| Vote opposition, says Zahid Hamidi Posted: 29 Dec 2011 08:44 AM PST 
Defence Minister and Umno Vice President Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has asked Malaysian voters to vote opposition to show their disappointment with the government. Ahmad Zahid urged Malaysians to reject the present government, which has not shown any changes and only makes promises that are never delivered. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin Vote BN To Show Frustration Against State Govt
(Bernama) - The people of Selangor must show their disappointment with the state government leadership by giving their mandate to the Barisan Nasional (BN) to lead the state again, said Umno vice-president Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
The people of Selangor were seen to begin to realise and were rising up to reject the present state government which had not shown any positive change except to make promises during their ceramah, said Ahmad Zahid, who is also the Defence Minister.
"This fact has become a reality in Selangor. They are angry, (they) regretted the outcome of the last general election due to their anger against a certain people and the local leader in their areas."
"As such, the resurgence of BN in Selangor especially under the leadership of the Prime Minister as the Selangor BN chairman, will rebuild the people's support for the BN," he said when opening the 'Love Selangor Carnival' organised by the Selangor BN at i-City, here last night.
Also present were 'Love Selangor Carnival' operations director Mohd Zin Mohamed, Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Chua Tee Yong and senior Selangor BN leaders.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Zahid said the carnival was a catalyst to evaluate to what extent the programmes organised by the BN were getting public support.
This was apparent from the presence of 100,000 visitors to the carnival after two days and the figure was expected to rise to 300,000 by Saturday.
The four-day 'Love Selangor Carnival' which began on Wednesday will climax with the 2012 New Year Eve celebration which will be launched by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
|
| God versus religion Posted: 25 Dec 2011 09:08 AM PST
The Abrahamic faiths all believe that there is only one God. That makes it easy. However, there are three Abrahamic faiths and many more branches and sub-branches of these three faiths. And each of these faiths, branches and sub-branches claims that it is the only true faith and that all the others are false. That makes it complicating. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin Just a short 'Boxing Day' note to assure you that I am still around.
"Is it rational to believe in God?" asks Giovanni Serritella, which was published in Harakah, the party organ of PAS. You can read the article here: http://en.harakah.net.my/index.php/articles/depth/4048-is-it-rational-to-believe-in-god.html
The world has always addressed this matter as a theist versus atheist issue. You believe in the existence of God or you do not. However, it is not as simple as that. And because they have allowed very narrow parameters to the discussion it falls into a mere 'yes' or 'no' exercise.
I would like to introduce a new word, religionist, so that I can break the two groups into three (theists, religionists and atheists).
What I mean here is: there is one group that believes in the existence of God, another that does not, and a third that believes in the existence of God but not in religion. Once we expand the two groups into three it becomes easier to discuss the issue.
And this is where the religionists have been very devious. They not only reduce the groupings to two (theist and atheist) but they also tie the belief in God to the belief in religion. In other words, to believe in God you must also believe in religion.
Hence you must believe in the Trinity, that the road to salvation is through Christ and therefore you must accept Christ, or that Muhammad is the last Prophet and only by following Prophet Muhammad will you be ensured paradise, and so on. You are not allowed to believe in God independently. The belief in God must be packaged and tied to the belief in a religious doctrine. To reject this doctrine means you also reject God.
The Abrahamic faiths all believe that there is only one God. That makes it easy. However, there are three Abrahamic faiths and many more branches and sub-branches of these three faiths. And each of these faiths, branches and sub-branches claims that it is the only true faith and that all the others are false. That makes it complicating.
If we reduce everything to just the belief in God then it makes life very simple. Only when the belief in God also involves the belief in religion and you are not allowed to believe in God without also believing in one of the so many religions does it make our life messy.
Granted, you may believe that God exists and that the universe (and everything within it) was created by God. The question now would be: but was religion also created by God or was this an invention of humankind? God can exist because there is only one God. But how can there be so many religions if they were from God?
Well, we can talk more of this later if you wish.
|
| Change in government, not change of government (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 18 Dec 2011 10:52 AM PST
Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin Three days ago I completed my Oxford course, Philosophy of Religion. I will know in two weeks or so whether I passed or not. On 1 February 2012, my new course, Age of Revolution, will commence. This course is about the transformation and reformation (meaning: revolutions) in Europe from the period of the French Revolution to the First World War.
I have two textbooks to read, which I am already halfway through, and even before I start the course I can already see many parallels with what happened more than 200 years ago with what is happening today.
The article below, Talk to us, not talk at us, by Thomas L Friedman, which was published in the New Straits Times, makes interesting reading. This article also summarises some of what I have read thus far.
Basically, (pre-empting what my course is going to reveal), many of these revolutions are bottom-up rather than top-down events. Another 1,000-page book I read a couple of months ago about the French and Russian Revolutions appear to reveal the same thing.
Furthermore, it revealed that revolutions are started by the masses and not by political leaders (and succeeds only when critical mass is reached) but are eventually hijacked by politicians. For example, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, etc., did not mastermind the revolution. They grabbed power once the revolution started. In fact, some of the so-called leaders were actually in exile outside Russia and came home to take over once the revolution succeeded in ousting the government (remember Khomeini as well?).
Another point would be about the transformation or reformation itself. What the people seek is change. And the route they chose is to change the government. But in the end they did not actually see change. Hence the title of my article today: Change in government, not change of government.
And that is what we should seek. We should learn from more than 200 years of history. And the lesson is: we may see a change of government but that does not mean we are going to see a change in government. This is what I normally call old wine in a new bottle.
Can we be assured that by changing the government we will see change? Can a change of government guarantee us a change in government? Can more than 200 years of history be wrong?
