Well..this has been a one whole year job.
And next week, we are expecting fellow presenters from all over the world. I hope that the faculty could give them the best hospitality. ohhh..too busy to even update the blog. gtg....
Friday, November 07, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Khairil Hisyam dan Ibadah Camp
Satu sumbangan besar yang dibuat oleh arwah semasa hidupnya ialah 'Ibadah Camp' di IIC. Aku masih teringat ketika aku dipanggil oleh arwah untuk membincangkan beberapa perkara perundangan.Ofisnya tidaklah besar mana. Aku lihat terdapat beberapa rim kertas tersusun di penjuru biliknya. Gee begitu sibuk mengalihkan beberapa dokumen dari atas meja arwah.
"Yang ini ke, En. Khairil?" Tanya Gee. Gee lah staf yang paling memahami arwah.
"Ya." kata arwah. Gee beredar ke luar ofis menuju ke mejanya. Dia tekun mengerjakan apa yang disuruh bosnya itu.Arwah ialah manager ACAD (academic) di IIC pada ketika itu.
"Students akan grad tidak lama lagi." kata arwah. Aku mengangguk. Aku sebenarnya belum begitu faham struktur pengajian pelajar ketika itu.
"CMIS nanti akan handle ibadah camp." katanya lagi.
"Ibadah camp?" tanyaku
"Oh, head of CMIS belum beritahu lagi?" Tanyanya.
"Ada rasanya." Kataku. Aku selalu sahaja tidak prihatin dengan sekeliling. Yang pasti selepas ini perkataan 'ibadah camp' akan terpahat dalam ingatan.
"Besar tanggungjawab ini."katanya lagi.
Aku mengangguk cuba memahami bagaimana besar tanggungjawab yang dimaksudkan.
"Melihat kepada kepentingan ini kami masukkan sebagai kursus wajib bagi setiap pelajar yang hendak bergraduat."
"Dalam kem itu kita mesti terapkan semua fundamental islamic knowledge kalau-kalau masih ada pelajar kita yang belum menguasainya sebelum keluar IIC."
Aku mengangguk. Arwah benar-benar serius.
"Ia akan bertindak sebagai filtering sistem."Katanya penuh semangat.
"Del tengok pelajar kita macam mana? Ye lah dari segi penguasaan agama?" Tanyanya. Aku musykil juga kerana aku rasa manager akad di institusi lain mungkin tidak mempunyai penghayatan Islam sepertinya. Aku mula mengkaji karakternya. Satu sahaja perkataan yang aku ada untuknya iaitu 'mutamassik', sangat mutamassik biddin.
"Okay, tetapi ada banyak ruang yang perlu diperbaiki."
"Nanti head CMIS akan panggil semua buat modul."Nadanya mula perlahan.
"Saya mungkin tidak sempat nak jalankan ibadah camp ni dengan you guys." katanya.
"Kenapa?" tanyaku.
"Saya mungkin dipindahkan ke school." Katanya.
Belum sempat lama arwah ke IIS (school) (entah sempat entah tidak) arwah ke PTD.Setakat hari ini aku rasa sudah lebih atau hampir 10 kali Ibadah camp diadakan. Sepanjang aku dan suamiku berkhidmat di IIC tidak pernah sekali kami miss Ibadah camp. Dan benar kata arwah, memang di situlah kami memberikan panduan terakhir kepada para pelajar. Masih ramai yang mahukan bimbingan.Dan Ibadah camp akan kekal selagi ia berada di dalam struktur pengajian semua proigram di IIC. Dan selagi itulah arwah mendapat amal jariahnya insyaAllah.
Di IIC, sewaktu arwah masih memegang jawatan, staf tidak berani pakai yang menjolok mata kerana tahu arwah benar-benar implement rule tu di kolej. Pelajar apatah lagi.Lagu pun tak pasang kuat (kan Gee kan?hehe)..sudah samar juga kenangan itu dalam fikiranku.
Aku rasa memang arwah sudah dapat sebahagian besar yang dia inginkan dalam hidup..isteri yang baik..anak-anak (ingat lagi bila arwah kata 'you guys jangan laju sangat, nanti you guys dan ramai anak, I masih lagi bujang")..kerjaya yang baik..kawan-kawan yang baik (aku perhatikan yang arwah mempunyai ramai kenalan di timur tengah yang baik-baik)dan bahasa arab (aku rasalah, sebab nampak dia happy dapat berbahasa arab di libya).
Apabila kami bertanyakan tentang pilihannya ke PTD, dia nampaknya begitu tekad walaupun gajinya turun. Banyak juga rasanya. Dia menyatakan yang mungkin ini destinasinya. Familinya semua memintanya ke PTD. Ada sekali kami menumpangkannya ke ofis kerana nampak arwah menunggu bas ke ofis. Hairan juga kami, top manager macam tu pergi kerja naik bas awam. Arwah sangat humble orangnya. Apabila kami bertanyakan hal itu, dia senyum dan berkata ' entahlah.'Dia juga menyebutkan yang dia agak fobia kerana abangnya baru sahaja kemalangan kecil.
Itulah dia seorang Khairil Hisyam yang kami kenali.
Seorang yang berjiwa besar. Sungguh besar.
(Ambilan dari comment saya dalam perantau timur tengah:
Saya dan suami kawan arwah Hisyam dan Izad di IIC.
Arwah Hisyam memang seorang yang sangat baik dan dihormati. Sekiranya ada senarai kawan-kawan yang baik, sudah pasti nama arwah akan berada di dalam senarai nama-nama teratas. Sungguhpun tidak terdapat banyak ruang untuk kami bersama tetapi persahabatan itu amat terasa.
Kali terakhir kami berjumpa ialah pada waktu arwah pulang melihat anak kecilnya yang baru lahir. Langsung tidak tergambar pada ketika itu yang arwah akan pergi sebegitu cepat. Itulah hikmahnya Allah tidak membuka masa depan pada mata kita. Susuk tubuhnya seperti dahulu juga. Dia memeluk erat suamiku. Erat sekali. Kenapa dia begitu baik?Fikirku. "Mahiz,mahiz.." Katanya berulang kali. Aku dan izad tersenyum melihat dua rakan yang begitu lama tidak berjumpa. Izad menghidangkan air. Hairan juga melihat Izad ke sana kemari dalam waktu pantang. Terdetik di hati ini yang Izad bukanlah seorang yang lemah semangat tapi cekal dan berdikari.Kalau tidak masakan dapat tahan menemani arwah di Libya. Tidak semua isteri dapat lakukan itu. Dengan elektrik selalu terputus, panas, kemudahan yang sangat minimal. Tambah pula dengan jadual arwah yang sangat ketat. Arwah meninggal dunia memang di dalam berjihad. Dia seorang yang komited sepanjang pengetahuan kami. Kami membelek-belek passport tersebut. Arwah bertanya nama anak-anak kami. "Zulfa dan Muadz" kata kami. "Oh, kebetulan pula hampir sama dengan Muzaffar dan Muazzam" katanya pula. Mereka bercadang untuk ke Libya semula selepas Izad dah sihat sedikit agaknya. Arwah menghulurkan passport Muazzam yang baru sahaja dibuat. " Bukan senang nak dapat passport diplomat." katanya. "Muazzam kecil-kecil pun sudah dapat passport diplomat." Ujarnya lagi. Ibu Izad sedang mendukung Muazzam. Seorang yang sangat supportive.Muzaffar menyendeng-nyendeng dekat abahnya. Arwah berulang-ulang menyatakan 'sayang abah', 'I love you' dan memeluk2 anaknya. Bagi aku, kasih sayang yang ditunjukkan amat ketara. Kami belum pernah berjumpa dengannya selepas berumahtangga bersama keluarga. Sebelum pertemuan tersebut hanya pada hari perkahwinan dan konvo IIC. Jadi kami tidak terbayang keadaannya bersama orang yang disayangi erat sebegitu. Arwah juga tersebut 'sayang' pada isterinya. Terkantoi agaknya. Dia dan suamiku tersenyum. Manis sekali peristiwa tersebut jika dikenang pada waktu ini.
Sibuk sekali arwah menyuruh kami merasa kurma yang baru dibawa dari umrah. Aku sempat merasa satu kerana begitu sibuk melayan anakku makan. Arwah meminta Izad membungkuskan kurma untuk kami.Arwah juga bertanyakan dimana boleh dapat kek sarawak utk diberi kepada kawan-kawan di libya. Aku suggest beberapa tempat.Akhirnya aku menyatakan yang aku akan buat sendiri sekiranya ada masa dlm 1-2 hari tersebut sebelum arwah bertolak. Arwah gembira tetapi di dalam masa yang sama dia tidak mahu menyusahkan kami. Suamiku sebenarnya enggan berjanji kalau-kalau tidak dpt menunaikan permintaan itu. Entah kenapa kami terus membeli bahan untuk buat kek tersebut. Bukan satu tetapi tiga jenis sempat aku siapkan. Kami begitu gembira sekali. Kami hanya sempat mesej pada Izad dan menghantarkan kek tersebut ke rumah Izad. Pada waktu itu mereka menghabiskan masa menziarah keluarga arwah di putrajaya. Kami terasa sangat berpuas hati dapat menghantar bingkisan tersebut. Teringat lagi sewaktu suamiku datang untuk temuduga di IIC, arwah yg merupakan panel interview beredar dari bilik tersebut. Dia tidak mahu biase atau ada conflict of interest. Dia memang mengenali suamiku sewaktu di UIA.Sungguh mulia peribadinya. Teringat juga sewaktu aku mengkhabarkan siapa bakal suamiku, dia berkata " You beruntung, Del." Teringat lagi apabila arwah mengkhabarkan kepada kami yang keputusan arwah untuk memilih Izad sebagai isteri di Burger King.Kami mengucapkan tahniah kerana arwah sudah bersedia menamatkan zaman bujangnya. Teringat juga intention awalku untuk mengintai-intai peluang belajar di Malta. Aku mencarai-cari embassy Malaysia di Malta. Bagaimana aku begitu terkejut yang kedutaan Libya juga merangkumi Malta dan orang yang akan berurusan adalah arwah. Orang pertama yang paling gembira ialah suamiku.
Suamiku amat terkesan dengan pemergian arwah. Sesekali aku melihat dia termenung. Ada sekali tiba-tiba aku terdengar esakan yang tidak dapat ditahan ketika dia memandu kereta. Begitu dekat terasa arwah di dalam hati.
Aku baru menyambut ulang tahun pada 17 September, tidak pula aku sangka keesokannya aku bakal mendengar berita kematian. Sama terkejut rasanya apabila menerima berita kematian adik perempuanku dua tahun lepas yang meninggalkan suami dan anak kerana nahas jalanraya.
Semua sudah tercatat di dalam luh mahfuz. Kita merancang, Allah yang menentukan. Arwah mungkin mempunyai banyak perancangan dengan Izad dan anak2, tapi percayalah inilah pengakhiran yang paling baik kerana Allah yang menentukannya. Impian kita mungkin indah tapi Allah hanya berikan apa yang kita perlu, bukan apa yang kita ingini. Izad, you are strong...you will discover it inside you.
Secebis kenangan,
Kawan-kawanmu Arwah dan Izad,
Mahiz dan Fadhilah
Bangi
Ini pula balasan emel arwah kepada kami (how helpful he was):
Assalamu'alaikum w.b.t.
My dearest friends Del & Mahiz,
Tak sangka betul dgr berita dari u guys. Sblm ni, saya ada dpt e-mel org tanya psl IMLI 12 Mei yg lalu and tak perasan pulak rupanya Del yg tanya...
Apa2 pun, sori takdan nak respond awal. Saya sbnrnya jarang sempat bukak yahoo mail ni. Sibuk dgn kerja.. tambah internet connection kat libya ni tak reliable & kdg2 je dpt. Ni pun baru sempat baca e-mel yahoo yg dah b'lambak sbb baru settle handle delegation dari early last week. So, ada break sat.
FYI, mmg kitaorg kat sini cover Malta sekali. Malta ni negara kecik je. Rakyatnya pun sikit, tak sampai stgh juta org. Mostly kristian. Tapi, sbb negara EU, cost of living mmg mahal ler kat situ. Depa guna Euro... baru je start Januari tahun ni. Ttg cuaca, mmg nice.. ada 4 musim dgn mediterranean weather! (berangin & rather cold during winter). Selain nak cari makanan halal agak susah sbb tak ramai org islam, harga sewa rumah & kereta kat sini agak mahal jugak. Masjid pun just ada satu je kat negara tu. Setakat ni, hanya ada 2 famili rakyat malaysia kat malta - sorg org melayu islam dari terengganu & sorg lagi chinese lady yg kawin dgn org malta. Both of them r nice people. Other than that, ada ler 2 org tahanan rakyat m'sia kat dlm penjara malta tu... Sebab kes depa b'dua yg kena tangkap menyeludup dadah since Feb this year, org m'sia yg masuk malta kena periksa ketat sikit. Sebelum tu, kitaorg pegi sana takde masalah langsung.
Anyhow, kitaorg mmg mengalu-alukan sgt kalau Mahiz & Del nak dtg ke Malta. Sbb negara komanwel, tak perlu visa pun. Kalau jadi bagi tau ler... boleh tlg introducekan korg dgn rakyat m'sia kat sana. En. Ismail org terengganu yg dok sana tu, kerja jadi chef hotel palace. So, nak cari makanan halal pun, dia boleh tolong ler.. (bukan setakat utk beli, siap boleh tlg masakkan lagi... )
Generally, kalau nak study kat malta, mmg bagus. Tak byk distraction. Senang nak concentrate study. Cuaca & tempat pun nice. Bab makan jelah. Utk communicate, dorg semua boleh cakap Bi, walaupun ada bahasa depa sendiri (called Maltese language). Saya dah cuba dapatkan maklumat psl IMLI melalui official channel, tapi belum dpt respond lagi. Sori to say, but knowing how their foreign ministry work, i don't think dorg akan jawab anytime soon sbb kementerian luar dorg sufer from lack of staff. Only about 100 diplomats kat ministry tu utk cover the whole world (termasuk kat luar negara). Pegawai yg jaga asia pun sorg je kat valetta tu... jenuh dia nak handle lebih 60 buah negara! So, info yg ada melalui website tu should be reliable & sufficient enough. In terms of standard of education pun, should not be a problem. Apa2 pun, dah mintak tolong en. ismail utk tlg cuba dptkan maklumat jugak. Nanti, kalau dia dpt or ada apa2 maklumat lain ttg MILI tu, insyaALLAH saya sampaikan.
Btw, hisham kat sini sorg je skrg. Izad & Muzoffar ada kat m'sia sbb Izad akan b'salin insyaALLAH early julai nanti.
Setakat ni jelah dulu. Kalau ada apa2 nak tanya lagi, boleh e-mel kat my personal official e-mel at khairil@kln.gov.my.
Kirim salam kat semua member2 & take care!
Salam takzim dari Tripoli,
...................................
(KHAIRIL HISHAM)
Embassy of Malaysia
Tripoli, GSPLAJ
"Yang ini ke, En. Khairil?" Tanya Gee. Gee lah staf yang paling memahami arwah.
"Ya." kata arwah. Gee beredar ke luar ofis menuju ke mejanya. Dia tekun mengerjakan apa yang disuruh bosnya itu.Arwah ialah manager ACAD (academic) di IIC pada ketika itu.
"Students akan grad tidak lama lagi." kata arwah. Aku mengangguk. Aku sebenarnya belum begitu faham struktur pengajian pelajar ketika itu.
"CMIS nanti akan handle ibadah camp." katanya lagi.
"Ibadah camp?" tanyaku
"Oh, head of CMIS belum beritahu lagi?" Tanyanya.
"Ada rasanya." Kataku. Aku selalu sahaja tidak prihatin dengan sekeliling. Yang pasti selepas ini perkataan 'ibadah camp' akan terpahat dalam ingatan.
"Besar tanggungjawab ini."katanya lagi.
Aku mengangguk cuba memahami bagaimana besar tanggungjawab yang dimaksudkan.
"Melihat kepada kepentingan ini kami masukkan sebagai kursus wajib bagi setiap pelajar yang hendak bergraduat."
"Dalam kem itu kita mesti terapkan semua fundamental islamic knowledge kalau-kalau masih ada pelajar kita yang belum menguasainya sebelum keluar IIC."
Aku mengangguk. Arwah benar-benar serius.
"Ia akan bertindak sebagai filtering sistem."Katanya penuh semangat.
"Del tengok pelajar kita macam mana? Ye lah dari segi penguasaan agama?" Tanyanya. Aku musykil juga kerana aku rasa manager akad di institusi lain mungkin tidak mempunyai penghayatan Islam sepertinya. Aku mula mengkaji karakternya. Satu sahaja perkataan yang aku ada untuknya iaitu 'mutamassik', sangat mutamassik biddin.
"Okay, tetapi ada banyak ruang yang perlu diperbaiki."
"Nanti head CMIS akan panggil semua buat modul."Nadanya mula perlahan.
"Saya mungkin tidak sempat nak jalankan ibadah camp ni dengan you guys." katanya.
"Kenapa?" tanyaku.
"Saya mungkin dipindahkan ke school." Katanya.
Belum sempat lama arwah ke IIS (school) (entah sempat entah tidak) arwah ke PTD.Setakat hari ini aku rasa sudah lebih atau hampir 10 kali Ibadah camp diadakan. Sepanjang aku dan suamiku berkhidmat di IIC tidak pernah sekali kami miss Ibadah camp. Dan benar kata arwah, memang di situlah kami memberikan panduan terakhir kepada para pelajar. Masih ramai yang mahukan bimbingan.Dan Ibadah camp akan kekal selagi ia berada di dalam struktur pengajian semua proigram di IIC. Dan selagi itulah arwah mendapat amal jariahnya insyaAllah.
