Category: Liberty

Categories
Education Liberty Society

[1877] Mengenai pemerkasaan minda

Di zaman dahulu kala di Yunani, bidang logik, tatabahasa dan retorik perlu dikuasai sebelum seseorang itu melangkah ke tahap pendidikan yang lebih tinggi. Dikenali secara kolektif sebagai trivium, sukatan ini bertujuan untuk memperkasakan seseorang individu itu dengan membolehkannya memiliki pemikiran yang berdikari.

Adalah mudah untuk memahami mengapa sukatan trivium disediakan untuk memperkasakan minda seorang manusia. Bidang logik mengajar tentang batu asas cara berfikir. Bidang tatabahasa pula bersangkut-paut dengan bagaimanakah cara untuk melahirkan hasil sesuatu pemikiran manakala bidang retorik menyentuh tentang kaedah penyampaikan pemikiran.

Walaupun tamadun Yunani sudah lama terkubur untuk memberi laluan kepada tamadun-tamadun yang lebih hebat, falsafah pendidikan trivium terus hidup ke zaman kontemporari sebagai falsafah pendidikan liberal. Pendidikan liberal, seperti sukatan trivium, bertujuan untuk mengasah keupayaan intelektual manusia. Matlamat ini adalah penting bagi meruntuhkan segala kongkongan kebudayaan yang berasaskan kepada ketakutan yang timbul daripada kejahilan.

Minda manusia yang tidak terlatih akan terperangkap di dalam pemikiran yang kolot kerana dia akan terikat kepada tradisi yang diwarisi. Tanpa minda yang terlatih, seseorang itu akan mengikuti sesuatu tradisi itu tanpa usul periksa hanya kerana sesuatu perbuatan itu telah diamalkan sejak dari dahulu lagi. Dia akan gagal melahirkan soalan-soalan yang penting untuk memahami dan merasionalkan amalan-amalan tradisional. Tanpa soalan-soalan tersebut, status quo, termasuk amalan-amalan lapuk yang tidak berguna akan berterusan bersama dengan amalan-amalan yang baik.

Tanpa soalan dan dengan kesetiaan yang buta, golongan ini bagaikan lembu yang hidungnya ditarik. Ke mana jua ia ditarik, di situ juga akan mereka pergi tanpa sebarang persoalan, walaupun destinasinya adalah sebuah rumah penyembelihan di mana kezaliman bakal berlaku.

Ini amat menguntungkan kepada mereka yang mendapat manfaat daripada pelanjutan pengamalan tradisi secara membuta tuli. Mereka ini akan mencipta pelbagai cerita dongengan yang menceritakan akibat-akibat buruk yang akan melanda sesiapa yang berani mencabar naratif yang sedia ada. Dengan minda yang kurang cekap, individu-individu akan menerima naratif tersebut. Sekali gus, batasan didirikan.

Jika ada kumpulan minoriti yang mencabar tradisi, lembu-lembunya tersebut akan dipergunakan untuk bertindak ke atas pencabar-pencabar pemikiran tradisional. Lembu, tanpa keupayaan untuk berfikir dengan sendirinya, tidak akan mendengar apa-apa hujah yang dilontar. Ini adalah sebab utama pendidikan menjadi agenda penting di dalam masyarakat yang liberal. Masyarakat liberal tidak mampu ditampung tanpa pendidikan yang memperkasakan minda.

Tiada masyarakat yang benar-benar merdeka selagi ahli-ahlinya masih dijajah oleh orang lain, baik bangsa asing ataupun bangsa sendiri. Tiada individu itu benar-benar merdeka selagi mindanya tidak bebas. Kejahilan, ketakutan dan kezaliman akan sentiasa menguasai sesuatu masyarakat itu selagi ahli-ahlinya tidak mampu atau tidak mahu memiliki pemikiran yang berdikari.

Falsafah pendidikan liberal mampu melahirkan satu masyarakat yang majoritinya mempunyai pemikiran yang berdikari kerana sistem ini menggalakkan pelajar-pelajar mempersoalkan segalanya tanpa batasan.

Di sinilah di mana sistem pendidikan Malaysia yang sedia ada mengalami kegagalan.

Di negara ini, kita terlampau taksub di dalam usaha kita untuk menambah bilangan jurutera, doktor dan pelbagai lagi pakar bagi menyokong pertumbuhan ekonomi. Demi memenuhi keperluan-keperluan ini, kita melihat pengkhususan aliran dari awal lagi lalu mengetepikan agenda pembinaan intelektual. Akhirnya, kita mengeluarkan robot yang mampu melakukan pengiraan-pengiraan rumit tanpa memahami konteks.

Kadang-kala, kita perlu belajar merangkak dahulu sebelum berjalan dan berlari. Ini amat penting di dalam mewujudkan satu sistem pendidikan yang ingin melahirkan insan kamil. Perkara-perkara asas yang disarankan oleh pendidikan liberal perlu dimahiri dahulu bagi menyediakan minda pelajar untuk menelaah bidang-bidang yang lebih tinggi yang memerlukan daya pemikiran yang kompleks.

Seperti pepatah Melayu, melentur buluh, biarlah dari rebung ini. Falsafah pendidikan liberal hanya akan berkesan jika falsafah ini diterapkan di peringkat pendidikan rendah, di tahap awal pendidikan seseorang insan.

Jika batu asas gagal diperbetulkan, manakan menara yang tinggi mampu berdiri dengan lama. Kegagalan individu untuk menguasai kemahiran asas untuk berfikir, menulis dan bertutur secara baik sebelum beredar ke peringkat yang lebih tinggi akan hanya menggalakkan pelajar-pelajar menerima apa sahaja yang ditulis di dalam buku, di papan putih dan apa sahaja yang dipercakapkan oleh guru-guru. Tanpa kemahiran asas ini, minda tidak dapat diperkasakan.

Apatah lagi apabila sistem pendidikan Malaysia sendiri hanya menyembahkan fakta-fakta untuk diingati tanpa menggalakkan pelajar-pelajar sendiri berfikir untuk tiba ke satu kesimpulan. Pembezaan, evolusi, jadual berkala, momentum antara lain semuanya diterangkan sebagai satu kebenaran. Walaupun tamadun manusia telah berjaya memahami semua ini, ini tidak bermaksud bahawa perkara-perkara ini harus diperkenalkan kepada pelajar-pelajar sebagai satu kebenaran.

Sebaliknya, adalah penting mereka bermula dengan semangat skeptikisme. Seperti Socrates hampir dua setengah ribu tahun yang lalu, pelajar-pelajar harus mencapai kesimpulan hanya setelah menanyakan satu siri soalan yang mana guru hanya memainkan peranan sebagai seorang koordinator dan bukan sebagai sumber maklumat seperti yang lazimnya. Ini melatih minda untuk berdikari.

Pembentukan budaya minda berdikari dan perkasa akan melenyapkan ketakutan yang timbul daripada kejahilan. Lama-kelamaan, pelajar-pelajar akan berani mencabar segala perkara atas semangat ingin tahu.

Pendidikan liberal bukan sahaja membina intelek seseorang dengan memberikannya dengan alatan asas untuk berfikir, menulis dan bertutur. Sistem pendidikan liberal memberikan pelajar-pelajar peluang untuk membuat keputusan dengan fakultinya sendiri. Ini datang dengan menggalakkan pelajar-pelajar mendalami minat mereka dan bukan hanya melalui laluan yang disediakan oleh orang lain.

Oleh kerana arah yang dituju ditentukan oleh mereka sendiri, pelajar-pelajar akan secara sukarela untuk memikul tanggungjawab peribadi mereka sendiri. Secara tidak langsung, ini melahirkan seorang individu yang bukan saja diperkasakan dengan minda yang tajam, malah seorang individu yang sedar akan kesan tindakannya ke atas diri sendiri.

Semua ini membentuk satu individu yang perkasa, mampu untuk menentukan halatuju hidupnya. Mindanya sentiasa terbuka dan tidak mudah menjadi mangsa kezaliman. Sebagai unit asas masyarakat, individu yang perkasa dapat mewujudkan dan menampung satu masyarkat yang liberal.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

Tulisan ini telah terdahulunya diterbitkan di Project Malaysia pada Januari 16 2009.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1875] Of time to kill it

I am sympathetic to the Pakatan Rakyat. I helped one of their candidates during the last general elections and I hang around with people from Pakatan too often. That however does not mean that I need to agree with every little thing the component parties of the Pakatan hold. I for one categorically oppose implementation of hudud as it currently being proposed and indeed, the imposition of any religious ideal upon free individuals. For this reason, I am afraid that I have to write this, especially after Anwar Ibrahim states that PKR would not reject hudud outright and that it would only be application to Muslims. I would like both PAS and PKR to be punished for their position on hudud.

Before anything else, the importance of this election has been grossly overblown. It means nothing to both BN and Pakatan on the margin. Victory by any side does not change the balance of power in the Dewan Rakyat. BN will still hold the majority power at the end of the day.

A win by PAS will of course reduce the number of seats Pakatan requires to takeover the federal government via mass defection of BN members of Parliament to Pakatan. However, if there is anyone among us who still believes in that possibility, all I can say is that winter has passed and summer is nigh. Wake up and smell the roses.

Even within Pakatan, this election is meaningless on the margin. A win by PAS does nothing in rearranging the fact that PAS is the junior partner. PKR and DAP will remain the bigger component parties in Pakatan regardless of the outcome for the Kuala Terengganu by-election.

For BN, is this a referendum on the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak since that he is the designated Prime Minister of Malaysia come this March?

I am always wary of a small by-election with an awfully limited and biased sample being used as a referendum of national proportions. Not only turning this little by-election into a national referendum is statistically flawed, the BN candidate has been labeled as the BN President’s man rather than Najib Razak’s.

And of course, this by-election is not a referendum on hudud either. Hudud, as journalists on the ground have it, is hardly an issue at all. Bread-and-butter matters dominate the list of concerns of the electorate.

The issue of hudud itself cropped out almost by accident. It seemed almost like a trap set by Khairy Jamaluddin on Husam Musa in a public forum in Kota Bahru back in December. The former asked the latter if PAS would implement hudud if the party became part of the federal government. If it was a trap in the first place, Husam Musa certainly took the bait by answering it in the positive. Immediately after that, BN, especially MCA, has been milking the issue ever since.

I would like to risk digression by stating that, with little backbone, MCA hardly has the moral authority to question DAP’s position on hudud. MCA should ask UMNO on items like the use of Chinese language, on Chinese school and on Ketuanan Melayu among other things. Or even hudud for that matter.

The courageousness of MCA notwithstanding, it is with great regret that the wedge is being driven in between Pakatan so deeply at the most inopportune time much to the benefit of BN. Hudud is exactly the same issue which brought Barisan Alternatif to its demise some years ago. Hudud has been the item that plagues the unity between DAP, PKR and PAS and it is because of this hudud needs to be erased from the agenda of Pakatan.

After some years since the collapse of Barisan Alternatif, Anwar Ibrahim brought everybody far and wide together sufficiently tightly to stand up against BN. What Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad identified as big tent politics worked beyond skeptics’ wildest dreams. What happened next was sheer delight: March 8 2008 radically changed the whole dynamic of suffocating local politics, thanks to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. BN was downright humbled.

It has been more than 10 months now since the last general election and the scenario of January 2009 is very different from March 2008. The same impetus to support PAS as part of the Pakatan coalition is simply not there. Win or lose, January 17 in Kuala Terengganu simply does not share or even come near to the significance and the urgency of March 8. Therefore, those who disagree with PAS have the luxury to not come to the aid of PAS. Pakatan simply can afford to lose the by-election simply because the election is meaningless.

While Kuala Terengganu is not a referendum on hudud, it certainly could give some signal that could alter future actions. The right signal — a loss to PAS — could inform future election campaigns not to put hudud on the agenda. A loss in Kuala Terengganu for Pakatan could kill hudud off as an agenda of Pakatan for a very long time and hence, save the coalition from future disaster that befell upon Barisan Alternatif.

And the stage in Kuala Terengganu offers the opportunity for a kill since non-Muslims are seen as the kingmakers there.

This is where the idea that hudud only affects Muslims comes into play. The idea aims to reduce apprehension the non-Muslim community in voting PAS while the party advocates for the implementation of hudud, regardless of its afterthought qualifications. In order to kill off hudud as an agenda of Pakatan and save Pakatan from the fate of Barisan Alternatif, the repulsive idea that the non-Muslim community is decoupled from the Muslim community must be killed first.

The problem with the argument hudud only affects Muslims assumes that all Muslims are for the implementation of hudud. I definitely would not mind if hudud is implemented as long as individuals, and not at the community level, could choose between hudud — and truly, sharia — and secular civil laws. I would not mind if hudud is implemented as long as I could choose between hudud and secular civil law. Under the current proposal, I and many others do not get that choice.

I have also mentioned this before but just to stress it again, the argument that non-Muslims need not worry with the implementation of hudud also builds unnecessary walls among Malaysians, further dividing an already divided society. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine how the minority will be left unaffected if there is great development within the majority community.

If the non-Muslims are prepared to buy that argument set forth by PAS and PKR that hudud only concerns Muslims while ignoring the fact that under the proposal, Muslims who prefer secular environment instead would be forcefully subjected to religious laws, well, perhaps we all should put blind eyes to each other’s problems. If my problem is not yours, then the discrimination that the non-Malays suffer is not my problem either. Each time you suffer injustice, too bad because it shall not be mine. Those are non-Muslim problem and so, why should I care at all?

Is that the new arrangement you prefer? Shall we make that as the basis of our social contract, our new constitution?

If the answer is no, then PAS must lose in Kuala Terengganu. It is regrettable that implication is victory for BN especially when it is becoming clear that BN has learned nothing from March 8. Nevertheless, I am unwilling to sacrifice my ideal for too much political expediency. There is such thing as a limit and this whole issue on hudud, as especially the argument brought forward by PAS and supported by PKR, has gone over and beyond mine.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on January 12 2009.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1868] Of they want to divide us, rule over us and steal from us

It is common for advocates of a greater role for Islam in the public sphere in Malaysia to hold the position that any such expansion concerns only Muslims and no one else. Since it concerns only Muslims and hence internal matters, others identified as outsiders need not be concerned or participate in any discussion about the expansion.

While it is an attractive take on the issue — especially in a country like Malaysia where racial and religious issues are a powder keg — because it minimizes the potential for inter-communal exchange, it insidiously threatens individual liberty.

When the religious edicts on tomboys and yoga were issued, ABIM expressed its dissatisfaction against adherents of other beliefs criticizing the rulings. In the matter of implementation of hudud, PAS tried to coax the non-Muslims from opposing the party by stating only Muslims would come under the jurisdiction of such a law. Others who share a religious conservative outlook but have little or no association with ABIM or PAS have aired similar views.

The underlying rationale that outsiders need not worry is the idea that a community is presumed to be homogenous and specific rules apply to the community. Those outside of the community have no locus standi in expressing their opinion on the internal matters of the community.

In the case of those sympathizing with the argument of ABIM and PAS, the homogeneity is based on being Muslims. Or rather, more accurately, the prerequisite for membership into the community is for one to be recorded as a Muslim by the state. Actual personal belief itself is mostly irrelevant since the Constitution of Malaysia establishes Malays as automatically Muslims. Sincere conscience is only a childish concern belonging to the Wonderland where Alice lives.

Upon the clear demarcation of this imaginary boundary, it sets the stage for them to impose religious rules over the community. What the limitation does is that it shuts out considerable opposition to the agenda of expansion from participating in the debate on the roles of religion in the public sphere. In doing so, it weakens the group of individuals deemed as insiders opposing the expansion, which erodes individual liberty through legitimization of coercion to create uniformity. It separates the liberty-conscious individuals from their allies, forcing those who guard their liberty jealously to stand alone against tyranny. After all, the best way to transgress individual rights is to use majority power to bully the minority.

The creation of an insider-outsider dichotomy and exclusion of outsiders from participating in the supposedly internal discussion is also a sign of intolerance of criticism. Rather than deal with the criticism through frank discussion, voices other than theirs are suppressed.

This division is a classic case of divide and rule. It was applied by the colonial administrators of the 19th- and 20th-century Malaya in order to keep the locals easier to manage. Barisan Nasional with its racial-based political parties continued to practice the same policy to much success until recently. Now, here we are witnessing yet another group trying to do the same thing all over again.

It is through divide and rule that those pushing for greater roles of religion in public space insist that a community — the Muslim community in Malaysia — has a right to manage its own affairs without intervention from outsiders. Following the same track, these advocates would like to have the community be regulated by a standard which they would like to see imposed on all individuals unlucky enough to be deemed by them as members of the community.

These advocates may seem to fight for their community’s interest. There is nothing wrong in promoting the interest of a community in itself however but the danger here is when that interest flagrantly infringes on individual rights. It is worse when the promoters claim to fight for the community when a significant fraction within the community itself vehemently disagrees with the agenda of the promoters.

When the interest of any group seeks to submit individuals to the group’s desire, the interest has just turned into a form of oppression.

Oppression is not an exclusive concern of those labeled as Muslims and it certainly is not a concept exclusive to this issue. It could happen anywhere and anytime. It could happen in any community.

There are various diverse communities in this country but when there is threat against individual liberty in any community, then there is only one big community and that community is Malaysian society. Niemöller’s “First They Came”¦” poem succinctly describes why that is true.

Besides, those recognized as Muslims by the state undoubtedly make up the majority of the population. How is it possible for anybody to honestly believe that the minority groups would be left unaffected when something happens to the majority? Have we forgotten the controversy revolving around religious conversion or morals?

Most disappointingly, the argument set forth by the advocates is trapped in a communal worldview. Everything must be viewed in terms of community. This narrow worldview generalizes the individuals as drones, incapable of individuality. This is perhaps the legacy of years of the implementation of the divide and rule policy either by the British colonialist or Barisan Nasional.

The greatest victims are the individuals, and individuals must transcend the self-limiting communal thinking. The so-called internal matter ceases to be internal when it threatens individual liberty.

The transcendence, if it has not begun yet, begins by rejecting the rationale that outsiders have no standing to comment on the supposedly internally matters of the local Muslim community. It is imperative for the argument be rejected for its naive flaws, thrown out of the window for its frightening implications and into the fire for its insidious intents, especially when it adversely affects individual liberty.

And here is where the irony sets in. While the advocates seek to shut what they consider as outsiders out from discussions, they themselves are busy trying to regulate the moral and beliefs of private individuals. These advocates need to take a hard look into the mirror before labeling others as outsiders. The reason is that the only insider is the individual and everything else is the outsider, especially the busybody.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on December 29 2009.

Categories
Events Liberty

[1866] Of Freedom Academy 2009

The libertarian Malaysia Think Tank is organizing its second Freedom Academy this coming January.

Globalisation and the free market are taking a bashing. The global economic turmoil has resulted in claims that we are looking at the end of capitalism. And, for many years we have been told that globalization, trade liberalization, and capitalism are bad for the poor and for developing countries generally. But what does free market capitalism really entail? Are the criticisms justified?

University students, graduates, and young professionals from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Brunei are invited to attend Malaysia Think Tank’s second Freedom Academy which will be held on 16 — 18 January 2009 (Friday — Sunday) at Residence Hotel, UNITEN, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

At this Freedom Academy participants will study in depth the true meaning and morality of capitalism, how globalisation has brought prosperity to developing economies, and why free market capitalism is still the way for forward.

Speakers from India, Pakistan, China and the United Kingdom will provide thorough and detailed analysis of how free market capitalism has benefited developing countries.

We are particularly looking for those sympathetic to, or are curious about, libertarian and classical liberal ideas.

Come and enjoy the Freedom Academy! You will be challenged intellectually and you will get an invaluable opportunity to network with like-minded friends. [Freedom Academy January 2009. 2008]

Deadline for application falls on Monday, January 5 2009.

If you are interested, kindly visit WauBebas.org.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty Society

[1848] Of Sultan of Selangor’s definition recalls the Malay Annals

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah of Selangor defines the social contract as “compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.”[1]

This is a new definition when compared to the typical understanding of the subject. The conventional understanding refers to the willingness of the Malays to accept various non-native migrants as citizens on the condition that the special position of the Malays is respected always.[2]

I do not agree to such unwritten contract. The only contract I hold is the non-aggression axiom, which in many ways given the current environment, it satisfyingly embedded in the Constitution. There is room for improvement but the Constitution does provide a good point to begin any journey of similar nature.

If such social contract as conventionally defined really had existed, it would be outdated anyway and incapable of moving this country forward. It unfairly condemns newer generations to mistakes of the past.

My opinion notwithstanding, the definition employed by the Sultan, while new, actually tries to reach back as far as the time the Malay Annals was compiled and edited by Tun Sri Lanang in the early 17th century in Johor. The concept of a contract between the king and the people was articulated by the Malay Annals more than 100 years earlier than Rousseau, the author whom popularized the actual term “social contract”.[3][4]

In the Malay Annals, the so-called contract between the monarchy and the Malays is mentioned during a conversation between Sri Tri Buana, the Prince and Demang Lebar Daun, the minister representing the Malays in time when Palembang was the center of the Malay universe.[5]

Sri Tri Buana as claimed by the Malay Annals traced his lineage back to Alexander the Great. The veracity of the claim made by Tun Sri Lanang in the Malay classic is suspect but such claim is typical of effort to legitimize the rule of any monarchy, including that of Johor. Tun Sri Lanang was the Bendahara, or the Prime Minister, within the royal court of Johor at the time and the Sultan of Johor then was the direct descendant of the last Sultan of Malacca originated from the royal court of Palembang.

As one can see, even without the grand claim to Alexander, the lineage of the Sultan of Johor at that time was already impressive, reaching back to the days of Srivijaya. But Tun Sri Lanang needed to reposition the royal line to assume more Islamic tone while discarding the Buddhist and Hindu past.

Back to the conversation, Sri Tri Buana was requesting for the hand of Demang Lebar Daun’s daughter in marriage. The marriage here is really symbolic to the partnership between the royalty and the Malay people.

The latter would only consent to the marriage if the Prince would agree to two conditions. Firstly, the daughter must never be banished from the palace. The second condition demands, as translated by Sabri Zain,[6] “the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty’s throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law.”

The Prince quickly agreed to the conditions.

Upon agreeing to the condition, Sri Tri Buana wanted Demang Lebar in return to agree “that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them.”

Both further agreed that if one or the other departed from the undertakings, the pact would become undone by itself.

But is that the Malaysian social contract?

It seems as if the idea from the Malay Annals is being combined to the conventional definition.

Like the idea of Bangsa Malaysia, the Malaysian social contract is becoming so nebulous that it basically could assume so many definitions. As for me, I have mentioned before, I prefer the simpler non-aggression axiom.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — SHAH ALAM, Nov 30 — De facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday blamed Prime Ministergo to table a motion of no confidence against the government. [Social contract means compromise, Selangor Sultan explains. Leslie Lau. The Malaysian Insider. December 7 2008]

[2] — See Social Contract (Malaysia) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[3] — See Malay Annals at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[4] — See Social Contract (Rousseau) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[5] — Page 25 – 26. Sulalatus Salatin: Sejarah Melayu. Tun Sri Lanang. Edited by A. Samad Ahmad. Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka. 1997

[6] — Sejarah Melayu: A History of the Malay Peninsula. The Tuah Legend. Sabri Zain. Accessed December 9 2008.