When, Why and How Christians use the word ‘Allah’

The objective of this document is to explain briefly to those Christians who do not understand when, why and how Churches in Malaysia use the word ‘Allah. It is also for Christians who are confused about how to respond, when confronted by the ignorance of non-Muslims about the Christian use of the word ‘Allah’. 

Christian Federation of Malaysia 

Introduction and Background 

The objective of this document is to explain briefly to those Christians who do not understand when, why and how Churches in Malaysia use the word ‘Allah. It is also for Christians who are confused about how to respond, when confronted by the ignorance of non-Muslims about the Christian use of the word ‘Allah’. 

There are many (misleading) statements by non-Christians who claim that we should not use the word, because it is an exclusive Muslim term for the God of Islam and can be used only by Muslims. This is a situation peculiar to Malaysia, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, Arabic-speaking Christians use the word ‘Allah’. 

Christians themselves are sometimes ignorant, because unless we pray in Bahasa Malaysia, we pray to ‘God’ in our own language. In English services, for example, nowhere do we use the word ‘Allah’. 

However, more than 60% of Malaysian Christians only speak Bahasa Malaysia, and the word used for God in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible (Al-Kitab) since its translation in 1731, is ‘Allah’. The word is used by Bumiputera Christians who only have Bahasa Malaysia as their common language in Sabah, Sarawak and peninsular Malaysia, and by the Baba community in Malacca. 

Historical Usage and Meaning 

1. The word ‘Allah’ was a term used for the supreme God in a pantheon of gods, before the revelation of Islam. The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam ed., H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramer and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito, both affirm and support this contention. 

2. Historically, Malay-speaking Christians in South-East Asia have used ‘Allah’ to refer to God. The proof is as follows: 

• The Kitab salat as-sawai or Christian catechisms in Malay written in 1514 and published around 1545, 

• The printed version of the Gospel of Matthew in Malay by A.C. Ruyl in 1629, 

• Malay-Latin Dictionary was printed in Rome in 1631 (The Dictionarium Malaicum-Latinum and Latinum - Malaicum) 

• The translation of Genesis by D. Brouwerius (1662), 

• M. Leijdecker’s translation (1733), 

• H.C. Klinkert’s translation (1879),  

• W.A. Bode’s translation (1938), and 

• The complete Malay Bible of 1731-1733 containing the word ‘Allah’ for God. 

3. Therefore, from the very beginning, the word ‘Allah’ has been used in the liturgy, prayers and worship of those Christians who speak Bahasa Malaysia. 

But for centuries, there has been no opposition or uproar about their use of ‘Allah’. 

Language 

Objections to the use of the word ‘Allah’ comes mostly from political discourse, or those who argue that the translation and usage of the word is a recent decision. This is not true for the following reasons: 

1. In Semitic languages, the word ‘Allah’ has been widely used in the Middle East dating back to the 5th century BC and up to the time of the expansion of Islam and the spread of the Arabic language in the 7th century AD. 

2. The translation of the Al-Kitab is not from the English translation but based on the Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible. In the Hebrew language, the word ‘God’ has the same root form as the Arabic language. So, when the word ‘God’ was first translated into Bahasa Malaysia, the translators merely followed the Arabic Christian usage and retained the word ‘Allah’. 

3. As stated earlier, the word ‘Allah’ pre-dates Islam. It is not a creation of the Muslims and its existence does not begin in the Al-Quran. 

Should Christians Substitute the word ‘Allah’ with ‘Tuhan’? 

This is not possible for the following reasons : 

1. In the Malay language, ‘Allah’ means ‘God’ and Tuhan means ‘Lord’. As is obvious when we read the Bible, both God and Lord are used in the Bible, and both have different connotations. Therefore ‘Allah’ cannot be substituted by ‘Tuhan’. 

2. The word Tuhan has been applied to Jesus Christ and read as Tuhan Yesus. If Christians are to substitute the word ‘Allah’ for Tuhan, it will render many Biblical references to God and Jesus incoherent because: 

• The meaning of ‘Allah’ and Tuhan are different. 

• This is obvious in just one example. In Isaiah chapter 41 and verse 13; also 43 : 3 and 51 : 15. "For I am the LORD, your GOD..." is translated as "Akulah TUHAN, ALLAH kamu...". (ALKITAB : Berita Baik. 2001. 2nd edition. Published by the Bible Society of Malaysia). 

• It creates an absurd situation if Christians have to translate the biblical phrase ‘Lord God’ as Tuhan Tuhan. The repeated words Tuhan Tuhan indicates plural in Bahasa Malaysia, and creates the impression that Christians believe in many Gods, which is unacceptable. 

• Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Christians will not be able to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and teach the doctrine of the Trinity as these two 3 foundational words are essential to maintain and communicate these truths. 