Di IIC, sewaktu arwah masih memegang jawatan, staf tidak berani pakai yang menjolok mata kerana tahu arwah benar-benar implement rule tu di kolej. Pelajar apatah lagi.Lagu pun tak pasang kuat (kan Gee kan?hehe)..sudah samar juga kenangan itu dalam fikiranku.
Aku rasa memang arwah sudah dapat sebahagian besar yang dia inginkan dalam hidup..isteri yang baik..anak-anak (ingat lagi bila arwah kata 'you guys jangan laju sangat, nanti you guys dan ramai anak, I masih lagi bujang")..kerjaya yang baik..kawan-kawan yang baik (aku perhatikan yang arwah mempunyai ramai kenalan di timur tengah yang baik-baik)dan bahasa arab (aku rasalah, sebab nampak dia happy dapat berbahasa arab di libya).
Apabila kami bertanyakan tentang pilihannya ke PTD, dia nampaknya begitu tekad walaupun gajinya turun. Banyak juga rasanya. Dia menyatakan yang mungkin ini destinasinya. Familinya semua memintanya ke PTD. Ada sekali kami menumpangkannya ke ofis kerana nampak arwah menunggu bas ke ofis. Hairan juga kami, top manager macam tu pergi kerja naik bas awam. Arwah sangat humble orangnya. Apabila kami bertanyakan hal itu, dia senyum dan berkata ' entahlah.'Dia juga menyebutkan yang dia agak fobia kerana abangnya baru sahaja kemalangan kecil.
Itulah dia seorang Khairil Hisyam yang kami kenali.
Seorang yang berjiwa besar. Sungguh besar.
(Ambilan dari comment saya dalam perantau timur tengah:
Saya dan suami kawan arwah Hisyam dan Izad di IIC.
Arwah Hisyam memang seorang yang sangat baik dan dihormati. Sekiranya ada senarai kawan-kawan yang baik, sudah pasti nama arwah akan berada di dalam senarai nama-nama teratas. Sungguhpun tidak terdapat banyak ruang untuk kami bersama tetapi persahabatan itu amat terasa.
Kali terakhir kami berjumpa ialah pada waktu arwah pulang melihat anak kecilnya yang baru lahir. Langsung tidak tergambar pada ketika itu yang arwah akan pergi sebegitu cepat. Itulah hikmahnya Allah tidak membuka masa depan pada mata kita. Susuk tubuhnya seperti dahulu juga. Dia memeluk erat suamiku. Erat sekali. Kenapa dia begitu baik?Fikirku. "Mahiz,mahiz.." Katanya berulang kali. Aku dan izad tersenyum melihat dua rakan yang begitu lama tidak berjumpa. Izad menghidangkan air. Hairan juga melihat Izad ke sana kemari dalam waktu pantang. Terdetik di hati ini yang Izad bukanlah seorang yang lemah semangat tapi cekal dan berdikari.Kalau tidak masakan dapat tahan menemani arwah di Libya. Tidak semua isteri dapat lakukan itu. Dengan elektrik selalu terputus, panas, kemudahan yang sangat minimal. Tambah pula dengan jadual arwah yang sangat ketat. Arwah meninggal dunia memang di dalam berjihad. Dia seorang yang komited sepanjang pengetahuan kami. Kami membelek-belek passport tersebut. Arwah bertanya nama anak-anak kami. "Zulfa dan Muadz" kata kami. "Oh, kebetulan pula hampir sama dengan Muzaffar dan Muazzam" katanya pula. Mereka bercadang untuk ke Libya semula selepas Izad dah sihat sedikit agaknya. Arwah menghulurkan passport Muazzam yang baru sahaja dibuat. " Bukan senang nak dapat passport diplomat." katanya. "Muazzam kecil-kecil pun sudah dapat passport diplomat." Ujarnya lagi. Ibu Izad sedang mendukung Muazzam. Seorang yang sangat supportive.Muzaffar menyendeng-nyendeng dekat abahnya. Arwah berulang-ulang menyatakan 'sayang abah', 'I love you' dan memeluk2 anaknya. Bagi aku, kasih sayang yang ditunjukkan amat ketara. Kami belum pernah berjumpa dengannya selepas berumahtangga bersama keluarga. Sebelum pertemuan tersebut hanya pada hari perkahwinan dan konvo IIC. Jadi kami tidak terbayang keadaannya bersama orang yang disayangi erat sebegitu. Arwah juga tersebut 'sayang' pada isterinya. Terkantoi agaknya. Dia dan suamiku tersenyum. Manis sekali peristiwa tersebut jika dikenang pada waktu ini.
Sibuk sekali arwah menyuruh kami merasa kurma yang baru dibawa dari umrah. Aku sempat merasa satu kerana begitu sibuk melayan anakku makan. Arwah meminta Izad membungkuskan kurma untuk kami.Arwah juga bertanyakan dimana boleh dapat kek sarawak utk diberi kepada kawan-kawan di libya. Aku suggest beberapa tempat.Akhirnya aku menyatakan yang aku akan buat sendiri sekiranya ada masa dlm 1-2 hari tersebut sebelum arwah bertolak. Arwah gembira tetapi di dalam masa yang sama dia tidak mahu menyusahkan kami. Suamiku sebenarnya enggan berjanji kalau-kalau tidak dpt menunaikan permintaan itu. Entah kenapa kami terus membeli bahan untuk buat kek tersebut. Bukan satu tetapi tiga jenis sempat aku siapkan. Kami begitu gembira sekali. Kami hanya sempat mesej pada Izad dan menghantarkan kek tersebut ke rumah Izad. Pada waktu itu mereka menghabiskan masa menziarah keluarga arwah di putrajaya. Kami terasa sangat berpuas hati dapat menghantar bingkisan tersebut. Teringat lagi sewaktu suamiku datang untuk temuduga di IIC, arwah yg merupakan panel interview beredar dari bilik tersebut. Dia tidak mahu biase atau ada conflict of interest. Dia memang mengenali suamiku sewaktu di UIA.Sungguh mulia peribadinya. Teringat juga sewaktu aku mengkhabarkan siapa bakal suamiku, dia berkata " You beruntung, Del." Teringat lagi apabila arwah mengkhabarkan kepada kami yang keputusan arwah untuk memilih Izad sebagai isteri di Burger King.Kami mengucapkan tahniah kerana arwah sudah bersedia menamatkan zaman bujangnya. Teringat juga intention awalku untuk mengintai-intai peluang belajar di Malta. Aku mencarai-cari embassy Malaysia di Malta. Bagaimana aku begitu terkejut yang kedutaan Libya juga merangkumi Malta dan orang yang akan berurusan adalah arwah. Orang pertama yang paling gembira ialah suamiku.
Suamiku amat terkesan dengan pemergian arwah. Sesekali aku melihat dia termenung. Ada sekali tiba-tiba aku terdengar esakan yang tidak dapat ditahan ketika dia memandu kereta. Begitu dekat terasa arwah di dalam hati.
Aku baru menyambut ulang tahun pada 17 September, tidak pula aku sangka keesokannya aku bakal mendengar berita kematian. Sama terkejut rasanya apabila menerima berita kematian adik perempuanku dua tahun lepas yang meninggalkan suami dan anak kerana nahas jalanraya.
Semua sudah tercatat di dalam luh mahfuz. Kita merancang, Allah yang menentukan. Arwah mungkin mempunyai banyak perancangan dengan Izad dan anak2, tapi percayalah inilah pengakhiran yang paling baik kerana Allah yang menentukannya. Impian kita mungkin indah tapi Allah hanya berikan apa yang kita perlu, bukan apa yang kita ingini. Izad, you are strong...you will discover it inside you.
Secebis kenangan,
Kawan-kawanmu Arwah dan Izad,
Mahiz dan Fadhilah
Bangi
Ini pula balasan emel arwah kepada kami (how helpful he was):
Assalamu'alaikum w.b.t.
My dearest friends Del & Mahiz,
Tak sangka betul dgr berita dari u guys. Sblm ni, saya ada dpt e-mel org tanya psl IMLI 12 Mei yg lalu and tak perasan pulak rupanya Del yg tanya...
Apa2 pun, sori takdan nak respond awal. Saya sbnrnya jarang sempat bukak yahoo mail ni. Sibuk dgn kerja.. tambah internet connection kat libya ni tak reliable & kdg2 je dpt. Ni pun baru sempat baca e-mel yahoo yg dah b'lambak sbb baru settle handle delegation dari early last week. So, ada break sat.
FYI, mmg kitaorg kat sini cover Malta sekali. Malta ni negara kecik je. Rakyatnya pun sikit, tak sampai stgh juta org. Mostly kristian. Tapi, sbb negara EU, cost of living mmg mahal ler kat situ. Depa guna Euro... baru je start Januari tahun ni. Ttg cuaca, mmg nice.. ada 4 musim dgn mediterranean weather! (berangin & rather cold during winter). Selain nak cari makanan halal agak susah sbb tak ramai org islam, harga sewa rumah & kereta kat sini agak mahal jugak. Masjid pun just ada satu je kat negara tu. Setakat ni, hanya ada 2 famili rakyat malaysia kat malta - sorg org melayu islam dari terengganu & sorg lagi chinese lady yg kawin dgn org malta. Both of them r nice people. Other than that, ada ler 2 org tahanan rakyat m'sia kat dlm penjara malta tu... Sebab kes depa b'dua yg kena tangkap menyeludup dadah since Feb this year, org m'sia yg masuk malta kena periksa ketat sikit. Sebelum tu, kitaorg pegi sana takde masalah langsung.
Anyhow, kitaorg mmg mengalu-alukan sgt kalau Mahiz & Del nak dtg ke Malta. Sbb negara komanwel, tak perlu visa pun. Kalau jadi bagi tau ler... boleh tlg introducekan korg dgn rakyat m'sia kat sana. En. Ismail org terengganu yg dok sana tu, kerja jadi chef hotel palace. So, nak cari makanan halal pun, dia boleh tolong ler.. (bukan setakat utk beli, siap boleh tlg masakkan lagi... )
Generally, kalau nak study kat malta, mmg bagus. Tak byk distraction. Senang nak concentrate study. Cuaca & tempat pun nice. Bab makan jelah. Utk communicate, dorg semua boleh cakap Bi, walaupun ada bahasa depa sendiri (called Maltese language). Saya dah cuba dapatkan maklumat psl IMLI melalui official channel, tapi belum dpt respond lagi. Sori to say, but knowing how their foreign ministry work, i don't think dorg akan jawab anytime soon sbb kementerian luar dorg sufer from lack of staff. Only about 100 diplomats kat ministry tu utk cover the whole world (termasuk kat luar negara). Pegawai yg jaga asia pun sorg je kat valetta tu... jenuh dia nak handle lebih 60 buah negara! So, info yg ada melalui website tu should be reliable & sufficient enough. In terms of standard of education pun, should not be a problem. Apa2 pun, dah mintak tolong en. ismail utk tlg cuba dptkan maklumat jugak. Nanti, kalau dia dpt or ada apa2 maklumat lain ttg MILI tu, insyaALLAH saya sampaikan.
Btw, hisham kat sini sorg je skrg. Izad & Muzoffar ada kat m'sia sbb Izad akan b'salin insyaALLAH early julai nanti.
Setakat ni jelah dulu. Kalau ada apa2 nak tanya lagi, boleh e-mel kat my personal official e-mel at khairil@kln.gov.my.
Kirim salam kat semua member2 & take care!
Salam takzim dari Tripoli,
...................................
(KHAIRIL HISHAM)
Embassy of Malaysia
Tripoli, GSPLAJ
Friday, June 27, 2008
Legal Lacuna For Guantanamo Detainees: A Battle Between What is Legally Right and Morally Wrong
I presented a topic entitled 'Legal Lacuna For Guantanamo Detainees: A Battle Between What is Legally Right and Morally Wrong' in Diskusi Syariah dan Undang-Undang USIM. These are some of my readings:
In dealing with the detainees kept at Guantanamo, there are some absence in law which are open to interpretations. The interpretations given may not be in tandem with the spirit of the law, or even contrary to human rights – or there may exist abuse of law for immoral aims – benefiting therefrom.
The whole background of the issue started from, or I’d rather say, had its turning point from the Sept 11 attack on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence in the national capital region of Pennyslvania and on the WTC in New York.
Immediately after the attack, the UN Security Council issued a resolution –the 1373 Resolution 2001 affirming its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts. The resolution also affirmed the need to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.
Seven days after the attack, the government of US under the presidency of George W.Bush issued a Joint Resolution (AUMF) – Authorization for use of Military Force which authorized the President to use the US Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks launched against the US. It was the first time the right of self defence was mentioned, where the resolution renders that it was necessary and appropriate for the US to exercise its rights to self defence to protect the US citizens.
In general, the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations / organizations / persons the President determines planned / authorized / committed / aided the terrorist attack.
Firmly believing that Al-Qaeda was the responsible organization, the US began hunting those connected to prevent from ‘future attack’, if I could quote. And believing also that the Taliban had supported and provided safe haven to the organization, the President ordered the armed forces of U.S to invade Afghanistan. In issuing hostilities, hundreds of individuals were captured and later transferred to Guantanamo Bay at Cuba. Guantanamo Bay is a naval camp in Cuba leased by the U.S government as a detention camp.
The detainees where detained as early as in the year 2001 and were kept indefinitely and has been now nearly 7 years, except for a few who were deported. The detainees were kept without knowing the reason of the detention, the evidence used by the US which caused to the detention and what charge and which court their case will be brought to – something which was uncertain not only to them but also to the government as well.
Being criticized for such uncertainty, the Congress of the US came up with a Military Order : Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. This Military order is also known as the November 13 Order.
The November 13 order placed its findings that the attack by the international terrorist (including members of al-Qaeda) has created a state of armed conflict, and this justifies the use of the US armed forces. It is stated that if the terrorist are not detected and prevented, mass death , injuries and massive destruction of property may happen. And because of the ability of the US to protect its citizen, as well as its allies, it is as if a responsibility that the US armed forces must be deployed.
Another significant aspect of the November 13 order is that it is necessary for individuals subject to this order to be detained and tried for violations of laws of war or military tribunals and that it is not practicable to apply principles of law and rules of evidence generally applied in the US courts.
The November 13 Order applies only to individuals who is not a US citizen of whom there is reason to believe that he is or was the member of al-Qaeda, or has engaged, abetted, conspired to commit international terrorism and those in the interest of the US that such individual should be subject to this order.
The order provides minimal protection to the detainees – that they will be treated humanely, given adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing and medical treatment and allowed free exercise of religion.
This order provides punishment which includes life imprisonment or death.
Next, was the memorandum issued by the White House in Feb 7, 2002 which states the US’s stand on the status of the detainees.
In an armed conflict a person can only be one of either two status; i.e whether he does not involved at all with the war or those who have laid down their arms – he is then considered as a civilian whom rights are protected under the 3rd GC. The 3rd GC in its Common Article 3 stipulates among others that they must not be subject to violence, torture and humiliating and degrading treatment etc
On the other hand, if a person who is a member of armed forces or militias or organized resistance movements, they are also protected by the 4th GC – as POW.
Now, back to the memorandum, the US government declared that
(i) GC does not apply to their conflict with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere because al-Qaeda is not a High Contracting party.
(ii) However, GC only applies to Taliban – as a de facto government
(iii) That Com.Art 3 does not apply to both al-Qaeda and Taliban because the conflict was international not non-international in character.
(iv) Taliban are unlawful combatants, thus do not qualify as POW
(v) And that Al-Qaeda do not qualify as POW too.
Now, having nearly 500 detainees from at least 35 countries, and having kept for such an indefinite tme, without proper charge , the detainees have urged the US courts to grant Habeas Corpus. The next question which arises is can an alien be given such ‘privilege litigation’ in a US federal courts? The US government argued that it does not extend to aliens in military custody who have no presence in ‘any territory which the US is sovereign”. They put forward the case of Johnson v Esentrager. However the court distinguished the two cases, and based its judgments on merits. The court positively held that ‘the detainees are being held indefinitely without the benefit of any legal proceeding to determine ther status, and that it is the primary reason of Habeas Corpus as a mean to challenge executive detentions especially without trial.
In response to that, the Pentagon established procedures called the CSRT – Combatant Status Review Tribunal to determine the status of the detainees. The tribunal is based on administrative procedures in traditional wars which determined the status of POW. , here to determine that they are not ‘enemy combatant.’ The detainees are however given the opportunity to present reasonably available evidence and witness to prove, but they are not allowed the full access to the govt’s evidence or counsel of ther own choice. The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence and the govt’s evidence is presumed to be “genuine and accurate.” As a result of this CSRT procedures, 520 enemy combatants were declared “enemy combatant”.
The case of Khalid v Bush DDC 2005, was not much of help to the Guantanamo detainees. The court , eventhough ruled that the AUMF contains no geographical boundaries, the state of war does not give a blank check to the president. But at the same time, the court found that the exising international law instrument could not protect the detainees at least for the time being , until an dunless further actions are embarked by the President as a cause of complaint.
Another case in 2005 –In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases - shocked the US government when Judge Green held that the CSRT doesn’t not meet the standards of justice, when it was the only hope / mean where the detainees could address or defend their detention status. Not only that she contended that evidence may possibly be involuntarily obtained and that the meaning of ‘enemy combatant’ was a loose one.
Because of the inconsistencey of the court’s decision, and some which are not in favor of the government, the Congress passed Detainee Treatment Act 2005 – which revoked court’s jurisdiction to hear application of habeas corpus from aliens. The Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfield in 2006 however declines to accept this strip of power by the government.
Due to that, another act was introduce, this time acknowledging the MC – Military Commisisons Act 2006 which does not only revoke the US courts jurisdiction but disallows the GC to be invoked in any habeas corpus and that the President has the power to interpret the GC provisions. Immediately after the enforcement of the Act, the government filed motions to dismiss all habeas corpus decision.
Thus on the applications of habeas corpus to the US courts, I submit that the government of US have been relying on legal avenues, if not creating legal avenues to continue keeping the detainees, as the war is not yet over. Legally, this may have its standing, but morally, can the perceived fight for rights and justice by the US justify the denial of rights on others, among others and in particular the Guantanamo detainees.
On the issue of Self defence.
Legally, the international law allows the right of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the question here is was there an actual imminent threat or danger?
Morally, can the US expand the use of self defence to preemptive self defence?
Morally, can preemptive self defence be invoked to justify the invasion of the US army in Afghanistan, turning the whole picture around – to the use of the defence as a sword when it should be used as a shield?
On the issue of torture.
Legally, the detainees are said to not have the POW status who enjoys protection in the 4th GCPOW.
Morally, does that mean that the detainees have no human rights at all?
Legally, even if POW status cannot be invoked, the law says that no state of war or threat of war can be the justification of torture – in the UN Torture Convention.
Morally, is it right to derogate from the rule?
Legally, the US invoked the doctrine of derogation as mentioned in Art 4 of IICPR and ECHR.
Morally, was the doctrine of derogation used proportionately?
Morally, does the necessity of derogation exist?
Conclusion
With all the points delivered, I submit and support several suggestions:
1- the detainees shd be formally charged with accepted standards of fairness. If such fairness could not be provided or no evidence obtained,m the detainees should be released.
2- No statement obtained as a result of torture or human degrading treatment should be admitted as evidence.
3- The MC is not independent because it is under the Secretary of Defence – Excutive power not an independent judiciary
4- The DTA is discriminatrory on non-citizens to be tried in MC which has a lower standard of justice as compared to US courts.
Lastly, law and morality should at all time be in the affirmative with each other eventhough the former is enforceable while the latter could not.It is eventually consciousness that drives human's decision.
In dealing with the detainees kept at Guantanamo, there are some absence in law which are open to interpretations. The interpretations given may not be in tandem with the spirit of the law, or even contrary to human rights – or there may exist abuse of law for immoral aims – benefiting therefrom.
The whole background of the issue started from, or I’d rather say, had its turning point from the Sept 11 attack on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence in the national capital region of Pennyslvania and on the WTC in New York.
Immediately after the attack, the UN Security Council issued a resolution –the 1373 Resolution 2001 affirming its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts. The resolution also affirmed the need to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.
Seven days after the attack, the government of US under the presidency of George W.Bush issued a Joint Resolution (AUMF) – Authorization for use of Military Force which authorized the President to use the US Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks launched against the US. It was the first time the right of self defence was mentioned, where the resolution renders that it was necessary and appropriate for the US to exercise its rights to self defence to protect the US citizens.
In general, the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations / organizations / persons the President determines planned / authorized / committed / aided the terrorist attack.
Firmly believing that Al-Qaeda was the responsible organization, the US began hunting those connected to prevent from ‘future attack’, if I could quote. And believing also that the Taliban had supported and provided safe haven to the organization, the President ordered the armed forces of U.S to invade Afghanistan. In issuing hostilities, hundreds of individuals were captured and later transferred to Guantanamo Bay at Cuba. Guantanamo Bay is a naval camp in Cuba leased by the U.S government as a detention camp.
The detainees where detained as early as in the year 2001 and were kept indefinitely and has been now nearly 7 years, except for a few who were deported. The detainees were kept without knowing the reason of the detention, the evidence used by the US which caused to the detention and what charge and which court their case will be brought to – something which was uncertain not only to them but also to the government as well.
Being criticized for such uncertainty, the Congress of the US came up with a Military Order : Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. This Military order is also known as the November 13 Order.
The November 13 order placed its findings that the attack by the international terrorist (including members of al-Qaeda) has created a state of armed conflict, and this justifies the use of the US armed forces. It is stated that if the terrorist are not detected and prevented, mass death , injuries and massive destruction of property may happen. And because of the ability of the US to protect its citizen, as well as its allies, it is as if a responsibility that the US armed forces must be deployed.
Another significant aspect of the November 13 order is that it is necessary for individuals subject to this order to be detained and tried for violations of laws of war or military tribunals and that it is not practicable to apply principles of law and rules of evidence generally applied in the US courts.
The November 13 Order applies only to individuals who is not a US citizen of whom there is reason to believe that he is or was the member of al-Qaeda, or has engaged, abetted, conspired to commit international terrorism and those in the interest of the US that such individual should be subject to this order.
The order provides minimal protection to the detainees – that they will be treated humanely, given adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing and medical treatment and allowed free exercise of religion.
This order provides punishment which includes life imprisonment or death.
Next, was the memorandum issued by the White House in Feb 7, 2002 which states the US’s stand on the status of the detainees.
In an armed conflict a person can only be one of either two status; i.e whether he does not involved at all with the war or those who have laid down their arms – he is then considered as a civilian whom rights are protected under the 3rd GC. The 3rd GC in its Common Article 3 stipulates among others that they must not be subject to violence, torture and humiliating and degrading treatment etc
On the other hand, if a person who is a member of armed forces or militias or organized resistance movements, they are also protected by the 4th GC – as POW.
Now, back to the memorandum, the US government declared that
(i) GC does not apply to their conflict with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere because al-Qaeda is not a High Contracting party.
(ii) However, GC only applies to Taliban – as a de facto government
(iii) That Com.Art 3 does not apply to both al-Qaeda and Taliban because the conflict was international not non-international in character.
(iv) Taliban are unlawful combatants, thus do not qualify as POW
(v) And that Al-Qaeda do not qualify as POW too.
Now, having nearly 500 detainees from at least 35 countries, and having kept for such an indefinite tme, without proper charge , the detainees have urged the US courts to grant Habeas Corpus. The next question which arises is can an alien be given such ‘privilege litigation’ in a US federal courts? The US government argued that it does not extend to aliens in military custody who have no presence in ‘any territory which the US is sovereign”. They put forward the case of Johnson v Esentrager. However the court distinguished the two cases, and based its judgments on merits. The court positively held that ‘the detainees are being held indefinitely without the benefit of any legal proceeding to determine ther status, and that it is the primary reason of Habeas Corpus as a mean to challenge executive detentions especially without trial.
In response to that, the Pentagon established procedures called the CSRT – Combatant Status Review Tribunal to determine the status of the detainees. The tribunal is based on administrative procedures in traditional wars which determined the status of POW. , here to determine that they are not ‘enemy combatant.’ The detainees are however given the opportunity to present reasonably available evidence and witness to prove, but they are not allowed the full access to the govt’s evidence or counsel of ther own choice. The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence and the govt’s evidence is presumed to be “genuine and accurate.” As a result of this CSRT procedures, 520 enemy combatants were declared “enemy combatant”.
The case of Khalid v Bush DDC 2005, was not much of help to the Guantanamo detainees. The court , eventhough ruled that the AUMF contains no geographical boundaries, the state of war does not give a blank check to the president. But at the same time, the court found that the exising international law instrument could not protect the detainees at least for the time being , until an dunless further actions are embarked by the President as a cause of complaint.
Another case in 2005 –In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases - shocked the US government when Judge Green held that the CSRT doesn’t not meet the standards of justice, when it was the only hope / mean where the detainees could address or defend their detention status. Not only that she contended that evidence may possibly be involuntarily obtained and that the meaning of ‘enemy combatant’ was a loose one.
Because of the inconsistencey of the court’s decision, and some which are not in favor of the government, the Congress passed Detainee Treatment Act 2005 – which revoked court’s jurisdiction to hear application of habeas corpus from aliens. The Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfield in 2006 however declines to accept this strip of power by the government.
Due to that, another act was introduce, this time acknowledging the MC – Military Commisisons Act 2006 which does not only revoke the US courts jurisdiction but disallows the GC to be invoked in any habeas corpus and that the President has the power to interpret the GC provisions. Immediately after the enforcement of the Act, the government filed motions to dismiss all habeas corpus decision.
Thus on the applications of habeas corpus to the US courts, I submit that the government of US have been relying on legal avenues, if not creating legal avenues to continue keeping the detainees, as the war is not yet over. Legally, this may have its standing, but morally, can the perceived fight for rights and justice by the US justify the denial of rights on others, among others and in particular the Guantanamo detainees.
On the issue of Self defence.
Legally, the international law allows the right of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the question here is was there an actual imminent threat or danger?
Morally, can the US expand the use of self defence to preemptive self defence?
Morally, can preemptive self defence be invoked to justify the invasion of the US army in Afghanistan, turning the whole picture around – to the use of the defence as a sword when it should be used as a shield?
On the issue of torture.
Legally, the detainees are said to not have the POW status who enjoys protection in the 4th GCPOW.
Morally, does that mean that the detainees have no human rights at all?
