Bar Council is legally RIGHT but politically WRONG

by TEH TARIK

Was it within our “rights” as non-Malays to celebrate the Opposition’s victories on the night of March 8? Yes. But was it wise?

No. We all knew that it was politically “wrong” as the Barisan could use it to create a May 13 “emergency”. And so we stayed at home.

Was it within the Bar Council’s “rights” to hold an intellectual legal discussion about Muslim converts? Of course.

But was it wise? Knowing that Umno people were fanning the flames of Malay-Muslim insecurities? I doubt it.

Was it within Karpal Singh’s “rights” to comment about the Malay’s most sensitive issues – Islam and the Sultans – when he declared that the Perak Mentri Besar was legally “correct” to transfer the state’s Muslim affairs chief despite the Sultan’s displeasure? Sure.

But that was not a court case and I believe Karpal (whom I otherwise respect for his life-long political contributions) was politically “wrong” to stir the hornet’s nest then.

Was it within Karpal’s “rights” to warn PAS that they might be kicked out of Pakatan for secretly talking to Umno?

Well, excuse me, but since when was the Pakatan “owned” by DAP and PKR?

Why are we walking into Umno’s trap? We already know that their game plan is to stimulate decades-old Malay fears about “losing out” to the non-Malays. These are deep-seated fears, played up by Umno since 1946, of how the Malays may end up like the Red Indians of North America – swamped, and “losing their land” to the “pendatang” or immigrants.

These fears are not entirely amenable to “rational” debate. Even the PAS ceramah speaker, Mat Sabu, publicly asks his audiences, why oh why, despite revealing – for years - how Umno’s corruption and abuses have been cheating the ordinary Malays, do they STILL vote for Umno?

It’s like a sheer habit, deeply programmed by Malay society, ingrained from youth and perpetuated by the mass media that Umno = Malay Salvation. When people have been eating rice as their staple since childhood, you can’t suddenly ask them to switch to bread, no matter how many vitamins and minerals you say are in the latter. Getting people out of their comfort zones is a very tricky business.

To all the commentators of Malaysia-Today (many non-Muslims I suspect) who have been loudly cheering along to Raja Petra’s bashing of the Malay malpractice of Islam, yes we have every “right” to heap criticism, and we may even be intellectually “right” in our arguments, but we could be very politically “wrong” – especially in this sensitive transition period.

It’s one thing when a Malay with royal blood says it. But – like it or not – it’s quite another when we non-Malays say the same thing with similar vehemence. In fact, I can imagine a Biro Tatanegara guy using the comments as “proof” to brain wash Malay students that the non-Malays are against them.

Isn’t the Opposition about a “pakatan” of inter-racial co-operation, understanding and (dare I say it) love? Why is there so much hatred being flung about in the comments?

I wish we could have more of that comradeship as displayed by the younger Pakatan Perak state leaders as opposed to the acrimony of the old guard of Hadi and Karpal. It's amazing to hear Nizar speaking in Mandarin and Nga Kor Ming speaking about Islamic concepts.

And I admire the elegant, understated way Nik Aziz replied to Karpal’s blasting of PAS over the secret “Malay unity” talks. “Dia orang tua, saya pun orang tua. Kita hormat dia, dia pun kena hormat kita.”

Before we get overly carried away with the political tsunami of March 8, let’s not forget that the Malay swing vote to Pakatan was only 5%. Sure, many of the more well-exposed urban Malays this time voted against Barisan but what about the mass of rural Malay voters who read the racial incitement of Utusan Malaysia every other day?

And let’s never forget that whatever new Pakatan Federal govt we are hoping for can only come to power with Malay support. To alienate the crucial Malay fence-sitters now – by holding events such as the Bar Council public forum knowing full well that Umno’s agents are ready to create trouble - seems rather unwise.

In fact, if we remember, Raja Petra himself had written an article sometime in March or April to point out that the Malays themselves were ambivalent about the March 8 tsunami. About how many Malays had cast protest votes against Umno without quite expecting such spectacular Opposition victories. Well, everybody was surprised by the stunning results.

Suddenly, the Malays were faced with the prospect of Chinese Deputy Mentri Besar’s in Selangor and Perak. Suddenly, in a burst of newfound enthusiasm, Teresa Kok let slip in her blog that the FIRST big Selangor project was the huge pig farm. Suddenly, Lim Guan Eng’s remarks about abuses in the NEP were twisted to make it look like the Malays were under siege. Suddenly, the Malays seemed to face a shift of their staple diet from rice to bread.

In these circumstances, how do we expect the fence-sitter Malays to react? We can argue that, “rationally”, they should not THINK that way. But surely politics is more about perception and FEELINGS, not hard logical facts. Similarly, smokers may intellectually KNOW that cigarettes are bad, but hell, smoking FEELS damn good.

Sensing unease in the Malay ground, certain PAS leaders even saw it fit to secretly negotiate with Umno on the basis of “Malay unity” against, presumably, the non-Malays who seemed to be getting a bit too “uppity” and “kurang ajar”.

What I can’t understand is: given that many PAS members were upset about the merger with Umno, and knowing that Nik Aziz was struggling to manoeuvre within his party against it, why did Karpal choose his sledgehammer approach of literally “warning” PAS to get out of Pakatan? Was this non-Muslim “lecture” the way to convince the PAS grassroots to stay away from Umno? Or was it a grandstanding move to play “hero” to DAP supporters?

I realise I am conceding that we non-Malays are second-class citizens but then again, so what’s new? Will bulldozing our way and hitting a brick wall, like in the Bar Council forum, change that? It’s the male method to confront things head on, but if we want to do that, we had better bloody well make sure we have superior strength. Given the way Malaysian society is structured, are the non-Malays stronger?

The Bar Council can claim to have achieved a moral “victory” of being proved “right” against so-called Islamic “brutes”, but it is still a hollow, Pyrrhic victory which gives the converts’ families no new relief. And what if Umno decides to push through laws that are even more “unfair”?

Is it not better to yield (or at least appear to yield) and walk around obstacles with quiet negotiations? Is that not how women get better treatment, through the soft way?

By holding events like the Bar Council forum, we are merely pouring petrol on these underlying embers of Malay fears. With rampant inflation, crime, corruption and a global economic slow down, with all due respect to those few families caught in conversion situations, is this an issue we HAVE to push NOW? And jeopardise everything else? What are our priorties?

Why can’t we at least wait till the Pakatan govt comes into power? And then, after say two or three years, when our bigger problems have been settled, when the people of Malaysia (especially the majority Malays) can FEEL the benefits of a cleaner and better govt in their guts and soul, okay-lah, we can initiate a “slow talk” on these issues.

I don’t know if it’s because the lawyer types are fond of arguing court battles and having that “high” of being proved intellectually “right” (and hence superior?). Perhaps these same lawyer types, who live in upper middle-class or middle class urban comfort should also consider the needs of poorer urban squatters, factory/estate workers, Sarawakian longhouse dwellers, Sabahan schools with no electricity etc etc who urgently need the Pakatan to come in and stop the looting of this country.

There is a time and place for intellectual discussions over sensitive topics, and I humbly submit now (when Umno has created a Malays-under-siege situation) is certainly the politically “wrong” moment to engage in them.Like it or not, the non-Malays are a minority in this country. And the Malays know that, hence the enduring attraction of “Malay unity”.

The Bar Council forum has also pushed PAS into a corner and they had no choice but to demonstrate against it too, for how could they be seen to be “selling out” Muslim “rights”?

To be fair to PAS, they had already compromised by not emphasising their goal of an “Islamic state” in the last elections. They had agreed to co-operate on the common ground of fighting Barisan’s corruption and abuses.

Do we non-Muslims want to push them all the way to the wall and harp on the weakest point in the Pakatan co-operation - religion? Are we going for blood? Are we that stupid?

We are all Asians and we all want face. Reading the comments in Malaysia-Today about how the Malays are “insecure” and “can’t discuss rationally” etc etc, all I can say is, OK good-la, you know alreadeee... WHY SOME MORE YOU GO AND POKE these raw nerves?

All races have their strengths. I personally feel that the Malays are a more warm-hearted, easy-going, friendly and graceful sort of people – except in religion. The Chinese are hard working, great in business and disciplined - as their religion is money. The Indians are excellent with debates and they are heavily represented in speaking up for our rights as NGO/trade union activists, and yes, lawyers.

And we know the flip side of these strengths too, don’t we? When the Malays are too easy-going, when the Chinese become coldly calculating and when the Indians get overly argumentative.

I am in danger of over-generalising, but then again, when we crack racial jokes, why do we laugh? Because something rings true?

A Chinese friend who used to do marketing surveys told me: “If we go to a Malay housing area, they will have time to talk to us, occasionally they will even invite us for tea. But in a Chinese area, they usually can’t even be bothered to open the gate. Indians may start to debate and lecture us.”

Another Chinese woman swears that, “Malays are more romantic. Chinese are more practical but colder. Indian men are fun to talk to but, aiyo, too much ego.”

A Chinese press photographer says, “If we need help from strangers, Malays are usually willing to help us pose a bit to make our pictures look better. Chinese don’t want to `get involved’. Indians, even though we don’t ask them, will come running to be inside the photo.”

A Malay architect once told me, “The Malays like to talk about things in a graceful roundabout way instead of coming right out to ask for it. The Chinese are more direct and business-like.”

Are these racial stereotypes correct? I suspect many may agree that they are broadly true even though there will always be exceptions. And for the Malays, the BIG exception is when we touch the topic of religion.

So why don’t we non-Malays build bridges with the Malays based on the strong points that they have? Instead of harping on the hot buttons? The Pakatan is fragile and we urgently need “confidence building” measures. Thus the non-Malays should reciprocate the Malay’s natural friendliness and warmth, and understand their fears/insecurities, by making concessions here and there. Just as PAS has conceded on the Islamic State issue. Let’s all give each other more face-lah...

If there are any issues, “kita boleh cakap slow” later in a polite, graceful and “sopan-santun” Malay way instead of having public forums that look (or are made to look) like a confrontation. Politics is all in the perception.

We non-Malays should be aware that too much emphasis on legal “rights” may result in political “wrongs”. We should know who will be the loser then.

Malaysia Not Giving up hope on Batu Puteh Yet

Malaysia not giving up hope on Batu Puteh yet


Posted by Super Admin
Sunday, 01 June 2008

Malaysia has renewed the search for evidence to stake its claim on Batu Puteh, whose sovereignty was deemed to be under Singapore by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said although the ruling by the ICJ at The Hague on May 23 was final and not subject to appeal, there was a specific provision in the court's rules that allowed for a judicial review of a case within 10 years if new evidence was adduced.

As such, he said he had directed Wisma Putra to try again to trace the ancient letter written by British Governor William T. Butterworth to the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor seeking permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Batu Puteh.

During the hearing, Malaysia had contended that it was on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Johor Sultan via a reply dated Nov 25, 1844 (this letter was produced to the ICJ) that Great Britain built and then operated the lighthouse on the island.

"If we can gain sight of that letter, the gate can be opened again. There is a maximum 10-year period but preferably it should be done within six years.
"The letter could be in London, the British being too good at archiving. We have searched with them but it has not been conclusively proven that they don't have it.

"Probably it is in Singapore. That would be a double jeopardy," Dr Rais said in an interview.

It is learnt that the initial search for the letter covered 40 institutions in 11 countries – Britain, India, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Netherlands, Portugal, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia.
In 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the governor's letter if it was in its possession but the republic did not respond.

Ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who was Malaysia's agent at the ICJ hearing, had told the court that if the letter still existed, it was likely to be in Singapore's archives in the file named "Letters to Native Rulers" which Malaysia did not have access to.

Dr Rais explained that Malaysia could introduce a separate motion to the ICJ if the letter was found.

The ICJ awarded sovereignty of Batu Puteh to Singapore in a 12-4 decision, mainly on the basis that Malaysia had not done anything to invoke its rights on the island, which Singapore calls Pedra Branca, for over 100 years.

The ruling on Middle Rocks was 15-1 in Malaysia's favour. On the other disputed territory of South Ledge, the ICJ ruled that it belonged to the country in whose territorial waters the outcrop was located.
The ICJ's "split" decision brought to a close the 28-year-old territorial dispute between both countries. Singapore first laid claim to Batu Puteh through a diplomatic note protesting the inclusion of the island as part of Malaysia in a 1979 map.

Dr Rais, who heads the technical committee for Malaysia set up to determine the South Ledge issue, said Wisma Putra secretary-general Tan Sri Rastam Mohamed Isa had led a team of officials to the republic on Wednesday to get things going.

The minister said he agreed with views by law experts that the crucial thing for both countries to do now was to demarcate the waters in the area to avoid problems and confusion.

He said he would propose to Singapore that the waters off Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge be opened to fishermen from both countries and also Indonesia. - The Star

Jaguh Kampong

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha Maaf Hishamuddin Rais. Aku ikut ketawa bersama-sama dengan kamu. Bukan untuk perli Pet. Itu pasal antara kamu dan dia, aku tidak masuk pot, campur dan tolak. Aku ketawa terbahak-bahak kerana cadangan kamu dahulu Bahasa Melayu sahajalah yang akan dapat mengujudkan perpaduan di Malaysia tak dijawab dan mendapat sambutan. Adalah satu dua artikel yang menyokong dan kemudiannya senyap sepi tampa berita. Sebenarnya aku dok tunggu-tunggu juga hang tulis pasal bahasa tapi senyap juga. Hang lebih minat menulis pasal pertembungan ekonomilah yang melahirkan pertembungan-pertembungan yang lain. Itu hak engkau aku tak mahu komen dalam artikel ini kerana engkau dah mengelarkan diri sebagai NGI.

Aku ketawa terbahak-bahak, sehingga keluar air mata. Mula-mula aku ketawa dan ketawa kemudiannya entah mengapa, akhirnya aku tersedu pula dengan tersangat sedih dan pilu. Aku lihat penggunaan Bahasa Melayu ini macam kelakuan orang politik semasa pilihanraya. Mereka itu akan pakai baju lama dan kereta lama untuk menunjukkan kepada rakyat yang mereka itu tidak ada bezanya dengan rakyat biasa. Berjiwa rakyat. Pembela rakyat dan semua ayat-ayat yang sewaktu dengannya maaf pinjam kata-kata Mat Sabu. Apabila dah menang, maaflah baju pun berjenama, kereta jangan disebutlah jenisnya, rumah tersergam besar. Masa nak raih undi mereka masuk kampong menjadi rakyat biasa dan bercakap bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa. Mereka mewajibkan diri bercakap dalam bahasa orang ramai boleh faham. Apabila dah menang, apabila dah terpilih, dah jadi Yang Berhormat. Mereka dah jadi elit. Mesti cakap Inggeris. Bahasa Melayu tak standart diucapkan pula.

Aku sebenarnya sangat suka bahkan memuji apabila mendengar mereka bercakap Inggeris semasa mereka pergi ke Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, Asean. Menjual kereta diluar negara. Menjual telefon di luar negara. Atau pun mereka bercakap bahasa Inggeris dengan Stesyen CNN, bertemubual dengan Al Jazeera. Aku sangat gumbira dan bangga kerana mereka itu telah menjadi manusia global. Oh maaf lagi sekali Glokal. Tapi aku sangat sedih dan marah.

