dengan ‘istana’. Jawapan sudah pasti tidak atau amat sedikit, walaupun memang banyak bisikan dalam senyap. Sehingga saya berjumpa sesetengah orang yang mengharamkan ‘yoga’ atas alasan kerana ada unsur agama lain antaranya merapatkan kedua belah tangan seperti ‘menyembah berhala’. Saya bertanya: “tidakkah perbuatan yang sama dilakukan dalam istiadat melayu mengadap raja?”. Dia menjawab: “oh itu lain, saya tidak mahu masuk campur”.

Raja Adil Raja Ditaati

Tulisan ini bukan menghina sejarah istana atau raja. Apa yang hendak saya tegaskan adalah kemuliaan kita apabila kita berpegang dengan Islam. Tiada masalah dengan istana atau kesultanan melayu. Saya hanya menyebut latar masyarakat kita. Institusi ini boleh dikekalkan seperti mana United Kingdom masih mengenalkan Queen mereka.

Namun, proses pembaharuan minda berkaitan istana masih diperlukan. Apatah lagi istana dianggap memayungi Islam. Banyak institusi-institusi Islam di bawah istana. Tiada penguasa yang tidak boleh dinilai dan ditegur untuk kebaikan diri mereka dan rakyat jelata. Sepertimana kerajaan ditegur dan dikritik, demikian juga raja dan sultan. Jika ia hal peribadi, ditegur secara tertutup dan peribadi. Jika ia hak atau isu awam, orang awam dan rakyat berhak menuntutnya.

Saya menyebut hal demi kebaikan institusi kesultanan itu sendiri, agar berkesinambungannya secara mulia dan dihormati rakyat. Dalam rekod melayu moden, orang melayu telah banyak mempertahankan institusi kesultanan mereka, walaupun tidak banyak keadaan yang menunjukkan sebaliknya. Adapun saya, tidaklah bersetuju dengan kata-kata Hang Jebat: “raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah”. Saya tidak bersetuju dengan perkataan ‘sembah’ yang disebut oleh Hang Jebat, sebab saya tidak menyembah raja. Saya kata: “raja adil raja ditaati, raja zalim raja dibantahi atau dinasihati”.

Tiada beza antara rakyat dan raja atau menteri atau bangsawan mana sekalipun di hadapan keadilan dan hak. Islam tidak pernah mengajar jiwa feudalistik yang meletakkan bagi bangsawan hukuman yang berbeza dengan rakyat. Rasulullah s.a.w menyebut:

“Sesungguhnya binasa orang yang terdahulu daripada kamu kerana mereka itu apabila seorang bangsawan dalam kalangan mereka mencuri, dia dibiarkan. Apabila seorang yang lemah dalam kalangan mereka mencuri, dilaksanakan hukum ke atasnya. Demi Allah! Jika Fatimah anak Muhammad (puteri Rasulullah) itu mencuri, nescaya ku potong tangannya” (Riwayat al-Bukhari dan Muslim).

Saya seorang muslim, saya juga seorang melayu. Saya tidak nafikan orang melayu dan kesultanan kita ada keistimewaan yang tersendiri. Namun, saya percaya jika kita berbicara soal sejarah bangsa, setiap bangsa ada sejarah mereka. Jika soal budaya dan adat, setiap bangsa memilikinya. Jika soal bahasa dan sastera, setiap bangsa ada latar mereka.

Namun jika kita berbicara rahmat Allah yang menunjukkan Islam kepada orang melayu, ia adalah sesuatu yang istimewa. Ia membolehkan melayu itu bergabung dengan sejarah hidayah dan alam yang merentasi segala rupa bangsa dan budaya. Ia menjadikan kita bersaudara dengan berbagai bangsa di dunia atas kalimah Allah dan menjadikan kita merasai sejarah kegemilangan Islam sebahagian dari sejarah kita bersama. Cuma yang tinggal, sejauh manakah kita berjaya melayari bahtera keagungan Islam pada zaman yang mencabar ini?

Zaman sudah berubah. Minda dan cara fikir generasi baru juga sudah berbeza. Sejarah juga akan berubah. Sesiapa yang enggan berubah, mungkin dia diubah.


Dipetik dari - Minda Tajdid DrMAZA.com

Hudud dari luar kacamata politik

Oleh RAJMAH HASAN dan MMETRA SYAHRIL MO

SETELAH beberapa tahun isu hudud tenggelam dalam perbincangan arus perdana, ianya kembali diperkatakan sejak akhir-akhir ini.

Semuanya bermula setelah Ketua Hakim Syarie Kelantan, Datuk Daud Muhammad mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Kelantan bersedia sepenuhnya melaksanakan hukum hudud atau Enakmen Jenayah Syariah II Kelantan 1993.

Kenyataan Daud pada 13 November lalu itu dipercayai susulan daripada pengumuman Kerajaan Brunei Darussalam yang bakal menguatkuasakan Perintah Kanun Hukuman Syariah 2013 (PKHJS 2013) dalam waktu terdekat.

Tanggal 22 Oktober lepas, Sultan Brunei, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah mengumumkan pewartaan PKHJS 2013 dengan tujuan melaksanakan hukum hudud dan qisas di negara itu yang akan dikuatkuasakan berperingkat-peringkat bermula dengan kesalahan-kesalahan takzir (seperti kesalahan khalwat dan perbuatan tidak sopan) mulai April ini.

Perkembangan tersebut seolah-olah memberi satu sinar harapan kepada Kerajaan Pas Kelantan untuk melaksanakan hukum hudud di negeri itu setelah tertangguh selama 23 tahun berikutan terdapat pelbagai halangan.

Sejarah membuktikan hudud pernah dilaksanakan di Tanah Melayu (kini Malaysia) ketika zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka selepas kemasukan Islam di Melaka pada 812 Hijrah (1409 Masihi), manakala Brunei pula mula memperkenalkan undang-undang jenayah Syariah di negara itu pada 1996.

Berdasarkan pengalaman, Malaysia sepatutnya mengambil inisiatif melaksanakan kembali hukum hudud dan mencontohi ketegasan Brunei melaksanakan PKHJS 2013 biarpun rata-rata masyarakat global menolak hukum hudud yang dianggap tidak sesuai diamalkan dalam zaman moden ini.