Legally, even if POW status cannot be invoked, the law says that no state of war or threat of war can be the justification of torture – in the UN Torture Convention.
Morally, is it right to derogate from the rule?
Legally, the US invoked the doctrine of derogation as mentioned in Art 4 of IICPR and ECHR.
Morally, was the doctrine of derogation used proportionately?
Morally, does the necessity of derogation exist?
Conclusion
With all the points delivered, I submit and support several suggestions:
1- the detainees shd be formally charged with accepted standards of fairness. If such fairness could not be provided or no evidence obtained,m the detainees should be released.
2- No statement obtained as a result of torture or human degrading treatment should be admitted as evidence.
3- The MC is not independent because it is under the Secretary of Defence – Excutive power not an independent judiciary
4- The DTA is discriminatrory on non-citizens to be tried in MC which has a lower standard of justice as compared to US courts.
Lastly, law and morality should at all time be in the affirmative with each other eventhough the former is enforceable while the latter could not.It is eventually consciousness that drives human's decision.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Grief for the Loss of Pulau Batu Puteh
The two-hour judgment was something I have awaited for. I have been following its trials from day one.The first more-or less one-hour judgement by His Excellency Vice President Al-Khasawneh gave hope for a decision favouring Malaysia, if not sounded like favoring Malaysia. It however became to the contrary when the court progressed in its decision.
I managed to grasp a handful of reasonings answering to the questions put forward before and during the trials.
The court had established the Kingdom of Johore's sovereignty over the disputed maritime features as in its judgement that at least from the seventeenth century until early in the nineteenth century, the territorial and maritime domain of the Kingdom of Johor comprised a considerable portion of the Malaya Peninsula, straddled the Straits of Singapore and included islands and islets in the area of the Straits. Specifically, this domain included the area where Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is located.
What later caught my attention was the court's observation that that sovereignty comprises both elements, personal and territorial, when commenting on the existence of Orang Laut. The Kingdom of Johor satisfied both.
The judgement read:
79. With regard to Singapore’s assertion about the existence of a “traditional Malay concept of sovereignty” based on control over people rather than on control over territory, the Court observes that sovereignty comprises both elements, personal and territorial. In any event, it need not deal with this matter any further as the Court has already found that Johor had territorial sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (see paragraph 69 above), and has found confirmation of this title in the Sultan of Johor’s exercise of authority over the Orang Laut, who inhabited or visited the islands in the Straits of Singapore, including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
When Singapore brought the issues of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty which divided the Kingdom of Johor into two excluding the disputed maritime features to be in any of the divisions, of which Singapore claimed terra nullius, the court observed that against this background, it is most unlikely that the parties intentionally left these maritime features within the Straits of Singapore outside the sphere of influence of either of the two parties and open for eventual occupation by one of the parties or another power.
The court ,after deliberating on issues of letter of donation 1825, made a conclusion that Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.
I thought that when the status quo of the island is determined, it would then create a slim chance for Singapore to claim sovereignty over the disputed maritime features. I was wrong. The court's direction was then to decide on whether the sovereignty has passed to Singapore by looking at the conducts of the parties. The court mentioned that the title of sovereignty may be passed either by written agreement or by tacit conduct. On the latter, the court moved on to include the failure of the State which has sovereignty to respond to conduct à titre de souverain of the other State - in lay terms, the failure to stop the excercise of soveregnty of another state which has no sovereignty.
At this point, I knew that that Malaysia's fate is going to another direction. It was further mentioned in the judgement that the absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence “is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent.
The Court observes that there is nothing at all in the record before it to suggest that the authorities in Singapore considered it necessary or even desirable to inform the Johor authorities of the decision about the siting of the lighthouse or to seek any consent in respect of it. That conduct may be interpreted in one of two ways: it may indicate, as Malaysia contends, that what it sees as Johor’s 1844 consent to the building and operation of a lighthouse on one of its islands simply
applied to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as it would have to any of its islands. Or it may indicate,as Singapore contends, that the Johor authorities had no rights in respect of this project and that such was the perception in 1847 of the responsible British authorities.
To me, the assumptions made by the court are possible, of which at the material time only Singapore has the answer. As on the part of Malaysia, it would be better to hope for the first one - a good conscience -. But being of good conscience appears to be not enough.
Eventhough there was a quite a stiff argument on the existence of Horsburgh Lighthouse - which deteriorated into this dispute, Malaysia had respectfully acknowledged Singapore's operation of it all this while and is very much ready to continue its operation onwards. With due respect, Malaysia claimed that Singapore's involvement on the Island was only limited to the building and the operation of the lighthouse which does not give the right to claim sovereignty over the Island. (In this particular aspect, I wonder what would the Islamic point of view be - on Ihya' al-Mawat - cultivating the dead lands , I personally think Sngapore has a stand on this point).
The conducts of the parties examined by the court was a long test for Malaysia. It stemmed back in the year 1844 to 1852 and then 1852 to 1952 and then 1952 to present. Within the period, Singapore laid a number of enactments supporting their administrative control on the islands. These were of weight to the court. The court however excluded the Protected Places Order 1991 which prohibits entry, without permit, to that island. Malaysia contended that this 1991 order should not be construed by the court because t came after the dispute had taken place. Malaysia was correct when it says that is not “a normal continuation of prior acts” a de ja vu phrase taken from the case of Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia).
In my point of view, the part where the court accepted the Secretary of State of Johore letter 1953 was a definite drawback.Malaysia tried to strike the letter out so as not to be taken as basis of Singapore's argument on two basis: first, that the Secretary has no authority to issue the statement and second, that the letter was on 'ownership' , not 'sovereignty'. The court rejected both. The letter created an estoppel which made Singapore continue the operation of the lighthouse as its predecessor.
Malaysia pointed out that a Petroleum Agreement was entered into in 1968 with Continental Oil Company of Malaysia following the anticipated boundaries of the 1969 Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement of which Singapore made no protest. Malaysia also pointed out Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement 1969 and Territorial Sea Agreement 1970 and official documents and maps of Malaysia.
In just one sentence, His Excellency made his judgement:
"For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore."
That was the end of it..as if I have forgotten the remaining two -Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Luckily, Malaysia's persistency - by the effort of Malaysian delegates/agents - on MiddleRock and Southledge to be equally important as Pulau Batu Puteh should be praised. Malaysia made it firm to the court the both the Island should be treated as independent islands. Since the court has approved the Kingdom of Johor's title over it and nothing was done by Singapore to show against as it did to Pulau Batu Puteh, the court mantained the sovereignty of Middle Rocks to Malaysia.
As for South ledge, the court said “International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tide elevations
can be considered to be ‘territory’. Nor is the Court aware of a uniform and
widespread State practice which might have given rise to a customary rule which
unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation of low-tide elevations . . ." The court went on deciding, sovereignty over South Ledge, as a low-tide elevation, belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.
Learning to Accept the Court's Decision
It is the spirit of respect of nation, love of peace and upholding the international law that Malaysia and Singapore had decided to be abide by a third party decision. Whatever the outcome of the decision, Malaysia has tuned itself to accept it. Malaysia is matured enough to think on the best method to settle disputes, what more a sensitive dispute like Pulau Batu Puteh. It is by looking at the future bond between Malaysia and Singapore that both are professional enough to achieve to this understanding. It is not hard to understand Malaysians reaction on this.Malaysian still have the right however to feel sad and grief on the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh which had once been under its sovereignty. I personally feel the loss.
I managed to grasp a handful of reasonings answering to the questions put forward before and during the trials.
The court had established the Kingdom of Johore's sovereignty over the disputed maritime features as in its judgement that at least from the seventeenth century until early in the nineteenth century, the territorial and maritime domain of the Kingdom of Johor comprised a considerable portion of the Malaya Peninsula, straddled the Straits of Singapore and included islands and islets in the area of the Straits. Specifically, this domain included the area where Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is located.
What later caught my attention was the court's observation that that sovereignty comprises both elements, personal and territorial, when commenting on the existence of Orang Laut. The Kingdom of Johor satisfied both.
The judgement read:
79. With regard to Singapore’s assertion about the existence of a “traditional Malay concept of sovereignty” based on control over people rather than on control over territory, the Court observes that sovereignty comprises both elements, personal and territorial. In any event, it need not deal with this matter any further as the Court has already found that Johor had territorial sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (see paragraph 69 above), and has found confirmation of this title in the Sultan of Johor’s exercise of authority over the Orang Laut, who inhabited or visited the islands in the Straits of Singapore, including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
When Singapore brought the issues of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty which divided the Kingdom of Johor into two excluding the disputed maritime features to be in any of the divisions, of which Singapore claimed terra nullius, the court observed that against this background, it is most unlikely that the parties intentionally left these maritime features within the Straits of Singapore outside the sphere of influence of either of the two parties and open for eventual occupation by one of the parties or another power.
The court ,after deliberating on issues of letter of donation 1825, made a conclusion that Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.
