Sebuah Cerita Tentang Ibu Bapa dan Anaknya

Dua cerita berikut saya perolehi dari email sahabat. Ia terpilih untuk terbitan di blog ini atas criteria mesej dan pengajaran yang berkulaiti tinggi.

----------

Cerita 1: Ibu Bapa bukan Liabiliti...cerita benar seorang penulis berjaya

Entahlah apa yang selalu bermain pada fikiran ayah. Apabila saya ingin pulang kembali ke kota, dia kerap minta duit. Seakan-akan mendesak....

" Ada duit? Minta ayah sedikit.."

Saya masih ingat waktu itu kehidupan saya terlalu sukar. Untuk mendapat seratus ringgit di dalam poket pada satu-satu masa pun payah. Kalau balik kampung selalunya duit yang ada hanya cukup-cukup tambang. Mujurlah, isteri dan anak-anak saya sudah faham. Alhamdulilah mereka 'sporting' dan tidak banyak meragam.


"Emak, ayah asyik minta duit. Bukan tak mahu bagi, tapi saya memang tak ada duit," Bisik saya kepada emak. Emak seperti biasa, berwajah selamba, sukar ditembak reaksinya.

" Bagilah beberapa yang ada," cadang emak pendek. "Takkan 5 ringgit?"

Emak mengganguk. Saya rasa bersalah untuk memberi ayah wang sebanyak itu. Apalah yang boleh dibeli dengan wang 5 ringgit....Tapi kerana tidak mahu menghampakan harapa ayah dan ikutkan cadangan emak, saya gagahi juga memberinya.

Ayah selalunya tersenyum menerima pemberian saya. Tetapi yang mengejutkan ialah apabila kami sekeluarga berada dalam perut bas dalam perjalanan pulang ke kota. Di kocek anak saya sudah terselit wang sepuluh ringgit. Siapa yang bagi kalau bukan ayah? 10 tolak 5, saya masih 'untung' 5 ringgit. Geli hati mengenangkannya.

Begitulah selalunya tahun demi tahun. Apabila kami pulang ziarah ke kampung, saya akan memberi pemintaan ayah. Kengkadang terlupa, tetapi ayah akan selalu mengigatkan. Akhirnya, saya memang sediakan peruntukan khas untuk diberikan kepada ayah setiap kali pulang kampung. Kedudukan ekonomi saya yang masih goyah kekadang hanya mengizinkan wang dua ringgit untuk diberikan kepada ayah. Ironinya, ayah tetap dengan pemintaannya dan tetap tersenyum apabila menerima. Tidak kira berapa jumlahnya. Emak terus-terusan selamba. Saya masih sukar menandingi ketajaman rasa seorang isteri (emak) dalam memahami hati suaminya (ayah).

Begitupun setiap kali dalam perjalanan pulang, kocek anak saya akan jadi sasaran. Kekadang itulah duit pelengkap membeli tiket pulang. Ayah akan setiap memasukkan duit yang melebihi jumlah saya berikan kepadanya. Saya tidak mengambil masa lama untuk memahami apa maksud tersirat disebalik perlakuan ayah itu. Dia meminta wang pada saya bukan kerana 'tidak ada', tetapi dia ada sesuatu yang lebih besar ingin dicapainya atau disampaikannya.

Namun, secara bertahap-tahap buku tulisan saya semakin mendapat sambutan. Bukan itu sahaja, perniagaan yang saya mulakan secara kecil-kecilan semakin membesar. Kalau dulu kami pulang ke kampung dengan bas, tetapi selepas beberapa tahun saya pulang dengan kereta milik sendiri. Saya masih ingat komen ayah ketika saya pulang dengan kereta kecil Kancil milik kami sendiri.

"Nanti, besarlah kereta kamu ini...." ujur ayah senyum.

Apapun saya tetap memenuhi permintaan ayah setiap kali pulang ke kampung. Wang saya dahulukan kepadanya. Dan ayah juga konsisten dengan sikapnya, ada sahaja wang yang diselitkan dalam kocek anak saya.

" Eh tak payahlah ayah..." sekarang saya mula berani bersuara. Ekonomi keluarga sudah agak stabil. Malu rasanya mengambil duit ayah walaupun perantaraan pemberian datuk kepada cucunya. Saya tahu dan sedar, hakikatnya ayah hendak memberi kepada saya sejak dulu, tetapi sengaja atau tidak ingin saya merasa segan, duit diberi melalui anak.

"Kenapa, dah kaya?" usik ayah. Hendak tak hendak, duit dikocek anak tetap diselitkannya. Cuma sekarang bezanya, duit  itu tidak lagi 'dikebas' oleh saya. Dan dalam hati, saya mula berasa senang kerana jumlah yang saya berikan kepada ayah, kini sudah melebihi apa yang mampu diselitkan ke kocek anak saya. Tidak semacam dulu lagi, duit pemberian ayah kepada anak saya sentiasa melebihi duit pemberian saya kepadanya.

Masin sungguh mulut ayah. Tidak sampai tiga tahun, kami bertukar kereta!. Di samping menulis, saya menjadi penerbit. Perniagaan semakin rancak. Oleh sebab bilangan anak bertambah dan keperluan kerja yang meningkat saya sudah membeli MPV utuk kegunaan harian. Anak-anak mula menjejak menara gading. Kehidupan semakin laju dan aktiviti semakin rancak. Namun sibuk sekalipun saya tetap pulang menziarahi ayah dan ibu. Anehnya ayah tetap memberi kepada anak saya walaupun kini saya telah dikenali sebagai korporat yang berjaya.

Rupa-rupanya, ayah memberi bukan kerana kekurangan atau kelebihan kami, tetapi dia MEMBERI KERANA ALLAH. Mencontohi Allah al-Wahhab itu!

Anda ingin tah apa pesan penulis itu kepada saya? Ya, mari kongsi bersama :

" Kini aku benar-benar faham bahawa ibu ayah yang tua bukan beban dalam kehidupan di dunia, lebih-lebih lagi dalam kehidupan di akhirat. Mereka bukan 'liabiliti' tetapi sebenarnya aset untuk kita (walaupun istilah itu sebenarnya kurang atau tidak tepat kerana ibubapa bukan benda). Rugi betul siapa yang mempunyai ibu bapa yang telah tua tetapi mengabaikannya.

"memberi kepada ibu bapa hakikatnya memberi kepada diri sendiri. Walaupun itu bukan niat kita ketika memberi, tetapi percayalah rezeki berganda akan pulang kepada kita semula. DOA MEREKA MUSTAJAB. Harapan mereka kenyataan.  Kasih mereka bekalan. Benarlah sepertimana sabda Rasulullah s.a.w, keredhaan Allah terletak kepada keredhaan ibu bapa."

Baiklah, inilah sebenarnya rahsia 'perniagaan' yang jarang-jarang diperkatakan oleh tokoh korporat. Juga tidak pernah ditulis dalam mana-mana buku perniagaan. Masih punya ibubapa? MEMBERILAH KEPADA MEREKA. Tidak ada?

Tidak mengapa, memberilah kepada anak-anak anda. Tidak ada juga?  Memberilah kepada sesiapa sahaja. Kita sentiasa berfikir untuk memberi. Memberi kepada orang lain bererti memberi kepada diri kita sendiri walaupun itu bukan maksud kita ketika mula memberi!

-----------------
Cerita 2: Kisah Dr Harun Din dan adik beradik beliau di hari kematian ibunda tercinta

Sahabat sekelian,
 
Cerita dibawah menjadi IBRAH bagi kita semua.
 
Apa yang paling utama dalam memberikan khidmat terakhir kpd ibu ayah ialah MEMANDIKAN JENAZAHNYA, MENGKAPANKAN TUBUH MULIANYA, MENYEMBAHYANGKAN JENAZAH NYA DAN MENGKEBUMIKAN JENAZAHNYA. Lakukan dengan tangan2 kita sebagai anak2. Lakukan sahabat, lakukannya jika ditakdirkan ibu ayah kita meninggal dunia.
 
Saya menangis apabila ada sahabat saya menceritakan bagaimana ibu kepada Tuan Guru Dr Harun Din meninggal dunia. Bacalah sahabat pengalaman Dr Harun  Din dan keluarganya.
 
Jiran kpd ibu Dr Harun Din (DrHD) menziarah ibunya pada waktu petang selepas asar. beliau memberi salam tetapi tak menyahut salamnya. Beberapa kali salam diberikan tapi tak ada jawapan. Maka jirannya itu mencari ruang mencari ibu DrHD, akhirnya terlihat ibunya sedang sujud dalam solat. lalu jiran ini balik ke rumah dahulu. beberapa minit kemudian, datang semula berjumpa ibu DRHD, dilihatnya masih sujud. firasat jirannya, ini ada yang tak kena. Lalu masuk ke rumah utk melihat dr dekat ibu DrHD. Rupa2nya, ibu DrHD telah kembali ke rahmatullah dalam masa ibunya sujud menghadap Allah. Ya Allah mulianya kematian ibu DrHD.
 
Perkara yg paling comel yg dilakukan keluarga DrHD ialah, menyempurnakan dgn tangan2 anak2 jenazah ibunya. Mandikan ibu, kapan ibu, sembahyangkan ibu dan kebumikan tanpa diusik orang lain ke atas tubuh ibunya. Ada jiran2 yg ingin melakukannya tetapi ditolak oelh Dr Harun Din, hasan Din dan Ishak Din dengan hujjah, "BERILAH SAYA SEKELUARGA PELUANG MEMBUAT KHIDMAT YG TERAKHIR UTK IBU". Ketika huja itu diberikan, seluruh masyarakat yg hadir melinangkan air mata kerana tawaaduk dan alimnya anak2 ibu itu. Paling menyayatkan hati masyarakat adalah apabila ketiga2 adik beradik ini iaitu Harun Din, Hasan Din dan Ishak Din turun sendiri ke lubang lahad mengebumikan jenazah ibunya. Ada beberapa orang yg hadir, memohon dan berkata,"Wahai Tuan Guru, biarlah kami buat semuanya ini menurunkan jenazah ibu Tuan Guru." Permintaan ini ditolak oleh DrHD dgn hujah yg sama "Berilah kami adik beradik peluang mengebumikan jenazah ibu ini kali terakhir". Seluruh yg hadir di kuburan ketika itu, mencurahkan airmata tawadduk di atas akhlak anak2 ibu yang diasuh hingga se"alim" sedemikian. Peristiwa ini disempurnakan hingga selesai.
 HEBAT IBU ini membina akhlak dan keilmuan anak-anak mereka, maka tidak hairanlah kita semua  bahawa DrHD , hasan Din dan Ishak Din memang disegani oelh kawan dan lawan di Bumi Malaysia ini kerana "AKHLAK"nya yang mulia dan ALIM nya mereka. 

 Terus terang sahabat, ketika saya mendengar cerita ini, air mata saya melinang apabila tergambar ketika saya dan 11 orang adik beradik menguruskan jenazah ibu bersama Feb 2009 yang lalu. Ya Allah, rahmatilah ibu kami semua. Rahmatilah mereka dan Ampunkanlah kami. 

Wallahu A'lam. 

Don't worry, there won't be peace

By Alon Liel

About two weeks before the Israel Navy's confrontation with the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla, a radio interviewer asked me how the matter would be dealt with. "The more force we need to use, the greater our loss will be," I replied.

I feel the same on the eve of the talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The more force we exert in the negotiations in Washington, the greater our failure will be. It's supposed to be good that direct talks are beginning. The problem is that they will not result in peace. It's not because we don't need peace. Without peace with the Palestinians, we're just about hopeless. But it won't come.

Achieving peace requires an entirely different approach by the Israeli leadership. The Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman can't shake the sense that it is going to fight over peace with Abbas - a war over territory in the West Bank, a war over Jerusalem, a war over the Palestinian refugees. If we don't entirely change this approach by making a complete political and diplomatic U-turn, the talks will fail.

If the intent is to begin a struggle with the Palestinians in the presence of the Americans and the world, it will be a waste of everyone's time. In such a case it's clear to everyone that we will "win." Who is Abbas compared to us? Where are his fighter jets? Where are his submarines? Where is his Dimona nuclear facility? Where is his elite special operations force? Where are his connections in the U.S. Congress? And if he really gets us mad, we can always stop transferring him funds altogether.

It's not possible for the strongest kid and the weakest kid in the neighborhood to conduct talks on reconciliation and friendship when the talks are based on arm wrestling. It's absolutely clear who will win. But there will be no peace or reconciliation after the strong one beats the weak. It's like the case of the Turkish flotilla. The so-called victor in the tussle is the main loser.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu is our only hope at the moment. He has positioned himself before the Israeli public as the country's No. 1 patriot. He has no real rival in the political sphere. Israel is thriving economically, in large part thanks to him. He is capable of leading Israel to peace, but not with the fighting spirit he is bringing to Washington. Going into peace talks in a warlike mood presents greater risks than opportunities. The failure of the talks could turn the West Bank into another Gaza Strip and Abbas into Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas - and that's without mentioning the international implications.

We have to talk in Washington rather than threaten, to plan (together ) rather than manipulate things, to convince and be convinced, all with the knowledge that we have no alternative to this process. We have a lot more to lose from the talks' failure than the Palestinians do. At worst, they are liable to remain without a state of their own, but we are liable to lose the one we have. We won't physically lose it, but its identity will be lost along with its mission as the state of the Jewish people.

Mr. Prime Minister, only one person in the world can fail in these talks, and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu. If there is success, you will have to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Abbas and special U.S. envoy George Mitchell. If there is failure, it will be yours alone. And your failure, Mr. Prime Minister, will not be our failure, it will be our disaster. Because, for the time being, I don't see the U-turn that is needed, I don't believe there will be peace. Get ready for the commission of inquiry.
--------------
The writer was director general of the Foreign Ministry during Ehud Barak's term as prime minister.

Everything should be taught : An academic institution does not belong to the state, but to all of mankind

By Menachem Mautner*, 19 August 2010,Haaretz

The Institute for Zionist Strategies sent a position paper to the heads of Israel's universities that examines the degree to which campus activity is Zionist in orientation. Allow me to propose a response.
Your position paper is based on an underlying assumption that is unacceptable to me, one which posits that the level of support for Zionism is the standard by which to judge a university. The university does not belong to the state, nor does it belong to the Zionist movement that created the state. It belongs to mankind, and it pursues three primary goals: generating academic knowledge that is likely to provide human beings with intellectual enrichment and a better understanding of the human condition; preserving the academic knowledge of the past; and disseminating knowledge to mankind.

The university is an institution that the liberal state must fund without taking any interest in the content of the research it produces or the material it teaches, even if this content is unsavory in the eyes of the state's leaders or even contradicts the foundations on which the state was established. The only criterion by which content should be judged in a university is the humanist one - namely, whether the content is intended to advance the welfare of mankind.

Allow me to discuss the content produced by universities - a question more difficult than another often raised in this context, that of the opinions faculty members express as citizens.
In a university, it is permissible to write, and even to teach, that in the 19th century, the Jewish people had better options than establishing a national movement that aspired to political sovereignty; that at the present moment in history, Israel needs to bring an end to the Zionist worldview that lies at the foundation of its existence; that the founding of Israel dealt a harsh blow to Arab inhabitants of the Land of Israel; that Israel needs to cease viewing itself as a Jewish and democratic state and begin characterizing itself as a state of all its citizens; that Israel needs to be a binational state; or that Israel needs to be incorporated into a Middle Eastern federation.
It is permissible to write and teach all these things, on condition that these ideas are founded upon concern for the welfare of Israel's citizens and their spiritual enrichment; and on condition that they meet the standards of the university's relevant research paradigms.
Content that does not meet the humanist criterion has no place in a university. Material that does not meet the standards of the relevant academic paradigms also has no place in a university, but that is because it constitutes shoddy academic work. Universities have institutions that are tasked with ensuring that academic work complies with the relevant academic paradigms and is done at an appropriate academic level.
Based on your mode of thinking, it would be possible to demand that the university teach only material that serves the immediate and practical interests of the state. Such an approach would place departments like business management, law, engineering and medicine at the center of the university. Such an approach would turn the university into a technical school.
Yet the university should give pride of place to the humanities, social science and natural science, fields where knowledge is sought for its own sake, without any considerations of how that knowledge might be put to immediate use. And once this material is produced by a university, it is no longer available solely to the citizens of Israel, but to all human beings the world over.
At the basis of your position paper lies the assumption that the State of Israel has one task: the exercise of political sovereignty and the nurturing of national culture. I disagree. The state is a tool for advancing a diverse set of human interests.
Aside from a national culture, human beings also need effective health services, quality education, housing, art and culture. Thus Israel does not only need to be a Zionist state; it must be a state that works to promote all the different types of well-being its citizens need. The production and dissemination of enriching academic knowledge is one of them.
You must cease judging the universities by the criteria of Zionism. The question of what specific content should be infused into Zionism today is an important one. I suggest that you focus on that instead.


* he is a professor of law at Tel Aviv University

Minarets and Europe's crisis

By Anas Altikriti, Al-Jazeera.

The mind is boggled by the fact that Switzerland, a country renowned for its tolerant nature, could come to see less than a handful of minarets as a threat to its identity and culture. The main campaign poster used by far right groups to rally against the construction of minarets in Switzerland depicted a Muslim woman in niqab standing before a multitude of minarets graphically rendered to look like missiles. Switzerland's Commission Against Racism said that the campaign poster defamed the country's Muslim minority.

Neither the niqab nor the minaret is characteristic of the Muslim community in Switzerland but both have been regularly used to stoke the flames of hatred and fear against Muslims throughout Europe in recent times.And it was that fear which pushed over half of Swiss voters to choose, by a majority of 57 per cent, to support the minaret ban called for by the Union Démocratique du Centre (UDC), a right wing populist party.

Switzerland's identity crisis

The vote revealed that Switzerland, like a number of other Western nations, faces a deep identity crisis which has nothing to do with Islam, sharia, immigration or any other red-rags that were waived by the far-right to increase European fears of Muslims.

The question the Swiss should really be asking themselves is whether the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy - upheld so preciously by European nations - are practised as reverently as they are preached.

This becomes even more of a crisis when one recalls that among the crucial outcomes of the struggle between church and state throughout Europe was the emergence of these values as an 'alternative' to church dictate and the preaching of clerics.

Hence, the first serious problem with the referendum process is how a democratic society can begin to contemplate holding a popular vote on a matter that is regarded integral to the core themes of freedom and rights.

While it is only fair to assert that the Swiss government and most newspaper editors had urged voters to defeat the ban, it remains the case that the vote should not have been held in the first place. The very concept of a referendum in which the vast majority are asked to vote on a topic specific to the culture or religion of a minority group is in itself extremely problematic.

Imagine the furor that would certainly ensue should a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population be asked to vote on whether its small Christian community should be allowed to build their churches according to a particular design or method, or whether they would rather do without the church bells sounding from time to time.