Anggapan negatif hukum hudud bahawa ia undang-undang zalim termasuk hukuman kerat tangan bagi kesalahan mencuri telah sekian lama dipropagandakan oleh media Barat sehingga menakut-nakutkan orang bukan Islam di negara ini.

Tidak dinafikan, langkah diambil Kerajaan Brunei itu sedikit-sebanyak menimbulkan keresahan rakyat berbilang kaum di negara ini yang khuatir sekiranya pelaksanaan hudud itu berjaya, ia bakal mengubah landskap sistem perundangan di Malaysia.

Persoalannya, sejauhmana hudud dari segi peruntukan Perlembangan, sistem kerajaan, perundangan, kehakiman dan politik sedia ada sesuai dilaksanakan di Malaysia?

Bekas Ketua Hakim Negara, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad berkata, pelaksanaan hukum hudud tidak semudah disangka kerana perlu mengambil kira pelbagai faktor khususnya membabitkan soal penguatkuasaan antara orang Islam dan bukan Islam.

Selain itu katanya, pelaksanaan hukum tersebut juga perlu kepada pertimbangan terhadap peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan berhubung pembahagian bidang kuasa di antara Persekutuan dan Negeri.

Berdasarkan Senarai I, Jadual Kesembilan, Perlembagaan Persekutuan 'undang-undang jenayah' terletak di bawah bidang kuasa Persekutuan dan mahkamah sivil.

Manakala 'kesalahan-kesalahan terhadap suruhan agama Islam' seperti dalam Senarai II (Senarai Negeri), Jadual Kesembilan, Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula di bawah kuasa kerajaan negeri serta mahkamah syariah.

"Kita lihat pula kepada kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut, didapati di antaranya ada kesalahan-kesalahan yang telah wujud dalam Kanun Keseksaan sejak 1936 dan berkuat kuasa ketika Perlembagaan Persekutuan digubal. Contohnya, kesalahan menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan kepada orang lain, mencuri, merompak dan merogol.

"Sebaliknya, antara kesalahan itu ada yang tidak terdapat dalam Kanun Keseksaan, malah telah diperuntukkan dalam Enakmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah negeri-negeri. Contohnya, persetubuhan luar nikah, menuduh seseorang berzina dan berkaitan minuman memabukkan," katanya dalam syarahan awam bertajuk Pelaksanaan Hudud Di Brunei: Perbezaan Di Antara Brunei Dan Malaysia di Institut Antarabangsa Kajian Tinggi Islam (IAIS) di ibu negara baru-baru ini.

Abdul Hamid berkata, sekiranya hudud hendak dilaksanakan di negara ini, bagi kesalahan jenayah, ia hanya boleh dilakukan sekiranya dipinda sebagai undang-undang Persekutuan dan bukan kesalahan terhadap suruhan agama Islam seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Senarai II (Senarai Negeri), Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Ini kerana katanya, Perlembagaan tidak menghalang untuk pelaksanaan sedemikian dan Parlimen boleh memilih apa-apa hukuman kepada kesalahan jenayah, termasuk hukuman mengikut syariah.

"Dengan cara itu, penguatkuasaannya boleh meliputi orang Islam dan bukan Islam (undang-undang Persekutuan).

"Sebagai undang-undang jenayah, ia terletak di bawah bidang kuasa mahkamah sivil dan mahkamah sivil mempunyai bidang kuasa ke atas orang Islam dan bukan Islam," katanya.

Sementara itu, sekiranya Parlimen Malaysia hendak membuat undang-undang seperti itu, katanya, tidak ada pindaan Perlembagaan yang perlu dibuat sebaliknya rang undang-undang itu hanya perlu diluluskan dengan majoriti mudah.

"Jika ia hanya terpakai kepada orang Islam sahaja, maka ia akan bercanggah dengan peruntukan Perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana itu adalah satu diskriminasi atas alasan agama.

"Dalam hal ini, adilkah jika seseorang Islam mencuri harta seorang bukan Islam, dia dikenakan hudud manakala seorang bukan Islam mencuri harta orang Islam, dia hanya dikenakan penjara atau denda?" soalnya.

Dalam pada itu, Abdul Hamid menegaskan, perbezaan penetapan undang-undang antara negara ini dan Brunei juga menjadi faktor kesukaran untuk mengikut jejak langkah melaksanakan hudud.

Jelas beliau, Brunei memberi kuasa penuh kepada Sultan untuk menggubal dan meminda perundangan, sebaliknya Malaysia adalah negara Persekutuan yang mempunyai bidang kuasa tertentu termasuk kerajaan negeri.

"Di Brunei, pelaksanaannya bukanlah kerana kelangsungan politik atau untuk memenangi pilihan raya tetapi kerja-kerja ke arahnya (pengkajian hudud) telah berjalan kira-kira 30 tahun dan masih belum selesai," katanya.

Abdul Hamid yang turut menjadi penasihat dalam perangkaan undang-undang hudud di Brunei berkata, pelaksanaan PKHJS 2013 hanya boleh dinilai dalam tempoh tiga atau lima tahun lagi.

Dalam tempoh itu katanya, para pengkaji dan negara yang ingin mengikuti jejak langkah Brunei boleh menilai sama ada pelaksanaan hudud mampu mengurangkan kadar jenayah atau sebaliknya.

"Adakah negara Brunei yang sudah tenteram itu akan menjadi lebih aman? Kita masih belum tahu dan penilaian sebenar kesan hudud hanya dapat dilihat dalam tempoh tiga hingga lima tahun lagi," katanya.

Ditanya media sama ada hudud sesuai dilaksanakan di Malaysia, Abdul Hamid sekadar menjawab:"Saya memberi pendapat berasaskan undang-undang. Anda kajilah kesannya."

Artikel Penuh: http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Rencana/20140214/re_01/Hudud-dari-luar-kacamata-politik#ixzz2tHjMOOqw

© Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd

Govt to engage stakeholders on TPPA

By R Kamalavacini

KUALA LUMPUR: The government says it is going to explain the contentious Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) to “stakeholders” and get feedback on the proposed free trade agreement this week.