I thought that when the status quo of the island is determined, it would then create a slim chance for Singapore to claim sovereignty over the disputed maritime features. I was wrong. The court's direction was then to decide on whether the sovereignty has passed to Singapore by looking at the conducts of the parties. The court mentioned that the title of sovereignty may be passed either by written agreement or by tacit conduct. On the latter, the court moved on to include the failure of the State which has sovereignty to respond to conduct à titre de souverain of the other State - in lay terms, the failure to stop the excercise of soveregnty of another state which has no sovereignty.
At this point, I knew that that Malaysia's fate is going to another direction. It was further mentioned in the judgement that the absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence “is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent.
The Court observes that there is nothing at all in the record before it to suggest that the authorities in Singapore considered it necessary or even desirable to inform the Johor authorities of the decision about the siting of the lighthouse or to seek any consent in respect of it. That conduct may be interpreted in one of two ways: it may indicate, as Malaysia contends, that what it sees as Johor’s 1844 consent to the building and operation of a lighthouse on one of its islands simply
applied to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as it would have to any of its islands. Or it may indicate,as Singapore contends, that the Johor authorities had no rights in respect of this project and that such was the perception in 1847 of the responsible British authorities.
To me, the assumptions made by the court are possible, of which at the material time only Singapore has the answer. As on the part of Malaysia, it would be better to hope for the first one - a good conscience -. But being of good conscience appears to be not enough.
Eventhough there was a quite a stiff argument on the existence of Horsburgh Lighthouse - which deteriorated into this dispute, Malaysia had respectfully acknowledged Singapore's operation of it all this while and is very much ready to continue its operation onwards. With due respect, Malaysia claimed that Singapore's involvement on the Island was only limited to the building and the operation of the lighthouse which does not give the right to claim sovereignty over the Island. (In this particular aspect, I wonder what would the Islamic point of view be - on Ihya' al-Mawat - cultivating the dead lands , I personally think Sngapore has a stand on this point).
The conducts of the parties examined by the court was a long test for Malaysia. It stemmed back in the year 1844 to 1852 and then 1852 to 1952 and then 1952 to present. Within the period, Singapore laid a number of enactments supporting their administrative control on the islands. These were of weight to the court. The court however excluded the Protected Places Order 1991 which prohibits entry, without permit, to that island. Malaysia contended that this 1991 order should not be construed by the court because t came after the dispute had taken place. Malaysia was correct when it says that is not “a normal continuation of prior acts” a de ja vu phrase taken from the case of Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia).
In my point of view, the part where the court accepted the Secretary of State of Johore letter 1953 was a definite drawback.Malaysia tried to strike the letter out so as not to be taken as basis of Singapore's argument on two basis: first, that the Secretary has no authority to issue the statement and second, that the letter was on 'ownership' , not 'sovereignty'. The court rejected both. The letter created an estoppel which made Singapore continue the operation of the lighthouse as its predecessor.
Malaysia pointed out that a Petroleum Agreement was entered into in 1968 with Continental Oil Company of Malaysia following the anticipated boundaries of the 1969 Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement of which Singapore made no protest. Malaysia also pointed out Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement 1969 and Territorial Sea Agreement 1970 and official documents and maps of Malaysia.
In just one sentence, His Excellency made his judgement:
"For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore."
That was the end of it..as if I have forgotten the remaining two -Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Luckily, Malaysia's persistency - by the effort of Malaysian delegates/agents - on MiddleRock and Southledge to be equally important as Pulau Batu Puteh should be praised. Malaysia made it firm to the court the both the Island should be treated as independent islands. Since the court has approved the Kingdom of Johor's title over it and nothing was done by Singapore to show against as it did to Pulau Batu Puteh, the court mantained the sovereignty of Middle Rocks to Malaysia.
As for South ledge, the court said “International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tide elevations
can be considered to be ‘territory’. Nor is the Court aware of a uniform and
widespread State practice which might have given rise to a customary rule which
unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation of low-tide elevations . . ." The court went on deciding, sovereignty over South Ledge, as a low-tide elevation, belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.
Learning to Accept the Court's Decision
It is the spirit of respect of nation, love of peace and upholding the international law that Malaysia and Singapore had decided to be abide by a third party decision. Whatever the outcome of the decision, Malaysia has tuned itself to accept it. Malaysia is matured enough to think on the best method to settle disputes, what more a sensitive dispute like Pulau Batu Puteh. It is by looking at the future bond between Malaysia and Singapore that both are professional enough to achieve to this understanding. It is not hard to understand Malaysians reaction on this.Malaysian still have the right however to feel sad and grief on the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh which had once been under its sovereignty. I personally feel the loss.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Hafiz's Engagement
It was my niece's engagement day. He and his family has been a lot of help to all our family's wedding ceremony, and so I will surely not miss their's! Quite happy finding myself of help.The unofficial camerawoman , though very amateur. I had problems in capturing sharp pictures. Guess I have to find a good external flash..and lense..or even a new camera...p:
Here are some pictures I have tried to save:
I hardly get to know my neice to be...pictures first, taaruf later..hhihi
Since my nephew is not around, I only got the chance to shoot my niece to be.Hafiz is trying hard to stick to custom...I said, "just follow us, and wait in the car.."eheh.
Very limited pictures taken. I wish I could shoot like Saifulnang and gang. By the time I got the chance to shoot, my desired target has run away...
Here are some pictures I have tried to save:
I hardly get to know my neice to be...pictures first, taaruf later..hhihi
Since my nephew is not around, I only got the chance to shoot my niece to be.Hafiz is trying hard to stick to custom...I said, "just follow us, and wait in the car.."eheh.
Very limited pictures taken. I wish I could shoot like Saifulnang and gang. By the time I got the chance to shoot, my desired target has run away...
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Zulfa talks a lot now
I envy my friends who are able to teach their kids english well.I wish I could be as constant in speaking english as they are.I have tried to mix speaking english with bahasa with Zulfa, and I think she understands what I say -well,provided that I accompany them with gestures.
Me: Zulfa dont 'pukul' your brother Muadz. (gesture of 'pukul')
Me: If you 'pukul'/ hit your brother Muadz, he will cry.. (action of crying and introducing the word 'hit'.
Me: Come here Zulfa.
Zulfa: Zulfa nak lukis lagi..(sambil menunjukkan lukisan)
Me: Are you drawing Muadz?
Zulfa: Ha'ah ini Muadz la..
Me: Where is Amir then?
Zulfa: Nanti Zulfa lukis Amiir pegang tangan Zulfa.
Me: Where is the Sun?
Zulfa: Kejap. Ha...dah siap.Ini sun.
Me: What about some flowers on Zulfa's baju (rasanya dia belum tahu perkataan baju).
Zulfa: Ha'ah, Zulfa lupa. Zulfa nak lukis banyak-banyak flowers...dan star.
That is what happens when she is really in....drawing. She can spend hours. And its astonishing that she can actually immitate the way I draw - for instant hair first then the face, or face frst then the eyes and the rest.
She enjoys watching Barney and Sesame Street. She remembers the songs well. I think English can be well learnt through songs.
Me: Zulfa dont 'pukul' your brother Muadz. (gesture of 'pukul')
Me: If you 'pukul'/ hit your brother Muadz, he will cry.. (action of crying and introducing the word 'hit'.
Me: Come here Zulfa.
Zulfa: Zulfa nak lukis lagi..(sambil menunjukkan lukisan)
Me: Are you drawing Muadz?
Zulfa: Ha'ah ini Muadz la..
Me: Where is Amir then?
Zulfa: Nanti Zulfa lukis Amiir pegang tangan Zulfa.
Me: Where is the Sun?
Zulfa: Kejap. Ha...dah siap.Ini sun.
Me: What about some flowers on Zulfa's baju (rasanya dia belum tahu perkataan baju).
Zulfa: Ha'ah, Zulfa lupa. Zulfa nak lukis banyak-banyak flowers...dan star.
That is what happens when she is really in....drawing. She can spend hours. And its astonishing that she can actually immitate the way I draw - for instant hair first then the face, or face frst then the eyes and the rest.
She enjoys watching Barney and Sesame Street. She remembers the songs well. I think English can be well learnt through songs.
In the middle of many things...
I just do not have the chance to write in my blog because of being so busy.
How work has taken my precious hobby!
Even though we have flexible hours of working, I end up going to work 8 to 5. It's much easier though having someone taking after Muadz at home. Zulfa goes to an arabic kindergarten near the university. But she wakes up at 1 o'clock almost every day and misses her morning class. The teacher has done everything to wake her up.
I happened to meet Kak Farahin yesterday...
"Kita berjumpa di mana ya, kak..UIA ke SMAPK ke?" Aku cuba mencari titik perjumpaan dengan Kak Farahin.Aku terjumpa dengan Kak Farahin sewaktu makan di kantin fakulti. Dia sedang mengikuti kursus SLAB untuk melayakkannya sambung masters di luar negara.
"Di SMAPK lah Fadhilah." Bimbang juga aku Kak Farahin terasa kecil hati.Tetapi lebh baik aku berterus terang.Dia adalah seorang doktor perubatan dan kini 'attached' dengan USIM sebagai tenaga pengajar perubatan USIM.
"Ooh ya.." Sekarang semuanya semakin jelas. Aku ketika itu di dalam tingkatan empat manakala kak Farahin di dalam tingkatan lima.
"Aku tidaklah sepopular mana dahulu. Ingat juga kak Farahin tentang aku." Fikirku.
Kami bersembang panjang di pejabatku. Jam sudah menghampiri pukul 2 petang.
"Kakak minta diri. Slot seterusnya bermula pukul dua." Kak Farahin dengan kawannya bangun ke muka pintu pejabat.
"Tunggu Kak, Mastura." Mastura juga seorang doktor perubatan.
"Ini kad saya. Kalau singgah di Nilai lagi, marilah ke blik saya. Manalah tahu hendak solat ke..apa-apa sahajalah." Aku menghulurkan kad. Tujuannya adalah untuk memberikan nombor telefonku.Mereka mengamati kad tersebut.
"Fadhilah,kamu ada kakak?" Tanya Kak Farahin seblum beredar.
"Ermmm...kalau orang itu lebih tua dari saya,itu sudah tentu bukan kakak saya kerana saya tidak ada kakak. Tetapi kalau lebih muda itu, mungkin. Kerana saya ada ramai adik." Kataku. Aku sudah biasa dengan soalan sebegitu. Mungkin ramai yang mempunyai wajah seiras denganku.
"Mastura, Fadhilah ini kakak kepada Nuun." Kata Kak Farahin membuat kesimpulan.Aku mengangguk kehairanan.
"Ya ke? Kakak Nuun?" Kecil betul dunia ini.
"Macam mana kakak mengenali dia?" Tanyaku. Pening juga kerana ketika adikku Nora masuk ke SMAPK, aku dan Kak Farahin sudah lama keluar.
"Internet friend." Kata Kak Farahin.
Aku terimbau kenangan bersama adikku itu.
"Nora, sudah-sudahlah tu mengadap komputer tu..." Kataku.
"Time masak ni." Sambungku lagi.
"Takpe, Along masak dulu nasi dengan...apa along kata nak masak tadi?Percik?Ha...masak dulu kejap lagi Nora buat sambal belacan dan sayur." Laungnya kembali.
"Hmmm...kalau mak balik habis dia ni." Aku kata di dalam hati.
"Baik aku mula memasak. Paling kurang bila mak pulang taklah kena marah. Lebih-lebih lagi bila tengok Nora mengadap komputer." Kataku di dalam hati.
Nora dan rakan-rakannya di Universiti Multimedia memang galak menggunakan internet untuk berkominikasi. Aku selalu kagum melihat mereka. Mereka mempunyai dunia lain di alam digital.Aku, kalau aku chatting sekalipun, nak chatting dengan siapa? Kawan-kawan aku kebanyakannya masih buta IT. Tidak sehebat Nora dan rakan-rakannya. Penggunaan internet belum lagi popular di UIA pada 1996.
"Nuun pernah jemput akak di KLIA sewaktu akak pulang dari Australia dahulu." Kak Farahin mengejutkan aku dari lamunan.
"Pernah jemput akak?" Tanyaku. Bagiku kalau sudah sampai tahap menjemput d lapangan terbang, ia bermakna mereka berdua memang berkawan rapat.
"Ya Allah, rindunya aku kepada adikku.." Laungku di dalam hati.
"Rupanya ada banyak perkara kebaikan yang kau buat aku tidak tahu, Nora." Aku menahan airmata dari bergenang.Sebab itulah dia begitu komited dengan komputernya. Dia mempunyai kawan-kawan sejati yang sentiasa mendoakannya sehingga ke hari ini.
"Akak juga pernah terserempak dengan Amiir di Warta membeli baju raya dengan mak kamu." Sambung Kak Farahin. Aku mengangguk.
"Suami Nora pula adalah kawan saya di KISAS." Ujar Mastura.
Kami terdiam seketika. Kecil sungguh dunia ini. Setelah bersalaman, Kak Farahin dan Mastura beredar.
Aku tersandar di kerusi pejabatku...
How work has taken my precious hobby!
Even though we have flexible hours of working, I end up going to work 8 to 5. It's much easier though having someone taking after Muadz at home. Zulfa goes to an arabic kindergarten near the university. But she wakes up at 1 o'clock almost every day and misses her morning class. The teacher has done everything to wake her up.
I happened to meet Kak Farahin yesterday...
"Kita berjumpa di mana ya, kak..UIA ke SMAPK ke?" Aku cuba mencari titik perjumpaan dengan Kak Farahin.Aku terjumpa dengan Kak Farahin sewaktu makan di kantin fakulti. Dia sedang mengikuti kursus SLAB untuk melayakkannya sambung masters di luar negara.
"Di SMAPK lah Fadhilah." Bimbang juga aku Kak Farahin terasa kecil hati.Tetapi lebh baik aku berterus terang.Dia adalah seorang doktor perubatan dan kini 'attached' dengan USIM sebagai tenaga pengajar perubatan USIM.
"Ooh ya.." Sekarang semuanya semakin jelas. Aku ketika itu di dalam tingkatan empat manakala kak Farahin di dalam tingkatan lima.
"Aku tidaklah sepopular mana dahulu. Ingat juga kak Farahin tentang aku." Fikirku.
Kami bersembang panjang di pejabatku. Jam sudah menghampiri pukul 2 petang.
"Kakak minta diri. Slot seterusnya bermula pukul dua." Kak Farahin dengan kawannya bangun ke muka pintu pejabat.
"Tunggu Kak, Mastura." Mastura juga seorang doktor perubatan.
"Ini kad saya. Kalau singgah di Nilai lagi, marilah ke blik saya. Manalah tahu hendak solat ke..apa-apa sahajalah." Aku menghulurkan kad. Tujuannya adalah untuk memberikan nombor telefonku.Mereka mengamati kad tersebut.
"Fadhilah,kamu ada kakak?" Tanya Kak Farahin seblum beredar.
"Ermmm...kalau orang itu lebih tua dari saya,itu sudah tentu bukan kakak saya kerana saya tidak ada kakak. Tetapi kalau lebih muda itu, mungkin. Kerana saya ada ramai adik." Kataku. Aku sudah biasa dengan soalan sebegitu. Mungkin ramai yang mempunyai wajah seiras denganku.
"Mastura, Fadhilah ini kakak kepada Nuun." Kata Kak Farahin membuat kesimpulan.Aku mengangguk kehairanan.
"Ya ke? Kakak Nuun?" Kecil betul dunia ini.
"Macam mana kakak mengenali dia?" Tanyaku. Pening juga kerana ketika adikku Nora masuk ke SMAPK, aku dan Kak Farahin sudah lama keluar.
"Internet friend." Kata Kak Farahin.
Aku terimbau kenangan bersama adikku itu.
"Nora, sudah-sudahlah tu mengadap komputer tu..." Kataku.
"Time masak ni." Sambungku lagi.
"Takpe, Along masak dulu nasi dengan...apa along kata nak masak tadi?Percik?Ha...masak dulu kejap lagi Nora buat sambal belacan dan sayur." Laungnya kembali.
"Hmmm...kalau mak balik habis dia ni." Aku kata di dalam hati.
"Baik aku mula memasak. Paling kurang bila mak pulang taklah kena marah. Lebih-lebih lagi bila tengok Nora mengadap komputer." Kataku di dalam hati.
Nora dan rakan-rakannya di Universiti Multimedia memang galak menggunakan internet untuk berkominikasi. Aku selalu kagum melihat mereka. Mereka mempunyai dunia lain di alam digital.Aku, kalau aku chatting sekalipun, nak chatting dengan siapa? Kawan-kawan aku kebanyakannya masih buta IT. Tidak sehebat Nora dan rakan-rakannya. Penggunaan internet belum lagi popular di UIA pada 1996.
"Nuun pernah jemput akak di KLIA sewaktu akak pulang dari Australia dahulu." Kak Farahin mengejutkan aku dari lamunan.
"Pernah jemput akak?" Tanyaku. Bagiku kalau sudah sampai tahap menjemput d lapangan terbang, ia bermakna mereka berdua memang berkawan rapat.
"Ya Allah, rindunya aku kepada adikku.." Laungku di dalam hati.
"Rupanya ada banyak perkara kebaikan yang kau buat aku tidak tahu, Nora." Aku menahan airmata dari bergenang.Sebab itulah dia begitu komited dengan komputernya. Dia mempunyai kawan-kawan sejati yang sentiasa mendoakannya sehingga ke hari ini.
"Akak juga pernah terserempak dengan Amiir di Warta membeli baju raya dengan mak kamu." Sambung Kak Farahin. Aku mengangguk.
"Suami Nora pula adalah kawan saya di KISAS." Ujar Mastura.
Kami terdiam seketika. Kecil sungguh dunia ini. Setelah bersalaman, Kak Farahin dan Mastura beredar.
Aku tersandar di kerusi pejabatku...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)