After a predictable and revealing knee-jerk response by security experts interpreting the massacre at a Labour Party summer camp on Utoya island and a car bomb attack on a government building in Oslo as the work of Muslims inspired or directed by al-Qaeda, it transpires that the real culprit in the case was more likely to be motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment.
Significantly, early reports reveal Breivik’s admiration for bigoted groups such as the English Defence League and Stop the Islamification of Europe, which campaign against Muslims and the building of mosques. Similarly, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in Holland appears to win Breivik’s approval because it seeks to protect Western culture from a growing threat of so-called “Islamification”.
While we must await the outcome of police investigations and court proceedings before reaching any firm conclusions about Breivik’s motivation, it will nevertheless be instructive to begin an analysis of a violent extremist nationalist milieu in Europe and the US, and its dramatic shift towards anti-Muslim and Islamophobic thought since 9/11. To be sure, this will certainly be more relevant than an analysis of al-Qaeda terrorism.
At the outset, however, Breivik may have to explain to outsiders why he did not choose to bomb a mosque instead. Surely, for the violent nationalist confluence he represents, that would have been a direct hit on the enemy. Instead, by choosing to attack a government building and a Labour Party summer school, Breivik is drawing attention to what many fringe nationalists see as the political failure of mainstream and left-wing politicians to confront the Muslim threat. So-called appeasers of the “Islamification of Europe” have become as hated as Muslim activists and therefore face the same kind of attacks.

n trying to be a false hero, Ali Rustam, the Malacca chief minister has shown Malaysians the level of arrogance some UMNO leaders have towards the citizens of Malaysia. Ali Rustam insulted the intelligence of Malaysians when he demanded that Bersih chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan be stripped of her citizenship.
It is high time that Malaysians take their leaders to task for their lack of knowledge of the pillars of legislation that form the cornerstone of what makes Malaysia a country.

Aliran is deeply disillusioned with the judiciary with regards to the detention of the PSM 6. Instead of depending on technicalities and loopholes in the law, it should focus on fairness and justice.

It should be prominently and predominantly concerned with freedom and human rights of the citizens. When the freedom of individuals is deprived by dubious means, the judiciary should be uncompromising in defending that freedom.

Dr Jeyakumar and his five companions have been incarcerated since July 2. Nobody believes the accusations levelled against them. The whole exercise has turned into farcical nonsense.

They were initially accused of “waging war against the King”. But that accusation has been dropped now. What does this suggest with regard to the integrity of the police? It only means that they had cooked up an excuse to detain them.

Then they were accused of reviving ‘communism’ in this country. Images of past communists leaders printed on T-shirts in their possession do not support this theory. Besides, communism is now no longer a contentious issue.

What does this prove? The police are grasping at straws in desperation to justify their action. But it won’t do them any good.

Then the six were detained under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EO) under the false pretence that they are a threat to public security. These six citizens are no goons or gangsters to pose any such threat. Nevertheless, they are accused of being a threat to national security.

What does it prove? It only means that any flimsy grounds would suffice to detain any individual under this anti-democratic and draconian law, which blatantly denies a person his natural justice, including the right to defend himself or herself. But it won’t win support for the police.

Ridiculously, the six are now projected as the prime movers of Bersih 2.0, when the entire country is aware that it is the coalition of 62 NGOs headed by Ambiga Sreenevasan that was the sole mover of Bersih 2.0.

These six are members of a political party and therefore had no role to play in Bersih 2.0, that excluded political parties from its steering committee.

What does it prove? It means that there is no respect for truth and the rule of law. But it is not going to help the police to shore up support for the Barisan Nasional.

It is under these circumstances that an application was made for a habeas corpus hearing to question the conduct of the police in detaining these six PSM members. After much haggling, July 22 was fixed for the hearing. But now this hearing has been postponed to 5 August.

Any application under habeas corpus should – and must – deserve priority to ensure that it is heard almost immediately. There is an urgency that cannot be ignored.

There is the question of justice that has to be addressed at the earliest possible time without any undue delay. This urgency (for the six’s detention) is no longer there.

Whatever the reason for justifying this frustrating postponement, it will not look good for the judiciary. Its battered image – from previous absurd judicial pronouncements that had discredited the judiciary – will suffer a further ignominious blow. It appears that there is no saving grace for the judiciary!

Ali Rustam should first explain, on what basis can the authorities or anyone revoke the citizenship of a Malaysian? And if there are any, how does a country strip a citizen of his/her citizenship?
When Ali Rustam made his call for Ambiga’s citizenship to be stripped, he was wrong. Not just in terms of fact, legal technicality but also in outright meanness of spirit. Malaysians, especially the UMNO Malays, must ask themselves, do they want to be represented by someone so shallow and low-down as him? UMNO Muslims should ask themselves, do they want a leader who represents not justice and good faith but the very opposite?
Article 9 of the Malaysian Federal Consitution states : (1) No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation. (2) Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof (3) So long as under this Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of Malaya, Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other States, on the rights conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence.
The only way that a Malaysian, whose parents are Malaysians, can be deprived of his or her citizenship is either if they on their own renounce their citizenship or if they take up the citizenship of another country.
If a person applies and gains Malaysian citizenship, then Article 25 comes into play where it says “(1)The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied – (a) that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation.”
So far Ambiga has not renounced her citizenship nor taken up citizenship of another country. If Article 25 was used to justify such an action, it is also wrong – Ambiga was born a Malaysian.
Apologize to Ambiga, please
So on what basis can Ali Rustam, a chief minister who once aspired for the UMNO deputy presidency – and horrors if he had not been disqualified could have become our Deputy Prime Minister – utter such a racist-tinged demand to have another Malaysian deprived of her citizenship?
Ali Rustam clearly owes Ambiga an apology. A leader should not sink so low as to demand that the government strips another citizen of his or her right. It is unethical and downright evil in intent.
Ali Rustam may have though he was being righteous, but to others, he was clearly acting with malafide or niat jahatwhen making his demands – totally without respect to the Federal Constitution, without respect to a fellow human being, without a shred of courtesy towards a member of a minority group in the country.
In fact, we should not be taken by surprise at Ali’s ‘silat’ (Malay martial arts) antics. Not only does the UMNO-BN government disrespect the Consitution on a daily basis, his boss Prime Minister Najib Razak had vowed to bathe his keris (sword) in Chinese blood in 1987 and in 2010 threatened to defend his hold on power even if it mean “crushed bodies”, “lost lives” and “ethnic cleansing”.
Making use of the Vatican
But the latest talk to come out from the UMNO spin-mills is that Najib is planning a personal trip to the Vatican to see the Pope. Of course, it is meant to imply that the PM is a man of great religious ‘tolerance’ but seriously, of what use is this? What is Najib hoping to seek but more bombast to hide a hollow track record?
If he is genuine about improving ties with the Christians, and in fact all faiths in the country, he should firstly stop abusing taxpayers’ money by taking the excuse to go on another fancy European tour. All he needs to do is to listen to the Christian leaders in his own country – Malaysia. To genuinely address their qualms and misgivings.
What a big joke if he were to return from the Vatican, amid much fanfare in the mainstream media, only to launch another Christian-state attack or Malay-language Bible conspiracy against the Christians here in Malaysia? It is just like his offering to help light the Islamic ‘moderate’ path at the UN general assembly, but here, back home, he bans a free-and-fair elections rally. He arrests those who support such a noble cause on way-out Communist charges using a draconian law just as bad as the Internal Security Act.
What kind of a man is this? Does Najib realize that Christians will really be hurt and insulted if he were using the Vatican for his public relations purposes. To them, that is no less than a sin.
What about Ali’s citizenship
Same goes for Ali Rustam. Even though Ali is now only a state-level chief, the potential for him to wreak the same damage as Najib at the federal level is no less. Ali should take stock before demanding the citizenships of other Malaysians be revoked. What if they turned around and demanded that he be stripped of his citizenship for bringing shame to his party, community and country?
After all, this one-time vice president of UMNO from 2004 to 2009 has been found guilty of dishonest conduct by his own party. In the 2009 UMNO elections, he ran for deputy president but was disqualified after being found guilty of money politics. And yet the pot wants to call the kettle black.
In fact, even after being disqualified for money politics, Ali was so thick-skinned and the UMNO elite so forgiving they allowed him to hold onto his Chief Minister’s post. Ali Rustam made himself a laughing stock when he famously defended himself by saying, “If that is the case, then they should also ask Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim to step down as they had been convicted and imprisoned before”.
Even Mahathir Mohamad was mystified, commenting that Ali Rustam should receive the same treatment given to Isa Samad, who lost all his positions after being found guilty of money politics in 2005. But thanks to the double-standards of the UMNO leaders, Ali Rustam has remained Malacca Chief Minister till now, helping the UMNO elite stir up further mischief and creating more racial tension.
Ali Rustam must first rid himself of his racial sentiments and think hard about what he has said to derogate Ambiga just to win brownie points in the evil tussle over the Bersih rally. Demands can also be made against him, given his own questionable track record. As for the nation, they can expect the UMNO elite to continue turning a blind eye for it is likely them who are the real source of the racism problems in Malaysia.
But for the people of Malacca and Malaysia, they should take due note of the Ambiga incident and remember Ali Rustam. Can they ever trust him or someone like him to govern them in fairness and justice, through thick and thin and good and bad?

Terrorism is propaganda, not just violence
In addition, Breivik can claim to have followed a long tradition of terrorism target selection that is intended to send a strong message to politicians in an attempt to persuade them to change policy. As leading terrorism scholar Alex Schmid reminds us, terrorism is a form of communication that “cannot be understood only in terms of violence”. Rather, he suggests, “it has to be understood primarily in terms of propaganda” in order to penetrate the terrorist’s strategic purpose.
Breivik appears to understand Schmid’s analysis that terrorism is a combination of violence and propaganda. “By using violence against one victim,” a terrorist “seeks to coerce and persuade others”, Schmid explains. ”The immediate victim is merely instrumental, the skin on a drum beaten to achieve a calculated impact on a wider audience.” This is certainly the kind of rationalisation that perpetrators of political violence have adopted in many contexts in pursuit of diverse political causes for decades.
Many extremist nationalists in Norway, the rest of Europe, and North America will be appalled by Breivik’s resort to terrorism and in particular his target selection. However, Breivik is likely to argue that he has sent a powerful and coercive message to all politicians in the West that will help put the campaign against the “Islamification of Europe” at the top of their agenda.
Crucial, therefore, for Breivik that he should explain his purpose as publicly as possible so that it is not misunderstood or misinterpreted. He is therefore very likely to want the widest possible audience to know why he has chosen to adopt the established tactic of terrorism so as to win an opportunity to deliver a political message. His innocent victims, he might think, are necessary collateral damage in a war that has to be won.
Breivik may hope that others will take inspiration from his act and seek to emulate him. Terrorism may be repulsive to many who share Breivik’s bigoted anti-Muslim views, but it is a tactic that only requires a small number of adherents to achieve its purpose, whatever the cause. So if even only a handful follow his route, Breivik will count that as a success.
Whether he was acting alone or in concert with others, Breivik stands apart from a significant number of other violent nationalists in the West who share his hostility towards Muslims – but whose plans to commit acts of terrorism have so far failed to reach such deadly fruition. Breivik, by contrast, has demonstrated the skills that are necessary to plan and execute acts of terrorism of any kind, especially crucial when bombs and firearms are involved.
Nationalist terror plots in the UK
In the UK, for example, there have been important convictions in recent years of violent nationalists before they have been able to carry out terrorist attacks.
Robert Cottage, a former British National Party candidate, was jailed in July 2007 for possessing explosive chemicals in his home. The cache was “described by police at the time of his arrest as the largest amount of chemical explosive of its type ever found in this country”.
Martyn Gilleard, a Nazi sympathiser, was jailed in June 2008 after police found nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his apartment, as well as a note in which he had written: “I am so sick and tired of hearing nationalists talk of killing Muslims, of blowing up mosques, of fighting back … the time has come to stop the talk and start to act.”
Then there is Nathan Worrell, a “neo-Nazi described by police as a ‘dangerous individual’, who hoarded bomb-making materials in his home, and was found guilty in December 2008 of possessing material for terrorist purposes and for racially aggravated harassment”.
And one Neil MacGregor pleaded guilty to “threatening to blow up Glasgow Central Mosque and behead a Muslim every week until every mosque in Scotland was closed”.
As Mehdi Hasan, editor of the New Statesman, has pointed out, figures compiled by Europol, the European police agency, suggest that the threat of Islamist terrorism is minimal compared with “ethno-nationalist” and “separatist” terrorism. According to Europol, in 2006, one out of 498 documented terrorist attacks across Europe could be classed as “Islamist”; in 2007, the figure rose to just four out of 583 – less than one per cent of the total. By contrast, 517 attacks across the continent were claimed by – or attributed to – nationalist or separatist terrorist groups, such as ETA in Spain.
More recently, on January 15, 2010, Terence Gavan, a former soldier and British National Party member, was convicted of manufacturing nail bombs and a staggering array of explosives, firearms and weapons. It was, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said, the largest find of its kind in the UK in modern history. The fact that David Copeland used nail bombs to deadly effect in London in 1999 makes this an especially disturbing case. Gavan had previously pleaded guilty to 22 charges at Woolwich Crown Court:

“Police discovered 12 firearms and 54 improvised explosive devices, which included nail bombs and a booby-trapped cigarette packet, at the home Gavan shared with his mother. He told detectives he had ‘a fascination with things that go bang’, the Old Bailey heard. After the case, head of the North East Counter Terrorism Unit David Buxton said Gavan posed a significant risk to public safety. ‘Gavan was an extremely dangerous and unpredictable individual,’ he said. ‘The sheer volume of home-made firearms and grenades found in his bedroom exposed his obsession with weapons and explosives … Gavan used his extensive knowledge to manufacture and accumulate devices capable of causing significant injury or harm.”

Unlike Lewington, Gavan is reported as having specifically Muslim targets in mind. In particular, he is reported to have planned to “target an address he had seen on a television programme that he believed was linked to the July 7 bomb attacks in London”. In one hand-written note he explained: “The patriot must always be ready to defend his country against enemies and their governments.” Again, like Lewington, he would have posed a threat to Muslim communities throughout the UK, especially those areas such as Bradford and East London most popularly associated with large Muslim populations.
Finally, it is only necessary to recall the circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 to be reminded of extremist nationalists’ bomb-making capacity and target selection. Timothy McVeigh was able to utilise skills and contacts he acquired in his US military service to build and detonate a bomb that killed 168 victims, injured 680 others, destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, shattered glass in an additional 258 nearby buildings, and caused at least $652m worth of damage.
With minimal help, McVeigh was able to inflict more harm and damage with one bomb than four suicide bombers in London operating under an al-Qaeda flag in London ten years later.
Significantly, McVeigh attacked a federal government building for reasons that will make perfect sense to a number of violent extremist nationalists – most especially Anders Behring Breivik.

n a bid to take the shine of the Bersih official launch, self-appointed “war general” Ibrahim Ali threatened to turn Kuala Lumpur into a sea of blood on July 9 if his wishes were not heeded.
“Imagine if chaos erupts. If the Bersih rally is not cancelled. I believe the Chinese community will have to stock up on food,” the Perkasa chief told a crowd of some 500 supporters in Kuala Lumpur.
He and Perkasa members had burned an effigy of Bersih president, Ambiga Sreenevasan.
“Yes, anything can happen. And so I ask the police to act and use whatever powers are at their disposal.”
But instead of fear, the only response he elicited were calls for his arrests, rude names for his lack of intellectual substance and sighs of exasperation for the crudity of his behavior.
“The first person to be arrested should be him,” MP for Batu Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle. “I am not surprised he would use May 13 as a bogeyman. Firstly, he has limited knowledge, so for him May 13 is the reference point for evrything. Secondly, it actually indicates his links to Najib and Mahathir.”
The Najib and Mahathir connection
The portly Ibrahim Ali, known for his high-pitched and high-volume rhetoric, is close to former premier Mahathir Mohamad, who is the Perkasa founder. May 13, 1969, was a day of racial riots that left hundreds of Chinese dead in the streets of Kuala Lumpur after Malay leaders from UMNO provoked inter-communal violence.
Najib’s father, second prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein, was accused of triggering the incident so as to oust the then-prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Despite May 13 being a black day for Malaysia and Najib’s professed wishes for racial unity as expressed by his 1 Malaysia slogan, he has not lifted a finger stop Ibrahim’s ranting.
Meanwhile, Bersih – a coalition of 62 NGOs – is holding its launch at the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall at No. 1, Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur at 8.30 pm tonight. It has invited all Malaysians to attend give their views on the rally.
“BERSIH 2.0 emphasises once again that the Perhimpunan BERSIH 2.0 is purely a civil society initiative and we have invited other organisations including political parties from all sides of the political divide to join us in upholding democracy and calling for electoral reform,” its organising committee said in a statement on Saturday.
“BERSIH 2.0 once again invites all interested Malaysians to attend and express their views at the Launch of Perhimpunan BERSIH 2.0 on 19th June 2011, during which we will explain further the 8 demands of BERSIH 2.0.”
Vote for anyone except BN if Ibrahim not punished
PAS leaders have reassured Malaysians not to be put off by Ibrahim’s “silly rhetoric”. The Islamist party has promised free legal fees “all the way” should Perkasa and UMNO stir up trouble for protesters.
PAS has pledged to send 300,000 supporters.
“Don’t waste time on that copy cat. He will be lucky to get even 1,000 supporters on that day,” PAS MP for Bukit Gantang Nizar Jamaluddin told Malaysia Chronicle.
Nizar was referring to Ibrahim, who is also the Pasir Mas MP. Even BN politicians such as Nazri Aziz have tagged him as a “clown”.
Pakatan leaders say that if no action was taken against Ibrahim and Perkasa, then Malaysians – especially the Chinese – must ensure that they voted for anyone other than the BN at the coming general election, which is widely expected to be held within months

Filed under Uncategorized


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s