The announcement to hold the engagement comes as cries to release the text of the proposed agreement becomes louder.

Senior lawmakers from at least seven of the negotiating countries have called for the text to be released.

Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Melayu (MTEM) wants the government to release the text so that a meaningful debate could be held over the issue.

“This issue is of national interest. We should take it seriously before it goes out of control,” the MTEM said in a statement.

Other politicians from Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru had expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the TPP negotiations.

Even the members of the US Congress have issued a constant stream of letters objecting to the secrecy and seeking release of the draft texts.

In the meantime, responding to the various calls from stakeholders, the International Trade and Industry Ministry (MITI) is conducting intensified stakeholder engagements on the TPP updates as well as to gather feedback from them tomorrow.

The stakeholders involved are non-governmental organisations, industry representatives and selected individuals.

This will be followed by a meeting with parliamentary caucus on Feb 19. The ministry will update stakeholders on developments since the last TPP ministerial meeting in Singapore in December 2013,” it said in a statement yesterday.

In 2013, more than 52 TPP consultations were held by the ministry and other government agencies involved in the negotiations.

These consultations were to inform stakeholders of developments in the negotiations and to seek feedback which have been used by the negotiating team in formulating Malaysia’s position on the various issues in the TPP, the statement said.

Dipetik dari - Free Malaysia Today

Pecah masuk masjid, 3 lelaki dihukum

Oleh Sim Y. H.

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, 11 Feb – Tiga lelaki tempatan yang diberkas berhubung kes pecah masuk masjid pada 9 Januari lalu, hari ini dijatuhi hukuman penjara dan sebatan setelah mereka mengaku bersalah terhadap 28 pertuduhan mencuri wang dari tabung derma di 15 buah masjid di daerah Brunei-Muara, Tutong dan Belait; memecah masuk ke masjid-masjid pada waktu malam dan perbuatan merosakkan harta benda semasa memecah masuk ke masjid-masjid.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Paduka Hairol Arni Haji Abdul Majid memerintahkan tertuduh pertama dan kedua iaitu Haji Jumat bin Haji Jaya, 39, dan Sahri bin Jarudin, 45, masing-masing dihukum penjara 11 tahun dan 8 sebatan. Manakala tertuduh ketiga, Mohammad Sediken bin Bujang, 32, dijatuhi hukuman penjara selama 12 tahun dan 9 sebatan.

Kesemua hukuman tersebut berkuat kuasa dari tarikh mereka ditahan reman iaitu pada 10 Januari 2014.

Masjid-masjid yang dipecah masuk oleh ketiga-tiga tertuduh ialah Masjid Saifuddien Ali Omar Paduka Seri Begawan Sultan di Kg Katimahar; Masjid Belimbing di Kg Subok; Masjid Kg Serdang; Masjid Pengiran Muda Abdul Mateen; Masjid Zainab di Lumut; Masjid Pintu Malim; Masjid Tanah Jambu; Masjid Lumapas; Perpindahan Masjid Lambak Kanan; Masjid Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa’adatul Bolkiah; Masjid RIPAS ; Kg Rimba; Masjid Kg Kapok Kanan; Masjid Kg Bukit Udal, Tutong; Masjid Hj Abdul Azim di Kg Luagan Dudok, Tutong dan Masjid Beribi, Jln Bunga Jasmine.

Pendakwaan dilakukan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Karen Tan dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Dk Hazirah Pg. Yusoff.

Pasukan Polis Diraja Brunei dalam satu kenyataan di sini berkata, dengan sabitan kes tersebut, ia merupakan usaha berterusan dan komitmen Pasukan Polis Diraja Brunei dalam memastikan keselamatan dan ketenteraman awam terpelihara dan terjamin.

Kes pecah masuk masjid yang dilaporkan berleluasa sejak November lalu telah mendapat perhatian ramai liputan meluas oleh media tempatan. Ketiga-tiga tertuduh diberkas ketika memecahkan masuk dan mencuri harta benda di Masjid Beribi pada tengah malam 9 Januari lalu.

Sehubungan itu Pasukan Polis Diraja Brunei mengucapkan penghargaan dan berterima kasih kepada pihak awam yang memberi maklumat sehingga pesalah-pesalah telah berjaya ditangkap dan kemudian dihadapkan ke mahkamah.


Dipetik dari - Media Permata

Sultan of Brunei's ex-wife admits reckless gambling sprees

Sultan of Brunei's ex-wife admits reckless gambling sprees 'chasing the money' in international high roller casinos at trial of bodyguard accused of stealing £12m of her diamonds

• Mariam Aziz gives evidence in the trial of her bodyguard accused of theft
• Fatimah Lim is said to have stolen two gems and a bracelet worth £12m
• Ex-wife of the Sultan of Brunei told the court she sold jewellery worth £1m to pay off gambling debts but denied telling Lim to sell the gems
• Court heard Ms Aziz blew £500,000 in one night gambling at various casinos
• Lim denies theft, claiming Ms Aziz asked her to sell the jewellery to pay off debts after the casinos threatened to sue her employer

By Lizzie Parry

The former wife of the Sultan of Brunei admitted selling items of jewellery to pay off £1million in gambling debts after indulging in sprees at a string of London casinos.

Telling Isleworth Crown Court that the mentality of gambling was 'chasing the money, chasing the money', Mariam Aziz rejected claims she once blew £3m in a single spree.

The court heard the 57-year-old lost £500,000 in one night, playing the tables at London's top venues.

The Sultan of Brunei's ex-wife Mariam Aziz admitted
selling jewellery worth £1m to pay off gambling debts

She was giving evidence at the trial of her bodyguard Fatimah Lim, accused of stealing diamonds worth £12m from her employer, replacing them with near-worthless replicas.

Lim claims she sold the gems to pay off gambling debts accrued over a 20-month period when Ms Aziz visited casinos around the world with her huge entourage.

The 35-year-old former international badminton player said she was driven to sell the jewellery after the casinos threatened to sue Ms Aziz.

The former wife of the world's richest man would regularly visit venues in Singapore, Macau and London - including the Clermont Club in Berkeley Square where she had a £2.5m credit limit.

Jurors were told that Ms Aziz persuaded her female Muslim bodyguards to gamble despite their faith and that she would each provide them with gambling chips worth £1,500 a time.

The court heard Ms Aziz once blew £500,000 in one night gambling in London, but the Sultan’s ex-wife rejected claims that she once lost £3m in a single crazed spree.

Lim claims that her former boss struggled to pay off her gambling debts and that she was told to sell her gems for the cash.

But Ms Aziz insisted: ‘No I never asked anyone, especially Fatimah Lim, to sell the diamonds because I would do it myself.'

The former air stewardess would visit two or three casinos in one night, including Les Ambassadeurs, Aspinalls, and Rendezvous, all near Park Lane.

Rupert Pardoe, defending, suggested to Ms Aziz that she gambled at more than one casino a night because she repeatedly maxed out her credit limit.

But Ms Aziz told jurors that she would move between different casinos depending on whether she felt lucky or not.

‘The mentality of gambling is chasing the money, chasing the money’, she said.

‘It would be the defendant’s suggestion. When the defendant said "you are not lucky here" we would go to another one’.

Ms Aziz, who owns property in Leicestershire, Kensington, and Singapore, claims that she had ‘no problems’ with her gambling debts.

But jurors heard that Ms Aziz transferred swathes of cash into Lim’s bank account in order to pay off her own casino owings.

She also sold some of her jewellery in January 2009 for around £1m to pay off her debts, the court was told.

‘There were people in your wider circle not as enthusiastic about gambling as you - there was a perception that it was not in accordance with the activities of a Muslim’, Mr Pardoe said.

‘You have hatched a plot to blame Fatimah Lim for the theft of these rings and this diamond bracelet’.

But Ms Aziz replied: ‘No never, she’s the one who’s stolen from me. I never asked her to sell the diamonds.'

Lim was eventually confronted for the alleged thefts by Ms Aziz’s nephew Idris Ja’afar in Brunei where she was arrested in January 2010.

She initially denied being in London in December 2009, but came clean when Miss Abdullah arrived at the meeting and asked ‘if Ms Aziz might forgive her and pardon her’.

Jurors heard that Lim sent Ms Aziz a letter dated January 28, 2010 in which she claimed that the casinos were intending to sue the Sultan’s ex-wife if her gambling debts were not paid off.

Lim allegedly grabbed the jewellery from Mariam Aziz from her Kensington mansion in west London.

The bodyguard, who won a silver medal in badminton at the 2002 Commonwealth Games, is accused of taking a pear-shaped 12.71 blue diamond worth £7.6 million and a rectangular 27.1 carat yellow diamond worth £600,000.

She is also accused of stealing a £3.3 million diamond bracelet.

The Singaporean allegedly sold the gems and then replaced them with replicas made out of glass and mineral tanzanite.

Lim had been hired by Ms Aziz to be her badminton coach before becoming her bodyguard.

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, one of the world’s richest men, and Ms Aziz, divorced in 2003 after 21 years of marriage and having four children together.

Wearing a headscarf throughout her evidence, Ms Aziz, 59, told jurors at Isleworth Crown Court that she first met Lim through their shared love of badminton.

‘I met her through playing badminton, we played as partners - I travel a lot and play badminton everywhere for my exercise.

‘Her role developed beyond badminton - I later appointed her as my bodyguard before my divorce because I had trust in her.

‘I have a few bodyguards - they travel with me, applied for visas, book travel tickets, they assisted me in many ways.

‘I treated most of my staff as family, we were all very close to each other - in the early years I had no reason to doubt the defendant’s trustworthiness.'

Ms Aziz told the court how her diamond bracelet, worth over £3m that she bought from a jeweller on Bond Street, went missing in May 2008.

‘It is valuable, a very valuable piece of jewellery’, she said.

‘I needed it resized - the bracelet was catching on my sleeve. I lost another bracelet this way so, on this occasion, I decided to take it off.

‘I needed help from my bodyguard and on this occasion, Fatimah was with me on duty so I gave it to her and she put it in her bag.

‘Two to three weeks later, I can’t remember the date, I decided to wear it but couldn’t find it.

‘I asked my maid to find the bracelet. I was racking my brains ‘what happened to my bracelet?’ then I remembered I gave it to Fatimah.

‘She said she knew nothing about my bracelet, I conducted a search but couldn’t find it.'

Asked if she had told Lim to sell the bracelet, Ms Aziz replied: ‘Never. I never asked anyone to sell any of my jewellery.

‘If I wanted to sell any of my jewellery I’d sell it myself’.

Three months after the bracelet went missing, Lim resigned for health reasons and claimed she had to return to her native Singapore for eye treatment, the court heard.

Lim then returned to work Ms Aziz in January 2009 where she continued her close relationship with Ms Aziz’s adopted daughter, Afifa Abdullah.

The court heard that Lim twice asked Miss Abdullah to borrow the blue and yellow diamonds as collateral on a property deal on the promise to return them in a short time.

Ms Aziz said: ‘The blue diamond, a gift from His Majesty, is a rare piece of intense colour, flawless, and it’s a valuable piece of jewellery.

‘The yellow diamond was worth $900,000 to $1m, a gift from my ex-husband.

‘I didn’t want to sell either diamond - I intended it to go to my daughters’.

Jurors heard that when Ms Aziz wanted to wear the blue diamond for New Year’s Eve 2009 she discovered that it was made of mineral tanzanite.

‘I needed it resized, so on December 30 I asked Afifa to take it to Mrs Mussai at the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane.

‘I was on my way to the theatre in London, we were on the bus when Afifa called and said the ring isn’t a blue diamond but a tanzanite one.

‘I was horrified, shocked, puzzled. I had lost the bracelet and now the diamond - I had no idea what had happened.'

The Sultan’s former wife told jurors that her daughter Afifa came to her hotel room on the same night to make a ‘confession’.

‘She came in and said she had lent the blue diamond and the yellow diamond to the defendant because she said she needed it for ‘business purposes.' Ms Aziz told the court.

‘She said she had financial difficulties and that her mother was not well and that she needed the diamonds as collateral.

‘Afifa said she had borrowed it on two occasions, first in July 2009 and in early December 2009.

‘She said that she trusted Fatimah and that she lent it because she was emotional and under pressure, that Fatimah was very frightened.

‘I was horrified, shocked, panicky. I just couldn’t believe what I heard.

‘I trusted these people and they betrayed me, doing things behind my back.'

The court heard that an examination of the yellow diamond proved that it was also a replica, made of glass.

Jurors heard after stealing the gems Lim took them to a jeweller in London’s famous Hatton Garden where she claimed they had been a gift from Ms Aziz to her mother - for 28 years of service as her PA.

They were eventually sold to a buyer in Geneva for around £5m, the court was told.

Lim was eventually confronted by Ms Aziz’s nephew Idris Ja’afar in Brunei for the alleged thefts where she was arrested.

Lim, of no fixed address, denies three counts of theft.

The trial continues.


Dipetik dari - Mail Online

Opinion: Was there a failure in alerting about floods?

Farmers wait for the water to recede in a paddy field in Tanjong Maya,
though many areas affected by floods have seen improvement in Tutong

Dear Editor,

IN 2008, the floods that hit Tutong were pretty rough. That year some of our relatives who live in the flood affected areas had no chance at all to save their belongings on the first floor. The water, as you can imagine, swept away everything from furniture to appliances, ruined the cars, motorcycles, bicycles that were in and around the kampongs affected.

It was the worse since the 60s my uncle had told me. He himself had a hazy recollection about that whole ordeal, and he moved out of my grandparents’ home to his relatives who lived in the Brunei-Muara district.

There were no warnings that such an incident would take place again and instead the authorities said that mitigation works to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again would be carried out. Then in 2014, the floods (yes, that’s right there have been floods in one part of Tutong or another since 2008) came around again, but this time they struck in a far more devastating manner.

My relatives, who still live in the area and were in one of the badly affected areas, had tried every measure they could think of to save their home from being hit by the rising waters. They moved the majority of their furniture onto tables but all in vain. This time around the ceiling of the ground floor of their two storey home has now become the floor of a bungalow. Everything has once again been taken away from them.

So what ever happened to those mitigation works that the authorities said that would prevent the floods from rising? If they couldn’t guarantee the safety of homes and citizens of the flood hit areas, why didn’t they ask the residents to move out? If they didn’t want to move out, I’m sure that there would have been some kind of work that could have spared the flood-hit people from hardships and suffering.

If no amount of physical work could have been done to alleviate the situation, maybe we could have adopted some early warning systems that could have sounded the alarm to the public.

First I ask myself, “Why were these people not warned that they live on a flood plain anyways?”

Since that can’t be helped, I sometimes wonder about the the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC). When I first got in touch with the NDMC to find out whether my relatives back in the kampong were affected, the reply I got was, “You’ll have to get in touch with the District Office or the Ketua Kampong…”

I’ll let the public be the judge on whether that is helpful or not, but I honestly feel that the NDMC, even before these situations arise, can play an even bigger role in protecting the public from natural disasters. The solutions don’t need to be expensive solutions, and they don’t need to be high-tech either.

I’m sure the NDMC can work closely with the Meteorological Department and have a skeleton crew that’s kept abreast of certain scenarios that may or may not play out, and warn residents who are most at risk in these situations. Since this is a seasonal thing, and when the monsoon hits, why not have this skeleton crew operate then?

How much does a telephone call cost? How much does it take to send out an automated message to ‘Ketua Kampongs’ to inform them that their community might be hit by a storm and combined with the hightide/water levels it could amount to a flood. These are all resources that are already in place, why not tweak it so they’re better utilised and aligned? Why is the public not informed of the findings of what went wrong in the wake of these disasters? These are pertinent issues, and they might help the public living in flood-prone areas decide what action they should take with their homes and lives.

Omar Coming, Sengkurong


Dipetik dari - The Brunei Times

‘Stop giving inconclusive answers, MITI’

Alyaa Azhar

PETALING JAYA: Anti Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) group Bantah TPPA is unhappy with the International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti) for consistently giving ‘superficial and general answers’.

The group said it was clueless on the outcome of the TPPA, as statements from international sources contradict that given by the ministry.

Bantah TPPA chairman, Mohd Nizam Mahshar, said a Mexican minister had said that the trade agreement will be inked by all participating countries by April and the US has stated that most of the chapters have been concluded.

“However, Miti said a lot has yet to be discussed. So right now, we do not know what is true,” he said.

Mohd Nizam was also doubtful of Miti’s promise that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’.

“Miti has kept reassuring us, telling us not to worry. However, I have warned them that it was almost impossible to reverse the text if consultation is only done at the end.”

As mentioned, according to the US and international sources, all of the chapters have been concluded.

“Therefore, it would be near to impossible to reverse what has been concluded,” said Mohd Nizam, pointing out how the ministry was taking the wrong approach and taking a huge risk by leaving proper consultations towards the end of negotiations.

Mohd Nizam added that Miti lacked proper engagement with relevant stakeholders as Bantah TPPA was still waiting to be consulted on the outcome of the cost and benefit analyses (CBA) of the effects of the TPPA on national interest and Bumiputera companies as well as small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

“They promised to consult us on the outcome of the studies and for the report to be made publicly available.

“The national interest CBA done by Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) have been concluded but they still have not engaged us on the final report. As such, we have doubts on the outcome of the report,” he said.

Contradictory statements

Mohd Nizam also lamented how parliamentarians were not provided with proper information on the TPPA.

“We do not see proper information being provided to parliamentarians. It is only appropriate for information be gathered from all perspectives,” he said.

Admitting that there was openness in general discussions with the ministry, he however said Miti has failed to provide proper terms of references.

“We understand that Miti cannot disclose everything to the public. However, group discussions with experts and stakeholders are important,” he said.

He added that the ministry had even promised to bring in an independent and credible party who can access the negotiation texts to give professional assessment.

“Instead, Miti has been going around the world such as to the US and its allies, making us second stakeholders, as if we’re not important,” he said.

Meanwhile, Charles Santiago, a member of the parliamentary caucus on the TPPA was also confused about Malaysia’s position.

“The minister (Mustapa Mohamed) said that they will be negotiating for the entire year of 2014 but we know that the US has said that everything will be concluded by April,” said the Klang MP.

Santiago also pointed out how the parliamentary caucus meeting has been postponed twice.

“The meeting with the caucus has been postponed twice, one was supposed to be on Dec 6 and the next on Dec 10. We have not met at all this year,” he said.

The TPPA is a multi-lateral trade agreement that the US, the leading negotiator in the talks, hoped would serve its role in developing a broader platform for trade liberalisation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Malaysia is negotiating with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US, Vietnam and Japan to conclude the TPPA.


Dipetik dari - Free Malaysia Today

Hak umat Islam sama di mata undang-undang

Oleh:  Aimi Sani

JERUDONG, Isnin, 3 Februari. - Undang-undang Islam adalah undang-undang yang mantap, relevan untuk setiap zaman dan masa dan ianya tidak akan berubah buat selamanya.

Ia menjamin kebaikan, keadilan dan kesejahteraan kepada seluruh manusia tanpa memberikan keistimewaan kepada mana-mana golongan tertentu yang mana setiap individu mempunyai hak dan tanggungjawab yang sama di mata undang-undang.

Perlaksanaan Perintah Hukuman Jenayah Syar'iah 2013 diyakini mampu membendung jenayah daripada terus berleluasa di negara ini seperti yang terbukti di negara-negara yang lebih awal mengamalkan Undang-undang Jenayah syariah.

Demikian dijelaskan oleh Pegawai Perkembangan Ugama, Pusat Da'wah Islamiah (PDI), Kementerian Hal Ehwal Ugama (KHEU), Awang Mukrisman Safari bin Haji Mustapha pada Taklimat Perintah Hukum Kanun Jenayah Syar'iah bagi Kementerian Pertahanan, bertempat di Dewan Utama BRIDEX, Jerudong, di sini.

Sementara itu Pegawai Perundangan Syariah, Unit Perundangan Islam, KHEU, Dayang Hajah Rosnita binti Haji Shamsuddin berkata, perintah-perintah dan Kanun-kanun Jenayah Syariah tersebut akan dilaksanakan secara berperingkat-peringkat melalui tiga fasa iaitu Fasa Pertama, enam bulan selepas ianya diwartakan, semua kesalahan dalam Bahagian IV Penggal IV di mana Kesalahan-Kesalahan Am akan dikuatkuasakan kecuali yang mengenakan hukuman sebat atau mati.

Sementara Fasa Kedua selepas 12 bulan diwartakan, semua kesalahan yang mengenakan hukuman Hadd, Diyat, Arsy dan Badal al-Sulh akan dikuatkuasakan kecuali kesalahan yang mengenakan hukuman mati.

Manakala di Fasa Ketiga, ujarnya, setelah 24 bulan dari Perintah Kanun Peraturan Jenayah Mahkamah Syar'iah diwartakan, Perintah Kanun Hukuman Jenayah Syar'iah 2013 akan dikuatkuasakan sepenuhnya termasuk kesalahan yang mengenakan hukuman mati.

Perintah ini, terangnya, dikenakan ke atas orang Islam dan bukan Islam, namun ada beberapa kesalahan yang dikenakan kepada orang Islam sahaja seperti tidak menunaikan Sembahyang Jumaat, perempuan Islam yang belum berkahwin lari daripada jagaan ibu bapanya atau penjaganya dan memberi atau menyerahkan orang Islam.

Antara kesalahan yang dikenakan hukuman ke atas orang Islam dan bukan Islam, jelasnya, adalah seperti kesalahan melakukan zina atau meminum minuman yang memabukkan.

Walau bagaimanapun, ujarnya, hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas orang bukan Islam tertakluk kepada syarat seperti jika orang bukan Islam itu melakukan zina dengan orang Islam atau jika orang Islam itu meminum minuman yang memabukkan di khalayak ramai.

Perkara-perkara yang lain yang turut dibincangkan dan diketengahkan termasuklah mengenai kaedah pembuktian kesalahan-kesalahan yang dikenakan hukuman Hadd, Qisas atau Diyat, syarat-syarat ikrar bagi kesalahan yang dikenakan hukuman Hadd, Qisas atau Diyat, syarat-syarat tambahan ikrar bagi kesalahan zina yang dikenakan hukuman Hadd, penerimaan ikrar, syarat-syarat syahid bagi kesalahan yang dikenakan hukuman Hadd, Qisas atau Diyat, syarat-syarat Muzakki, di samping kesalahan am yang dikenakan hukuman Qisas, Diyat atau Badal al-Sulh, Arsy bagi kesalahan 'qatl' atau kecederaan dan hukuman Hadd dan Irtidad.

Taklimat seumpama merupakan inisiatif Jabatan Perdana Menteri (JPM) dan KHEU dalam mendukung titah perintah Kebawah DYMM Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan dan Yang Di-Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam dalam pelaksanaan Kanun Jenayah Syariah di Negara Brunei Darussalam.

Perintah Kanun Hukuman Jenayah Syari'ah telah diwartakan pada 16 Zulhijah 1434 Hijriah bersamaan 22 Oktober 2013 Masihi.

Negara Brunei Darussalam melakar sejarah besar apabila menggazetkan Akta Perintah Kanun Hukuman Jenayah Syar'iah yang berkuat kuasa enam bulan selepasnya secara berfasa.

Turut hadir ialah Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan, Yang Mulia Dato Paduka Awang Haji Mustappa bin Haji Sirat, Setiausaha-Setiausaha Tetap, Timbalan-Timbalan Setiausaha Tetap, ketua-ketua jabatan, pegawai-pegawai kanan, pegawai-pegawai dan kakitangan Kementerian Pertahanan.


Dipetik dari - Pelita Brunei


Undang-undang Syari’ah sepintas lalu

Terdapat tiga fasa dalam pelaksanaan Perintah Kanun Hukuman Jenayah Syariah 2013 dan Fasa 1 yang akan dikuatkuasakan dalam bulan April ini merangkumi kesalahan-kesalahan am dalam Bahagian IV, Penggal IV kecuali bagi kesalahan yang boleh membawa kepada hukuman mati atau sebatan rotan. Berikut ialah antara 60 Bab yang terkandung dalam Bahagian IV, Penggal IV :

Hukuman melakukan ghasab

Bab 192. (1) Mana-mana orang yang melakukan ghasab adalah melakukan sesuatu kesalahan dan hendaklah jika sabit kesalahan dikenakan suatu denda tidak melebihi $20,000, dihukum penjara selama satu tempoh tidak melebihi 5 tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.