Consequences of Banning the Word “Allah” 

1. Being denied the use of the word ‘Allah’ disregards the constitutional right of Malaysian citizens to freedom of religion under the Federal Constitution. 

Article 11 of the Federal Constitution safeguards the right of each Malaysian to profess and practice one’s religion of choice. Article 11(3) expressly provides that every religious group has the right to manage their own religious affairs. 

2. In 2011, the High Court handed down a judgement allowing the Catholic Church to use the word ‘Allah’. The government (of all Malaysians, including Christians) is appealing the judgement and it is pending. 

3. There have been other infringements on the right to use words imperative in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. See the directive of 5 Dec 1986 from the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that, in addition to ‘Allah’, the words: Al-Kitab, Firman, Rasul, Iman, Ibadah, Injil, Wahyu, Nabi, Syukur, Solat and doa are not to be used in the Al-Kitab. In addition, making such prohibitions through fatwa render them only relevant to Muslims as the Shari’a does not apply to non Muslims. 

4. Prohibiting the use of the word ‘Allah’ and these other terms is unjust. Bumiputera Christians should be given the respect and freedom to call God in the only language they have in common. This is important to their religious and cultural identity. 

5. If Churches in Malaysia agree to stop using the word ‘Allah’, it means that the right to edit the Scripture of a major world religion has been given over to a secular government. This would be a shameful and an unprecedented development for any religion and government. 

Conclusion 

Some Muslims have claimed repeatedly that Christians in Malaysia refuse to stop using the word ‘Allah’ because they want to confuse and convert Muslims, thereby posing a threat to national security. The claim is groundless as there has been no evidence offered of any threat to security. These remain unfounded accusations. 

On the contrary, such an assertion is made in ignorance of the fact that when Christians use the Al-Kitab, it is simply for Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Christians. 

Malaysian Churches have never suggested changing the words ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ to ‘Allah’ and ‘Tuhan’ respectively, in the other languages of the Bible. 

PREPARED BY THE CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA 

(Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia)  

The Trinity -- The Father is God above us, the Son is God beside us, and the Spirit is God within us

by Douglas Jacoby

What is the Trinity?

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) defines trinity:

Being three; group of three. From Latin trinitas, "triad.'' Surely they are not distinct persons as are the Three Musketeers, the Three Stooges, the Three Tenors, or the Three Little Pigs. On the other hand, we aren't simply dealing with one person in three roles, like a person who functions as mother, wife, and professional. The first error to be avoided is tritheism - three separate gods; the second is modalism - where God "morphs" from one form to another according to the need of the hour.

Part of coming to terms with the doctrine is grasping what theologians mean when they discuss the "persons" of the trinity. In modern English "three persons" strongly implies a triad of gods. But the theological term "person" is from the Latin persona, which means mask, part, character, as in the characters of a play. This of course does not mean that God is somehow "pretending," like an actor. In brief, the holy trinity is the three-in-one. 

C.S. Lewis - "People already knew about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed to be God; and yet He was not the sort of man you could dismiss as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met Him again after they had seen Him killed. And then, after they had been formed into a little society or community, they found God somehow inside them as well: directing them, making them able to do things they could not do before. And when they worked it all out they found they had arrived at the Christian definition of the three-personal God."

Biblical Basis 

Often the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 13:13, Matthew 28:19, John 14:17-23). They are three in personality but one in nature or essence. Again, Father, Son and Spirit are each God (in essence), but none can be identified with the other.

Again, we must guard ourselves against false understandings of trinity, or we will drift into the errors of "unitarianism" (which roundly rejects the trinity) or tritheism. (The Qur'an mistakes belief in the Trinity for tritheism when it condemns "Those who say Allah is three." )

In short, all three persons are divine. Obviously our heavenly father is God. In addition, many verses state that Christ is divine (2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1, 14), not to mention the indirect proofs of his deity, such as his forgiveness of man's sins (Mark 2), and claiming as his own the name of God (John 8:58). But how can Christ have two natures simultaneously? An illustration may help.

Lemonade is 100% wet, and yet it is also 100% citrus. It isn't somehow half wet and half citrus - it's wholly both at the same time. In the same way, Jesus is human and God.6

Finally, it is also clear from the Scriptures that the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, or the "Spirit of God," is divine. Let's check out the OED definition of the Spirit: "The active essence or essential power of the Deity, conceived as a creative, animating, or inspiring influence." Now this may be an accurate definition, but how does it help us be closer to God? It makes a difference in our lives only when we sense and appreciate that God, through his Spirit, is living within us (John 14). The Spirit in nature is God; all members of the Trinity are equally divine.

Trinity in Church History 

The earlier "ecumenical councils" strove to define and describe the relationships between the members of the godhead (Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Chalcedon in 451, to mention a few). Yes, many believers in the early Christian era spent generations hammering out the doctrine of the trinity, investigating the intricacies of the Spirit. Even in the Middle Ages, interest in the Trinity was strong. Aquinas produced the most thorough treatise on "The Blessed Trinity."9 In the Restoration movement, especially in the 19th century, there was a reaction against trinitarian language. The famous hymn 'Holy, holy, holy' mentions "God in three persons, blessed Trinity!" And yet in the overreaction to "traditional" doctrines, these words were changed to "God over all and blessed eternally." Was this really necessary? Is it not true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine?

Analogies Good and Bad

While it is true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, we cannot correctly say that the Father is the Son, or that Spirit and Son are interchangeable. Analogies therefore need to be carefully selected, lest we inadvertently support false doctrine through our attempts to refute it.

The analogy I have most often used to explain the trinity is the analogy of the amorphous forms of H20. Ice = water, liquid water = water, and steam = water (in essence), but ice is not steam, etc. Though I like the water analogy, its shortcoming is that it implies the false doctrine of modalism - that God appears in one form now, another at another time. I have heard worse analogies: time (past, present and future), even an egg (shell, white and yolk)!

Or explain the Trinity by way of an atom: An atom is a single unit of matter, and yet is comprised of three components; protons, neurons and electrons. The atom IS because of those three, and yet those three are an atom because they are one.

A better analogy involving water is a river, which consists of a source, stream, and current (Father, Son, Spirit). Or how about the sun? This consists of the star (sun) itself, sunbeams, and the sunshine as it falls on the earth.

Trinitarian triangle

Opponents of trinity ask, how can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? But the mathematics is all wrong. Really it's a case of 1³ : 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Moving from simple math to geometry, a triangular illustration may better encapsulate the truth about the relations among the persons of the Trinity:

As someone put it more academically, "A better illustration based in human nature would be, as suggested earlier, the relation between our mind, its ideas, and the expression of these ideas in words. There is obviously a unity among all three of these without there being an identity. In this sense, they illustrate the Trinity."

No single analogy captures the divine mystery, though the various pictures will be more convincing to different people. 

Parallels between East Timor and Sabah, Sarawak

by Joe Fernandez

OCCUPATION DAY This year marks the 50^th year of the continued colonisation of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya. We are at a crossroads in this watershed year. It's a time for reflection and making decisions. Already, the increasing influx of illegal immigrants and their entry into the electoral rolls is marginalising and disenfranchising the people in these two Territories, especially in Sabah.

In 2012, Putrajaya collected RM 17.88 billion in oil revenue and RM 24 billion in federal taxes and revenues from Sabah.

In the same year, Putrajaya collected RM 35 billion in oil revenue alone from Sarawak.

Ironically, the World Bank released a Report in Dec 2010 in Kota Kinabalu that the two Borneo nations in Malaysia were the poorest in the Federation. Sabah is the poorest.

How much more does Putrajaya want to squeeze from Sabah and Sarawak and for how much longer is this criminal exploitation going to continue?

Already, the Sabah Law Association has concluded in a study that the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) is unconstitutional. The so-called Oil Agreement between Petronas/Federal Government and Sabah/Sarawak, based on the PDA, is unlawful, illegal, null and void. This means Putrajaya/Petronas has been stealing oil and gas in Sabah and Sarawak since 1963/1976. 

There are parallels between East Timor and Sabah/Sarawak.

In East Timor's case, the UN Security Council ruled that Indonesia was illegally occupying that nation.

East Timor, now Timor Leste, was free within three decades of being occupied by Indonesia.

Sabah and Sarawak came under new colonialists, Malaya, in 1963 after the British ostensibly departed with the independence of these two nations in Borneo.

The UN Security Council should make the same ruling on Malaya's continued occupation of Sabah and Sarawak. Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthy was supposed to assist Sabah and Sarawak human rights activists on this issue besides filing the Class Action Suit in London last July on the internal colonisation of the Indian Nation in Malaya.

There was no Referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia.

There was only a Yes or No vote in Singapore on the independence of the island through merger with Malaya via Malaysia facilitated by Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei.

Malaya is illegally occupying Sabah and Sarawak because there was no Referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia.

Only the Suluk, Bajau and Sarawak Malay community leaders -- not the people -- agreed to Malaysia.

Chinese community leaders in Sabah and Sarawak were against Malaysia.

Orang Asal community leaders wanted a period of independence for Sabah and Sarawak before looking at the idea of Malaysia again and they wanted more information on the concept.

Sarawak became independent on 22 July, 1963.

Sabah became independent on 31 Aug, 1963.

Malaya occupied Sabah and Sarawak on 16 Sept, 1963, Occupation Day, misleadingly known since two years ago as Malaysia Day.

The Federation of Malaya is masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia and referring to Sabah and Sarawak as the 12^th and 13^th states (in Malaya). Malaysia was envisaged as an equal partnership of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei.

The codified Constitution of Malaya is being passed off as the codified Constitution of Malaysia.

Malaysia, notwithstanding its illegality, has alternatively an uncodified Constitution based on the codified Constitution of Malaya, the Malaysia Agreement 1963, Batu Sumpah, and 20/18 Points, among others.

The codified Constitution on Malaysia was never drawn up.

GST not for Sabah, Sarawak, the poorest in Malaysia

by Joe Fernandez

CAMPAIGN In 2012, Putrajaya collected RM 17.88 billion in oil revenue and RM 24 billion in federal taxes and revenues from Sabah.

In the same year, Putrajaya collected RM 35 billion in oil revenue alone from Sarawak.

Yet, the World Bank issued a Report in Dec 2010 that the two Borneo nations in Malaysia were the poorest in the Federation. Sabah is the poorest.

Timing is important for a consumerism campaign to get Putrajaya to exclude Sabah and Sarawak from GST.

Originally, the Government was talking about 3 per cent GST, then 4, 5 & now Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Idris Jala is hinting at 7 per cent like in Singapore.

We have to wait until the Government starts explaining GST to the people again before we ask for exclusion by pointing to the chronic state of under development in Sabah and Sarawak , highest poverty levels, higher cost of living, lower standard of living, and inequitable distribution of income seen in the huge gap between the haves and have-nots, between the urban and rural areas, and between the interior and the rest of the Territories.

Kota Kinabalu is not Sabah, as the World Bank pointed out. Kuching is not Sarawak.

To say that personal and corporate taxes will be reduced to pave the way for GST is meaningless for Sabah and Sarawak.

The business sector is noted for not passing on any reductions in taxes and prices, for eg. fuel, to the consumer.

At the same time, they are quick to raise consumer prices when fuel and sugar prices, shipping costs and wages increase.

The National Cabotage Policy is a killer! It’s sabotage. The policy has made Sabah and Sarawak uncompetitive destinations for investment.

A friend sent me the following:

GST IS A DUMB IDEA FOR POOR PEOPLE AS SEEN FROM THE AUSTRALIAN EXAMPLE.

IT made everything so expensive and 95% of people cannot claim back the tax as they are not entitled unless they are a registered business.

Sometimes the tax is included in other added taxes... on example is if you bought a house (normally exempted) which has a GST component this is not excluded from stamp duty calculation. So you get taxed twice!

Also if you bill your tenant for outgoings like Council Rates (non GST taxable) you have paid, you have to add GST. And the tenant pays GST on that bill.

For centuries, taxes have been put on legitimately imported sales items already. When they are sold GST is added and again this seems like double tax.

So it does not make sense in relevant cases.

Waythamoorthy not the main issue

by Joe Fernandez

FOOD FOR THOUGHT I am not thinking like most people about what Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman Waythamoorthy is up to, whether he will be co-opted by the system, what will become of the Hindraf 18 Points and the Class Action Suit filed in London.

My only interest is to keep the issues alive so that, no matter who comes or goes the ultimate goal of cutting down the Government to size and getting rid of its overbearing, obnoxious, creepy presence from our lives will be reached.

The less Government and politics we have, the better for Malaysia. That goes for both Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

We have been talking nothing but politics since 2008. It looks like we will still be discussing nothing but politics until 2018 by which time the 14^th GE should be held.

If not for the Blackout 505 Rallies we could have stopped the politicking until 2018.

The Opposition should decide as quickly as possible what it wants. Either it goes to Court or shut up and face what's coming. They can't go on with these rallies forever. They are likely to be counter-productive.

In 2008, Anwar was beating the drums of war on Sept 16. It was just a ploy to keep the Opposition in line and prevent defections. Sure enough, when it became apparent that there wasn't going to be any Sept 16, Perak happened and several Opposition MPs jumped ship and became "BN-friendly", whatever that means. Umno used Sept 16 as an excuse for Perak and to lure the parliamentary frogs.

This time Anwar has said there won't be another Sept 16.

Still, the Blackout 505 Rallies appear to be a repeat of Sept 16 i.e. designed to prevent defections from PR. As long as the rallies continue, no Opposition MP dare jump ship. They will face a lynch mob. The moneybags linked to Umno are out in full force. If Umno wants these rallies to stop, it should call off these moneybags who seem to be more worried about their future than that of the country.

The people have chosen a two-party/coalition system in Malaya and Sarawak and a three-party/coalition system in Sabah.

Their choice should be respected by all. Why is Mahathir & Co plotting behind the scenes with the moneybags?

If Anwar suspects that Umno is after his MPs, he's likely to go all the way and overthrow the Federal Government no matter what price he has to pay.

We live not in interesting but dangerous times.

Waytha: Give me five years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6fpOp_0y-s&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtgG1MKGbs&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlJJHM_VnqE&

YES, HINDRAF SOLD OUT ……… BUT FOR THE INDIAN POOR!

by Paraman Subramaniam

April 18^th 2013 will go down in the books of the marginalized Indians as a truly historic moment where the PM of Malaysia humbly apologized to the Indian poor for past lapses and the BN coalition signed on the dotted lines to correct the effects of those lapses. This has set the stage for a new era for the Indian poor. It was a culmination of their struggle that began with the November 25^th 2007 uprising that brought almost 100,000 Indians to the street and made HINDRAF a household name.

BN is waking up to the fact that there had occurred a transition of the vast majority of Malaysian Indians from plantation estates to towns and cities over a period lasting 4 decades as a result of the Government’s development policies and that this had not been directly and adequately addressed by other necessary Government policies to avoid the negative socio-economic effects on them.

BN now desires to correct the chronic socio-economic problems that have resulted, in a comprehensive and permanent manner, recognizing that the program of intervention should be based on a focused and targeted approach with commensurate commitment of Government resources.  They have decided the best route to that was with a partnership with Hindraf.

The MOU signing by the BN Secretary General, on behalf of the BN coalition with HINDRAF leadership was the result of this commitment. No Malaysian Government, caretaker or not, has ever signed anything like this in full public view.

The MOU document lays out the specific Government interventions necessary for the improvement of the socio-economic status of the Malaysian poor over the period of the next 5 years of the next Parliament from 2013 to 2018.

These 4 major areas are:

1.      Uplifting Displaced Estate Workers (DEW), synonymous with low income Indian households.

2.      Addressing Statelessness among the Malaysian Indian poor.

3.      Increasing Educational Opportunities from Pre-school to University.

4.      Increasing Employment and Business Opportunities.

Programs to uplift DEW:

a)      Double the mean monthly family income of all Malaysian Indian families earning less than RM 3000 by 2020.

b)      Providing 100,000 affordable houses for 100,000 households with taking into account the socio-cultural needs like places of worship, burial grounds, community halls and playgrounds shall also be provided as part of this infrastructure.

c)      Programs to retrain and re-skill DEW youth like providing easy and attractive placements with pre-requisite preparations and appropriate financial support to draw these youth into 176 GIATMARA Centres and 78 Community Colleges as well as other skill training institutes across the country. Thereafter TEKUN program itself can be extended to provide to support newly retrained and re-skilled Malaysian entrepreneurs. A budget of RM 100 million shall be allocated over a 5 year period in aiding these measures.

d)      An official Government recognized Council of Hinduism and Hindu Temples comprising religious elders shall be set up to address challenges related to DEW places of worship and burial grounds and to permanently eliminate the problem of land for temples and burial grounds by 2018.

Statelessness among the Malaysian Indian poor shall be addressed by the following programs:

i)        Identify all Stateless ethnic Indians as ethnic Indians without Birth Certificates and Blue Identification cards and those with Red Identity Cards.

ii)       Develop Common Sense and transparent proposals to address the problems of Malaysian Indians who claim to have been born and raised in Malaysia but who do not have any documentary evidence whatsoever of their birth and residency.

iii)     Develop policies including those that may allow defined local persons of repute who are given official standing to issue Statutory Declarations conveying their opinion that a said stateless person was indeed born and raised in their locality in Malaysia.

iv)     Develop streamlined and transparent policies to resolve the large problem of all persons who only hold Red Identification Cards.

v)      Differentiate a system that can differentiate legitimate from non legitimate citizenship applications from ethnic Indians in Malaysia.

vi)     Ensure that the common sense and transparent proposals developed should strictly adhere to the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Programs to increase educational opportunities from pre-school to University:

a)      Allocate adequate funding to relocate, upgrade and build new facilities towards ensuring that all Tamil schools are brought up to the standard of National Schools by 2020.

b)      Convert all Tamil Schools, that are willing, to be Fully-Aided Government Schools.

c)      Establish specific programs of improvement for the performance of SJK (T) s.

d)      Reserve 7.5% of places in specific courses for IPTA and other Public Tertiary Institutions and to achieve 7.5% overall admissions in 5 years.

e)      Reserve 10% places in Government Polytechnics for Malaysian Indian students.

f)        Reserve 7.5% places in existing Residential Schools as well as in Government Matriculation and Skills Training Institutes.

g)      Setup 9 new mixed residential schools with a minimum Malaysian Indian enrolment of 20%.

h)      Reserve 7.5% of JPA as well as other Federal & State Scholarships for Malaysian Indian students.

i)        Setup a new scholarship fund amounting to RM 25million annually to fund tertiary studies of Malaysian Indians based on academic excellence and socio-economic need.

Programs to increase employment and business opportunities:

1)      Allocate RM 500 million towards achieving a Malaysian Indian equity ownership target of 3%.

2)      Develop quotas for Government funded small business loans and micro-credit allocations of up to 7.5%.

3)      Develop quotas for Malaysian Indians in terms of Government licenses and permits of up to 7.5%.

4)      Develop quotas for Malaysian Indians in terms of Government controlled franchises of up to 7.5%.

5)      Reserve 7.5% of all jobs created and or required by the Civil Service and Statutory Bodies for qualified Indians.

6)      Reserve 7.5% of all jobs created and or required by GLCs for qualified Indians.

7)       Commit an additional RM 200 million in TEKUN loan funding reserved for Malaysian Indians over the next 5 years.

8)      Reserve Government micro credit allocations for Malaysian Indians.

The methodology of how it would be planned and eventually implemented from Jan 2014 onwards is outlined in the MOU. Interesting to note that all these programs are pointed and targeted to cater to the Malaysian Indian poor and greatly contrasts trickledown economics methodology.  


Dr Paraman Subramaniam is a general practioner who writes for leisure and believes in bottom-up equality for all. 

Waytha: Give me five years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6fpOp_0y-s&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtgG1MKGbs&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlJJHM_VnqE&

Chronology of PR/BN-HINDRAF Meetings and Developments

by Paraman Subramaniam

Aug 1, 2012:

HINDRAF Chair Waytha Moorthy returns to Malaysia and goes on nationwide tour to gain mandate from Indians.

Aug 28, 2012:

Letter issued by Hindraf and personally handed to both PM Dato Seri Najib and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, calling upon them to discuss approaches to permanently address the socio-economic problems of the marginalized Indians.

Sept 27, 2012:

Preliminary meeting between Tan Sri Khalid, Tian Chua, Sivarasa and Saifuddin Nasution. Hindraf wanted to check if there was any political will to address the Indian socio-economic problems.

Nov 1, 2012: 

Meeting with DS Anwar Ibrahim, Tian Chua, and Sivarasa. Hindraf Leaders presented the Hindraf 5 year Blueprint to address the socio-economic problems of the Indians. Anwar clearly agreed in principle to the plans in the Blueprint and said that he would have to consult with the other Coalition Leaders on the signing of the Blueprint, whether the 3 of them need to sign or just him. He committed to doing that in a week’s time.

Nov 7, 2012:

Datuk Seri Nazri, Minister in PM’s Department issues open invitation on behalf of Government to Hindraf to meet the PM.

Nov 8, 2012:

Hindraf Chair Waytha issues statement: “We are not too enthusiastic with the PM’s invitation as we fear it will be used by BN to gain mileage as the election is near. However, if Najib is sincere in meeting Hindraf, he should first lift the ban on the movement and then we will talk.”

Nov 20, 2012:

Meeting with Sivarasa and Tian Chua.  Hindraf Leaders presented Pakatan Leaders with a plan for an electoral strategy which would result in a win-win situation. Pakatan Leaders said that a conference would need to be held with other coalition members on the electoral pact and committed to calling such a conference in early December 2012.

Nov 25, 2012:

Hindraf unveils Blueprint to the Public.

Jan 17, 2013:

Meeting with Dato Mustafa Ali of PAS, Tian Chua of Pakatan, Anthony Loke of DAP. Hindraf presented their proposal for a tie up for the forthcoming elections and attempted to focus the meeting on the Hindraf Blueprint, but obviously after two and a half months several of the members had not read the blueprint. Pakatan Leaders said they still needed time among themselves before they can agree to Hindraf on any matter concerning the Blueprint and the electoral pact.

1) Mr. Ganesan laid out that the process of coming to an agreement between Hindraf and Pakatan on the matter of an electoral pact was taking far too long. The process started at the end of August 2012 and after almost 5 months this was the first time all the Pakatan Leaders were meeting with Hindraf. He stressed that continuing delay to this process will prove to be counter -productive.

2) Mr. Sambulingam outlined the various methods and impact of Barisan Nasional’s wooing of the Indian electorate. He stressed that unless this was checked he warned there could be a significant negative effect to PR in GE13. He added that if there was not to be a partnership, then that needs to be clearly established soon so Hindraf and Pakatan can move on.

Another meeting was to be called after the Pakatan coalition has had the time to discuss among themselves. This was decided to be on the 6th of Feb 2013.

Jan 26, 2013:

BN Government lifts ban on Hindraf.

Feb 6, 2013:

Meeting with Dato Mustafa Ali of PAS, Tian Chua of Pakatan, Anthony Loke of DAP.  Pakatan Leaders wanted to focus the meeting on the number of seats they offered to Hindraf assignees to contest in direct fight with BN. Hindraf refocused the meeting on the Blueprint and that if the Blueprint was agreed to, the seats issue was less contentious as this was Hindraf priority. The Pakatan Leaders felt than, that this was outside their mandate and that this would require to be decided by the Manifesto Committee. The ball kept getting kicked around. Another meeting was set with the manifesto committee to discuss. On PR leader’s inquiry, Waytha informed that if the PM asks for a meet, Hindraf will oblige.

Feb 8, 2013: 

Meeting with Nurul Izzah of PKR, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad of PAS and Ong Kian Ming of DAP.  After delving into the Blueprint it was clear that this group only had the mandate for including elements of the Blueprint into PR manifesto and not to review the Blueprint with the objective of endorsing the Blueprint. Meeting was called off seeing that there was not the right mandate.

Feb 18, 2013:

Hindraf issues email to Anwar Ibrahim and all PR leaders ‘loosening up’ our conditions for the endorsement, stating that since it was quite obvious that PR were not willing to sign the Blueprint agreement in a ‘legal agreement format’, Hindraf were willing to take a middle position by just asking for a MOU between the Head of the Pakatan Coalition and the Head of Hindraf to get over the current impasse.

Feb 26, 2013:

PR launches their Election Manifesto which mentions all races but Indians.

Mar 11, 2013:

As all efforts with both BN and PR fail, Hindraf Chair begins fast. He states: “The purpose (of the hunger strike) is for them (BN and Pakatan) to acknowledge that the human rights of Indian (Malaysians) have been violated. Both have to sign it (the blueprint). If both do not sign it, they don’t respect human rights.”

Mar, 2^nd week, 2013:

Hindraf is made aware that their long standing application for registration (made in 2007) of Hindraf has been approved by the Government dated March 8, 2013.

Mar 22, 2013:

Hindraf receives invitation to meet up with PM.

Mar 25, 2013:

Hindraf leaders meet PM in Putrajaya.

Mar 28, 2013:

PR Election Manifesto Chairman Dr Dzulkefly meets Hindraf Election Strategist Dr Paraman to convey PR terms of agreeing to endorse the Blueprint.

The terms were:

No Empowered Ministry. No mention of budgetary allocations. No Hindraf leadership to the Blueprint. No mention of ‘Indian’ in Blueprint document. No mention of quotas for Indians. Terms such as ‘equitable’ and ‘equal’ to be replaced with ‘needs basis’. No mention of new residential schools to be built for Indians and to remove the request for 10,000 places per year for DEW for skills training program in all Government skills development institutions. Only then will PR Presidential Council consider endorsing the Blueprint.

After hectic negotiations and deep discussions within the leadership, Hindraf took a humble decision to agree to PR’s demands, as it would serve for the greater good of the marginalized Indians. It was evident that PR was basically flexing its muscles to only consider to endorse the Blueprint, with Hindraf clearly out of the picture altogether.

This was conveyed to the PR Election Manifesto Chairman by phone. He insisted that Dap’s Election Strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming (who was also part of the PR’s Election Manifesto Committee) was also informed. However Dr Ong Kian Ming, when contacted, insisted that this was to be given in writing even before any meeting takes place.

Mar 29, 2013:

Hindraf National Advisor issues an email to all PR leaders stating that PR terms as conveyed by the PR Election Manifesto Committee as ‘constructive’ and that Hindraf sees no major divergences that cannot be worked out. Mr. Ganesan requests for the resumption of discussions as soon as possible as Mr. Waytha was already on his 20^th day of fast.

Mar 31, 2013:

Dap does an about turn and issues the Gelang Patah Declaration in a clear attempt to nullify the Blueprint. It was a unilateral decision which had no PKR or PAS support to back it up. PR then halts all further negotiations with Hindraf.

Mar 31, 2013:

Mr. Waytha ends 21 day fast after collapsing and needing hospitalization.

April 2, 2013:

Mr. Ganesan’s call for an open debate to Mr. Lim Kit Siang on the Blueprint- Gelang Patah fiasco goes unheeded.

April 5^th to 17^th, 2013:

BN begins focused discussion with Hindraf regarding the Blueprint and MOU.

April 13, 2013:

Hindraf issues press statement that door is still open to both PR and BN to endorse the Blueprint and will be closed on April 18.

April 13, 14, 15, 2013:

Dr Dzulkefly informs that PR leaders were willing to meet Hindraf leaders but no such meeting ever takes place. On April 15, Hindraf leaders were told to come to PKR HQ for a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim and Husam Musa at 1700 Hrs but on reaching there they were told that Anwar had already ‘left’!

April 17, 2013:

Hindraf and BN reach an agreement on the Blueprint.

April 18, 2013:

PM apologizes to Indian community and historic MOU is signed in front of 1000 Hindraf supporters in KL.

Key issues of MOU:

1. To bring progress to displaced former estate workers

1.1. To raise the income of the former estate workers

·                     Those who qualify for it are all the Indian Malaysians whose family income is lower than RM3000.

·                     To double their family income by 2020.

·                     A committee of experts will conduct research and decide on various programmes, policies and allocation of finance.

·                     The committee of experts will submit its Indian-centred coordinated plans to the government by Oct 31, 2013.

·                     The government will accept in total the plans, policies and financial allocations as recommended by the committee of experts.

1.2. House ownership programme for former estate workers

·                     Those Indian Malaysians whose monthly family income is not above RM3000 will qualify.

·                     This will be done by 2018 in areas where the displaced workers are concentrated. The department or the ministry will provide the necessary finance and allocate 100,000 national standard grade houses.

·                     To relocate in housing projects which are complete with facilities such as temples, burial grounds, community halls and playgrounds with the view to protecting socio-cultural aspects and preventing the growth of squatter areas in towns.

1.3. Retraining and alternative skills training for former young estate workers.

·                     The purpose of this programme - which requires great effort - is to bring out the hidden talents of Indian youth and change them into skilled and useful citizens for constructive action.

·                     Discover the hidden talents of the youths and provide them with the necessary prerequisites to undertake vocational training and have them admitted into the 176 Giat Mara centres and 78 community colleges to obtain proper skills training.

·                     After the training, based on their capability, they will be employed in the government and government-linked companies.

·                     To those who wish to start small scale businesses, support will be given through the Entrepreneurial Group Economic Fund (Tekun) loan scheme.

·                     For this purpose, RM20 million will be allocated annually.

1.4. To maintain the temples and the burial grounds of the former estate workers

·                     To protect the temples and the burial grounds that were constructed by our forefathers and which stand as testimony to our history in this country from being destroyed and removed.

·                     All the temples, small places of worship and burial grounds in the country shall by 2018 be on lands specifically allocated and registered for this purpose.

·                     A division of an experts committee shall undertake a detailed research on temples, small places of worship and burial grounds and submit its recommendations on their maintenance.

·                     With the permission of the prime minister and acceptance by the government, a council composed of religious scholars will propose solutions to complicated problems relating to temples and the Hindu religion. This committee shall be accountable to the prime minister and the person to be appointed as the head of the new administration under the prime minister.

2. The problem of Indians without identification documents

·                     To those without any birth certificates, a solution is to be found through an open, sympathetic and simple plan.

·                     To find solutions to the problems of people without documents by accepting statutory declarations deposed by people held in high esteem by the society.

·                     To change red identity cards (ICs) to blue ICs through open and systematic policies.

·                     To find ways and means to identify those who have legally obtained their citizenship from those who have not.

·                     The head of the new department under the prime minister shall within three months from the date of his appointment submit his recommendations on the matters mentioned above and obtain the approval of the prime minister.

3. The plans to increase the employment and business opportunities for the Indian Malaysians

·                     To allocate RM500 million in order to raise the Indian Malaysians’ equity ownership to three percent.

·                     To confirm that the Indians get 7.5 percent of the amount that the government allocates for small business loan schemes and micro-credit schemes.

·                     To confirm that the Indians get 7.5 percent of all the business licenses and permits issued by the government.

·                     To confirm that the Indians get 7.5 percent of all the franchises granted by the government.

·                     To confirm that the Indians get 7.5 percent of all the contracts offered at national, state and local council levels.

·                     To confirm that qualified Indians get 7.5 percent of all government jobs.

·                     To confirm that qualified Indians get 7.5 percent of all government-linked company jobs.

·                     To confirm that the Indians will get, in the next five years, RM200 million from the Tekun loan scheme.

·                     To confirm micro-credit loan schemes for Indians in accordance with the recommendation of the expert committee.

4. To develop/increase the opportunities for education from pre-school to university

·                     To allocate enough funds and necessary measures for the relocation, development and construction of new buildings to make by 2020 all the Tamil schools equal to the national schools.

·                     To convert all the Tamil schools to fully government-aided schools.

·                     To set up a special fund to develop the skills of the Tamil school students.

·                     To confirm that 7.5 percent of places in the government universities and institutions of higher learning are for Indian students.

·                     To confirm that 10 percent of places in the government polytechnic colleges are for Indian students.

·                     To confirm that 7.5 percent of places in the present residential schools, matriculation and technical colleges are for Indian students.

·                     To confirm that 20 percent of the places in the proposed nine residential schools for students of all races are for Indian students.

·                     To confirm that 7.5 percent of scholarships from the Public Services Department (JPA), other government scholarship schemes and state scholarships are for Indian students.

·                     A separate RM25 million annual special education assistance scheme for Indian students through the new department that is to begin operations under the prime minister.

Dr Paraman Subramaniam is a general practioner who writes for leisure and believes in bottom-up equality for all.

Waytha: Give me five years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6fpOp_0y-s&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtgG1MKGbs&

FMT Interview with P. Waythamoorthy Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlJJHM_VnqE&