Limits of democracy?

What next, one wonders, and how far does this appetite for 'democracy' go? Is it a matter of time before there is a referendum on whether or not Muslims should be allowed to practise their faith, or even be allowed to exist at all?

This might sound slightly melodramatic, but a quick examination of where we were and how far we have come in so little time, offers quite a concerning assumption of where we might be heading. The reader should bear in mind that the grand sum of existing minarets in all of Switzerland is exactly ... four.

It is only a tiny fraction of the Swiss population which regularly encounters the sight of a mosque minaret.

The referendum becomes even more ludicrous when one discovers that there were precisely two applications for building permits which included the construction of minarets, and neither likely to be built within the next five years.

Therefore, since it was unlikely that the Swiss people were soon going to wake up to find themselves surrounded by a forest of minarets, this whole process begs the question of what the real motives were behind the referendum.

With most European governments continuously flaunting democracy, civil liberties and minority rights as the cornerstones of a national identity, it remains a mystery how the issue of minarets was presented as a challenge and a problem facing multi-cultural, liberal and secular Europe.Can a civilised people be so ill at ease and low on confidence that the specific design of a handful of buildings be construed as a threat to the country's national heritage, identity and culture?

Questionable timing?

One wonders where this leaves the throng of Western commentators who persistently remind their audiences that Christians are disallowed from practising their faith freely or building churches in certain Muslim countries. In fact one wonders whether the ramifications of the Swiss vote on Christians and other minorities living freely among Muslim societies were ever considered.

Whatever the outcome, the impact of this ban on Muslims in Switzerland in day-to-day terms will be almost negligible. Muslims pray in all sorts of buildings and in all sorts of venues, with minarets and without.

Indeed, figures suggest that most Western Muslims perform their daily prayers in buildings that are not classified as mosques in the first place. Which is why this was a non-starter on the scale of issues concerning the people of Switzerland; including Muslims. Consider the referendum's timing: It comes following the so-called war on terror and coincides with the rise of far-right and fascist groups.

The timing coupled with the racist and inflammatory discourse that has guided this process, the images that adorn the campaign posters as well as those who have promoted this ban, indicate that Europe is in the throes of an Islamophobic trend gathering pace as a result of the gross failures of official economic, social and political policies.

Already, celebratory remarks from far-right and racist figures, including Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the radical-right Austrian Freedom Party, and Marine Le Pen, the vice-president of France's National Front, have reverberated from various corners of the European continent.

Dutch deputy Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom has gone as far as to suggest that they will be following the example of their Swiss compatriots and pursuing a ban on mosque minarets in the Netherlands. The pioneers of Europe's enlightenment movement must be turning in their graves.

Integrating Muslims in Europe

While I acknowledge statements made by various commentators regarding the need for the Muslim community in Switzerland (and throughout Europe) to do more to integrate and prove their worth to their respective societies, I would warn against asking too much of a community under so much scrutiny and pressure.

Building mosque minarets was never seen by Swiss Muslims as central to and inseparable from their faith or religious practise. Equivocally, Switzerland should not have made the banning of minarets a pivot about which it defines its national identity and culture.The construction of minarets is a right - one that bears no effect whatsoever on the vast majority of the Swiss people. By voting to ban this right, it is Swiss - and Western - values which become poorer and less meaningful.

The only way forward is for a realisation that Europe is not built solely on a Judeo-Christian heritage, but that Muslims too have played a vital and significant role in shaping modern day Europe through contributions of culture, arts, politics, law, theology, science, medicine and dozens of other disciplines.

There must be a realisation too that the 30 million or so European Muslims have become part of the European social fabric, through an invaluable contribution which they have made over decades if not for centuries.By singling them out as suspects and potential enemies within, European societies are creating wide-spread instability and future uncertainty for everyone on the social, economic and political levels.

For a Europe that still commemorates the tragedies that occurred when it played host to a concerted attack on one of its own communities nearly 70 years ago, it is a serious over-sight and a case of horrific negligence to allow the same to happen again, only against a different victim.

Anas Altikriti is the CEO of the Cordoba Foundation, a London-based think-tank concerned with building bridges and improving understanding between the West and the Muslim world, through research, training and conflict resolution.

 

Cherchez The French

Asia Sentinel( Taken From Malaysia Today's Website on 19 Nov 2009)

On September 3, a 66-meter submarine named for Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's founding father, glided into the Royal Malaysian Navy base at Port Klang on Malaysia's western coast after a 54-day voyage from France. Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was there to greet them.

As defense minister, Najib had commissioned a huge military buildup to upgrade Malaysia's armed forces including the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines and the lease of a third, a retired French Navy Agosta-class boat, for US$1 billion. The two submarines were designed by France's DCNS naval shipbuilder and built in partnership with Spain's Navantia. Both companies are state owned. The deal earned a commission of €114 million for a company owned by Najib's best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, once the head of a Kuala Lumpur political thinktank.

The Tunku Abdul Rahman, along with its companion, to be named for Najib's father Tun Abdul Razak and to be delivered in 2010, is at the very heart of the continuing controversy over the death of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and Razak Baginda's jilted lover. Altantuya was murdered in October of 2006 by two bodyguards attached to Najib's office after Razak, who had jilted Altantuya, went to Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, for help in keeping the 28-year-old woman away from him. Not long after being acquitted under questionable circumstances of participating in her murder, he left the country for England.

Questions over the purchases go well beyond the death of a spurned paramour and point to some difficult subjects for French and Malaysian officials. These questions assume added relevancy in light of revelations last week that someone, allegedly close to the Prime Minister, was willing to pay RM5 million (US$1.48 million) to a private detective to forget his statement connecting Najib to Altantuya.

The continuing controversy makes it appropriate to ask to examine the defence minister's diaries, calendars and telephone logs and those of Razak Baginda in 2002, when the Royal Malaysian Navy ordered the vessels. In letters found after her death, Altantuya said she was attempting to blackmail Razak Baginda for as much as US$500,000, apparently, her father said, because of her role as translator over the purchase of the submarines. Malaysia ordered the two diesel-electric submarines from DCN SA (Direction des Constructions Navales), a French manufacturer of warships and submarines and the largest naval shipyard in Europe, in 2002. However, Razak Baginda and Altantuya went to France at the same time Najib did in 2005 to settle details of the purchase.

Perimekar, a company owned by Abdul Razak Baginda, received the €114 million for “coordination and support services” – 11 percent of the sale price of the submarines. Zainal Abidin, then the deputy defense minister, told a parliamentary inquiry that such commissions were commonplace in Malaysia. No further inquiry was made as to the commission, nor was any attempt made to determine what coordination and support services Perimekar might be providing.

However, it might pay to take a look at some other deals in which top French politicians were involved in, some of them along with DCN, and to ask whether all of that €114 actually went to Razak Baginda, or if some, with the complicity of Malaysian politicians, went into the pockets of their French counterparts.

There is plenty of reason to entertain that possibility. French politicians seem to have a knack for backhanders. On October 26, in a trial that centered on illegal arms sales to Angola, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the son of the late president Francois Mitterand, was given a two-year suspended sentence and a €375,000 fine for receiving embezzled funds. The court ruled that he had accepted millions of euros in "consultant fees" on the arms deals between 1993 and 1998. In the dock with him were 42 people accused of selling weapons to Angola in defiance of a UN arms embargo, or of taking payments from the arms dealers and using their influence to facilitate the sales.

The trial, it was said, shined a light into a murky world of secret payments made in cash and discreet deals linking Parisian high society with one of Africa's longest-running wars. But it hasn't shined a light on what happened elsewhere with contracts concluded by the representatives of France, and particularly by DCN. For instance, 11 French engineers employed by DCN, which peddled Malaysia's subs to Pakistan, were blown up in a bus bombing in 2002 which was first thought to have been perpetrated by Islamic militants. The 11 were in Karachi to work on three Agosta 90 B submarines that the Pakistani military had bought in 1994, with payment to be spread over a decade. According to Reuters, commissions were promised to middlemen including Pakistani and Saudi Arabian nationals. Agosta is a subsidiary of DCN.

Two French magistrates, Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier, who were looking into the case on behalf of the victims, said kickbacks ended up in the campaign funds of Edouard Balladur, then the French prime minister and a rival of Jacques Chirac in the 1995 presidential election. The current French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was Balladur's campaign manager as well as budget minister when the contract for the subs was signed.

Although Sarcozy and Balladur have both denied any wrongdoing, a top-secret memo turned up in October 2008 from DCN, which was state-owned at the time of the alleged kickbacks. Copies of the memo were shown on French television. The memo reportedly said France had stopped paying the bribes after Chirac won the 1995 elections despite requests by Pakistani officials for several years afterwards. Eventually, according to the story, the Pakistanis eventually lost patience and orchestrated the bus attack on the Agosta engineers in retaliation. The third submarine ordered and leased by Malaysia was an Agosta.

Another case involves the French company Thales, formerly Thompson-CSF, which sold six DCN-built La Fayette-class 'stealth' frigates to Taiwan in 1992 for US$2.8 billion. The warships, designated Kan Ding by Taiwan, were delivered between 1996 and 1998. The website DefenseNews reported that Taiwan is seeking US$882 million, down from US$1.12 billion on its claim against Thales, according to documents filed with the French market regulator Authorité des Marches Financiers. The update was made to its reference document submitted on April 12.

Taiwan's claim, the website said, is based on allegations that Thales wrongfully paid commissions to agents in the sale of the frigates. Thales said in the filing that it and its industrial partner have consistently contested the claim. A Thales spokesman declined to comment to Reuters beyond the information contained in the filing. Thales was prime contractor on the sale of the frigates, which were built by DCN. If Taiwan won the case, Thales would be liable for 30 percent of the claim, the filing said.

French judges have been investigating corruption allegations arising from the Taiwan contract over a number of years but have made no arrests, notably because documents are protected by defense secrecy laws, which the government refuses to lift. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that at least some of the alleged kickbacks were used as political campaign funds in the French 1995 elections.

At least six people connected with the case have died under suspicious circumstances, including a Taiwan naval captain, Yin Ching-feng, who was found floating off the country's coast, a victim of foul play. Yin is believed to have been killed because he planned to go to the authorities about the case. His nephew, who was also pursuing the case, a Thomson employee in Taiwan and a French intelligence agent were also among the dead. It gradually emerged that some $600 million in commissions had been paid into various Swiss accounts set up by Andrew Wang Chuan-pu, the Taiwan agent forThomson-CSF. In October 2008 a French judge finally ruled that no one could be prosecuted because of lack of evidence.

Peres is a small man, not Richard Goldstone

President Shimon Peres considers Richard Goldstone a "small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence." Same to you, we used to say when we were kids. Indeed, it's amazing to see how aptly these harsh remarks describe Peres himself, a small man, devoid of any sense of justice.

A president who tongue-lashes an internationally acclaimed jurist, a senior representative of the United Nations, mainly attests to his own character. The attacks on Goldstone have devolved; they have become personal and unbridled. When they are uttered by the president, in a meeting with his esteemed Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva no less, it shows we have completely lost our way. Peres fulminated in the name of us all. This is not only a matter of personal etiquette, at which Peres normally excels. This is about the image of a country whose number-one citizen speaks so rudely against a global emissary. That is Peres' "PR mission" that everyone here is cheering.

Goldstone has already chalked up one impressive achievement: We will now think twice or even three times before sending Israeli soldiers out on another brutal attack like Operation Cast Lead. His report will echo in the ears of politicians and generals before they give the order to move out. Perhaps the brutality is not over; certainly this is not a farewell to arms, but there will be new considerations and restraint. Without our admitting it, Goldstone has become the developer of the Israel Defense Forces' new ethics code.

Israel should be grateful to him for this. Unlike the president, the IDF is taking the Goldstone report a bit more seriously: Last week the military advocate general ordered an investigation into 12 incidents in the report. After all, even based on the IDF's greatly lowballed figures, nearly one-third of those killed in Gaza were innocent civilians. Also, the IDF cannot deny bombing flour mills, chicken runs, water and sewage systems, police stations, a school and a hospital. Goldstone told us about it. The call to establish an investigative panel following the report has come only because of Goldstone. The president's sense of justice, in contrast, has not even led him to call for an investigation into incidents the IDF has admitted to.

In the contest over "whose is bigger," Peres will certainly wind up far behind in second place. Peres decried the sense of justice and understanding of jurisprudence of the former justice of South Africa's Constitutional Court, the head of the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa, the chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, a member of the committee that probed Nazi activity in Argentina and chairman of the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo. That criticism of Goldstone comes from a man who has never opened his mouth to condemn human-rights violations in his own country brings Israeli temerity to new heights. Another sorry new record: The president has called for Goldstone to be investigated.

The sense of justice of Peres, who travels the world as an elder statesman and international man of peace, is certainly far less well-honed than Goldstone's. Goldstone has a proven track record. Peres does not. He keeps silent. He always has. Peres does not know what really happened in Gaza. Goldstone was there and interviewed close to 200 eyewitnesses. He may or may not have exaggerated a bit in his report, but Peres' silence over what happened is much more shameful.

Peres is our beautiful and misleading face. Equipped with the ability to delude, one of the founders of the settlement movement has turned into Israel's Mr. Peace. He travels the world, generating admiration for his physical stamina, scattering empty promises and slogans. He calls on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to resign, when he knows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contributed to this resignation by his rejectionist attitude. He calls on Bashar Assad to come to the negotiating table, knowing that the Syrian president is practically begging for peace. A call by the president for the prime minister to freeze settlements or respond to the Syrian challenge? Of course not. That might make someone angry. He only preaches morality to the whole world. A small man? Peres' words.

Gideon Levy, Haaretz.con

Airbus rides the Chinese dragon

TIANJIN, July 1 — In the time it takes to complete the paper work for planning permission in Britain, a factory in Tianjin has been built and is producing passenger jets.

Once a month, an Airbus A320 passenger jet rolls out of an airy hangar on the outskirts of northern port city of Tianjin, China’s window to Western ideas for a century and a half. Within two years these US$72 million (RM255 million) twin-engine jets will be emerging once a week.

The number of French, German, British, and Spanish engineers “shadowing” the local work force will be down to a handful.

By then production of identical models of the A320 workhorse will be tapering off slowly at the Airbus sister plants in Hamburg and Toulouse, starting with a cut from 36 to 34 this autumn.

The Chinese engineers learn fast. This factory kicked off nine months ago, a nanosecond in aviation time. It takes longer in Britain to complete the paper-work for planning permission.

“It’s a miracle,” said Lan Xinguo, head of Sichuan Airlines as he took delivery last week of the first Chinese A320 — splendidly adorned in red with dragons — to the sound of the Star Wars film track.

“What’s been done is beyond our imagination a few years ago.”

Lawrence Barron, head of Airbus China, said Tianjin jets are geared to voracious demand from local airlines, at least — and here comes the kicker — “in the early years”. There is no reason why an Indian, Australian, or European airline should not buy a Tianjin jet one day.

It is an odd arrangement. The Tianjin plant is a joint venture with China’s Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC), the 430,000-strong spearhead of China’s drive to be an aeronautics superpower.

AVIC in turn holds a stake in the Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (COMAC) which has already launched its own Chinese-designed regional jet, the 90-seat ARJ-21.

Under the Communist Party’s 13th “Five-Year Plan”, it now aims to challenge the West head on with a 180-seat jet. “We believe after six to eight years development, our aircraft will overtake Boeing and Airbus,” said COMAC chairman Zhang Qinqwei last year.

Airbus is taking a big gamble. It is clearly sharing technology with an octopus-like network of state-led enterprises (some linked to the military) that openly boast rival ambitions.

Yet it is a risk that Europe’s planemaker believes it must take to win the aviation jackpot of the next twenty years, an estimated market for 2,800 big jets and 470 freighters worth US$300 billion.

“There is no co-operaration without technology transfer,” said Tom Enders, Airbus chief. “We are protecting what matters most. And whatever happens, I have no doubt that a great and ambitious nation like China — that is already able to send men to space and bring them back home safely — is one day going to build its own aircraft anyway,” he said.

Safeguarding secrets is not easy. The aging A320 dates back to the late 1980s, but China is also insisting on a 5 per cent share of the new A350 XWB. Chinese engineers are working on advanced composite materials in Beijing.

For now, Airbus in enjoying the downpayment on this deal — a cascade of fresh orders for 410 jets worth US$36bn from China’s aviation authority — although Boeing is pulling in Chinese orders, too, and many are wide-body jets with a higher value.

The Americans are watching the Airbus venture uneasily from the sidelines. Boeing buys parts from Chinese suppliers but has stopped short of full assembly. But then the Americans have been burned before. McDonnell Douglas came awry on its venture building the MD-82 in Shanghai in the early 1990s, misjudging the shifting political currents in Beijing.

Brazil’s Embraer came to grief too. Richard Aboulafia from Teal Group consultants said Airbus China risks the same fate.

“The last efforts were disasters, so perhaps it’s third time lucky. I think this is a fool’s game. Anybody can assemble a jet and put their flag on it. The real value added is in the components,” he said.

As yet, the Airbus work at Tianjin is final stage assembly, putting together the fuselage, wings, engines, tails, noses, and doors imported from Europe.

“We’re talking about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the value added,” said Maurice Chretien, a floor manager in Tianjin.

But the picture is changing fast. Rear passenger doors and the nose landing gear for the A320 family are made in Chengdu, emergency exit doors, wing ribs and edges in Shenyang, cargo doors in Shanghai, and wing boxes and brake blades in Shaanxi.

It is the Airbus “Wing Cooperation Agreement” with China that most worries workers at the UK wing plant at Broughton in North Wales. For the time being, Broughton is still “Big Brother”. The Chinese parts are sent back to Wales for refinement — a costly way to do business.

Under the next phase, the Chinese wing parts will never leave Asia. They will be equipped and tested in Tianjin instead. Enders is brutally honest.

“The UK is the supplier of wings for the Airbus family but that doesn’t mean the Chinese can’t build a good wing. As long as the UK maintains competitive working conditions, Wales is OK,” he said.

Airbus is coy about how much it pays staff in China. Chretien says cheap labour is more myth than reality.

“It is an illusion that you find well-qualified people for nothing in China. I have a laser tracker specialist who earns just 20 per cent less than his Toulouse colleague here to coach him. The cost advantage is thin,” he said.

Airbus workers in Europe can be forgiven for harbouring doubts. The Chinese yuan is up to 50 per cent undervalued against the euro, and China is graduating 600,000 engineers each year. Unless something radical changes in the currency and trade structure of globalisation, Chinese labour will be very hard to beat for years to come.

Europe cannot buck history. China will strive to be an aeronautics powerhouse whatever Airbus does. By taking the plunge, the company can at least hope to lash its fortunes to the world’s rising force for a quarter century.

Take chances where you can. — The Daily Telegraph