Well, just look at the so-called changes of recent times such as in Iran in 1979. Did the US see change with Obama at the helm? Did Britain see a change when they kicked out Labour last year?
Look at Egypt. The people took to the Tahrir Square to force a change of government. But they did not see a change in government. So now they are taking to the Tahrir Square again and the killings are continuing, barely a few months since the last revolution.
And this is the history of the French Revolution as well. We always talk about the French Revolution of 1789. But how many of you know that that is actually the First French Revolution. And that revolution was a disaster. There was more anarchy and chaos after the revolution. They needed a second revolution to address the errors that the first revolution brought. But no one talks about the Second French Revolution of 60 years later (in fact, many are not even aware of this second revolution).
I am not gungho about Pakatan Rakyat. That does not mean I am gungho about Barisan Nasional either. It is just that I am not gungho about all politicians who use the people to change governments and then grab power and perpetuate what the old government did.
Over the next few months I am going to demonstrate why we need to focus on a change in government and not a change of government. I am going to reveal the excesses and transgressions of those who are offering themselves as the saviour of the nation.
My purpose in doing this is not to frustrate a change of government. Certainly, ABU must happen. So we need a change of government for that to happen. But we must not only remove Umno (and its cohorts in Barisan Nasional). We must also ensure that the spirit of Umno is removed as well.
Why would we want a new government that perpetuates the spirit of Umno? Is this not what Britain is currently facing? And why do you think the British voters are going back to voting for Labour in the by-elections barely a year into a new government? My own area in Manchester fell back to Labour in the recent by-election.
I have evidence of some very troubling shenanigans in the states currently under Pakatan Rakyat control. And what I see is basically a continuation of the spirit of Umno. But are you, like me, also concerned about this? Or would you rather we close our eyes (and our minds) to all this and pretend that nothing is wrong?
As I said, more than 200 years of history has taught us how changing the government without focusing on a change in government can bring about disastrous results. We have more than 200 years of history (plus what is currently going on in Egypt) to learn from.
Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat.
And if Pakatan Rakyat continues to be just like Barisan Nasional in the states they are running, how can we trust them as the new federal government? Will we need to do a Tahrir Square Version 2.0 later after voting them into Putrajaya?
That is what we wish to avoid. So Pakatan Rakyat has to accept the whacking. It is better we whack them now than the voters whack them at the ballot box.
I know there will be allegations of selling out, turncoat, Trojan horse and whatnot. But that is how they normally respond when we whack the opposition leaders. They regard criticising the opposition leaders as if we are insulting Prophet Muhammad. But then the opposition leaders are not Prophet Muhammad and above criticism. This, they need to learn and we shall teach them this lesson how much it may hurt. ***************************************
Talk to us, not talk at us
By Thomas L Friedman, New Straits Times
THE historian Walter Russell Mead recently noted that after the 1990s revolution that collapsed the Soviet Union, Russians had a saying that seems particularly apt today: "It's easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than to turn fish soup into an aquarium".
Indeed, from Europe to the Middle East, and maybe soon even to Russia and Asia, a lot of aquariums are being turned into fish soup all at once. But turning them back into stable societies and communities will be one of the great challenges of our time.
We are present again at one of those great unravellings -- just like after World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War. But this time, there was no war. All of these states have been pulled down from within -- without warning. Why?
The main driver, I believe, is the merger of globalisation and the information technology revolution. Both achieved a critical mass in the first decade of the 21st century that has resulted in the democratisation -- all at once -- of so many things that neither weak states nor weak companies can stand up against.
We've seen the democratisation of information, where everyone is now a publisher; the democratisation of war-fighting, where individuals became super-empowered (enough so, in the case of al-Qaeda, to take on a superpower); the democratisation of innovation, wherein start-ups using free open-source software and "the cloud" can challenge global companies.
And, finally, we've seen what Mark Mykleby, a retired Marine colonel and former adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls "the democratisation of expectations" -- the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted.
I've been struck by how similar the remarks by Russians about Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who just basically reappointed himself president, are to those I heard from Egyptians about Hosni Mubarak, who kept reappointing himself president.
The Egyptian writer Alaa al-Aswany said to me that Egyptians resented the idea that Mubarak would just hand power to his son Gamal as if the Egyptian people "were chickens", who could be passed by a leader to his son.
Last Sunday, a New York Times article from Moscow quoted the popular, imprisoned Russian blogger Aleksei Navalny as saying: "We are not cattle or slaves. We have voices and votes and the power to uphold them."
"The days of leading countries or companies via a one-way conversation are over," says Dov Seidman, the chief executive officer of LRN and the author of the book How.
"The old system of 'command and control' -- using carrots and sticks -- to exert power over people is fast being replaced by 'connect and collaborate' -- to generate power through people."
Leaders and managers cannot just impose their will, adds Seidman. "Now you have to have a two-way conversation that connects deeply with your citizens or customers or employees."
Netflix had a one-way conversation about raising prices with its customers, who instantly self-organised; some 800,000 bolted, and the stock plunged.
Bank of America had a one-way conversation about charging a US$5 (RM16) fee on debit cards, and its customers forced the bank to reverse itself and apologise.
Putin thought he had power over his people and could impose whatever he wanted and is now being forced into a conversation to justify staying in power. Coca-Cola repackaged its flagship soft drink in white cans for the holidays. But an outcry of "blasphemy" from consumers forced Coke to switch back from white cans to red cans in a week. Last year, Gap ditched its new logo after a week of online backlash by customers.
A lot of CEOs will tell you that this shift has taken them by surprise, and they are finding it hard to adjust to the new power relationships with customers and employees.
"As power shifts to individuals," argues Seidman, "leadership itself must shift with it -- from coercive or motivational leadership that uses sticks or carrots to extract performance and allegiance out of people to inspirational leadership that inspires commitment and innovation and hope in people".
The role of the leader now is to get the best of what is coming up from below and then meld it with a vision from above. Are you listening, Mr Putin?
This kind of leadership is especially critical today, adds Seidman, "when people are creating a lot of 'freedom from' things -- freedom from oppression or whatever system is in their way -- but have not yet scaled the values and built the institutional frameworks that enable 'freedom to' -- freedom to build a career, a business or a meaningful life."
One can see this vividly in Egypt, where the bottom-up democracy movement was strong enough to oust Mubarak but now faces the long, arduous process of building new institutions and writing a new social contract from a democracy coalition that encompass Muslim Brothers, Christian liberals, Muslim liberals, the army and ultraconservative Muslim Salafis.
Getting all those fish back and swimming together in one aquarium will be no small task -- one that will take a courageous and special leader. Help wanted.
|
| Between friends, comrades and acquaintances (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 14 Dec 2011 12:18 PM PST
Opposition supporters demonstrate a very low level of maturity. They allow their thinking to be clouded by emotions. We need to be pragmatic. Support the cause by all means. The cause is what matters. But leaders are dispensable. Leaders come and go. The cause remains. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin Back in the days when I used to do business (that would be pre-1995) I had a 'guiding light'. I do not do business with people I socialise with and I do not socialise with people I do business with. I keep my friends and my business acquaintances separate.
I did, however, break that rule a number of times. I did business with some friends and each time I got screwed big time. I lost quite a bit of money and that was when I got so disgusted I decided to call it quits in 1995 and thereafter focused fulltime on my real passion, writing. Well, only friends can screw you because only friends are able to exploit your trust.
I suppose the saying 'the surest way to lose a friend is to lend him money' holds true here. That is why whenever a friend wants to borrow money I just give him a portion of what he asks for and tell him that it is a gift, not a loan. And then I just write off the amount. Better that than you never get the money back and lose a friend in the process.
The same goes for political comrades. I separate the 'rakan seperjuangan' (comrades of the same struggle) from friends. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. For example, Haris Ibrahim, the President of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) is both a comrade and a friend (plus my lawyer as well). But (Sam) Haris, as I said, is the exception.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is my friend. But he is not my rakan seperjuangan though. Dr Mahathir's struggle is to ensure that Umno stays in power while mine is ABU (Anything But Umno).
I know, at this point some of you are going to start foaming at the mouth and scream: how can I regard Dr Mahathir as a friend after what he did to Malaysia? Well, as I said, we differ on ideology but that does not mean I can't take him as a friend, and vice versa.
When I was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in September 2008, Dr Mahathir made a public statement condemning my detention. He was most upset that the government detained me, whom Dr Mahathir said, is just a Blogger and not a threat to national security.
When the court released me in November 2008, Dr Mahathir phoned me. He wanted to know how I was and, understandably, I was pleased that the ex-Prime Minister took the trouble to phone me on the day of my release.
No one else phoned me, not one of the opposition leaders, not even Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Ronnie Liu and Saari Sungib did come to see me though). They could not be bothered about me although I was detained because I was doing the work of the opposition. Dr Mahathir, however, phoned me to ask how I was. Under those circumstances how can I not regard Dr Mahathir as a friend?
Another person who spoke up for me when I was detained was Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. In fact, Zaid not only spoke up for me but he even resigned from his post as Minister in protest of my detention. Name me one Barisan Nasional minister who would resign from his/her post out of protest for detaining his/her friend. Most would rather distant themselves from their friend to ensure their political survival. Zaid, instead, sacrificed his political career for a friend.
Again, just like many can't understand why I regard Dr Mahathir as a friend, they also can't understand why I support Zaid, whom they regard as a traitor to the opposition cause. Nevertheless, while I regard Zaid as my friend, I refused to join his political party (which hurt his feelings, I know).
When I had to leave the country to avoid a third detention under the ISA, Zaid flew to Manchester to meet me. He even took me to a football match at the Old Trafford (Manchester United versus Sunderland). When I flew to Bangkok in January this year, Zaid came over to meet me and to buy me dinner. Last week, he, again, flew to Bangkok to meet up with me and to spend some time with me.
The other friends who went to Manchester (three times over three years) to meet me were Tan Sri Sanusi Junid and Mat Sabu of PAS. Mat Sabu even slept in my house and his purpose for going to Manchester was for no other reason other than to meet me and to spend time with me.
Sanusi Junid even phoned me on Hari Raya day to wish me 'Selamat Hari Hari'. I am not a rakan seperjuang of Sanusi. Just like Dr Mahathir, Sanusi's perjuangan is Umno and mine is ABU. But he calls me on Hari Raya day to wish me 'Selamat Hari Raya' while none of the opposition leaders would do that (or even members of the Selangor Royal Family).
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and quite a number of Umno leaders are my friends. Many Umno Bloggers are my friends. A few of the MCA, Gerakan and PPP leaders are also my friends. All these people meet me when they are in the UK and also phone me from time to time.
Okay, I have talked about Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz and all those others. You are probably by now wondering: what about Anwar Ibrahim? What is Anwar to me?
Well, Anwar is the Opposition Leader. So I support Anwar because I am pro-opposition and Anwar is the Opposition Leader. But he is not my friend. He is not my friend because he has not demonstrated friendship like Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz, etc., have.
But that is all Anwar is to me, my rakan seperjuangan, nothing more. And don't expect me to demonstrate loyalty to Anwar as a friend would because he has not shown me that he is my friend like Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz, etc., have.
Some say I am too critical towards Anwar. Actually, I have been holding back. You have not seen how critical I can be if I really wanted to. I do not want to go all out to criticise Anwar because too many people will take this criticism as a sell out or an act treacherous to the opposition cause.
The trouble is: people expect me to suck Anwar's dick to prove my loyalty to the opposition cause. Why must the opposition cause be tied to Anwar? The opposition cause is the opposition cause and Anwar is Anwar. They are two different issues and should not be packaged as one issue.
This, many can't seem to understand. They think that since you support the opposition then you must also support Anwar. I support PAS as well. Does that mean I must also support Hasan Ali? Can't I oppose Hasan Ali while supporting PAS?
Opposition supporters demonstrate a very low level of maturity. They allow their thinking to be clouded by emotions. We need to be pragmatic. Support the cause by all means. The cause is what matters. But leaders are dispensable. Leaders come and go. The cause remains.
The million-dollar question is: is Anwar the only Malaysian out of 28 million Malaysians who can lead the opposition? I think not. You mean out of 28 million Malaysians we can't find a replacement to Anwar? How come Anwar has been made so indispensable?
Anwar is most likely going to jail. He is most likely going to jail because he may be convicted of sodomy. Never mind if Anwar is or is not guilty or whether Anwar is a victim of a political conspiracy. That no longer matters. What matters is, who is going to lead the opposition once Anwar goes to jail?
Surely we are not serious about storming the Sungai Buloh Prison to break down the walls to free Anwar from jail and make him Prime Minister, like what Azmin Ali said? That's not how Prime Minister's are appointed in a parliamentary democracy.
Let's get real. We need someone to lead the opposition. And once Anwar is sent to jail it will have to be someone new. Personally, if you ask me, I would choose Nurul Izzah. But that is my personal opinion and my opinion may be clouded and not the best choice. Anyway, I am entitled to my personal opinion even if I may be wrong.
In closing, let me just say that I choose my own friends and no one is going to tell me who I can take as my friends. Yes, I know that many in the opposition resent the fact that I take Dr Mahathir, Sanusi, Zaid, Nazri Aziz, etc., as my friends. Well, tough! There is nothing you can do about that.
|
| Can Najib walk the talk? Posted: 12 Dec 2011 12:26 PM PST
Some friends from the mainstream media have met up with me in Bangkok to explore the possibility of doing such an interview. But they are not sure whether their government-controlled newspapers will censor the interview. I told them I will agree to the interview only on condition, and that is it is not one-sided and censored. But they are not sure whether their editors can agree to this. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin We are hearing a lot of politically correct sound-bytes coming from Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Of course, not many, not even those in Umno, believe what he is saying. They know it is all a lot of political talk, mere rhetoric. But it sure sounds good nevertheless.
I would like to throw Najib a challenge, to allow him to demonstrate his goodwill, that what he is saying is sincere and that he is genuine in what he is saying. And he can do this by giving me space in the mainstream media. After all, if he can give the hardcore Umno Bloggers space (like visits to the submarine), why can't he also give me space -- if what he is saying is true and not just political talk?
There will of course be one condition. They must not pick and choose from what I say, as what they did in my TV3 interview in February this year (which was aired only in April, close to the Sarawak state elections). They must publish the entire text of my interview.
Secondly, the interview must be in English, not in Bahasa Malaysia. This is to avoid any distortion to what I say (again, like in the TV3 interview). My Bahasa Malaysia is not as good as my English and the way I express myself in Bahasa Malaysia (that is, in the Terengganu East Coast manner) can be misinterpreted if you do not come from Terengganu.
I promise, I will be very critical of the opposition (and with the current developments in the opposition with so many opposition leaders demonstrating their warlord and godfather egos they deserve criticism). However, I shall also be critical of the government and Umno (and this is the part I want published and which should be published if what Najib is saying has any credibility).
Is Najib prepared to allow the mainstream media to do this? Let's see.
Some friends from the mainstream media have met up with me in Bangkok to explore the possibility of doing such an interview. But they are not sure whether their government-controlled newspapers will censor the interview. I told them I will agree to the interview only on condition, and that is it is not one-sided and censored. But they are not sure whether their editors can agree to this.
Some of the issues they wanted to talk about were regarding my perceived fallout with the opposition and Anwar Ibrahim. In fact, they wanted to meet me to ask me whether such a fallout actually exists and if so, why? I told them if they want the answer to that question then it would have to be asked in a formal interview and it must be published. I am not about to satisfy their curiosity by giving them a private, off the record interview.
That's all I want to say today. I am in the final week of my course and I have a lot of papers to complete so this week I have no time for cheong hei (long-winded) articles. Next week, once my course has ended, we can indulge in my normal three-page articles. Till then I await the response from Najib's boys. Do they have the guts to engage me? If they don't then Najib's so-called openness and reforms is nothing but pure bullshit.
Till later.
|
| Mixed signals Posted: 11 Dec 2011 09:08 AM PST
So what is it that these Muslims want? Do they want Islam or do they want to get rich? Islam is demonised. Muslim leaders like Nik Aziz are demonised. They scream that leaders like Nik Aziz are not compatible to development. Maybe Nik Aziz is a good Muslim but he does not know how to make the people rich. And at the end of the day getting rich is what matters. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin The first impression one gets about Islam is that Muslims like to show off. The piety of a Muslim is measured by the public demonstration he or she exudes.
A good Muslim is one who dresses the Islamic way -- a person who wears a tudung or purdah, white skullcap, Arab robe, etc. A person who goes to Mekah every year to perform the umrah or haj is a good Muslim. A person who can utter verses of the Quran or quotes from the Hadith in Arabic from memory is a good Muslim. A person who organises usrahs (religious classes) in his/her home and invites friends over to listen to sermons by renowned or famous preachers/scholars is a good Muslim. A person who not only prays five times a day in the privacy of his/her home but goes to the mosque to participate in congregational prayers is a good Muslim. A person who donates to the local orphanage is a good Muslim.
And the list goes on. It is all about what you demonstrate publicly for all and sundry to witness. And the more public demonstrations you conduct the more you will be considered a pious Muslim.
A good Muslim is also one who does not participate in un-Islamic activities. And this will include not participating in Christmas parties, New Year parties, Valentine's Day events, etc. In fact, wedding anniversaries, birthday parties, National Day celebrations, Labour Day events, etc., are also western or un-Islamic activities, although Muslims somehow do not appear to have any problems with these.
Muslims get extremely upset when Muslims leave Islam to become Christians, Hindus or Buddhists (I do not know of any Muslims who leave Islam to become Jews though). They will threaten bloodshed to those Christians, Hindus or Buddhists who proselytise to Muslims. In fact, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly forbids Christians, Hindus or Buddhists from proselytising to Muslims.
It is not that Muslims can't leave Islam to, say, become atheists. In fact, many do and we actually have a large number of Muslims who are Muslims in name only but not in spirit. It is just that you must leave Islam quietly without making a public demonstration of it.
If you want to leave Islam just don't tell anyone. Leave Islam in your heart. Don't announce it. Then Muslims would not get upset. It is, again, all about public demonstrations. Don't show you have left Islam. Pretend you are still a Muslim. Then Muslims will not get upset although they know that you are actually no longer a Muslim in your heart but are pretending to still be a Muslim.
Of course, if any Christian, Hindu or Buddhist were to convert to Islam, we have to make a big show of it. The whole world must be told. In fact, the world will be told that these people reverted, not converted, to Islam. This is because everyone is considered a Muslim before they came into this world. So, if you become a Muslim, you have reverted and not converted to Islam.
Most Muslims will say they are Muslim first and Malay second (some will also say they are Malay first and Malaysian second). Islam is the number one priority followed by all other things.
But here is where we begin to see the contradiction. And this contradiction is no slip of the tongue but the fault of the mind. It is just the mindset of the Muslims revealing itself. And what is revealed is the insincerity and hypocrisy of the Muslims. It shows the Muslims for what they really are, all talk.
Let me give you one example. I consider Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat a most sincere and devoted Muslim, someone whom I respect immensely. In fact, he is sometimes a bit too sincere for my liking, which makes him a bad politician. Nik Aziz will say what is in his heart, which may not be the politically correct thing to do (in politics you must know how to bluff, pretend, play to the gallery, and say what the people want to hear).
But do the Muslims sing Nik Aziz's praises? Nik Aziz is a perfect Muslim. So why condemn him?
Well, they condemn him because, according to these Muslims, Kelantan has not developed in the 21 years that Nik Aziz was its Menteri Besar. In fact, they shudder at the thought of Nik Aziz becoming Malaysia's Prime Minister (which is very surprising if these people are really as good a Muslim as they pretend to be since Nik Aziz is a perfect Muslim).
So, what is the priority here? Is it Islam or is it development? Do they want a perfect Muslim society or do they want a rich society?
It appears that, at the end of the day, a perfectly run state is one where we all become rich. If getting rich is more important than living in a perfect Islamic society then why worry if Muslims leave Islam? Are not the most advanced and richest societies the non-Muslim societies? In fact, Muslim societies are very backward.
So what is it that these Muslims want? Do they want Islam or do they want to get rich? Islam is demonised. Muslim leaders like Nik Aziz are demonised. They scream that leaders like Nik Aziz are not compatible to development. Maybe Nik Aziz is a good Muslim but he does not know how to make the people rich. And at the end of the day getting rich is what matters.
Muslims are sending mixed signals and it is confusing those who are not Muslims. On the one hand they scream about Islam, and about not allowing Muslims to leave Islam, and about banning rock concerts, and about persecuting and jailing gays, and whatnot. On the other hand they condemn good Muslim leaders because they are not able to make us rich.
If getting rich is what is important then all we need to do is to put aside Islam and let all hell break loose. Malaysia's neighbour, Thailand, is very successful because it does not allow religion to get in the way of business. Thailand is the number one tourist destination because Islam does not dictate what the Thais do. Come join me in Bangkok and I will show you what I mean (in the event you are still blur).
If Nik Aziz were to allow in Kota Bharu what they do just across the border in Golok, Kelantan would be the richest state in Malaysia, in spite of having no oil/gas.
I mean, what else can Kelantan offer? The location of the state puts it in a most disadvantageous situation. There is no way you can develop the state because of where it is located. But if Kota Bharu were to be turned into a twin-city of Golok, the new vice centre of Malaysia, then everyone will get rich. But of course we would have to put Islam aside for that to happen.
Umno ruled the state for 12 years from 1978 to 1990. Are you telling me that the state did any better when under Umno? Even when under Umno it still needed federal government money to develop the state. So what else is new?
It has nothing to do with Nik Aziz. Even if Najib became the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, and without federal government money, the situation would be no different.
The bottom line is, when Muslims scream about Islam it is all a public demonstration. It is just a show of piety. At the end of the day the priority is still money. And that is why these Muslims whack Nik Aziz, because it is about money and not about Islam.
|
| Is Najib prepared to go all the way? Posted: 10 Dec 2011 08:45 AM PST
How can we develop Malaysians with intellectual abilities unless we are prepared to set aside boundaries and religious dogma and allow Malaysians to think and express their thoughts with no holds barred? NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin Najib: Intellectual capital crucial for Malaysia's development
(Bernama) - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak underlined the importance of developing the country's intellectual capital, saying that even if the country produces one or two geniuses, the impact to the nation would be tremendous.
Speaking at the opening of an exposition organised by Permata on Saturday, Najib said intellectual prowess of individuals should be nurtured from the beginning, particularly when they were at the age of two to five.
The prime minister said the government allocated nearly 25 per cent in each budget to develop education and provide training in the effort to develop the country's human and intellectual capital.
He acknowledged however that there was a gap in this effort, saying that those in the "top most of the intellectual pyramid" -- namely those with genius tendencies averaging about one per cent or less -- had not been given sufficient attention previously.
"We have ensured that those at the bottom and middle of the pyramid are given ample opportunities but those at the peak, children who have extraordinary IQ, have not had any specific programme."
"If we don't nurture this one per cent, then our society will stand to lose these great potentials. If we can produce just several geniuses, the impact to the country will be very big indeed," he said.
He added that if these groups were left without being given any assistance, they might only be "one or two gems" emerging from them.
"However, if we have a holistic programme, such as the Permata programme, there may be hundreds if not thousands of these children will eventually emerge as gems for our country," he said.
Najib said: "We help those who are weak and those with disabilities; we also help those who are capable; let's not forget to help those with extraordinary capabilities."
Stressing a point, Najib who is Permata programme committee chairman, said there were countries with less resources like Japan and South Korea but emerged as major economic powerhouses because of their ability to develop their intellectual capital and high-performance work ethics.
"There are also countries with rich natural resources but becoming a fail state or remain backward because of their failure to develop their intellectual capital," he said. **********************************
The above is probably the most sensible thing Najib ever said since he became Prime Minister and I absolutely agree with what he said. The issue here is: how far is Najib prepared to go? Is he prepared to go all the way?
To be able to develop the intellectual abilities of Malaysians and to see the emergence of geniuses it would involve removing the shackles from the minds of Malaysians. Malaysians must be allowed to think and to express themselves with no holds barred. There must not be any sacred cows, whether it is religion or whatever.
As it stands now, there are too many limitations and boundaries. Malaysians are not free to think what they want to think and to express what they think. This is particularly so when it comes to matters involving Islam. Muslims are not allowed to have a free mind. They can only think and talk whatever it is that religious dogma allows.
You are not allowed thoughts of your own. Your thoughts must reflect only what is allowed. And you will be punished if you have any other thoughts and if you express these thoughts that may run contra to religious dogma.
Yes, to breed intellectual minds and to give birth to geniuses, you cannot imprison the minds of the people. Even if what they think and say is opposed to what you think, it must be allowed.
Can JAKIM, JAIS, JAWI, etc., tolerate this? They wont even allow Muslims to celebrate Valentine's Day or wear a Santa Clause hat. How do we develop the minds of Malaysians like this?
There are just too many dos and don'ts. And there are more don'ts than dos. This stifles the minds of Malaysians and curtails intellectual growth.
How can we develop Malaysians with intellectual abilities unless we are prepared to set aside boundaries and religious dogma and allow Malaysians to think and express their thoughts with no holds barred?
|
| When the mouth moves faster than the brain Posted: 09 Dec 2011 06:14 PM PST
Ibrahim Ali and those of his ilk need to come into the modern world. They have to extricate themselves from this imaginary world of Hang Tuah and Taming Sari and all that bullshit. The English do not live in the world of King Arthur and Excalibur. It is time the Malays did the same. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin ISA a weapon for Malays like Taming Sari, says Ibrahim Ali
(The Malaysian Insider) -- Datuk Ibrahim Ali has likened the Internal Security Act (ISA) to the legendary keris, Taming Sari, describing the law as a "weapon" to protect Malay special rights from being challenged.
"The Taming Sari keris, a weapon for the Malays, is gone."
"Where is our Taming Sari if we wish to safeguard Malay interests in future?" the Perkasa chief said at the Najib Razak Seminar held at the International Islamic University Malaysia (UIA) here.
The Taming Sari is the legendary keris owned by Malay warrior Hang Tuah, which was said to confer upon its owner the power of invincibility.
Ibrahim stressed that the spirit of the ISA, which allows for detention without trial, must live on in new replacement laws so police have the tools to handle issues that threaten Malaysia's multi-religious society.
He cited the recent rise in challenges to Malay hegemony, including the "Allah" issue, the Bersih rally, and an incident where a pig's head was thrown into a surau, as examples of "sensitive issues" that could lead to racial strife. ************************************
This is what you get when Malays live in an imaginary world. I wonder whether the English would talk about King Arthur's legendary magical sword, Excalibur, which is supposed to make the owner invincible.
"The Excalibur sword, a weapon for the English, is gone. Where is our Excalibur if we wish to safeguard English interests in future?" laments England's version of Ibrahim Ali.
"We need detention without trial to safeguard English interests and protect Christianity from the Muslims who are flooding England and are threatening the rights and privileges of the English."
"Muslims currently represent less than 10% of the population and yet they are screaming and foaming at the mouth asking for halal food to be sold in the supermarkets and asking for more Shariah courts."
"Unless we have detention without trial the Muslims will overrun England and once they reach 10% of the population they will act like they own the country. The Muslims are too demanding and the English are being pushed aside as the Muslims dominate British society."
Yes, if an Englishman starts screaming like Ibrahim Ali, people would regard him as a nutcase. Furthermore, he would be arrested and sent to jail for the crime of racism.
Does Ibrahim Ali ever look at himself in the mirror as he practices his speeches? And if he does, what does he see? Can he see his mouth moving faster than his brain?
Of late, Malay-Muslim leaders are uttering a lot of embarrassing statements. How can detention without trial serve Malay interests or protect Malay interests? I just can't see the relevance. When I was in Kamunting the majority of the detainees were Malay-Muslims. They were not enemies of Islam. In fact, they were people who were alleged to be extremist Muslims, people who were detained because of their work for Islam.
In short, Muslims are the victims of detention without trial, not the so-called enemies of Islam.
Ibrahim Ali and those of his ilk need to come into the modern world. They have to extricate themselves from this imaginary world of Hang Tuah and Taming Sari and all that bullshit. The English do not live in the world of King Arthur and Excalibur. It is time the Malays did the same.
Zulkifil Nordin, Ibrahim Ali's gang member, has also made a most interesting confession (see below). I thought there was such a thing as lawyer-client privileges. Apparently, Zul has never heard of such a thing. I wonder where he obtained his law degree from? Can he be disbarred for this?
Anyway, Zul confessed that he used Islam for political gain. So, what else is new? Isn't this what many Muslims seem to be doing? Zul has just come out into the open to admit what most of us already know, and that is Islam is just a political tool and most Muslims talk about Islam when it suits them and will caste aside Islam when it suits them better.
Is it any wonder that many view Muslims as a joke? ************************************
Member of Parliament for Kulim-Bandar Baru, Datuk Zulkifli Noordin has admitted to have deceived renowned cleric Syeikh Dr Yusuf Qardawi into issuing a fatwa supporting the sodomy II case involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
"We have made a mistake…we admit making the mistake. I was among those who made the mistake, and I must meet up with Syeikh Yusuf Qardawi to make amendments. Because…we wish to inform (that) it was true we had deceived Syeikh Yusuf Qardawi into believing that Anwar had been slandered," he said.
As Anwar's lawyer, Zulkifli had prepared biased questions to elicit the fatwa from Dr Yusuf Al Qardawi in 2009. According to him, he was responsible in preparing the questions, which sided Anwar and hiding the truth about the complainant, Mohd Saiful. |
| How far is MCA prepared to go? Posted: 07 Dec 2011 10:39 AM PST
It is time that MCA learned you can't play the race and religion card without something happening. Then, when the MCA headquarters building in Jalan Ampang is burned to the ground and the MCA leaders are killed in their homes, just like what happened in Indonesia, maybe the MCA people will shut the fuck up and not continue to play the race and religion card. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin (Bernama) - The Kelantan Pas government has admitted having built only one mosque in the state, the Sultan Ismail Petra Golden Jubilee Mosque, from its own funds during its 21-year rule in Kelantan.
State Economic Planning, Finance and Welfare Committee deputy chairman, Abdul Fatah Harun said all the other mosques in Kelantan had been built by the federal government.
"The Golden Jubilee Mosque, better known as the Chinese Mosque, was built with state government funding, without a single sen coming from the federal government," he told Bernama, here, today.
As for mosques in the other mukim (sub-districts), he said the state government was only responsible for giving allocations to carry out repairs and renovations.
Abdul Fatah was responding to the state opposition's (Barisan Nasional) claim that the Pas government had not built even one mosque since ruling Kelantan for over 20 years.
They had been built by the federal government or the BN government that ruled Kelantan from 1978 to 1990. ***************************
(The Star) - MCA has continued with its call that PAS must include its intention to implement its own brand of hudud law in its manifesto for the next general election.
The Islamic party must be fair to voters so they could be fully informed about their choices before making their decision, said MCA Young Professionals Bureau chairman Datuk Seri Chua Tee Yong.
"Voters deserve the right to know what kind of Government they are voting in," he told reporters.
"Previously, Pakatan Rakyat also declared that the implementation of hudud law was not possible. How are PAS and PKR going to explain this?"
"They choose not to respond to these type of issues to keep their marriage of convenience alive," he said. ***************************
Aren't you tired of hearing all this talk about Islam and Hudud? I don't know about you but I am. And that's because that is all it is, all talk. And this seems to be the problem with the Muslim world. It is all talk and no action.
Corruption, abuse of power, no respect for fundamental liberties and human rights, and much more, appears to be a predicament for mostly so-called Muslim countries. They talk and talk but they do the opposite of what they talk.
Now MCA has joined the bandwagon. They want Pakatan Rakyat to state its stand on the Islamic law of Hudud. Why is MCA so kaypoh? What business is it to these bloody kafirs? Islam has nothing to do with these bloody kafirs.
Why don't the 15 MCA Members of Parliament raise this matter in Parliament? If Malaysia is as democratic as they say it is then raise this matter in Parliament. After all, MCA has 15 members represented in Parliament. Raise this matter in Parliament and ask the Barisan Nasional-controlled government to pass a bill in Parliament to amend the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to remove Islam as the religion of the Federation.
Article 3(1) of the Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation. MCA should ask Parliament to repeal this and remove Article 3(1) of the Constitution that says that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Once Islam is no longer the religion of the Federation then no longer can anyone talk about implementing Islamic laws in Malaysia.
It's no use for MCA to shout like mad dogs outside Parliament. Go to Parliament and shout. Shout loud and clear. Tell the government that Islam should no longer be the religion of the Federation and that Article 3(1) of the Constitution should be repealed.
Malaysia, since it is a Secular State, should not have Islam as the religion of the Federation. This is a contradiction. And once Article 3(1) has been repealed there will be no more talk about Hudud or any other Islamic laws being implemented.
What is most interesting to note is that the PAS-led Kelantan State Government built only ONE mosque in the state over 21 years since 1990. Even then it was a 'Chinese' mosque. No 'Malay' mosques were built. All the mosques that were built were built either by the Federal Government or by the State Government during the time that Barisan Nasional was in power from 1978 to 1990.
Does this not sound odd? PAS, which is being accused of trying to Islamise the country, built only ONE mosque over 54 years since 1957 -- one mosque in more than half a century.
Hello MCA! MCA is part of Barisan Nasional. And the Barisan Nasional government, which MCA is a member of, built all the mosques in Kelantan over 54 years since 1957. The Pakatan Rakyat government built only one mosque, and even that it was a 'Chinese' mosque.
MCA is very devious. They are trying to raise anti-Islam sentiments. They are trying to use Islam to turn the voters against Pakatan Rakyat. But the truth is MCA does not want to ask Parliament to repeal Article 3(1) of the Constitution whereby Islam is the religion of the Federation. And all the mosques in Kelantan, save one 'Chinese' mosque, were built by the Barisan Nasional government, which MCA has been a member of since Merdeka in 1957.
It is time that MCA learned you can't play the race and religion card without something happening. Then, when the MCA headquarters building in Jalan Ampang is burned to the ground and the MCA leaders are killed in their homes, just like what happened in Indonesia, maybe the MCA people will shut the fuck up and not continue to play the race and religion card.
Yes, I know, this is not MCA's fault. MCA is just playing the role of Umno's running dog in raising anti-Islam sentiments because Umno themselves can't do it since they claim to be the largest Islamic party in the world.
Well, then MCA has to pay the price for being Umno's running dog. And the price will be a very heavy price to pay indeed when blood flows on the streets. And I have no problems with this because you can't fry the egg unless you first break the shell. So, many shells need to be broken to fry the eggs.
The bottom line is: there is no such thing as a peaceful or bloodless revolution. And we need a revolution to see changes in Malaysia. And if MCA continues with this Islam hate-campaign we may yet see the revolution that we need to be able to see changes in Malaysia.
So carry on, MCA! What you are doing may just be what we need for the good of the country. We need a catalyst. And the MCA Islam hate-campaign may be that catalyst.
Bodoh punya MCA! Don't you know that fire burns and that when you play with fire it may burn you as well? |
| The selfish, ugly Chinaman (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION) Posted: 05 Dec 2011 04:58 PM PST
The Malays have to wake up and wise up to one hard fact. To the Chinese it is all about money. And as long as money flows like water in Bangkok that is all that matters. Should the Malays sacrifice so much, fighting for the Chinese and Indians, when what they are fighting for is not appreciated and instead the Malays are mocked for their efforts? NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin One of our Chinese readers, lakian, posted the comment below. I have not edited it and you can see that he probably obtained his education in a Chinese school because you have to read his comment many times to understand even a little bit of what he is trying to say.
Anyway, the gist of what he is saying is that politics should be left for the Malays to sort out amongst themselves and the Chinese and Indians do not care a damn who runs Malaysia, and in what way it is run, as long as the Chinese are left alone to make money. The Malays can go kill each other as long as he is concerned and this is no business of the Chinese or Indians.
Now read this: 'We won't surrender an inch'. Clearly this has been targeted at the Chinese and Indians.
It makes we wonder why the hell do we even bother about the political situation in Malaysia. If the Chinese and Indians do not care then why should the Malays bother? After all, it is the Chinese and Indians and not the Malays who are facing discrimination and persecution.
I have noticed many similar comments in the past. The Chinese have made it very clear that their only concern is money. And as long as they can make money then nothing else matters.
Some Chinese have even commented that they are not concerned about corruption because it is easier to do deals when there is corruption. The Chinese can make money even easier when they can bribe their way through life.
If this is the way the Chinese and Indians think, and if politics have nothing to do with the non-Malays, then the Malays should reconsider their stand. Is it worth for the Malays to go out of their way to fight for equality and an end to racial discrimination if the Chinese and Indians do not really care about such matters?
The Malays have to wake up and wise up to one hard fact. To the Chinese it is all about money. And as long as money flows like water in Bangkok that is all that matters. Should the Malays sacrifice so much, fighting for the Chinese and Indians, when what they are fighting for is not appreciated and instead the Malays are mocked for their efforts?
If there is one thing I can't stand is to be mocked. And if this is the reward we get from the Chinese and Indians then they can fight their own fight. I would gladly step back and not get involved and will persuade the other Malays to do the same. And don't blame me if I decide to call it a day and save myself further trouble. ****************************
another may 13 is needed without or no racial it is solely between the malays themself.the fight or the cut slaughter and whatever are only for the sake of called malays supremacy,the umno said malays right and pkr called rakyat right.they are afterall are malays.for the chinese as said long time ago,they don't care no bother and no concern who the hell is the government and also what the fcuk the umno or pkr fighting for.chinese are opportunistic beneficiarier.they are only interested in what they can take fron the corner.the project not matter whether 2nd handed or even fourth handed.they can still make money what to say just that merely slim profit.chinese are always the group of hard working but envied hatred enthnic in all over the world.usa,canada,australia......even in the carnivalised africa,middle east.indian are the pathetic sandwiched group due to their own character,atitude or simply they are beggar style.they are conspirative minded wanting to use their tactic to control to use the malays killing malays.dominant example mr mamakutty.
all in all may 13 is needed for the future of these malays own community.they should make this very vital disolution whether they want power or they need food!they want rhetoric VIP but starving in their kitchen or otherwise.for chinese,indian and others,there will be no different cos they are infact struggling to starve to hunger inorder to live under this already oppressive and suppressive areana.
so malays friend,believe umno is giving the pride or snapping you ass is your own concern.do not use your own parang to snap your own anus. -- lakian
READ THE CHINESE TRANSLATION HERE |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan