Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- So, teach me the 'jalan yang betul' then!
- The chicken and the egg
- 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
| So, teach me the 'jalan yang betul' then! Posted: 06 Oct 2011 03:31 AM PDT
Next, he or she assumes that the writer of the article, in this case Azmi Sharom, is not knowledgeable about the subject matter that he wrote about. And he or she made this assumption merely because the writer of the article, in this case Azmi Sharom, has a different view. Therefore, if you have a different view, then this means you are not knowledgeable about the subject. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Saudara azmi anda kena jelas betul2. Anda Muslim Dan org yg berpelajaran tinggi Dan ramai pengikut....jgn samapi kita bawa mereka ke Jln yg sesat.....sy tk kata u sesat....tp rujuklah dulu pd mereka yg lebih mahir dlm bab Hudud. Yg u baca bukan maknanya u faham...u faham cara u...maybe betul maybe tak betul!!!! Innalillah...... ******************************** The above comment was posted by Eshmaelajenoor in the news item 'Right to question hudud law' by Azmi Sharom, originally published in The Star. |
| Posted: 05 Oct 2011 07:38 PM PDT
I believe we are moving towards better system like UK. We are in the move to balance up two-party system. But first, we have to win the election and PR to enforce MCLM as third force and act as referee for two-party system. Since both parties are not as mature as UK, they might use dirty tricks to kill each other. MCLM will be used to monitor both parties come clean and fair (written by jacko2012, October 06, 2011 13:44:29). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
I want to write just a short piece today. I am busy with my studies so that means I can afford little time with cheong hei articles. (Someone asked me what cheong hei means. It means long-winded). The comment above by jacko2012 is just one example of many such comments (and I mean MANY). I thought I would pick that one up (not that that one is special or above the rest) to demonstrate what many -- and I mean MANY -- readers like to comment. It is always: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. But that is just it. We are looking at the chicken and the egg syndrome. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? While you may argue: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. I would like to argue: we must first do all that BEFORE we have any chance of seeing the government change. For example, I am saying that we need electoral reforms. You then say: forget it. This will not happen under Barisan Nasional. Wait till we change the government. Then we can talk about electoral reforms. But then that is just it. Without electoral reforms we shall have no chance in hell of changing the government. Barisan Nasional, which has been in power for almost 54 years (earlier as the Alliance Party), will continue to be in power for another 54 years. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do we push for electoral reforms NOW or wait until after Barisan Nasional is kicked out and Pakatan Rakyat comes into power? Can Pakatan Rakyat win the election without electoral reforms? If we can change the government without electoral reforms, then why do we need to embark upon electoral reforms after successfully changing the government? Do you get my point? And the same applies for all the other issues as well. We can't wait until Barisan Nasional is kicked out before talking about it because ONE of the criteria to see a change in government is to talk about this NOW. For example, how many voters (who are not happy about Hudud) are prepared to vote for PAS first, and then later, after Pakatan Rakyat becomes the federal government, we will argue and fight about Hudud? They will want the Hudud matter resolved BEFORE they decide whether to vote for PAS or not. So you might say: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. However, one million other voters will say 'no way!' and will either vote for Barisan Nasional or will boycott the election and not come out to vote at all. And this applies not only to the Hudud issue but to many other issues as well. So don't be shiok sendiri. Just because you place ABU (anything but Umno/asal bukan Umno) above all else, and are prepared to 'talk only after PR comes to power', does not mean that 10 million other voters also share your view. They would rather tread carefully. And if they are not sure, they would rather not vote for you. So that is my very short article for today. And yes, I know, 80% of the comments will be about whether it is the chicken first or the egg first while they ignore the more important message in my article. I have grown accustomed to readers who argue about the colour of the rope rather than whether so-and-so committed suicide by hanging or was murdered. |
| What we are not and why we can never be 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. ******************************* 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? 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. End of problem! |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. 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. 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 |
| 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. 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? 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. |
| 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. 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. 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. |
| 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? 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. God is eternal. 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.
|
| 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. 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. 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. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan