Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

What we are not and why we can never be
As John Lennon said: IMAGINE
See the difference?
Just wanted to say sorry
Logic is illogical
Consistently inconsistent
Oh yeah?
To ponder upon further
When the word TOO is hidden
How spin-doctoring works

Posted: 05 Oct 2011 04:47 AM PDT

Yes, so why bother? If we know that it is futile, we might as well save all our time, energy and money and just let Barisan Nasional walk in uncontested. Well, in that case, do we even need to hold any elections? Maybe we should consider the Saudi Arabian model instead then. At least there is no cheating and bribing of voters there since there are no voters and no elections.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Come now, RPK, you do know that in Malaysia appointments to the Cabinet are a bit more complicated, what with the PM having to satisfy the demands of the 14 parties that make up the BN. No one likes to have 3 football teams in the Cabinet, but that is the political reality in Malaysia.

The urgency for Pakatan to have a Shadow Cabinet is not there, as compared to the UK. This is because, in the UK, the Opposition Leader is recognised as a legal position, and he/she must be invited to all official functions, especially functions involving the Queen, and the Palace. Otherwise, the British PM has to answer to the Queen.

Indeed, the Opposition Leader in the UK has to be provided with a staff of his own, and that is the law. There are legal provisions, traditions, and conventions, that the Opposition Leader is given equal respect and recognition, equivalent to the PM. The Opposition Leader is sometimes just as powerful as the PM, as his position is ruled by law.

In the UK, the Opposition Leader is an integral part of the tradition and process, when the opening of Parliament is performed. When the Opposition Leader writes to any Govt. Dept., it must be, by law treated as an important correspondence that requires the absolute truth be revealed. Etc, etc, etc. In the UK, Opposition Leaders are knighted by the Queen, and honoured with MBE's, CBE's and the likes, and are even appointed to the House of Lords.

Please watch the PM's Question Time in Parliament, every Wednesday. Do you think that it's ever possible to have that in Malaysia? Will Najib ever will want to face Anwar Ibrahim in Parliament, the way the way the PM and the Opposition Leader do in the UK? After all, we do practice the Westminster Model in Malaysia too, don't we? I think not. What do you think RPK?

In Malaysia however, the Opposition and the Leader is a non-entity, is given no respect, no recognition, not invited to ANY functions, and he can even be framed up with sodomy.

Surely you know these things, RPK, seeing that you are a British Citizen now.

The political reality and situation in the UK is completely different from Malaysia.

Please say it as it is, Sir.

written by Ernest , October 05, 2011 23:10:49

*******************************

The above was what Ernest commented in my article called 'The point we are making'. I decided to pick it up and reply to it because it is both a good as well as negative comment.

It is good because what Ernest said is a fact when it comes to the Malaysian situation. It is negative because he (I assume Ernest is a he) is focusing on what we are not and is accepting that without challenge rather than choose to discuss and explore that: since this is what we are not, and since this is what we should be, how we do strive towards having a mature parliament just like in Britain?

The post of Opposition Leader in Parliament is an official post, one that allows for an office in Parliament House together with staff and whatnot. This means the taxpayers are paying for this job of Opposition Leader plus what other costs involved in maintaining this position. In other words, Parliament recognises the post of Opposition Leader although, as Ernest says, the government may not quite give it the respect due to it.

Okay, Ernest has already told us what we are not. He has also, in his own way (probably inevitably), told us what it should be when he explained how it is in the UK and how in Malaysia this is not followed. Now, what do we do to make sure that what we see in the UK we also see in Malaysia?

I take it that Ernest is trying to tell us that the UK example is a good example. And he is also telling us that the Malaysian example is a bad example. I assume this is what he is saying. So, the next logically step would be to ask ourselves how we can make Malaysia (which is the bad example) follow the UK (which is the good example).

Rather than lament that Malaysia is no good and in Malaysia this is not being done and Malaysians are not mature enough, and conclude that, therefore let us just forget about the whole matter, is not only a negative approach but a defeatist attitude as well.

I am now 61. Say the doctor diagnoses me with cancer and I tell him I am going to die one day anyway so why bother to try to cure me? That is a negative stand and a defeatist attitude. I might as well tell him that God has already decided when and how I will die before I was born. So no doctor can help me live another ten years if it has been decided that I am to die within two years. Old age will catch up on me anyway and never mind how healthy I may be, even without cancer I am going to die of old age. So let's just sit back and count the days till I die.

In that same spirit, Malaysian politicians are not mature. They don't respect the opposition and opposition leaders. Malaysia is not as advanced as Britain. So let us forget about trying to reform or change the system and accept this very primitive system and narrow-minded attitude as the Malaysian way and learn how to live with it.

I suppose, in that same spirit, we can say that Malaysian elections are never fair. They will cheat and bribe the voters and Barisan Nasional is still going to win, never mind how much effort we put into trying to win the elections. So why bother?

End of problem!

As John Lennon said: IMAGINE

Posted: 03 Oct 2011 08:12 PM PDT

Let us imagine that the debate between Gan Ping Sieu of MCA and Lim Guan Eng of DAP is held. Let us also imagine that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) helped organise this debate and that both leaders accepted the invitation to the debate. Let us then imagine what transpires in this debate.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA vice president challenges Guan Eng to hudud debate

(The Star) -- MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu has issued a challenge to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to a public debate on hudud.

He told reporters in Parliament lobby Tuesday that the debate would be on how DAP was going to stop PAS from implementing hudud law in the country.

Gan said the debate was necessary because during campaigning at various by-elections, DAP had been portraying PAS as a moderate, liberal and professional party.

However, he said PAS' recent statement on implementing hudud law showed that it was "ignoring DAP", its partner in Pakatan Rakyat.

"I wanted to hand him an official letter on my challenge to him on Monday and today. But he was not around in Parliament. So, I will send my letter via registered mail," he said.

Gan said for courtesy sake, he would let Guan Eng choose the venue, time and mediator for the debate.

*****************************

Gan Ping Sieu: DAP says that PAS is a moderate, liberal and professional party. However, as the evidence shows, PAS just goes and does what it wants. It does not care about DAP. DAP can say one thing but PAS goes and does the opposite.

This shows that PAS does not respect DAP. In fact, it shows that PAS does not respect the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, as well. Even the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, does not respect DAP when he said that, in principle, he agrees with PAS, in that the Islamic laws of Hudud should be implemented, although he admitted that this is his personal view and not the consensus of Pakatan Rakyat.

DAP has certainly lost face. PAS and Anwar are sending a message to DAP that it is not relevant and that its views are not important. The message that they are sending to DAP is that DAP can take it or leave it. And if DAP is not happy about this matter, then it can leave Pakatan Rakyat, just like it did once before when the same controversy erupted during the time of Barisan Alternatif.

Pakatan Rakyat talks about consensus. DAP talks about consensus. What consensus? When PAS announced that it is still committed to its aspiration of implementing Hudud, was that based on consensus or based on just what PAS wants?

If PAS implements Hudud, how will the Chinese in Malaysia fare? Will the rights of the Chinese be protected? Will prostitution, nightclubs, karaoke joints, pork, gambling and liquor be banned? Will the wishes of the Chinese no longer matter?

DAP is selling out the Chinese just because it seeks power. DAP will do anything just to get into power, even sell out the Chinese. DAP is a traitor to the Chinese community. DAP talks about defending the rights of the Chinese and yet it works with PAS, which is a party that is dangerous to the Chinese.

Maybe Guan Eng can explain what is going to happen to the Chinese community if Hudud is implemented in Malaysia. And if Guan Eng says that Hudud will never be implemented, then maybe he can explain how DAP can prevent that from happening since PAS has not relented in its mission to implement Hudud and still treats this as the priority of the party.

Lim Guan Eng: First of all, MCA must note that while Pakatan Rakyat does things on the basis of consensus, this does not mean we deny each party the right to express its views. Unlike in Barisan Nasional, where no party can make any statement that Umno will not allow and whatever they say is just echoing whatever Umno says, in Pakatan Rakyat we do not stifle the freedom of anyone to express their opinion. That is why PAS is allowed to say what it wants to say, even if the rest of the parties in Pakatan Rakyat may not share this view.

Democracy is not about allowing you to say something that I agree with. That is not democracy. Democracy is about allowing you to say something that I disagree with. No doubt DAP does not agree with Hudud. PAS, however, supports Hudud. So we allow PAS to talk about Hudud and to state its aspirations regarding Hudud. If we stop PAS from saying all this, then DAP would be violating the principles of democracy.

You cannot view this as PAS not respecting DAP by saying something that DAP does not agree with. You have to view it as DAP respecting the right of PAS to say something that DAP does not agree with. To agree is easy. Anyone can do that. But to agree to disagree is the hard thing to do. And that is what Pakatan Rakyat is able to do and which Barisan Nasional is not able to.

I know this is a very difficult concept for MCA to understand because this is not practiced in Barisan Nasional. In Barisan Nasional, MCA can't say something that Umno is opposed to. MCA can only say something that Umno likes to hear. If MCA says something that Umno is unhappy with, then there will be screams for MCA to get out of Barisan Nasional or that MCA should be sacked from Barisan Nasional or that the Chinese should go back to China and so on. This is not how we do things in Pakatan Rakyat.

This talk about Chinese rights is outdated. In Pakatan Rakyat, we do not talk about Chinese rights or Indian rights or Malay rights like you do in Barisan Nasional. In Pakatan Rakyat, we talk about the rights of all Malaysians irrespective or ethnicity. Even when we talk about Hudud we talk about how it will be accepted by all Malaysians and not how it is accepted or reject by any one ethnicity.

What MCA does not seem to understand is that Islamic Sharia laws have been around since before Merdeka. This law used to be the secondary laws in Malaysia and only touches on Islamic matters, and even then only in cases where the common laws do not address, in particular matters concerning marriage, divorce, death, inheritance, and so on. It does not cover crimes, traffic offenses, and whatnot. For that we have the common laws, which override the Sharia laws.

In the past, the common law courts took precedence over the Sharia courts. However, Barisan Nasional, which MCA is a member of, changed this when it made the Sharia courts at par with the common law courts. This confusion was something that Barisan Nasional created and MCA is part of Barisan Nasional. Why did MCA support this move to upgrade the status of the Sharia courts and now we have ambiguity between which court has more power to decide on matters concerning the Sharia?

Can you see that Barisan Nasional, meaning also MCA, is the culprit that started all this confusion? Now you blame us for what you did.

The Sharia laws of Hudud are very specific. It covers only certain violent and serious crimes like robbery, murder, rebellion, apostasy, consuming of intoxicating substances, illicit sex, and slander.

Now, we already have laws governing robbery, murder and rebellion. So these laws will take precedence over Hudud. In fact, the common law punishment for rebellion is even worse. Can you remember we hanged the Al Maunah people who were charged for rebellion a few years ago? Under Hudud, they would not have been hanged. They would have been given a chance to repent and if they repented then they would be pardoned and allowed back into society. But instead we hanged them for rebellion.

Under Hudud, even Chin Peng would have been allowed home since he has already signed a peace treaty with Malaysia back in 1989. Would not Hudud have been better in cases such as these?

On the consumption of intoxicating substances, we already have laws for that as well. If you were to be arrested with drugs above a certain limit, even if you do not consume it but only possessed it, you would be hanged. Under Hudud, possession is not a crime. Only consumption is. And you would not be hanged.

However, with or without Hudud, intoxication and illicit sex are already crimes under the Sharia. Muslims would be punished for this, even now. Non-Muslims are not covered under these laws just like they would not be under Hudud as well.

We must remember, pork, liquor, gambling, illicit sex, and any activities that Islam considers immoral, are only forbidden for Muslims. Non-Muslims can continue being as immoral as they would like to be. Chua Soi Lek admitted publicly that he was the man in the porn video. Since he is not a Muslim, nothing happened to him. If he is a Muslim, then he would have been brought before the Sharia court since he had confessed to being the man in the video.

According to the Constitution, Islam is the religion of the Federation. According to the Constitution, the Rulers are the head of Islam. According to the Constitution, each state has power over Islam, and this means Islamic Sharia laws as well. So it is up to the states how it would like Islam to be implemented.

If MCA finds this unacceptable, and since MCA is part of the government, then MCA can always get Parliament to amend the Constitution to rectify this. Why does MCA not do this? Why keep quiet?

DAP and PAS are not part of the government. MCA and Umno are. So go amend the Constitution to remove the powers of the states as well as the Rulers and bring Islam under the federal government. MCA and Umno have the power to do this. Why is this not being done? Then, once this is done, PAS can no longer talk about Hudud because Islam will no longer come under the states but will be under the Prime Minister and Parliament.

Anyway, PAS normally contests only one-third the seats in Parliament and it never wins all the seats it contests. It is, therefore, impossible for PAS to amend the Constitution that will allow Hudud to be implemented. PAS will need Umno and the other Muslim MPS from Pakatan Rakyat to combine their votes to get a majority in Parliament. And we all know this will never happen.

So what is the issue here? Is this a real issue or a red herring? MCA is just trying to distract the people from the fact that it is irrelevant and is going to get wiped out in the coming general election. MCA is trying to treat this Hudud issue as its 'talian hayat'. Let's see whether the voters buy this ploy.

See the difference?

Posted: 03 Oct 2011 05:56 PM PDT

Who says I am always cheong hei? Sometimes, when a picture is worth a thousand words, I can be very brief. Anyway, maybe the five photos below can tell the story that I want to tell today.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dato Onn Jaafar, the founder of UMNO, visiting the rakyat in the kampong

What it costs today

David Cameron, the then British Opposition Leader and now the Prime Minister, going to office

David Cameron, the then British Opposition Leader and now the Prime Minister, going to Parliament

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

Just wanted to say sorry

Posted: 03 Oct 2011 04:53 PM PDT

Lim Guan Eng has apologised to H.H. the Sultan of Johor for what he was alleged to have said, which apparently upset (murka) His Highness. Kompas too has apologised to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak regarding the Russian Mafia link story. Now it is my turn to apologise to 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

US$24m ring returned after 'a few days', minister tells Parliament

(The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told Parliament today no payment had been made on a US$24 million (RM77 million) ring linked to the prime minister's wife.

In a written reply to Lim Lip Eng (DAP-Segambut), the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department said the Royal Malaysian Customs confirmed that the ring was "returned" after "a few days" to the company that owns it.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak denied on August 21 that his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor bought the diamond ring or that his Kazakhstan in-laws are linked to the "Russian mafia" as reported by Indonesia's top-selling daily, Kompas.

Kompas has since apologised to the prime minister for its August 4 report but the mystery remains as to why the ring from New York jeweller Jacob & Co. was addressed to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, according to pictures widely circulated on the Internet.

Questions had arisen as to whether Rosmah's name had been used without her knowledge by criminal elements as part of their illegal activities. To date, the government has yet to identify who brought the ring into Malaysia.

Jacob & Co. founder Jacob Arabo, whose custom diamond-encrusted wristwatches and chunky jewellery once adorned Hollywood A-listers like Leonardo DiCaprio and hip-hop stars Kanye West and Jay-Z, is no stranger to such allegations.

The Bukharian-American jeweller, described by the New York Times as the "Harry Winston of the hip-hop world", has twice tangled with US federal law enforcement agencies.

In a column on August 4, Kompas described Rosmah's ties with soon-to-be in-law Maira Nazarbayev as close although it provided no evidence to support its claims and added, "Maira Nazarbayev, who lives a lifestyle a la Imelda Marcos, supposedly has links to the Russian mafia".

Maira is the former wife of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev's brother, Bolat Nazarbayev. Nooryana Najwa, the 22-year-old daughter of Rosmah and Najib, was recently betrothed to Maira's son, Daniyar, who was her college sweetheart.

Rosmah has faced repeated allegations that she has a penchant for a lavish lifestyle ever since it became apparent that Najib would succeed Tun Abdullah Badawi as prime minister.

**************************************

The Umno Bloggers and Cyber-troopers allege that I do not have the gumption to say sorry whenever I am wrong. That is not true. When I am wrong I will say sorry. And it appears like I was wrong with regards to the story regarding Rosmah Mansor's RM77 million diamond ring.

I can see that I was wrong when I said that Rosmah bought that RM77 million ring. So, for that, I must apologise. It is now clear that it was not Rosmah who bought that ring. I don't know who actually bought it. But to accuse Rosmah of buying it when it was not she who bought it was wrong.

And I was also wrong to say that Rosmah imported that ring into Malaysia. Rosmah did not import it. Someone sent it to her. Of course, we can only suspect who that was. However, since we do not have any evidence that it was this particular person it would be wrong for me to mention his name.

I mean, just because I suspect that it may have been a certain young Malaysian tycoon of Chinese ethnicity who has received a lot of favours from the government does not make this a fact. It remains merely that, a suspicion. And if I mention his name and I am proven wrong later, then again I may have to apologise. So let that name remain unnamed.

Anyway, the ring has since been returned to sender. So that ends the matter once and for all. Maybe we can now allow this matter to rest.

Z54-QHEZN6E

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54-QHEZN6E

Logic is illogical

Posted: 02 Oct 2011 08:19 PM PDT

The doubters (or atheists) are also trying to be smarty-pants. They argue using logic. Hey, religion is about faith, not about logic. That is why we call it faith. Faith is the word that explains the absence of evidence. Logic requires evidence. Faith does not. So when you use logic to argue with those who argue with faith, it is like a duck and a chicken trying to communicate. Can you see how futile that is?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

While we are seriously trying to resolve the differences amongst the opposition parties, in particular with regards to the issue of Hudud -- which is threatening to break up the opposition coalition like it once did about a decade ago -- we have some smarty-pants trying to impress us on their knowledge of the existence of God (or nonexistence, depending on your point of view) and on what God in His heart wants from us.

Can I make one thing very clear? We are NOT discussing theology. We are discussing politics. We are not debating whether God does, or does not, exist -- and if He does, what He wants from us. We are discussing how to kick out Barisan Nasional and replace it with a better government (and hopefully it WILL be a better government) and not whether God will be happy or angry with us if we do or do not do what some people tell us He wants done.

Aiya! How some people do go off tangent and talk about the price of beef when we are discussing how to fish with better results.

What irritates me most - especially when we are trying to discuss how to win the election -- is theists challenging doubters to prove that God does not exist. Okay, so God exists. Will that help us win the next election? God existed even back in 1955 but still Umno and its cohorts won every election since then.

Anyway, if you are trying to 'sell' your ideology to the doubters, then you shouldn't be challenging doubters to prove that you are wrong. You should instead prove that you are right.

Let me put it another way. You are trying to sell your car and you are saying that your car is better than the other brands. Should it not be you, then, who proves that your car is better? How can you ask the customer to prove that your car is not better than the other brands? You are doing the selling. So you should do the proving. If you fail to do that then the customer will just walk away and buy the other brand, which in his/her mind is better.

Anyhow, do you think logic always works? You may think it does but in reality it does not. Let me give you some examples.

Ducks swim. You swim. So, logically speaking, you are a duck.

1% of traffic accident fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. That means 99% of the fatalities are caused by drivers who do not drink. Logically speaking, if we ban people who do not drink from driving, many lives would be saved.

Okay, what about this one?

Vodka and ice will ruin your kidneys. Rum and ice will ruin your liver. Whiskey and ice will ruin your heart. Gin and ice will ruin your brain. Martini and ice softens your desire. Pepsi and ice will ruin your teeth.

What is the common denominator here? That's right, ice. So, logically speaking, all you need to do it to lay off the ice and you are safe.

So, to those smarty-pants who try to win an argument with theists using what they perceive as logic, let me assure you that that is not a logical thing to do. Logic is sometimes illogical.

Okay, back to the issue of the day: how to win the elections. We win elections by getting the people to vote for us. And to get the people to vote for us we need to make them happy with us. And to get them to be happy with us we need to say the right things and make all sorts of promises.

So that should be the focus. We need to talk sweetly to them. We need to promise them the moon and the stars. And we also need to prepare ourselves with convincing excuses as to why we can't keep those promises in preparation for when we win the election and we can't deliver our promises. If not then the voters will kick us out again come the next election.

So that should be what we do. Arguing about whether there is a God or not and what it is that God wants from us will not bring in the votes. And without the votes we will not be in power. And this is what politics is all about, power.

So let's get back on track and focus on what we should do.

Consistently inconsistent

Posted: 02 Oct 2011 05:29 PM PDT

So what is it that you really want? Can we just focus on putting Pakatan in power? Why all these threats of not voting for Pakatan or PAS? We can always discuss the Hudud issue later once Pakatan is in power. And, as you said, if Pakatan does something we don't like (such as they go and implement Hudud) then we can always kick them out and vote Barisan Nasional back in again, say, in 2016 or 2017.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Last year, we launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in London. Immediately after that, the opposition political parties made a decision not to work with the MCLM. Many Pakatan Rakyat supporters said some very nasty things about us. They even accused us of being Trojan horses, agents/plants of Barisan Nasional, and worse.

We then went on a road show to explain our mission and vision. Those whom we spoke to agreed that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, the knife cuts both ways. The knife that we use to cut Barisan Nasional's throat can and should cut Pakatan Rakyat's throat as well, if they become just like Barisan Nasional.

So why do we want to cut Barisan Nasional's throat? Simple! Because Barisan Nasional practices racism, persecution, selective prosecution, abuse of power, corruption, etc. Barisan Nasional manipulates the state agencies (such as the judiciary, police, MACC, AG Chambers, mainstream media, etc.) for political purposes. With Barisan Nasional in power, there is blatant wastage and misuse of taxpayer's money. And the list goes on.

Barisan Nasional makes a lot of promises during every election. They even come out with a most impressive Election Manifesto election after election. But they never deliver their election promises. In fact, they do the reverse of what they promise.

Barisan Nasional also has very low quality lawmakers, both at parliament as well as state levels. We complain that with the indiscriminate logging in East Malaysia, the Orang Utan is becoming extinct. What we are seeing instead is the Orang Utan being sent to parliament and the state assemblies and these people act even worse than Orang Utan (just view the videos on Youtube to see what I mean).

In short, we want change. And we know what changes we want. We are very clear in our minds what is wrong with Malaysia and what needs to be done to put all this right.

So the key word is CHANGE. That is what we seek. We are not interested in 'repackaging'. We are not fooled by expensive PR exercises about so-called (how siow) reforms. We do not wish to see old wine in a new bottle. It must be genuine change and change for the better. And that is why we want Barisan Nasional out.

The MCLM tried to argue that in many countries they changed the government to seek change but did not really see change. Sometimes it was even a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. What they got was worse. Our job is to make sure that when we kick out Barisan Nasional and replace it with Pakatan Rakyat we do actually see change and not end up with old wine in a new bottle. This is the mission and vision of the MCLM.

And the way to ensure this is to first of all make sure that they do not send Orang Utans to parliament or to any of the state assemblies. They must be people of calibre/quality and the aftermath of the 2008 general election has proven that this is very important. If this has been observed then, today, the state of Perak would still be under Pakatan Rakyat rule.

Anwar Ibrahim's excuse was that it is not that easy to find candidates of calibre/quality to field in the general elections. So we offered to help find these candidates. We were aware that some people had been approached back in 1999, 2004 and 2008. But they refused to contest the elections even though they were promised that they need not join any of the parties and could contest as independent candidates, but under any one of the party banners.

We approached all these people again and still they refused to contest the elections. Finally, after pleading with them to sacrifice for their country and to do 'national service', they reluctantly agreed.

Then, suddenly, all hell broke loose. We were accused of an attempt to trigger three-corner fights to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat so that Barisan Nasional could win the election. After failing to convince the people that this is not so, I told Haris Ibrahim to just forget about the 'Independent Candidates Initiative'. Let Pakatan Rakyat sort out their own candidates. Let's not get involved in this exercise any longer. And if they fail to get good candidates then that is their problem. It is not any concern of the MCLM.

What we would focus on instead is to give talks, do training, etc., and more importantly, to push our Rakyat Reform Agenda (RARA) and The People's Declaration (Deklarasi Rakyat). This is basically to tell the political parties how we want the country to be run and what we expect from the government -- whomsoever it may be that will be forming the government, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.

But the noise from the ground was still ABU (anything but Umno/asal bukan Umno). They don't care a damn about RARA or The People's Declaration or whatever. They just want BN out and Pakatan in. The rest we can talk AFTER we change the government.

We tried to explain that what we want to see are changes. We are not in the business of changing the government. We are in the business of seeing reforms. So we must focus on changes, not on changing the government.

Nevertheless, if we need to change the government to be able to see changes then that is what we shall have to do. But we shall be changing the government to ensure that we see changes and not change the government for the sake of changing the government. Changing the government is the means. Reform is the objective.

But no! We shall change the government, period! Changes can come later, AFTER we change the government. No use to talk about all that now. Change the government first.

Okay, if that is what you insist we do then that is what we shall do. So we launched ABU (anything but Umno/asal bukan Umno). We shall change the government and then cross our fingers and pray for the best. We shall take a chance and hope that by changing the government we do actually see changes. If this is what you want then this is what we shall do. So it will be ABU then.

After agreeing with all of you that this is what we shall do, now many of you are talking that you will not be voting Pakatan or will not vote for PAS because of this Hudud issue. Why is this such as issue? I thought we are going for ABU. I thought we are going to change the government first and 'talk later'.

The MCLM did say we should talk first and then decide if Pakatan can deliver what we want -- in the event they come to power with our votes. But you said, 'No!" We first put Pakatan in power and then discuss later, once they are in power, what we want (or don't want). But now you are doing a U-turn (like what you accused me of doing). Now you are threatening not to vote for Pakatan or PAS.

Cruzeiro is one of those who oppose the MCLM and would like to see ABU. I hope, therefore, he will focus on ABU and not write articles such as this: http://cruzinthots.blogspot.com/2011/10/arrogant-holy-pas-ready-to-abandon-and.html. Articles like these may turn the people against ABU.

Oh yeah?

Posted: 01 Oct 2011 06:01 PM PDT

If God exists within time, which is His creation, then this means He is subjected to His creation, which is time. If God is not subjected to His creation, which is time, then God certainly has to exist outside time. That means time does not exist for God. It only exists for us. That is why we live and we die. We have a beginning and we have an end. There is no beginning and no end for God. God does not die.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

written by Somali, October 02, 2011 09:46:26

You writing with full prejudice of Hudud Law and I wonder if you're a real Muslim who lack of knowledge of that kind of law. I'm not a PAS follower but to be frank Hudud Law is a God Law and you have responsibility to understand the law even though you're not practising them. Innalililah to Zainah & RPK

written by apai70, October 02, 2011 10:13:07

Astaghfirullah, If your are a true Muslim I believe u should repent coz what u have written indicates your ignorance. Masyaallah.

written by Burhan Deen, October 02, 2011 12:26:25

You have reserved your ticket to hell, who do you think you are. You claim to be a Muslim but you are munafik of the worst degree

The three comments above appeared below the article 'No hudud please, we're Malaysians', which was written by Zainah Anwar and published in The Star. I picked them up to talk about them today because, first of all, one of the comments also mentioned me and, secondly, because they appear to be comments by people 'knowledgeable' about theism and about what God wants.

Okay, so let's talk about theism then!

God is eternal. God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. The theists (which would include Muslims) believe that these are but just some of the attributes of God.

This means God has no beginning and no end. God is not controlled by His power, but has complete control over it. God knows all things, which can be known, past, present, and future.

These are amongst the many attributes of God, which all theists whether they are Jews, Christians or Muslims agree on (who says that the Jews, Christians and Muslims can't come to an agreement?).

Theists also believe that in the beginning God created the entire universe, with us humans in it. And theists believe that all this will come to an end one day -- the end of time or akhirat (akhir meaning the end).

Going by this belief, that means God also created time. Time exists because God created the beginning and the end. If there were no beginning and no end then time would not exist.

Now, God is not subjected to His creations. In fact, the reverse is true. His creations are subject to God. God has absolute power and control over His creations. And this would, of course, mean time as well.

Going by this belief it would make sense since God is eternal. There is a beginning and an end for the entire universe. But there is no beginning and no end for God. We live and we die. God does not live and die. God is eternal.

Okay, so if God is eternal and there is no beginning and no end for God, and if God is not subjected to His creation, in this case time, where does God exist then? Does God exist within or outside time?

In that case, since time does not really exist, where do we humans exist then? We existed in the past (yesterday). We exist in the present (today). And we may exist in the future if we do not die tonight (tomorrow). But God did not exist yesterday (because there is no time for God). God will not exist tomorrow (for the same reason). God only exists today (ever present).

This means that yesterday and tomorrow do not exist. What exists is only today. In fact, even today does not exist because today would be 24 hours and 24 hours is also time. So even today does not exist. What does exist is just one single point in time.

If there is no such thing as time but we feel we are living in time (we have a beginning and we have an end) that means what we feel is merely an illusion. Time does not exist so therefore we also do not exist in time. We exist in just one point in time, not throughout time.

Can Somali, apai70 and Burhan Deen, the all-knowing who know exactly what God wants, then please explain our existence? We think we exist in time but time does not exist. We think we were born some time in the past and will die some time in the future and will travel through time from beginning to end but there is no past and no future. So, if time does not exist, then please explain where we are now.

Once Somali, apai70 and Burhan Deen explain this to us we can then go on to the next level, discuss what God wants.

Over to you Somali, apai70 and Burhan Deen.

To ponder upon further

Posted: 30 Sep 2011 07:38 PM PDT

Even in Britain the Shariah exists and there are almost 100 Shariah courts all over Britain -- and the laws are binding. And, mind you, Muslims make up only 3% of the 72 million population of the UK. Yet they have the Shariah and you do not see the British getting all excited like us Malaysians.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Well, we have had a very interesting fortnight of debate regarding the Islamic Shariah law of Hudud. The only setback, though, is that some readers do not understand what debate or discourse entails. And, for certain, 'agree to disagree' is not in these people's vocabulary.

The Hudud debate (if we had had one) would have been able to open the eyes of Muslims (PAS leaders plus Muslims who propagate Hudud as compulsory since they are God's laws) to the sentiments of Malaysians concerning this issue. However, since we did not have a debate as much as we saw an exercise in Islam-bashing, the whole thing became counter-productive.

Muslims, just like those of any other religion, would close ranks and defend Islam if they view Islam as under attack. That is natural human behaviour. And, in such a situation, emotions rather than reason would prevail. And, unfortunately, this is what we saw the last couple of weeks. It became a 'them and us' scenario.

People are certainly most passionate about their religion. And no one likes to be told that his or her religion sucks. And when Muslims are under the impression they are being told that their religion is barbaric, outdated, antiquated, evil, unjust, unfair, silly, stupid, unreasonable, and what have you, rest assured they would be forced to come to the fore in defense of Islam.

In a debate or discourse, facts need to be presented to win the argument. In the absence of facts, and when mudslinging and name-calling is used instead, then what we will see would be a barroom brawl. Basically, who can punch the hardest wins the fight.

Imagine if the reverse scenario had happened. Let us, for the sake of reinforcing my point in this article, look at a hypothetical situation. Say I start a debate on Christianity. And, say, I argue that there is no such thing as a religion called Christianity. Say I argue that Jesus was a Jew and died a Jew and his mission in life was to bring the Jews back to 'correct' Judaism. Say I argue that Christianity was an invention of deviant Jews who, more than a hundred years after the death of Jesus, introduced a so-called new religion, which Jesus was actually against, and falsely claimed that this was what Jesus taught.

I know, many would say that Christians are not like Muslims. Christians tolerate criticism and would never threaten to kill anyone who criticises Christianity. Is that so? There was a time when those who even mildly said something that the church did not like would be burned alive. Maybe, today, that no longer happens. But it did happen for almost 2,000 years and only now has this been a thing of the past --only the last 100 years or so.

When was slavery abolished? When were women allowed to vote? When did women begin to get equal pay with men? Yes, only very recently has the western world become really civilised (unless you see what they are doing in Iraq). It is not like the west was civilised all this while -- only over the last few years. Blacks were still not allowed into 'whites only' premises and could not sit in the 'white section' of buses till just a few years ago.

The 'Christian World' saw reforms after almost 2,000 years of bigotry because of the struggle of civil liberties and human rights movements. And it was the westerners (Christians) themselves who struggled to see these changes happen. Only when people of that community rise up will we see change.

Islam needs to see reforms as well. I will be the first to admit that. Unfortunately, we do not, yet, have the Muslim version of Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or whatever. And we need someone like that, fast, especially in Malaysia.

We will only see changes when Muslims themselves lead this fight for change. Change will not come just because non-Malays or non-Muslims launch a fiesta to whack Islam. In fact, the reverse will happen. The more the non-Malays or non-Muslims whack Islam, the more the Malays-Muslims will close ranks and resist change.

The Muslims did not reform Christianity. The Muslims would have never been able to reform Christianity even if they wanted to. It was the Christians who reformed Christianity, as only they could.

Islam, today, is where Christianity was maybe 400 or 500 years ago. But that would make sense since there is a 500-year 'gap' between Christianity and Islam. So you need to give the Muslims time to 'catch up'.

You need to be clear about one thing: the more the non-Muslims whack Islam, the longer it would take for the Muslims to be able to reform Islam. As long as Muslims view the situation as a 'them and us' situation, the harder it would be for the 'liberal' Muslims to convince the 'conservative' Muslims that reforms are necessary.

The non-Muslims should take a deep breath, sit back, and relax. Don't get emotional. Don't launch Islam-bashing campaigns. Trust the liberal Muslims. And rest assured there is a large enough minority of liberal Muslims (I said 'large minority', not 'majority'). But, in time, this large minority would grow to a majority. With the Internet and cable TV and better education, in time the liberals would outgrow the conservatives.

How long will it take? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? I don't know. I am not clairvoyant. But, in time, it will happen. But the time will take longer if the Muslims are forced to close ranks to defend Islam from what they view as the 'enemies of Islam'.

We need to remove the divide. And, for sure, in Malaysia, there is a wide divide between Malay-Muslims and non-Malays-non-Muslims. But the divide will only get wider if the current state of affairs continues.

Okay, so SOME Muslims want to see the Islamic Shariah laws of Hudud implemented in states that have a 97% Muslim population (which would mean only two of the states would be affected). So let the Muslims thrash this out amongst themselves and come to an agreement on the matter, if they can. The non-Muslims should not be arguing about this even more than the Muslims themselves.

Note that the whole of Malaysia already enforces the Islamic laws of the Shariah. The only Islamic laws of the Shariah not yet enforced are the criminal laws of Hudud. But the Shariah laws are imposed only on Muslims. Non-Muslims are not subjected to these laws.

Okay, non-Muslims are also citizens of Malaysia and, therefore, have a right to express their views. Granted! So express your views then. But by calling Islam a barbaric, outdated, antiquated, evil, unjust, unfair, silly, stupid, unreasonable, etc., religion is not quiet 'expressing your views'. This is just triggering a 'them and us' situation.

So, where do we go from here? Well, you tell me! I have opened up Malaysia Today to non-registered readers to give everyone a chance to express their views. Do you still think that this has been a productive exercise? Do you think this has brought us closer together or has the reverse happened -- we have driven the wedge deeper? You tell me.

When the word TOO is hidden

Posted: 29 Sep 2011 05:56 PM PDT

On the one hand we have PERKASA. On the other hand we have Malaysia Today's readers. They are actually all cut from the same cloth, the other side of the coin, so to speak. And the following comments seem to strengthen this view. And the moral of the story is: don't you dare question or criticise Pakatan Rakyat.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Pakatan, too, must come clean on 'covert funds'," said University of Malaya Professor, Edmund Terence Gomez. The word TOO was very cleverly hidden so that many Malaysia Today readers did not spot it.

That was actually a very dirty trick that Gomez played on our readers. If he had not hidden the word TOO, then many would have spotted it and would not have gone and commented as below.

Gomez has actually written dozens of books over more than a decade (http://www.bookfinder.com/author/edmund-terence-gomez/), some jointly with S. Jomo (http://www.bookfinder.com/author/jomo-k-s/), who moved to New York City as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development after retiring from the University of Malaya in 2004.

**************************************

written by Wakeupmsia, September 30, 2011 15:16:42

It's premature to ask that. Wait till they secure Putrajaya. BTW, have you asked Jibby about the Scopene commission or perhaps the funds he promised at the last few by-elections? Remember what he said "You help me, I help You"

written by arazak, September 30, 2011 15:59:02

Hello Gomez,

Go ask where UMNO got their money first? They have been stealing from the people for decades and you don't even bother to ask where they got their money? And mind you, the money they have been stealing from us would probably have been several thousand billions by now. Did UMNO disclose where they got their money to us? No, never!

I'll put you together in the same boat (or same dish) as the other Professor "kangkongs"; Zainal Keling and Khoo Kay Kim. What do we have here then. . .? Truely "1 Malaysia Kangkong" academicians who do nothing to improve our education standard other than sucking UMNO's dick!

You can all shove your Kangkong PhDs up your arses, please!

written by Sam V. Vellu, September 30, 2011 16:02:03

Come on lah Terrance ! when billions of dollars were being siphoned out of the country you never said anything , now suddenly when the General Election is near you are coming out to share in the potty. You are typical of catholic ball carriers of the Archbishop.

written by Q-Baron, September 30, 2011 16:03:16

All too well, Mr. T.G.. You have just shown us what a fine (BN) terrier you are yourself. Not bad but you would agree it should start with you here. Please tell us who is that covertly funded you to make this statement? Thanks.

written by ksmaniam28, September 30, 2011 16:10:47

I say it is a trap. Who is this guy to ask this question. The EC should do it. EC is not asking the question because if it ask the question, its biasedness will be too obvious is it. so they get a spy to do the job. Wow BN is trying very hard guys so watch it. They are curious how Pakatan is funded. If they know how it is done, the next thing will be that funder will not be funding Pakatan anymore. Cut the funds and Pakatan will die a natural death.

So whatever happens do not divulge the info. HOwever funding in such a manner should not be condoned. The EC should take a hard look at the funding. Yes, we can also hope to see pigs fly. Mt 2 cents worth.

written by chris, September 30, 2011 16:14:12

Gomez, were you just borned yesterday??? Why didn't you first posed this question to BN??? For over 50 years no one has raised the question to them and you had the gall to ask PKR???? I'm sure your promotion to Chancellor letter is in the mail.....

written by ng chai hing, September 30, 2011 16:31:03

Gomez do you know how much money had been squandered and siphoned by BN leaders year in year out ? i think you have eyes but cannot see, you have ears but cannot hear and you have mouth but cannot speak.

How spin-doctoring works

Posted: 28 Sep 2011 08:37 PM PDT

Malay support, which was about 49% in the March 2008 general election, has declined to about 40% over the last three years. Pakatan Rakyat would need to increase this support to at least 60% if it wants to be able to win enough seats in parliament to form the next federal government.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Pakatan stalemate after talks on hudud (The Star). Pakatan: Hudud only if all parties agree (The Malaysian Insider). Pakatan: No consensus for Kelantan to implement hudud (Malaysiakini). DAP won't back down on hudud, says Karpal (Free Malaysia Today). Hudud: PR agrees to disagree, maintains unity (Harakah Daily). Hudud backfires on BN, while a smiling Nik Aziz reaches out to non-Muslims (Malaysia Chronicle). Anwar: Pakatan will not implement Hudud Laws (Malaysian Digest).

That was what seven different news agencies/portals reported today. Now, all seven were reporting about the same event. But just from the headlines alone you can see the different slants in those reports. And if you would like to read the body of those reports you can do so below (where again their focus or emphasis is different).

Anwar Ibrahim said in his Blog: "Hudud: Pakatan sepakat akui Enakmen Syariah Kelantan, Terengganu". Lim Kit Siang, however, said: "Pakatan: Hudud only if all parties agree". Again, the slant between Anwar and Kit Siang is slightly different. Anwar says that Pakatan is 'unanimous and agrees'. Kit Siang says that they are not unanimous and do not agree (Hudud only if all parties agree).

So that makes nine different versions of the same event. Why not make it ten and the tenth version will be from me. And my 'headline' is going to be: 'Pakatan's move to regain lost Malay ground'.

Well, that is my version of that same event and certainly it differs from the other nine versions. But I am entitled to my opinion of what transpired just like all the others are entitled to their opinion and interpretation of events as well.

As we always say: you can't change the facts of history. But you can certainly interpret events according to the way you see them. For example, my interpretation of my TV3 interview earlier this year is that I reinforced or reiterated what I signed in my Statutory Declaration of June 2008. Others have interpreted it as me having done a U-turn or back-pedalled on what I signed in that SD. Can you see how that same event was interpreted differently by different people?

Anyway, my headline is: 'Pakatan's move to regain lost Malay ground'. And against the backdrop of this headline, how would the body of my report read and how different would it be to the others below?

Well, this is how the body of my report will read:

Pakatan Rakyat, realising that the road to Putrajaya lies in the hands of the Malay electorate, is making its move to regain what is apparently declining Malay support by raising the issue of the Shariah law of Hudud.

Pakatan Rakyat can see that it has already maximised Chinese and Indian support. However, without more Malay support, it is never going to be able to form the next federal government.

Pakatan Rakyat realises that even if it manages to win 90% Chinese and Indian support that would not be good enough if Malay support hovers at around only 40%. Pakatan Rakyat can afford to see Chinese and Indian support reduce to 80%, or even 75%. But as long as Malay support can increase to 60% then it can win the next general election even with a reduced Chinese and Indian support.

More than half the seats in parliament are 'Malay' seats. This means the Malay votes are more crucial than non-Malay votes. With non-Malay votes above 60%, say 75-80%, then Pakatan Rakyat can still make it. But it can only make it if the Malay support is 60% or so.

This appears to be a brilliant move as far as West Malaysia is concerned where 165 of the 222 parliament seats are located. That does not, however, solve the problem of the 57 parliament seats in East Malaysia.

In East Malaysia, there are no 'Malay' seats as such. So, while this strategy may be brilliant when it comes to West Malaysia (where Pakatan Rakyat could probably win up to 85 of the 165 parliament seats), it is not clear how this would help in East Malaysia (where Pakatan Rakyat would need to win at least 30 parliament seats if it wants to form the next federal government).

Pakatan Rakyat does not seem to have got its act together in East Malaysia. Will this Hudud issue actually work for or against Pakatan Rakyat in East Malaysia or will it have no impact at all? This is not known just yet.

Nevertheless, Pakatan Rakyat will need to come out with a different and much stronger strategy for East Malaysia. If not, then Pakatan Rakyat will win not more than ten seats there, which means Barisan Nasional will be back in power with at least 127 seats in parliament.

Clearly, the Hudud issue is aimed at the voters in the Malay heartland. Now PAS can go down to the voters to say that it honestly and sincerely tried its best to implement Hudud, in particular in Kelantan and Terengganu. However, Umno, the lead partner in the ruling government, is the one blocking the implementation of Hudud. And yet Umno claims that it is the largest Islamic party in the world.

The failure to see Hudud implemented in Malaysia will clearly rest on Umno's shoulders. Umno will be seen as what the Chinese would say the chao lang (arehole, bastard: take your pick) in this whole matter. You can't blame DAP for opposing Hudud, PAS will argue. After all, DAP is not an Islamic party. But what excuse does Umno have for opposing Hudud?

The question now would be: what will the affect be to the Chinese or Indian voters? Of course, Pakatan Rakyat might see a slight decline in non-Malay support (but then again it might not or the decline will be very minimal). But if this slight decline can be offset by an even larger increase in Malays votes, then Pakatam Rakyat would be taking one step backwards but two steps forwards. That means, with the plusses and minuses added together, Pakatan Rakyat would be still ahead with some plusses.

Pakatan Rakyat's shot at Putrajaya will of course depend on what happens in East Malaysia. And the Hudud issue may not have any bearing at all on what happens there. So how is Pakatan Rakyat going to ensure that it wins at least 30 seats from East Malaysia?

That is not an issue for discussion today and is not related to the subject matter: Hudud as Pakatan's move to regain lost Malay ground.

*****************************

1. Pakatan stalemate after talks on hudud

(The Star) -- Pakatan Rakyat has failed to reach a consensus on hudud despite a three-hour meeting.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said they respected the Syariah criminal enactment drawn in 1993 in Kelantan and in 2003 in Terengganu before Pakatan was formed.

"We have agreed to respect the differences of opinions in line with democratic principles," he said after the Pakatan leadership meeting here last night.

Among those present were PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, DAP chairman Karpal Singh, PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang.

Asked if Pakatan agreed to the implementation of hudud laws in Kelantan and Terengganu, Anwar said they would refer to their common policy framework.

Anwar said Pakatan leaders had agreed to abide by the Federal Constitution and the Buku Jingga.

"Hudud laws cannot be implemented without amending the Federal Constitution," he said.

"And DAP's objection must also be respected," he added.

The issue erupted after PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said that the party hoped to implement hudud laws in Kelantan.

*****************************

2. Pakatan: Hudud only if all parties agree

(The Malaysian Insider) -- Pakatan Rakyat (PR) agreed today that the contentious hudud or Islamic criminal law is not part of its joint policy until all parties agree to it, stepping back from the brink of a major difference that broke an earlier opposition coalition.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told a press conference just after midnight that the set of Islamic laws was "certainly now not PR policy and DAP's objection has to be respected."

"Yes, very clear, it has to be together," the PKR de facto leader replied to a question on whether any move to implement hudud would need the unanimous agreement of all three parties in the pact.

He had earlier backed imposing the law in Kelantan, just like political foe Umno whose former leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dredged up the issue last week.

Close to 30 top PR leaders had met for over three hours last night to resolve the longstanding hudud issue which has seen the DAP and PAS repeatedly at loggerheads.

Dr Mahathir, who opposed hudud when Kelantan passed the law in 1993, dared Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the state's mentri besar, to implement hudud now that the country's longest-serving prime minister was no longer in power.

The PAS spiritual leader then called on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to propose amendments to the federal constitution to allow the Islamic law, which prescribes stoning, whipping and amputation as punishment for criminal offences.

But the DAP has insisted that it is not part of PR's common policy, leading to the three-year-old pact's unity being questioned.

Secretary-general Lim Guan Eng vowed this week that his entire central leadership would resign their posts if hudud became part of the coalition's joint stand.

PR issued a gag order earlier this week, barring their members from speaking on the issue until the pact's emergency meeting last night.

Anwar also said PR will continue to allow its members to air different views but that no policy would become part of its common platform without the consensus of all.

"Why must PAS be denied the right to articulate their views? We cannot deny the right of any party to bring forward any view. PR respects PAS's initiative and aspiration but we have to reach a consensus," the former deputy prime minister said.

He added that he could not understand "why (hudud) cannot be discussed? Why the strong abhorrence?"

The Permatang Pauh MP also said that the hudud enactments that were passed in PAS-ruled Kelantan and Terengganu in 1993 and 2003 respectively were done before PR had been formed.

Anwar said that "both enactments are there, but it requires PR consensus and an amendment to the constitution. DAP is not supportive of that particular position."

******************************

3. Pakatan: No consensus for Kelantan to implement hudud

(Malaysiakini) -- Pakatan Rakyat today said that it will uphold the Federal Constitution in so far as the hudud law is concerned, implying that it will not seek the constitutional amendments required for the law to be implemented.

However, the coalition agreed to disagree on existing enactments pertaining to hudud law in Kelantan and Terengganu, as the enactments predate the formation of Pakatan.

Speaking after a three-hour meeting which ended at midnight at the PAS headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim said this was to respect the divergent views of PAS and DAP on the thorny issue.

"Both enactments are already there as references, but there is a need to refer to Pakatan Rakyat as it involves Federal Constitution amendment.

"The (Kelantan) government is here, (state exco) Takiyuddin (Hassan) explained the Kelantan position and the requirement for (the state enactment's) enforcement is an amendment to the Federal Constitution," he said.

Asked specifically if Pakatan will be implementing the hudud law if it comes into power in the next election, Anwar said: "No, there is no consensus (on that)."

However, the veteran politician noted that Pakatan is not closing the door on hudud and is prepared to pursue the matter to respect PAS' democratic right to voice their position.

"We cannot deny PAS, DAP or PKR the right to (present their case)... but we are bound to the Federal Constitution and the Buku Jingga.

"There is nothing stopping us from discussing the issue. Why can this not be discussed?" he asked when quizzed by reporters.

Of the 26 who attended the meeting, said to have been fairly heated, were DAP leaders Karpal Singh, Lim Kit Siang, Ngeh Koo Ham and Liew Chin Tong, PAS leaders Abdul Hadi Awang, Salahuddin Ayub and Nasruddin Hassan and PKR leaders Dr Wan Azizah Ismail, Azmin Ali and Shamsul Iskandar Md Akin.

Takiyuddin was representing the Kelantan government on the instruction of state menteri besar and PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat.

Pakatan leaders tightlipped

According to Anwar, Pakatan leaders including himself also contacted Nik Aziz, a staunch supporter of the hudud law, on the matter.

He added that the meeting was also briefed of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993 and Terengganu Syariah Criminal Code 2003 by Takiyuddin and Abdul Hadi.

Pakatan leaders approached after the meeting were all tightlipped and refused to divulge information of what had happened in the lengthy meeting.

The hudud issue has been used by Pakatan's opponents to accuse the coalition of being a marriage of convenience rather than a formidable pact.

Often used as ammunition against Pakatan on the matter is the statement by Karpal that the Islamic laws will only be implemented comprehensively in Malaysia "over (his) dead body".

"We stress that we will not be dragged into the desperate political ploy of Umno-BN to drive a wedge between us. We fully believe in the maturity and wisdom of the rakyat to judge this situation for themselves," said Anwar.

******************************

4. DAP won't back down on hudud, says Karpal

(Free Malaysia Today) -- DAP chairman Karpal Singh said the party will continue to oppose any attempts at implementing hudud in the country.

"From the very beginning, DAP has also made known its opposition against any attempts by PAS and others to turn the country into an Islamic state," he said.

"Let me make it very clear: hudud is not in line with the Federal Cosntitution and therefore it is unconstitutional," Karpal told FMT when commenting on the outcome of last night's meeting of Pakatan Rakyat's top brass to discuss the hudud issue.

He said even though PAS leaders were adamant (about implementing Islamic laws), DAP was equally firm in its opposition.

"You can't have Islamic laws in a secular state; it's as simple as that," said Karpal, who was also at the meeting at the PAS headquarters in Jalan Raja Laut here.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court led by the then Lord President Mohamed Salleh Abas had declared that the country was a secular state in a landmark decision on a case in 1988.

He reiterated that there will be "no change" in his party's stand on the matter, adding that he had conveyed this decision to PKR advisor Anwar Ibrahim.

When asked to describe the atmosphere at last night's meeting, Karpal said it was "very cordial".

On calls by several MCA and Gerakan leaders to DAP to make its stand clear over the (hudud) issue, Karpal hit out at both parties, calling them "hypocrites".

"Where were they when Mahathir (former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad) declared that Malaysia was an Islamic state?"

"There was not even a whimper of protest from any of the Barisan National (BN) component parties," he said.

Asked whether he was concerned that the hudud issue will adversely affect relationship among the Pakatan allies, Karpal said that it was normal to have differences.

"But we still share a common stand on several key issues like human rights and corruption."

*******************************

5. Hudud: PR agrees to disagree, maintains unity

(Harakah Daily) -- Pakatan Rakyat yesterday decided to 'agree to disagree' on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Islamic deterrent punishment for serious crimes, or hudud, saying it respected both PAS and DAP's positions on the matter.

After a three-hour meeting, the coalition issued a joint statement to respect the hudud enactments by PAS governments in Kelantan and Terengganu which predate the coalition.

"The meeting acknowledges and respects the differences among parties in Pakatan Rakyat as a democratic alliance, including PAS's position on the implementation of the Shariah law.

"The meeting also acknowledges the Kelantan's Shariah Criminal Enactment 1993 and Terengganu's Shariah Enactment in 2003 which existed before Pakatan Rakyat was born. PKR and PAS respect the different stand taken by DAP in this matter," said the statement.

Speaking to the press later, parliamentary Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said the implementation of hudud would require amendment to the Federal Constitution.

On whether PR would implement hudud if it wrests power at the Federal level, Anwar said there was no such consensus.

"We will not be dragged into the desperate politics of UMNO-BN to create a wedge between us," he said.

******************************

6. Hudud backfires on BN, while a smiling Nik Aziz reaches out to non-Muslims

(Malaysia Chronicle) -- With the dust settling on the hudud law issue, PAS' revered Spritiual Adviser Nik Aziz Nik Mat has reason to smile. He and his party have won a major concession from coalition partner, the DAP.

PAS' aspiration to implement hudud in Kelantan and Terengganu has been acknowledged by its partners DAP and PKR. Both states have already passed hudud into law at their respective state assemblies and whai is now stopping the implementation is the Umno-led federal government's refusal to give the go-ahead.

But the 80-year old Nik Aziz, who is also Kelantan Mentri Besar, is no fool. He is also a gentleman and would never think of forcing hudud on the state just to satisfy his own and PAS' staunch Islamic convictions. Already, he has begun to reach out to the non-Muslims to further calm their fears over hudud, which is feared because of the types of punishment it prescribes which include amputation of limbs, whipping and stoning to death.

"My non-Muslim friends, can I know which part of the punishment is frightening to you," Nik Aziz wrote on his Facebook page hours after the Pakatan decision was announced.

"I hope you are not afraid of hudud due to misunderstanding or misinformation because that could only be the reason for your fear, because of false perceptions or because you do not know or are not sure. And I would like to understand your concern more clearly and to this end, I have prepare many answers to help you overcome your worries."

BN now on the defensive

The Pakatan decision and the open manner in which the three parties - DAP, PAS and PKR - handled the contentious issue has put political rivals Umno and BN on the defensive.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who is Umno president, is left looking rather lacking and not just to the Muslims but also to the non-Muslims. In the past week, since the issue was stirred up by former premier Mahathir Mohamad, there has been a groundswell of Muslim support towards PAS and Nik Aziz.

Although there are many Malays who are against hudud and believe it is an archaic law, they still leaned towards PAS in appreciation of its willingness to struggle for Islam. They see in Najib's slick disavowal of hudud as a mere political decision, aimed at making himself popular rather than try to find a way forward from the highly sensitive and contentious issue.

"We stress that we will not be dragged into the desperate political ploy of Umno-BN to drive a wedge between us. We fully believe in the maturity and wisdon of the rakyat to judge this situation for themselves," Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim had said.

Displeasure with Najib grows in Umno

While BN has been quick to draw attention to the Pakatan's disgareement over the issue, Umno itself was split over hudud while MCA and Gerakan were strongly against it.

Najib's over eagerness to brush off hudud contrasts sharply against his deputy's view that Umno supported hudud but could not implement it immediately. The PM's political faux pas has earned him the wrath of the hardliners in Umno and the anger of the staunchly Muslim.

The return goodwill from the non-Muslims, especially the Chinese, was negligible with many seeing through his ploy to gain their votes along with MCA and Gerakan.

"The insincerity is glaring. Certainly, it will worsen the relations between the Najib and Muhyiddin camp. Within Umno, the calls to get Najib to step down has grown because of the hudud. He doesn't seem to be able to feel the pulse of his own people," Bukit Gantang MP Nizar Jamaluddin told Malaysia Chronicle.

Stunning Facebook support

Meanwhile, in a clear testimony that honesty is always appreciated, Nik Aziz's Facebook has chalked stunning support since the issue gained prominence. He now has at least 561,047 followers.

For one particular post he made on the hudud issue, he received 4,356 comments. At least 9,146 readers pressed the 'like' button, while 3,054 others pressed the 'share' button to post it on their own facebook wall.

The post that drew so much attention reads as follows:

"Oh Utusan Malaysia, the paper which claims to protect the rights of the Malays and Islam. Are you aware of what you're doing? Where is the limit to practising politics that you ignore but insist on fooling around with what is clearly stated in the Quran?

Oh Muslims…oh Mighty Lord….oh my fellow Mufti…oh Malay/Islamic NGOs…oh my fellow scholars and young scholars of Umno…isn't it obvious that this act is an insult to Islamic law?"

Nik Aziz had penned the post in response to a caricature from the Umno-owned Utusan newspaper.

In his next posting, Nik Aziz explained that he rarely reads the Utusan.

"In my opinion, the newspaper seems more like an Umno mouthpiece. This morning I was shown a cartoon sketch that was published yesterday, insulting the word hudud. I don't want to comment much, what I said was enough, matches the level of thinking in Utusan Malaysia's editorial board," said Nik Aziz.

******************************

7. Anwar: Pakatan will not implement Hudud Laws

(Malaysian Digest) -- Pakatan Rakyat have decided to not implement the hudud law in Kelantan as the implementation of the Islamic law need consensus from all three Pakatan parties.

The decision was announced by Pakatan leaders after a meeting over the issue which started at 9pm and ended about 12:30am.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said he respects PAS' initiatives and aspirations for the implementation of the law, however, DAP is opposed to it.

Despite the decision by the DAP, the other two component parties– PKR and PAS – said they respect the final decision in which a consensus must be reached in order to implement the law.

"Pakatan respects PAS' and PKR's support for hudud in Kelantan just as it respects DAP's opposition to it," Anwar told a press conference after the meeting at PAS headquarters.

Anwar added that Pakatan acknowledges the ideological differences in each of its component parties – including PAS' stand on the hudud law – as the coalition is a democratic collaboration.

According to him, the implementation of hudud law would also require amendment to the Federal Constitution.

"Both enactments are already there… but there is a need to refer to Pakatan Rakyat because it involves Federal Constitution amendments," he added.

The PKR de facto leader said that the decision by Pakatan over the hudud issue defends the mutual policies contained in the Federal Constitution as well as the Buku Jingga (Orange book).

He said, in the meeting, the opposition leaders also addressed the existence of the 1993 Syariah Criminal Enactment II of Kelantan and the 2003 Syariah Criminal Enactment of Terengganu which was created before the existence of the Pakatan coalition.

He added that the Pakatan will continue to strengthen its political will to improve its economic competitiveness, income of the people, quality of education, health and the cost of living which has been getting higher.

He said that, in the meeting, the three component parties also agreed that they will not be dragged into what he claims to be Umno/Barisan Nasional's "desperate" political games to divide the Pakatan parties.

"We are fully confident of the rakyat's maturity and wisdom in evaluating this situation," said Anwar.

According to him, during the meeting, the leaders have also decided concurred that cooperation will be given towards realizing Pakatan's main political objective in the next general election (GE13) which is to rebuild the national fundamentals which were "ruined by Umno / BN" following the principles of universal justice, good governance, accountability, transparency and competency to achieve "public good" for all rakyat.

He also said that PAS will not be stopped from talking about implementing hudud laws despite not having a consensus on the matter.

"We are not an Umno-controlled Pakatan Rakyat… We respect the right of people to present their case, ask questions and raise the matter… and to deny PAS to articulate their position is not fair," he added.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Khamis, 6 Oktober 2011