Sekali lagi aku minta maaf, sebagai rakyat biasa aku tidak boleh marah, marah, cuba bawa bertenang. Sabar dan sabar. Di hadapan rakyat Malaysia yang sawo matang pun mereka gunakan bahasa Inggeris. Aku separuh marah dalam temubual dengan rakyat Malaysia yang bukan Melayu mereka biarkan diri mesti bercakap Bahasa Inggeris. Aku juga marah apabila ketua-ketua syarikat-syarikat Malaysia yang berbangsa Melayupun, apabila bercakap kepada kalayak ramai Malaysia mesti bercakap Inggeris. Awat orang Malaysia ini tak faham, sekiranya mereka bercakap bahasa Melayu. Hanya apabila mereka bercakap Bahasa Inggeris barulah rakyat Malaysia faham atau saham syarikat mereka boleh naik melonjak. Atau mereka dengan angkoh meneriakkan, mengistiharkan. Hey! Temubual ini bukan untuk rakyat Malaysia keseluruhannya tapi untuk golongan tertentu sahaja. “Bukan untuk awaklah”. Kamu bukan elitlah dan kurang pandailah kerana kamu kurang faham bahasa Inggeris.

Aku juga mengetahui ada sebuah syarikat Melayu yang mendapat kontrak kerajaan. Pengurusannya orang Melayu. Dalam mesyuarat dan kerja harian pekerja syarikat itu mestilah bercakap Bahasa Inggeris, surat mesyurat pun dalam bahasa Inggeris. Apabila mereka berurus dengan kerajaanpun yang pegawai kerajaan hampir 90 peratus lebih itu terdiri daripada orang Melayu, mereka masih gunakan dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Malangnya biarlah aku ketawa dahulu ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Pada kali ini keluar air mata juga. Bukan kerana sedih tapi kerana mereka itu semua jaguh kampong sahaja. Satu kontrak luar negarapun, habuk tak pernah dapat. Dalam negara mereka tunjuk mereka elit, pandai dan bergaya dengan berbahasa Inggeris. Dengan orang Melayu apatah lagi dengan bukan Melayu, mereka mesti bercakap Inggeris. Mereka gunakan Bahasa Inggeris untuk istiharkan yang mereka Glokal, bertaraf antarabangsa dan semua yang muluk-muluk itu. Habuk pun tarak. Untuk mendapat kontak luar negara, mereka hanya mimpi sahaja. Mereka hanya dapat peluang di Malaysia sahaja. Itu pun nasib dan nasib, diberi oleh Kerajaan UMNO yang hurufnya diringkaskan daripada bahasa Inggeris.

Ada juga sebuah syarikat kerajaan yang baru-baru ini diperbadankan. Sebelum diperbadankan daripada ketua No 1 sehingga pekerja yang paling bawah bercakap dan menulis dalam bahasa Melayu. Dalam sekelip mata, apabila diperbadankan, semua urusan dibuat dalam bahasa Inggeris. Itulah sedihnya. Mereka hanya bergerak dalam negara. Jadi Jagoh kampong. Hoi Jaguh Kampong. Jangan eksenlah.

Adoh, sakitnya fatwa munafik dan fasik

Adoh, sakitnya fatwa munafik dan fasik.

Bernama melaporkan:The Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (Abim) has called on the government to clarify the necessity for the Public Service Department (PSD) to increase the ratio of scholarships for non-Bumiputeras from 10 percent to 45 percent.Abim secretary-general, Khairul Arifin Mohd Munir, said in view that the education quota issue was closely related to provisions in the federal constitution like Articles 153(2) and 153(3) it was therefore necessary that Malaysians be given an explanation for the move.

Berikutan daripada berita Bernama itu, RPK membebel. Mengeluarkan fatwa munafik dan fasik. Habis dikerjanya yang UMNO dan ABIM itu munafik dan fasik.

Adoh sakitnya, RPK membedal lagi. Bukan sahaja ‘smash tajam’ bahkan ‘pukulan flat’. Siapa sahaja yang tidak mengamalkan “Amal makruf Nahi Mungkar’ ala RPK memerangi UMNO masuk dalam kandang munafik, fasik. Kah, kah kah. Sabar, sabar minta bersabar YM raja. Jangan mudah mengeluarkan fatwa.

Salahkah sekiranya seseorang individu atau organisasi bertanya mengapa dikurangkan atau dinaikkan biasiswa. Salahkah bertanya ? Sekiranya bertanya terus dituduh berserongkol dengan UMNO ? Berserongkol dengan munafik, hatta fasik ?. Woi hebat sungguh fatwa anak raja ni. Asas bagi manusia apabila nak memahami sesuatu perkara, lalu ia bertanya ? Jika bertanya pun tak boleh. Amal makruf nahi mungkar apa itu.

Sekiranya organisasi orang Melayu bertanya ia dituduh berserongkol dengan UMNO, berserongkol dengan perkauman. Tidak menjalankan nahi mungkar dan amal makruf, itu adalah logik yang salah.

Saya boleh faham masalah YM Raja dengan UMNO. Tapi dengan ABIM, YM ‘smash tajam’ itu saya kurang faham. ABIM bertanya biarlah pihak JPA yang menjawab. Yang YM menjawab itu munafik, itu fasik, mengapa ? Marah sungguh nampaknya. Mungkin YM Raja ada makluman yang kami tiada ?

Tak pakai pakaian secara Islam tak apa asal Amal Makruf nahi mungkar itu versi RPK. Buatlah. Tapi jika Raja minta orang lain masuk Islam secara sempurna Raja juga hendaklah masuk ke dalam Islam secara sempurna juga. Sekiranya orang lain tak sempurna, itu munafik. Kalau kita tidak sempurna tak apa. Sebab kita amalkan amal makruf nahi mungkar. Begitukah ?

Jangan-jangan apa yang PRK kata yang Najib itu di kontrol oleh Rosmah adalah manesfestasi daripada diri YM Raja sendiri yang dikontrol oleh isteri Chinanya sehingga apa sahaja yang bersangkutan dengan Melayu adalah perkauman. Nak tanya pun tak boleh. Biarlah, biarlah mereka bertanya. Salahkah sekiranya mereka bertanya ? Mengapa marah sangat sekiranya orang lain bertanya ?


Saya pun nak tahu juga rasional JPA. Sekira JPA memberi penerangan, saya boleh terima, saya akan terima, sekiranya tidak saya akan tolak dan minta JPA membaikinya. Itu juga hak saya. Hak itu bukan perkauman dan tidak juga mengenepikan hak orang lain. Hak asas saya ialah bertanya sekiranya saya tidak tahu.

Kedaulatan Pulau batu Putih : Kerangka Minda Di Sebalik Tuntutannya.

KEDAULATAN PULAU BATU PUTIH:Kerangka Minda Di sebalik Tuntutannya

Ruhanie Ahmad

Sejarah membuktikan Pulau Batu Putih – biar hanya sebesar padang bola - adalah milik Kesultanan Johor. Pulau ini adalah warisan bangsa Melayu di bumi Malaysia yang berdaulat dan merdeka.

Malangnya, pada 23 Mei 2008, kedaulatan pulau ini telah dengan rasminya dirampas daripada Malaysia dan diserahkan kepada Singapura berasaskan pelbagai fakta bukan sejarah.

Fakta-fakta inilah yang telah dihurai, dikupas, dipertikai dan diwarnakan di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) mengikut citarasa segelintir kuasa neoimperialis tertentu yang berkepentingan terhadap kegunaan strategik pulau berkenaan di bawah Singapura.

Ini bermakna, kedaulatan Malaysia ke atas Pulau Batu Putih tidak akan tergadai jika fakta bukan sejarah tidak dijadikan asas utama tuntutan Singapura.

Ini bermakna, Singapura yang disifatkan sebagai sahabat Malaysia, jelas tidak menghormati fakta sejarah bila ia menuntut kedaulatan pulau tersebut.

Ini bermakna, ketulenan persahabatan Singapura terhadap Malaysia adalah sesuatu yang perlu sentiasa dikaji dan sentiasa dicurigai.

Ini juga bermakna, fakta sejarah tidak boleh dijadikan jaminan tunggal untuk Malaysia mempertahankan kedaulatan mana-mana wilayahnya yang berhampiran Singapura di hari muka.

Daripada hujah di atas, Singapura seolah-olah menuntut kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih berasaskan kerangka minda bahawa mana sahaja wilayah jiran tetangganya yang difikirkan strategik kepada survivalnya, boleh dituntut dan dijadikan miliknya, asalkan wujud undang-undang dan ruang perundangan yang boleh diheret hingga ke ICJ.

Kerangka minda seperti ini adalah manifestasi betapa rakus dan betapa terdesaknya pulau kecil ini untuk menguasai ruang dan bumi yang lebih besar dan luas di luar lingkungan kedaulatannya bagi menampung penduduknya yang dipercayai berkembang hingga 10 juta orang di hari mendatang.

Insaflah. Republik pulau ini adalah sekutu Israel dan Amerika Syarikat (AS) di Asia Tenggara. Lantas, mustahilkah jika Pulau Batu Putih suatu hari kelak ditukar menjadi satu kompleks ketenteraan yang canggih dan moden demi memenuhi kepentingan strategik dan kepentingan geopolitik sekutu-sekutunya di abad ke-21 di rantau ASEAN?

Kita mesti sentiasa tegas dan waspada. Kita juga mesti berani bersuara bahawa walau keputusan ICJ memang muktamad, ini tidak bermakna kita mesti merelakannya atau mesti tunduk kepada Singapura.

Hakikatnya, di bumi Malaysia kini masih terdapat pelbagai lagi kepentingan strategik Singapura, termasuklah beberapa loji takungan air di Johor.

Siapa boleh menjangka suatu hari nati, atas asas undang-undang, lokasi ini juga mungkin diheret ke ICJ supaya kedaulatannya diserahkan kepada Singapura?

Pertanyaan ini memang keterlaluan. Tetapi, tindakan Singapura menuntut kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih juga adalah sesuatu yang mustahil jika republik itu benar-benar tulen dalam merangka, memelihara dan menghargai persahabatannya dengan kita.

Jadi, tidakkah sikap “hati kering” negara itu perlu sentiasa dicurigai dan dicemburui sepanjang hayat? Atau, mestikah kita perlu adakan majlis jamuan makan durian dan golf bilateral pada setiap tahun dengan Singapura?

Perlukah ada lagi pembesar kita mengelirukan rakyat jelata dengan menyifatkan keputusan ICJ kononnya “kemenangan bersama” kepada Malaysia dan Singapura?

Perlukah Perdana Menteri kita meluahkan retorika diplomasi kononnya yang “menang pun tak menang semua” dan yang “kalah pun tak kalah semua” kerana “itulah keadilannya” dan “keadilan itu mestilah diakui’’?

Kenyataan seperti di atas hanya mencerminkan kedangkalan segelintir pembesar kita dalam mentafsirkan perkembangan geopolitik serantau dan global dalam konteks survival negara-bangsa di hari muka.

Kenapa tidak ramai pembesar kita yang berani bersuara seperti Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin yang menegur Singapura “supaya tidak angkuh dengan keputusan ICJ” itu.

Oleh itu, dalam kita kesedihan, wajarlah kita yakin bahawa Allah SWT memberikan kita kekalahan ini untuk menguji sejauh manakah kebijaksanaan kita mentafsirkan hikmah di sebalik kehilangan kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.

Allah SWT juga memberikan kekalahan ini untuk menduga kepintaran kita menyedari dan menginsafi wilayah mana lagikah yang boleh dirampas kedaulatannya daripada kita oleh pihak asing di hari muka.

Dengan keinsafan seperti ini, pembesar kita perlu cerdas berfikir dan pantas bertindak. Seluruh kepentingan strategik Singapura di Johor perlu dikaji semula supaya tidak memungkinkan “pisang berbuah dua kali” dalam konteks kedaulatan negara.

Kajilah keseluruhannya secara teliti, tegas dan profesional. Auditlah keseluruhannya untuk memastikan tiada cacat celanya. Demi agama, bangsa dan negara, jangan kita beri muka kepada mana-mana pihak yang amat licik untuk bermuka-muka!

Sesudah itu, pastikanlah bahawa seluruh pemimpin kita adalah kelompok yang faham, sensitif, pintar dan mampu mentafsir kerangka minda Singapura terhadap Malaysia supaya kefahaman itu membolehkan kita sentiasa menentingkan kedaulatan negara dan maruh bangsa bila berurusan dengan republik berkenaan di hari muka.