Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Talk less, listen harder
Sabah gov’t housing policy more for aliens?
Cyberbattle to own the ‘truth'
Make Up Your Mind, Electoral Commission
Why did the police do what they did?
Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #73

Posted: 16 Jul 2011 04:38 PM PDT

The rakyat is the boss and, political affiliations aside, politicians had better start listening to the boss.

Young Malaysians want to see their leaders with rolled-up sleeves on stage taking on questions relating to issues affecting their daily lives. They want to tell our leaders how they are coping with the increase in cost of living and how they have to sacrifice their sleep and leave their homes early to beat the increasingly bad traffic jams.

ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI, The Star

THE country needs more people like Mohd Nur Ismail Mohamed Kamal, the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) chief, and Datuk Seri Idris Jala, head of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu).

The two are not afraid to face angry crowds at meetings where people have heaped criticisms, made unreasonable demands and often vented their anger at the Government. The participants are often the urban middle class who are outspoken.

From MRT stations to transformation plans to key performance indicators, they have spoken about the grand plans for development that are being rolled out.

Generally, their explanations made sense to their listeners, but at times people became lost when they delved into the details. But there is one common feature at such town house meetings – the two are ready to listen to the public.

The people want to be heard and not be talked down to. This is what many of our politicians do not seem to realise.

If non-politicians like Mohd Nur Ismail and Idris are able to take the heat, there is no reason why some of our politicians should prefer the safer way by delivering speeches, often mundane and unimaginative ones, at the rostrums.

Both have set the standards by putting their views and also the input of the people on websites, and setting up toll-free lines for ideas and suggestions, in the case of SPAD. They also hold exhibitions to show the rakyat what they have.

They want to talk about the need to provide more trains to take them home after work, how to make their neighbourhoods safe and about their children's education.

How many of our leaders know the price of onions, chicken or chilli at the markets despite professing to represent the common people?

The rakyat will be sufficiently satisfied if our leaders can listen, respond with decent answers, come back to see them again and, if they screw up, to just have the decency to apologise and stop being defensive.

We are not interested in 100-storey buildings, stupid political quarrels, whether wives should be obedient to their husbands in bed or racist tirades from political dinosaurs like Datuk Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa.

The bread and butter issues matter most to Malaysians – nothing more, nothing less.

The trouble with most politicians is that once they hold the microphones, they cannot let go. But they had better learn to pass the microphones to their listeners more.

Young people have seen a dressed-down US President Barack Obama at meetings with the people. Never mind if the occasions are part of some clever public relations exercise, these are powerful visual messages.

Even the straight-laced Chinese leaders who don't have to worry about elections also realise the need to be seen conducting such intimate meetings, where even the bodyguards know how to move away from the cameras. In both instances, new standards have been set.

Such images give these leaders a more caring and down-to-earth persona and project them as keen to listen, instead of being aloof or in a hurry and are only interested in a photo opportunity with aimless handshakes.

Young Malaysians, especially those whose jobs require them to make presentations to their clients to clinch business deals, have reasons to be critical when they listen to their leaders.

Many of our leaders, to these young professionals, fall way short of their expectations and the result is that they do not have respect for the leaders.

The young have become more outspoken, more articulate, and they demand greater democratic space.

Their world view is certainly very much in contrast to the older leaders. And if the latter equates the demand for greater democratic space with chaos and disloyalty to the country, then it would be a costly political error. Again, it would be another case of politicians not listening hard enough or even bothering to listen.

The country can also do away with certain pompous ministers who demand that their subordinates greet them at the airport. One or two are known to throw tantrums when they are not accorded such respect, and they insist that their staff spend an entire day moving around with them when they are making state visits. Moving around in an entourage seems to give them a sense of self importance.

Worse is to call for press conferences when they really have nothing new or anything sensible to say. Often, it is a case of talking for the sake of talking.

Malaysian taxpayers would also be very thankful if they could see an end to the elaborate dances and greetings for politicians at every function, and the 15-minute salutation to address the never ending list of Tan Sris, Datuk Seris, Datuks and Datins. What's wrong with just "tuan-tuan dan puan-puan"? Can we just get to the point so we can all get back to our work, please?