(2) Bagi maksud-maksud bab-bab 192 dan 193, “ghasab” bermaksud penguasaan terhadap hak orang lain dengan secara zalim dengan tiada kerelaan orang yang ada hak.

Misalan-misalan

(a) A mengugut B untuk membunuh atau mencederakan B jika B tidak memberikan A sejumlah wang. B disebabkan ketakutan memberikan A sejumlah wang yang dikehendaki. A telah melakukan ghasab.

(b) A secara paksa mengambil wang dari poket B tanpa kebenaran B. A telah melakukan ghasab.

Pengembalian harta ghasab

Bab 193 (1) Harta ghasab hendaklah dikembalikan kepada mangsa jika harta itu didapati di dalam bentuk asal dan boleh dikenal.

(2) Jika harta ghasab itu hilang atau digunakan semasa dalam pegangan pesalah, maka pesalah terlibat hendaklah diperintahkan supaya membayar ganti rugi dan ganti rugi itu hendaklah menjadi hutang yang kena dibayar kepada pemilik.


Dipetik dari - Media Permata

Restating a claim and a threat

By BUNN NAGARA

The Kiram family’s rickety claim to Sabah continues, despite historical facts, current realities and the passing of individual leaders of the clan.

NO sooner had last year’s “Sulu sultanate” threat to Sabah subsided than a new one popped into place.

On Jan 21, Sulu “Sultan” Esmail Kiram II appealed to the Philippine government to renew the claim to Sabah peacefully, or else his group of fighters would repeat last February’s armed incursion.

It was a clear demand and a thinly veiled threat of violence. It was also a threat to the legitimacy of the Malaysian and Philippine governments, and to the state of their bilateral relations, in effect amounting to blackmail and extortion.

Last year a ragtag band of armed militants illegally entered Sabah to occupy two villages near Lahad Datu to press their claim to the territory. The incursion was inspired by then ailing “sultan” Jamalul Kiram III and headed by his younger brother Agbimuddin Kiram.

Jamalul died in October while still holding fast to the claim. The eldest of his surviving brothers, Esmail, was “declared” sultan from among some half dozen claimants to the “throne”.

Besides succeeding Jamalul recently according to one faction of the Kiram family, Esmail had also been a claimant rivalling Jamalul before becoming his brother’s regent.

Notwithstanding the complexity of Sulu’s supposed relationship with the former Bruneian territory preceding British North Borneo, today’s eastern seaboard of Sabah, all the Sulu claims have been dubious since their 17th-century origins.

Apart from their limited curiosity value, these claims have also been negated following the establishment of the Republic of the Philippines and the Federation of Malaysia.

The former seat of power of the defunct Sulu Sultanate, Jolo Island, is part of southern Mindanao in the Philippines. Far-flung Jolo has since figured more prominently as the base of the Abu Sayyaf bandits.

That Sabah, including the eastern portion that was the former North Borneo, has been part of the sovereign nation of Malaysia for more than half a century is an established fact of international relations as well as for institutions like the United Nations.

Neither is the Kirams’ claim to Sabah territory a form of ancestral claim or an expression of indigenous rights. The Suluk or Tausug ethnic group that the Kirams represent is not indigenous to Borneo, as confirmed by their claim resting entirely on an earlier (and similarly disputed) assertion to have been granted the territory by Brunei.

Interestingly, Esmail and Jamalul are sons of Punjungan Kiram, who was Sulu “sultan” between 1980 and 1983 before he decided to abdicate to Sabah to become a Malaysian instead. Punjungan himself was the younger brother of “Sultan” Esmail Kiram I, who “reigned” when Malaysia was formed in 1963.

In the gestation period for the new Malaysian federation that included Sarawak and Singapore, neither Malayan leaders nor British officials overseeing the process were under any obligation to continue payments to the Kirams based on their claim.

But the family and the Philippine government had objected to the formation of Malaysia. They said they would relent only if two conditions were met.

For the Philippine government, acceptance of Sabah as a part of Malaysia was conditional upon a UN-approved referendum determining the wishes of the Sabah people. That was duly undertaken by the Cobbold Commission, which found a third of the respondents favoured joining Malaysia outright and another third favoured joining with conditions (subsequently, the 20-point agreement) as acknowledged by then UN Secretary-General U Thant.

For the Kirams, approval of Sabah becoming part of Malaysia was conditional upon Malaysia continuing with the annual payments made earlier by the British. While Malaysia acceded to the condition, albeit the payments have reportedly been made to another Kiram claimant to the throne, these other Kirams appear to have forgotten about their part of the deal.

The misplaced and other-worldly air in the current “sultanate’s” claim to Sabah is reflected in Esmail Kiram II’s recent pronouncements.

He insists on pursuing the claim despite his uncle Esmail Kiram I’s agreement to drop it after Malaysia continued the annual payments. He wants UN support for his cause, despite the UN overseeing and approving the formation of Malaysia with Sabah.

He further argues that if the Philippine government considered his community as Filipino nationals, it should act to further their claim to Sabah territory. Since the claim is a private one of the Kiram family, and no longer that of an expired sultanate, the Philippines which has no claim by itself has no grounds to pursue it.

Although Jamalul Kiram had previously granted the Philippine government the authority to pursue the claim on Sulu’s behalf, he subsequently withdrew the mandate. Manila therefore has no basis even to consider the claim beyond a sense of over-extended sentiment among some members of the Tausug community.

Esmail Kiram II’s recent statements revealed nothing new. They showed nothing original either in the arguments for the claim or the methods employed to pursue it.

Why, then, were the statements made at all? As usual, such pronouncements were occasioned by certain events at the time.

A trial was underway in Kota Kinabalu where 30 of last year’s intruders stood accused of terrorist acts. A reassertion of the claim could be a way of boosting the morale of the “troops” and encouraging others to rally to their cause.

Besides, the first anniversary of last February’s incursion was fast approaching. Esmail’s reference to a repeat of the trespass could be a call to a “first anniversary bash”, or rather another bash-up, one year after the first.

More significantly perhaps, his threat was a way to mark his new status – at least within his Kiram faction – as “sultan”. Even more important than making a declaration of status to the Malaysian and Philippine governments is a declaration to the other claimants to the sultanate.

Like any newly inducted politician, a newly installed “sultan” is expected to prove his credentials by making certain obligatory statements.

Given the labyrinth of intrigue for claimants to Sulu’s imagined throne, no self-respecting Tausug leader can afford to be less of a politician than those in Manila.

However, that should not mean that any faction of the Kirams or any other group has ceased to be a substantive threat to Sabah, Malaysia or the Philippines. So long as the means exist to put together a band of armed fighters for a supposed cause, the threat of violence remains.

The further problem that groups like the Sulu intruders pose is that, like terrorists, they employ guerilla tactics that are harder to detect and neutralise. Governments at state and national levels employ more formal tactics in their order of battle that are more visible and predictable.

In a siege or standoff, however, state security forces are more likely to prevail because of superior firepower and training. But the damage that terrorists and their guerrilla tactics incur, at least initially, can never be underestimated because of their element of surprise and a frequent lack of scruples.

In their nondescript form, they can get closer to their determined targets than opponents in uniform and insignia. Their supporters and sympathisers can and do operate as “invisibly”.

Thus they continue to challenge the authorities everywhere. The security forces can never rest comfortably by assuming an automatic edge in any firefight or skirmish.


Dipetik dari - The Star Online

Limbang rebellion book review: Vivid account of jungle assault

Limbang Rebellion: 7 Days in December 1962, by Eileen Chanin

David Jenkins

The "sketch map" of Limbang in the opening section of this book evokes a long-vanished world made famous by Joseph Conrad and Somerset Maugham. Isolated in the Borneo jungle, on a bend in the Limbang River, lies a small British colonial outpost, with its police station, hospital, district office, DO's house, mosque and Chinese shop-houses.

The map depicts Limbang as it was in December, 1962. This was a pivotal year in South-East Asia. The United States, having shunned military commitment in Laos, was stepping up its involvement in South Vietnam. The British, on the other hand, were pulling out of the region as fast as was decently possible. As they prepared to wind down their commitment East of Suez, the British were promoting the idea of a new federation, to be called Malaysia.

This would bring together five territories: peninsular Malaya, which had been independent since 1957; Singapore, a self-governing entity and one of the world's richest and busiest ports, and Britain's three north Borneo dependencies - Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo (Sabah).
Advertisement

The prime minister of Malaya, the courtly, Cambridge-educated Tunku Abdul Rahman, liked the idea of Malaysia. There was considerable opposition to the plan, however, in other potential member states, not least in the Sultanate of Brunei, the shrivelled remnant of a once-great Malay Muslim trading state.

There, after decades of somnolence, political and social pressures were building to dangerous levels. Those pressures, which included a heady dose of Bruneian chauvinism and irredentism, would soon erupt in a sudden burst of violence.

A. M. Azahari, a charismatic Brunei politician who had spent his formative years in Indonesia, wanted no part of Malaysia. He was electrifying his followers in the Partai Ra'ayat (People's Party), which had swept all before it in the 1962 polls, with a call for a restored Greater Brunei.

Azahari wanted a federation of the three Borneo states headed by the Sultan of Brunei as a constitutional monarch. The Sultan was sitting on the fence. Thwarted by the British, Azahari set up a clandestine armed wing, the North Borneo National Army, or TNKU, allegedly with help from Indonesia.

At 2am on December 8, 1962, Azahari's men attacked police posts and other targets across Brunei, including Brunei Town (now Bandar Seri Begawan), the tiny capital. They also seized Limbang, which is in Sarawak, 19 kilometres upriver from the Brunei capital.

The British Resident in Limbang was Richard (Dick) Morris, an Australian. He and his wife Dorothy were taken hostage by about 350-400 agitated, angry men.

The British quickly recaptured Brunei Town: Gurkhas were flown in from Singapore the same day. But Limbang was to remain in rebel hands for five days. The hostages were only freed on December 12 when an 89-strong company of Royal Marines assaulted Limbang from the river, killing 15 rebels, losing five dead themselves and putting the insurgents to flight.

This book, written by Dick Morris's daughter-in-law, paints a compelling picture of the fortitude, the stoicism, the sense of duty, the stiff-upper-lip good humour shown by Dick and Dorothy Morris in a time of tension and danger.

It also gives an engrossing account of the bold commando assault on Limbang. Chanin's account of the improvised attack, the Marines travelling by night in two commandeered barges, will delight any military buff.

She has a great deal of material taken from interviews, memoirs, journal articles, unit war diaries, official reports, colonial-era newspapers, Dick Morris's papers and Dorothy Morris's engaging letters (the book is, in part, a reverential family history). This allows her to bring the story vividly to life.

The problem is that these voices are almost all British or Australian. There are no Brunei Malay or Kedayan opposition voices, save for Azahari's public comments at the time.There is virtually nothing first-hand from the "other side".

Another problem is that Chanin rather over-eggs the Limbang cake. Brunei, not Limbang, was always the centre of the action. Limbang was a sideshow, albeit a bloody one.

The Brunei Revolt had important consequences. Indonesia, struck by the degree of anti-Malaysia feeling in Brunei, then tried to stir up a revolt among left-leaning Chinese in Sarawak, hoping to convince the world the people of North Borneo were opposed to Malaysia.

That led in turn to Konfrontasi, a three-year (1963-66) conflict in which Indonesia sent soldiers, saboteurs and terrorists into Sarawak and Sabah, Malaya and Singapore. In response, Britain and Australia deployed troops up to 10 kilometres inside Indonesian Borneo. There, in jungle ambushes, they sometimes killed as many as 10-15 Indonesian soldiers at a time.

The Indonesians knew we were doing it. They did not complain, presumably because we were doing no more than they were doing themselves.

Unlike President Yudhoyono, president Sukarno did not withdraw his ambassador in Canberra when things did not go his way.


Dipetik dari - SMH.com.au