Saturday, June 15, 2019

Wise to insult India?

From FMT:

The Zakir Naik saga

Long ago, Malaysia signed an extradition treaty with India. Malaysia also has trade relations with India. India-Malaysia relations involve various aspects including defence, economic, political, cultural and people-to-people exchanges.
Relations have been good thanks to the rapport between the leaders of the two countries which is based on mutual interest. In terms of trade and economic cooperation, India is Malaysia’s 10th largest trading partner. The total bilateral trade target of US$15 billion set for 2020 was achieved in 2018/2019.
Relations are strong, and there are no major issues between the two countries. In fact, India is the only country which recently cut duties on crude and refined palm oil imported from Malaysia.
India imports 60% – 15.5 million tonnes annually – of its edible oil requirements, mostly from Malaysia and a few other countries. The duty on crude palm oil from Malaysia was cut from 44% to 40%. The tax on refined palm oil, if it comes from Malaysia, was cut from 54% to 45%.
Refusing India’s request to extradite controversial preacher Dr Zakir Naik would certainly upset the country and possibly raise concerns about Malaysia’s foreign policy. It would certainly sour the good relations that we have with India.
Avoiding the religious point of view
Let’s not look at the extradition of Naik from a religious point of view. It would be better for the matter to be viewed objectively. Indian authorities allege that there is a money laundering case against him. Money laundering is a serious issue – we have seen a few local politicians from the former government charged in court with this offence.
Naik was charged with money laundering in absentia in India in May. The country’s Enforcement Directorate accused him of acquiring about Rs1.9 billion (RM114.5 million) worth of criminal assets. The Indian court has yet to reach a judgment, though. A Mumbai court is expected to decide on June 19 whether a non-bailable warrant of arrest should be issued against him. Then, India can seek Interpol’s help to have Naik detained and sent back for trial. It is therefore premature for Malaysia to announce that they will reject India’s extradition request.
The Malaysian authorities are after Jho Low, who is wanted for alleged financial crimes related to state investment fund 1MDB. However, he has refused to return despite a warrant of arrest issued for him, saying he will not get a fair trial in Malaysia.
It’s nothing unusual for an accused person to say that he or she might not get a fair trial. Allegations and being charged in court do not mean that a person has already been found guilty. It is only at the end of the trial that there will be a verdict.
The same goes for Naik, if he is charged in an Indian court with offences claimed by the authorities to be related to money laundering. It is premature for anyone to defend Naik on this basis. No one should be his spokesman by reiterating his claim that he will not receive a fair trial in India.
If this excuse can be accepted, should we then blame the country in which Jho Low is currently seeking refuge if it rejects Malaysia’s request for his extradition? Jho Low, whose whereabouts remain unknown, has been charged in absentia in Malaysia and the US with money laundering and receiving more than US$1 billion (RM4.2 billion) from 1MDB in 2009 and 2011.
Malaysia and India are both democratic countries. As the new government has often emphasised that governance must be based on the rule of law, we have to practise what we preach. Both countries have signed an extradition treaty, therefore Malaysia cannot ignore the treaty and expect India to still respect us.
Indian judiciary is an independent body
As reported, Naik may feel that he will not get a fair trial in India but this cannot be cited as an excuse by his supporters to justify their stand that he should not be extradited if a request is made by the Indian authorities. It’s wrong to even insinuate that the Indian legal justice system is going to be unfair to him. Nobody should conveniently pass undesirable judgments on India’s justice system as we are aware that the Indian judiciary is an independent body just like Malaysia’s. There would be a serious conflict of interest if we pried into another country’s judiciary system.
Bringing up Sirul Azhar Umar’s case to justify Naik’s case is not right, either. Sirul was convicted by the Malaysian courts of murder. He faces the death sentence, which is why Australia will not extradite him to Malaysia. In Naik’s case, he has yet to stand trial. He may or may not be found guilty. Thus, by not extraditing Naik, if requested by India, we are not following the rule of law.
Indian authorities wish to question Naik, but they have yet to charge him in court as it is only at the investigation phase, just like how we want to question Jho Low first. The investigations into Naik and Jho Low both have to do with money laundering. We should not hinder the Indian authorities from carrying out their investigations into money laundering offences by one of their own citizens by impulsively claiming that he will stand trial under an unfair justice system.
It’s also irresponsible to claim that the Indian government is anti-Islam. Out of 100 citizens of India, 14 are Indian Muslims. They form 14% of the population. The Indian judicial branch is independent of the legislative and executive branches of the government, just like in Malaysia, and they have long proven to be fair to all 1.3 billion citizens irrespective of creed or religion.
Understandably, Naik has many fans in the country and should the Malaysian authorities be forced to extradite him, this could cause some teething problems to the government, politically. Naik should therefore do the most honourable thing by returning to India of his own accord and facing the accusations against him.


  1. As I said it is religious reason, not political. Muslims must not surrender to Hindus. Politicians from both sides of the divide, and Muslim NGOs support the aphrodisiac peddler Zakar Naik....

    Muslim NGOs launch '1m signatures' campaign to back Dr M on Zakir Naik
    Jun 14th, 2019

    The Malaysian Islamic Organisation of Consultative Council (Mapim) and other Muslim NGOs have launched a one million signatures campaign to support Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad on the extradition of Zakir Naik.

    Mapim's president Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid said the campaign is for Mahathir not to cave in to pressure from certain quarters.

    “The Malaysian government has resisted so far and not bowed to pressure from India and certain quarters in Malaysia...

  2. Sirul is a convicted criminal.
    His crime was committed in Malaysia, not Australia's.

    By refusing to extradite him based on Australia's own objections to the death penalty , Australia is disrespecting Malaysia's rule of law.

    1. Australia as a sovereign nation has an extradition policy that prohibits extraditing anyone to that person's eventual execution - how is that disrespecting Malaysia's rule of law, when Australian law has to be respected first when in Australia

    2. What goes around comes around.

      Australia is going to find, sooner than they expect, that the next request from Australia to extradite a fugitive from Malaysia will be met with extremely unsympathetic ears.

      Similarly, India has for years been a sanctuary for fugitive Malaysian Indian criminals. It was always very difficult to extradite anyone from India because of their misguided nationalist protectionist policies.

      A lot of people condemning Mahathir currently either have zero knowledge of the history or are ignoring it for their own purposes.

      What goes around, comes around.

    3. Australia's policy of prohibiting extradition when the extradited may face the death penalty has been based on human rights and humanitarian grounds, and not to frustrate the country requesting the extradition - a guarantee of no execution by the applying country enables extradition

      India OTOH has the doctrine of jus sanguinis (right of blood) which is also contained in its Citizenship Act 1955. It allows Indians (by blood), citizens of other nations, to claim Indian citizen or be Indian citizens hence the difficulty of extraditing 'Indians' (even Malaysian Indian) from India.

      In the past China also has the doctrine of jus sanguinis but Mao Zedong ceased that (particularly announcing it publicly during a visit by the late Tun Razak). I believe India and Israel are currently the two nations allowing that

  3. Wakakakakakakaka Why so blur, one?

    There are practically no Mamaks in Felda schemes nor working in the oil palm industry. So, it's not a major problem if India stops buying Malaysian palm oil or refined palm oil since it mainly affects only the Malays and other races.

    Most Mamaks are already in the corridors of power in Govt., Religious institutions, NGOs etc. and we can see the signs of infiltration and power held by them.

    Those lesser qualified Mamaks who cannot be intelligent enough, not religious enough are mostly in the retail food industry, finance, textiles etc.

    History has also shown, the Malacca Sultanate also fell due to palace intrigue by Mamaks due to greed for power and wealth and after China withdrew it's protective umbrella thus enabling other foreign powers to come in.

    Religion to Mamaks are just a conduit towards their quest for climbing to the top of the social ladder besides wealth and power.

    Patriotism is a non-existent word to them since the olden days when their forefathers were brought up worst than slaves and are deemed as outcasts/untouchables even by their own country. So, it has somewhat been imprinted in their thinking that it is just a word/believe to be used in their quest for survival in the modern world.

  4. Cina hosted Chin Peng for 29 years.

    Apa salahnya kalau Tanah Melayu hosts Zakir Naik?

    Apa pasal dengan Orang-orang Cina ni? Always accusing others of double standards. Sendiri?