Neither should we be paying for those huge billboards showing the faces of our leaders. There is no difference between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat leaders when it comes to such ego trips.

The bottom line is the rakyat is the boss – it's that simple. So, regardless of their political affiliations, our politicians had better start listening hard instead of just talking too hard.

Sabah gov’t housing policy more for aliens?

Posted: 16 Jul 2011 03:00 PM PDT

It is well known that the little Napoleons at the Tuaran District Council, possibly under instruction, almost never gave application forms to those who were KDMs, by saying "Borang habis!" Could the Tuaran District Council, the assemblyman of Sulaman Datuk Hajiji Mohd. Noor, the Member of Parliament of Tuaran Datuk Wilfred M. Bumburing, give a racial breakdown of the occupants of Telipok Ria, and Seri Rugading?

DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN

The recent announcement by Datuk Madius Tangau that the state government was forming three committees to look into three important problems in Sabah, namely citizenship and immigrants, land affairs, and political appointment/power sharing, clearly showed it was a belated plan by a neglectful or a failed government. After being in power since 1994, the BN state government is indirectly admitting it had failed in these three areas. By saying the formation of the committees was agreed to in a recent state BN meeting, Tangau raised the question of why the announcement was made by Upko and not by the BN.

Was BN or Umno reluctant with the formation of these committees to look into sensitive matters and was reluctant to announce it? And was Upko announcing it as a means to force the BN to admit to the formation of these committees? Why was there no response or confirmation about it from the BN and other BN components?

The three committees are long overdue, formed at a time when the issue of housing and real property ownership in Sabah had become very serious. Only recently the very embarrassing case of a single mother and her children living in a dilapidated house without any basic amenities and without a proper kitchen was exposed with the intervention of the wife of the Prime Minister. To address the housing woes, the Prime Minister, in the last national budget, promised assistances to newly employed Malaysians to own their first houses. But that promise may be just hot air because with the high and accelerating inflation in the nation today, the problem of house ownership is impossible for most young people. And mre so for the KDMs, but more on that later.

Last March, the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) published a statement pointing to the fact that because of "typically low starting salary, young adults, professionals and semi-professionals alike are experiencing an unfair disadvantage compared to their counterparts in other, if not most states in Malaysia, especially that of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. This is so, even when Sabah has one of the highest costs of living of any states in Malaysia."

SAPP gave a calculation of living expenditures for a single person earning RM2,000 per month which included EPF deduction and Socso deduction, car loan (for a Myvi at RM430 per month for nine years), mobile phone, petrol, water and electricity, foods and drinks, personal and car insurance, and room rental, all of which leave the wage earner a paltry balance of RM150 per month. SAPP calculated that these expenses "does not even include costs of vehicle maintenance, Astro and Streamyx subscriptions, cooking gas, shampoos and soaps, house maintenance and miscellaneous" and that the wage earner would need 25 years to save "just to have enough to make a 10 percent deposit to buy a house costing RM 400,000."

Madius had admitted that the government has been treating local squatters and favouring immigrants, saying that "instead of evicting them (squatters who are Sabahans), they (the government) should be more proactive like providing all these local squatters a place in the people's housing programme (Program Perumahan Rakyat), instead of giving these home units to non-locals of whom many are foreigners based on their looks and so on."

Citing the cases in Tuaran, he said that many PPR units were built but at the end of the day "we see more non-locals, believed to be foreigners, than locals living in the PPR. And now it is very clear, as the police are having problems in Tuaran in controlling the crime rate, especially in the Telipok Ria and Seri Rugading areas which are now considered crime hotspots in the district." It's been reported that in Seri Rugading fights between locals and immigrants are common and the Tuaran police have become tired of it.

In November last year, Assistant Resource Development and Information Technology Minister Datuk Jainab Ahmad Ayid announced the shifting of fire victims from Lembaga Padi squatter area to the Telipok Ria apartments, saying, the deposit for moving into the apartments were waived, and "My officers had been very thorough in identifying eligible recipients for the housing scheme. We make sure only Malaysians will get the assistance." But a simple visit to Telipok Ria would confirm that she was LYING with these assurance because the percentage of the immigrant population of the housing area is really alarming. In fact the immigrants are the majority in these housing areas. How did this happen?

I have also been informed that those few locals who have received their apartments in these areas can no longer tolerate the noise, rubbish, human wastes and thefts they have to face there, and are seriously planning to leave.

While I believe that Upko is sincere in trying to help the locals in the matter of housing and land ownership, I strongly doubt if the state BN (or Umno) will listen to Upko. I also believe that the three committees will not achieve anything meaningful. Somehow some people from somewhere will stall meetings or delay implementation of meeting decisions. And even if the committees become active, how much can it do before the next election comes, and the whole thing will be conveniently forgotten? The best that Upko can do is to form its own task force and aggressively carry out its own investigations and reveal the statistics and the hard political realities that corrupt the housing policy of the state government, including the way the PPRT and the e-Kasih programme are implemented.

These programmes have been heavily criticised as very biased towards certain political supporters, and even aliens. After all, Upko has been very aggressive, to the point of playing brinkmanship, in its fight for justice in other areas so far, so why should it compromise on the matter of housing and land matters? Also, we all know that the arrangement in the state BN puts the Upko at a disadvantaged where decision making is concerned because all the top posts in the state BN committee are held by Umno leaders.

Cyberbattle to own the ‘truth'

Posted: 15 Jul 2011 03:46 PM PDT

The truth' is still out there in cyberspace where the Bersih 2.0 rally is concerned.

Pakatan had always enjoyed a well-oiled social media network. It was first seen in action during Anwar's black eye incident and later in the first sodomy trial and subsequently the purported arsenic poisoning.

BARADAN KUPPUSAMY, The Star

THE Bersih 2.0 rally might be over but the battle to own its truth is still being fought over social media which had become a fierce battleground.

People from both sides of the political divide have weighed in with their experiences of July 9 on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and so forth.

Some of the things uploaded now include a video clip of a man who had supposedly died, a hospital that was blasted with water cannons and a PKR activist who died of a heart problem during the rally but his death was blamed on the police.

The person who faked his death on video has been traced and identified as an Al-Arqam member from Selangor. He is said to have run off when the police sent him to hospital.

Then a supposedly "Chinese man" was seen holding a loud hailer for the man (said to fake his death) as he prayed. Eventually, the "Chinese man" had been exposed as a Selangor PKR man who is a Malay. A blogger posted his picture for viewers to judge for themselves.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, meanwhile, was seen grimacing in hospital after the rally but his detractors scoffed at the images.

Umno Youth's Patriot group appears to have been 'outsourced' to Bangladeshis to make up the 500-strong crowd

It's a war zone out there in cyberspace. The Pakatan Rakyat appears to be winning at times; at other times, the Barisan Nasional.

One of the prominent websites at that time was the Free Anwar website managed by Raja Petra Kamaruddin. It did Anwar a great favour and is also credited with helping to free him in 2004.

Pakatan was always a step ahead of Barisan in exploiting the developments in social media.

During the years since the Free Anwar website, Anwar himself led in the fight to exploit social media for its powerful ability to connect disparate people.

Today, social media is working overtime for Pakatan as it seeks to manufacture consent for his political themes.

Tech-savvy youths were checking iPads and smartphones during the days leading to the Bersih 2.0 rally and on the day itself.

They sent out tweets, posted comments and images and wrote about their experiences at the rally.

The truth can sometimes be lost in the maze that is social media but some images do not lie, such as the incident which took place at Tung Shin Hospital.

There is overwhelming evidence that tear gas and water cannon were fired into the hospital area after rally participants ran helter skelter into the hospital area. Images and video clips of the incident were recorded and uploaded online by many people.

It is well known that some ministers lack social media skills or have not found time to watch videos online but still make statements that later put them in a spot.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have thus become a contested arena with many pro-Barisan Nasional and pro-Pakatan Rakyat supporters arguing over their version of what the "truth" is.

For Anwar, the important thing is to keep up the political momentum achieved by Bersih 2.0. Their hope is that the next general election is held soon to capitalise on the political momentum created by the rally.

He needs the Bersih 2.0 rally to be talked about everywhere, besides calling on his friends in the Western media to write about it.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, on the other hand, has been spending time explaining things. While on a visit to London, he was interviewed on CNN where he took questions on the rally, on police brutality and on his economic transformation plans for the country.

Najib has to put a distance between himself and the effects of the rally on the people, especially the youths who are upwardly mobile.

The social media is Anwar's strong suit. The same cannot be said about many government leaders.

But not everybody is connected and those who are connected deeply disagree on what really happened on July 9.

The silent majority is out there and when they speak, it will be a roar.

Make Up Your Mind, Electoral Commission

Posted: 15 Jul 2011 10:26 AM PDT

By Mariam Mokhtar

In the first Bersih rally, in 2007, in which Malaysians marched for free and fair elections, the event drew around 30,000 people. The rally was marred when the police provoked the crowds and used water cannons firing chemical laced water, baton charges and tear gas canisters against them.

As a result of Bersih and the Hindraf march which happened 10 days later, BN lost its grip on power in Malaysia and the Prime Minister then, Abdullah Badawi was reported to have said that the Election Commission (EC) had acceded to several of Bersih's requests and that the opposition was continually blaming the EC for irregularities.

He said, "They wanted a transparent ballot box and the use of indelible ink to prevent multiple voting. The EC has agreed to that. Other than that, they can negotiate with the commission".

He suggested that the electoral gains made by the Opposition after the GE were because the EC was not tainted.

Fast forward to 2011 and BN is under pressure again. Apart from the usual grievances regarding electoral fraud, the EC is accused of condoning double-voting and vote-buying.

Perhaps, the scrutiny into their lack of performance has forced the EC to say that BN does not have undue influence on any of their decisions.

Perhaps, the intense public disapproval means the EC and BN have forgotten their election pledges for reform which they made last 2007.

The most damaging of these reforms, for the EC, would be the use of indelible ink which is simple, cheap and foolproof.

In 2011, the EC suggested that finger printing was necessary to avoid electoral fraud. In a climbdown from the statement issued by Badawi in 2007, it then announced that using indelible ink was a backward practice.

According to Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, the EC deputy chairman, Bersih's demand for indelible ink to be used in an attempt to prevent electoral fraud would create chaos and make a mockery of Malaysia's image as a progressive and developing country.

He said, "Countries that use indelible ink are countries like Indonesia, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe….. These are countries with more than double the population of Malaysia and where not all its citizens own identification cards.

"These countries are not up to our level so why should we adopt their system? This is a choice between progression and regression."

Perhaps, Wan Ahmad is not aware that as a nation, we have already regressed. Our leaders lack morals and have no desire to give up their hold on power. Malaysia does not have the rule of law. It says one thing about corruption, but does very little to eradicate it. There are many recorded abuses of electoral law, which are brushed aside by the EC. The EC is already compromised and is not an effective organisation to uphold the electoral rights of its people.

Wan Ahmad then raised fears that voters would not agree with having their fingers painted with ink and asked if these people would not be eligible to vote.

He said, "Disqualifying them would go against their rights."

In a further attempt to prevent the use of indelible ink, he expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the method.

"I also heard that indelible ink can be easily obtained from Thailand. What if voters ink their fingers themselves before casting their vote? Can you imagine the chaos that will erupt when they are barred from voting?"

This reminds us of the MACC lawyer Abdul Razak Musa who tried to strangle himself in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest.

However, Wan Ahmad is not alone in advocating the use of fingerprinting. According to Bernama, the EC chairman Abdul Aziz Mohamad Yusof was reported to have said that plans were underway to 'record voters' fingerprints to verify their identities before allowing them to cast their ballots'.

He said, "Then (a voter) will be considered to have voted, and the individual concerned cannot go to another polling station with the identity card to again cast his or her vote".

The EC appears to have lost all credibility and powers of reasoning.

Every decision or statement it makes seem to suggest that it has no desire to clean up the electoral process in Malaysia. Just like Umno/BN, it does not care or even want to be seen to champion the right of everyone to have free, clean and fair election.

If only the EC had the imagination and perspicacity to realise that if it had agreed to engage with Bersih, it's reputation and those of its office-bearers, would be much improved.

The bottom line is money. Ink is relatively cheap compared with fancy gadgets like biometric readers.

Naturally, Umno/BN are afraid that the use of the simple and relatively cheap way of addressing voter fraud with indelible ink will oust Umno/BN from power.

They are only concerned with the economics of the system. Which method will net them more money especially as the award to purchase expensive equipment will not be transparent and will be given to one of their cronies?

What is a few hundred thousand ringgits in indelible ink, when Umno/BN cronies can charge several hundred millions and dupe us into handing over more money to those who already benefit from the public purse?

Reducing electoral fraud is perhaps the least of the EC's problems. Making Umno/BN stay in power is more important.

Why did the police do what they did?

Posted: 14 Jul 2011 03:38 PM PDT

The detainees had their hands "cuffed" and looked pretty much subdued. However, as they were led through the line, they were kicked and punched by the police.

Zan Azlee, The Malaysian Insider

The tough policeman with the huge muscles grabbed me by my shoulders and flung me towards the sidewalk not caring that I had a press tag around my neck.

I struggled to keep my balance and not drop my camera. I barely managed to not trip over the curb.

"Halau cameraman itu! (Get rid of that cameraman!)" screamed the policeman's other colleagues.

My crime? I was shooting a bunch of arrested demonstrators being led out of Tung Shin Hospital and through a police line.

The detainees had their hands "cuffed" and looked pretty much subdued. However, as they were led through the line, they were kicked and punched by the police.

I was on assignment for The Malaysian Insider to gather video footage of the Bersih rally in Kuala Lumpur on July 9.

But I couldn't get enough footage of that incident since I ended up behind police lines along with other members of the media, cordoned off from what was happening.

There were many instances on the day when demonstrators were being arrested and people around would start yelling for the media to come document it.

"Media! Cepat! Polis tengah tahan orang! (Media! Hurry up! The police are arresting people!)" they would scream.

Many of them wanted visual proof that the police were being overly-aggressive when it came to arresting peaceful demonstrators.

Many also realised that if the media was around during the arrests, the police were less likely to use excessive force.

To me, that is just proof that a free and balanced media is a very important component to keep the wheel of democracy spinning smoothly.

But, of course, keeping things going smoothly can be close to impossible while being under such tense situations.

In the morning, before the demonstrators arrived in the city, the situation was very calm even though there were police everywhere.

The media, myself included, were free to roam around, taking pictures and video of the police all ready to face the day.

When the demonstrators started arriving, things got a bit tense. However, as far as my observations went, the tension did not arise from the demonstrators.

They were just marching and chanting for free elections. It was when the crowd got big (around 10,000 of them) that trouble started in front of Menara Maybank.

The trouble definitely did not start with the demonstrators. They didn't approach the police. It was the police who came in firing tear gas and chemically-laced water.

The demonstrators were pushed back towards Jalan Pudu and that's when all the aggressive arrests started happening.

At this point, the media were allowed free movement, even though we were screamed at to move away by the police. But we were not physically man-handled.

It was only after the second wave of tear gas attacks that the police started to control the media by cordoning them off behind police lines.

Posted: 14 Jul 2011 01:19 AM PDT

Shari'a literally means, "the road to the watering hole," the right or straight path to be followed. To Muslims, Shari'a refers to the body of Islamic laws that are perceived as being part and parcel of the faith. It thus assumes the same rightful place as the Quran and sunnah. To criticize the Shari'a is to criticize the faith itself. And therein lies the problem.

M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Shari'a in a Plural Society

The issue of the Islamic state is needlessly consuming the energy of many Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is also the platform of the Islamic Party (PAS), its reason for being. Yet when challenged on the specifics, PAS is sorely unprepared. Surely after championing the issue for the past half a century, its leaders should have a pretty clear idea of their goals. If by Islamic state they mean one based on the ideals of justice and morality of the Quran, then all Muslims and many non-Muslims would agree. But if they want a state based on the Shari'a (Islamic law) in its current form, many Muslims and certainly all non-Muslims would demur.

The Shari'a took three centuries to formulate and consumed the best intellectual talent of the Muslim world at the time. Although based on the Qur'an and sunnah (ways of the prophet), the Shari'a remains the creation of mortals and as such, carries all the imperfections implicit in such endeavors. For Muslims to ascribe to it the reverence and perfection reserved only for the Quran means that we ascribe those very same qualities to the mortals who crafted the Shari'a.

There are over 6,000 verses in the Quran; of these less than 600 are concerned with the law. And most of those cover such matters as prayers and rituals. Only about 80 verses deal with such traditional legal matters as crime and punishment, contracts, and family law. Clearly the Quran is not a legal tome but a general guidance on how to build a moral and ethical society.

It is a magnificent tribute to the intellect of those early Muslim scholars that they were able to fashion out of the Quran and the sunnah a coherent and consistent body of laws that is the Shari'a. In its time the Shari'a represented a giant leap in intellectual, social, and legal achievements. Its treatment of women in particular was light years ahead of its time. The status of women accorded by the Shari'a was of the order of magnitude a thousand times better than the prevailing practices. Then women were not even recognized as humans. Whereas women are granted a share of the inheritance in the Shari'a, in the then prevailing culture, women were the inheritance. They were chattels and properties of their husband, to be passed on or traded accordingly. The Shari'a represented a grand emancipation of women. In this regard Islam was centuries ahead of Western civilization. The codifying of divorces too was truly an inspiration, considering that the concept did not even exist then. Wives were not divorced then; they were simply discarded, traded, or handed over to their husband's heir. The Shari'a's treatment of criminal justice was similarly light years ahead of the prevailing ethos of "an eye for an eye;" likewise the treatment of slavery and indentured labor.

While the Shari'a represented a quantum leap in achievement of early Islam, in its present form it is clearly incompatible with many of today's universally accepted norms, in particular with respect to human rights, criminal justice, public law, gender equality, and hosts of other areas.

I do not say this lightly seeing that to many Muslims, any criticism of the Shari'a is blasphemous. But I cannot look at my daughter and tell her that she is worth only half that of my son, as the Shari'a would have it. I love all my children equally and my inheritance to them should and will reflect that sentiment. Nor do I find such cruel and inhuman punishments as stoning to death a woman for adultery and the chopping of hands for thievery compatible with an All Compassionate and All Merciful Allah. Similarly I find the death penalty for apostasy as prescribed by the Shari'a not only abhorrent but also incompatible with the Koranic admonition that there shall be no compulsion in matters of faith.

As a Muslim I take the Koran to be Allah's revelation. Its message is infallible and immutable, and for all mankind at all times. That is a matter of faith. Being Allah's words, the Koran takes precedence over everything else, including the Shari'a and the sunnah.

That is a heavy statement. Having said it, a much-needed pause for clarification. Muslims consider the Koran and the sunnah as co-equal parts of the faith. One cannot separate the message (the Koran) from the messenger (the prophet – pbuh); they both form an integral part of the faith. I agree wholeheartedly. The main issue I have is differentiating between the actual practices and sayings of the prophet (pbuh) and what scholars say they are. I will revisit this important differentiation a few pages hence. Meanwhile back to my original discussion.

Societies change, and so too must the laws. There is nothing in the Shari'a that mandates we give it the reverence due only to the Quran. Thus the pertinent question, and one rarely asked, is not whether the Shari'a should be applied to modern society, rather how can we adapt and modify it to meet current needs. A body of laws that was an enlightened piece of legislation for 7-10^th Century Arabia is clearly not suitable for the present. When the Shari'a was formulated, the Arabian society was just emerging from the Age of Jahiliyah (Ignorance), a period of rampant female infanticide, slavery, and tribalism. A millennium later, the problems are of a different order. The challenge today is to enhance the freedom and dignity of humans. That these freedoms and rights are emphasized by Western civilization is no reason for Muslims not to co-opt and adopt them.

Today's Muslims should emulate our illustrious predecessors. Had ancient Muslims been like their present-day counterparts and considered everything originating outside of Islam as "un-Islamic," Islam would not have expanded. Muslims today should be equally receptive to and be welcoming of new ideas and innovations regardless of where they originated. That Allah chose a Christian to reveal His secret on gravity, a Jew on the nature of the atom, a Confucian on the explosive power of gunpowder, and a Hindu on the concept of zero, is not for us to question. It is however, for us to appreciate that such wisdom and insights are for the benefit of all.

Next: Reform in Islam

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 17 Julai 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan