Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Change in government, not change of government
• Between friends, comrades and acquaintances (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
• Can Najib walk the talk?
• Mixed signals
• Is Najib prepared to go all the way?
• When the mouth moves faster than the brain
• How far is MCA prepared to go?
• The selfish, ugly Chinaman (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
• We need another ‘May 13’ (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
• Been chilling out

Change in government, not change of government 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.   Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_15.html

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

We need another ‘May 13’ (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION) Posted: 04 Dec 2011 07:09 AM PST The Barisan Nasional government is built on a house of cards. And houses of cards tend to not last and will fall when least expected. The general elections give this appearance of legitimacy. It gives us the illusion that we have a democratically elected government in power. But that is all it is, an illusion. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin There may be no doubt that Barisan Nasional will win the next general election and will get to form the federal government yet again. The question remains, however, as to whether Barisan Nasional can win on a level playing field and will they win because they really do have the peoples' support or for entirely different reasons. This is what is troubling the Barisan Nasional leadership. They are not too concerned about the winning part. They are confident enough that they can win by hook or by crook. And they know they will need to do so by hook and by crook. What is of concern to them is that unless it is by hook and by crook they have a slim chance of winning. I suppose anyone who wins through fraud and knows that he or she can only win through fraud would not rest easy. They would get very little satisfaction from that type of win. Even though they would be consoled by the fact that they won, they would nevertheless be quite restless about the win. The Barisan Nasional leaders know that if it were on a level playing field they would be out of power. If they gave the opposition equal airtime on radio and television and did not impose such stringent rules and procedures for ceramahs, the government would have been changed long ago. If Malaysian elections were based on one-man-one-vote and within 15% or 20% variance between constituencies and the postal voting system was abolished plus overseas Malaysians were allowed to vote, that would be the end of Barisan Nasional. We know that Barisan Nasional lost the election. Barisan Nasional knows that it lost the election. The United States government knows that Barisan Nasional lost the election -- if you had been reading the Wikileaks reports that Malaysia Today has been publishing this last half-year or so. There is no one who does not know that Barisan Nasional lost the election. And everyone knows that the official results showing that Barisan Nasional won the election is a sham and not a reflection of the real situation. And that is why the Umno leaders have been making all sorts of statements over the last weekend during the Umno general assembly. They know that the reality of the situation is they are out of power. They know that the only reason they are still in power is because they had to use by hook and by crook methods to win. And they know that, to continue to stay in power, they have to continue applying by hook and crook methods in the coming election. The Barisan Nasional government is built on a house of cards. And houses of cards tend to not last and will fall when least expected. The general elections give this appearance of legitimacy. It gives us the illusion that we have a democratically elected government in power. But that is all it is, an illusion. So we need to break this illusion. We need to smash it to pieces. And the only way to do that is to not allow elections to be held until and unless we see electoral reforms and a level playing field. Over the next few months we need to galvanise support from the rakyat to block, by hook or by crook (the methods being employed by Barisan Nasional), elections from being held. If a 'Malaysian Spring' needs to be triggered then a Malaysian Spring it will have to be. The time for idle talk and empty rhetoric is over. I have heard and read a lot of things. So many comments by readers were posted in Malaysia Today. But now we have to walk the talk. Now we have to brace ourselves and prepare for hard times. We need another 'May 13'. But this 'May 13' is not a race war. It is not Malays versus non-Malays. It is the rakyat versus the establishment. It is the ruled versus the ruler. It is the bourgeois masses versus the ruling elite. Are you ready for this? Or are you all talk and hot air? Yes, many things have been said. But this is all being said anonymously and hidden behind the computer keyboard. Talk is easy. Talk is cheap. How far are you prepared to walk that talk? Unless we are prepared to bite the bullet then we might as well stop talking. Just let Barisan Nasional continue to rule Malaysia. If we really want a change of government then we must be prepared to face all consequences. And the consequences must be the elections must be blocked until and unless electoral reforms are in place even if that has to result in bloodshed. Now let us see if Malaysia Today's readers are mere empty talk and bullshit! Anyway, stayed tuned for further announcements. ************************************** We want a strong government, says Najib Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said Barisan Nasional (BN) and Umno want to form a strong government in the next general election. "Whatever constitutes the definiton of a strong government, this is what we want. A two-thirds (majority) is something which is ideal but what is important is a strong government," he said at a news conference at the end of the 2011 Umno General Assembly, here. He was responding to a question whether he would be happy with a two-thirds majority or a simple majority for the BN in the election. He added that a strong government could be formed from a working majority or a two-thirds majority. Najib, who is Umno president, also said that the BN was capable of winning the four opposition-ruled states in the coming election but said that he would not want to underrate the opposition. -- Bernama ************************************** Muhyiddin outlines seven winning ingredients Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today outlined seven ingredients that would ensure Umno and the Barisan Nasional's (BN) victory at the polls. "I think there is no magic ingredients to ensure Umno and Barisan National's victory in the general election other than implementing our focus over the next few years. "We have to work hard to ensure the party's victory, then God willing, our party will succeed," he said when winding up the debate at the Umno General Assembly 2011 here today. The ingredients are unity, loyalty, service, sacrifice, hard work, acceptance and submission, he added. The deputy prime minister said the most important ingredient was unity in line with Umno's slogan. "To win, unity is important as I have mentioned at the Wanita, Youth and Puteri assemblies. It is important that we have unity of hearts, minds and objective, and all these translated into unity in our resolve," he said. He also reminded party members not to cause new problems, including resorting to back-stabbing and sabotage. The deputy prime minister said secondly, Umno members must be loyal and should not take action that could be deemed not toeing the line. "Do not do anything against the party's ethics and damage the party during this important and challenging time," he said. Muhyiddin said thirdly, Umno members must serve wholeheartedly to the party and should not be calculative in performing their tasks. "We are in a critical moment. We need to double our efforts as the president had said 'business is not as usual'. Do not take the same approach without taking into account the changing times and environment," he said. Fourthly, he said all Umno members must be willing to sacrifice for the party regardless of time, energy and thinking without expecting any reward. For the fifth ingredient, he said everyone in the party must strive for victory in the election as hard work would guarantee success. "Umno members must be good team players just like in a football team. A good striker should play upfront, a goalkeeper should play as a goalkeeper and not becoming a striker or vice-versa. "And what is most important is not to score own goals. This is a taboo in football as well as in the election, do not score own goals," he added. -- Bernama CHINESE TRANSLATION

Been chilling out Posted: 02 Dec 2011 08:24 PM PST Sorry I haven't been writing much the last couple of days. I've been chilling out and catching up with friends in sunny Bangkok. Furthermore, I am working on my final paper for my course, which ends this month. The last few months I've been busy with my essays on Philosophy of Religion, a course run by Oxford. Will then take a short break before my new course on European History starts on 1st February 2012. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Tun Mahathir Berbohong, Dokumen Bank Dunia Buktikan Beliau Bertanggungjawab Ambil Pinjaman Bank ...
• Don: Don’t make same mistake
• 'Only bumi companies for govt projects'
• Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #93
• Umno bloggers gunning Ku Li
• New resolution irks Dayaks in SUPP
• Change in government, not change of government
• They don’t seem to have a clue!
• No need for me to swear on the Quran, says Anwar
• ‘TENDER GATE’ KKLW (SIRI PERTAMA)
• Magnificent Pearls Of Wisdom
• Sailing into a sea of corruption
• Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
• An open letter to the Minister of Education - SM Convent Bukit Nanas
• The Ballad of Chia Thye Poh
• Fixation Over Pakatan's Cracks is Unwise for Barisan Nasional
• Perkasa ‘suppresses’ ethnic minorities, says MIC
• Politicians demand Putrajaya explain RM9b nod for six patrol ships
• Najib to counter online ‘slander, false news’ with 1 Malaysia TV
• PKR shows World Bank records, claims proof Dr M received aid
• Najib knows not what he does!

Tun Mahathir Berbohong, Dokumen Bank Dunia Buktikan Beliau Bertanggungjawab Ambil Pinjaman Bank ... Posted: 18 Dec 2011 01:07 PM PST KEADILAN mengemukakan ketiga-tiga dokumen ini sebagai bukti bahawa Tun Mahathir telah berbohong apabila beliau mengaku "menolak tawaran bantuan dari Bank Dunia (ketika itu) kerana jika Malaysia berbuat demikian, ia akan menjadi hamba kepada Bank Dunia". MOHD RAFIZI RAMLI, PENGARAH STRATEGI YB NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD, PENGARAH KOMUNIKASI WONG CHEN, PENGERUSI BIRO PERDAGANGAN KEADILAN KEADILAN merujuk kepada 3 dokumen rasmi Bank Dunia yang diedarkan kepada pihak media pada hari ini. Ketiga-tiga dokumen rasmi ini adalah bersabit dengan salah satu dari empat pinjaman dari Bank Dunia berjumlah US$704 juta yang diambil oleh Kerajaan Malaysia semasa menangani kemelut krisis kewangan 1997/1998. KEADILAN mengemukakan ketiga-tiga dokumen ini sebagai bukti bahawa Tun Mahathir telah berbohong apabila beliau mengaku "menolak tawaran bantuan dari Bank Dunia (ketika itu) kerana jika Malaysia berbuat demikian, ia akan menjadi hamba kepada Bank Dunia[1]". Ketiga-tiga dokumen rasmi Bank Dunia ini berhubung pinjaman US$60 juta ini secara jelas membuktikan perkara-perkara berikut:   PERTAMA: RUNDINGAN PINJAMAN BERLAKU SELEPAS DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM DIPENJARAKAN Rujuk Kertas Maklumat Projek (Project Information Document) bernombor PID6999 yang bertarikh 23 Oktober 1998. Laporan ini disediakan sebagai laporan awal oleh Bank Dunia untuk menilai permohonan pinjaman sesebuah negara. Ia adalah dokumen pertama yang disediakan sebelum pun rundingan bermula. Tarikh 23 Oktober 1998 membuktikan bahawa proses rundingan pinjaman tersebut bermula selepas Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dipecat dan dipenjarakan. Ia mustahil melibatkan Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim seperti yang selalu didakwa Tun Mahathir Mohamad dan UMNO.   KEDUA: TUN MAHATHIR MOHAMAD MENGARAHKAN KERAJAAN MEMOHON PINJAMAN BANK DUNIA Rujuk Laporan Penilaian Permohonan Pinjaman (Project Appraisal Document) bernombor 18855-MA yang bertarikh 3 Mac 1999. Laporan ini disediakan untuk makluman pimpinan Bank Dunia dalam membuat keputusan sama ada mahu meluluskan permohonan pinjaman yang dibuat Kerajaan Malaysia. Rujuk muka surat 29 (Lampiran 6) yang menunjukkan jadual kerja dan rundingan yang melibatkan Kerajaan Malaysia dan Bank Dunia. Ia secara jelas menunjukkan bahawa agensi bertanggungjawab yang berunding dengan Bank Dunia untuk mendapatkan pinjaman ini adalah Unit Perancang Ekonomi, Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Permohonan pertama dibuat pada 26 Julai 1998. Laporan dan rundingan berikutnya (yang hanya bermula selepas Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dipenjarakan) ditangani sepenuhnya oleh Unit Perancang Ekonomi, yang bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu, Tun Mahathir Mohamad. Dokumen ini membuktikan bahawa permohonan untuk mendapatkan pinjaman dibuat oleh Tun Mahathir Mohamad melalui Unit Perancang Ekonomi.   KETIGA: PERJANJIAN DITANDANGANI PADA 31 MAC 1999 DIBAWAH PERSETUJUAN TUN MAHATHIR MOHAMAD Rujuk Perjanjian Pinjaman antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan Bank Dunia (Loan Agreement) bernombor 4452-MA yang bertarikh 31 Mac 1999. Perjanjian ini ditandatangani dibawah arahan dan persetujuan Tun Mahathir Mohamad selaku Perdana Menteri dan juga Menteri Kewangan.   Jelas sekali bahawa Tun Mahathir Mohamad telah berbohong apabila beliau mengaku tidak mahu menerima bantuan kewangan dari institusi antarabangsa seperti Bank Dunia. Malah, pentadbiran beliau dibawah arahan dan seliaan beliau bertanggungjawab membuat permohonan mendapatkan bantuan kewangan Bank Dunia. Oleh yang demikian, KEADILAN ingin menegaskan bahawa fitnah beliau terhadap Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dalam hal ini tidak lebih dari usaha beliau memadamkan rekod pentadbiran kewangan yang baik dibawah Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Malaysia berjaya mencapai lebihan belanjawan ketika beliau memegang portfolio Menteri Kewangan sehingga berjaya melangsaikan hutang dengan lebih awal dalam tahun-tahun 1993 hingga 1996, berbanding dengan defisit belanjawan yang berpanjangan sejak Tun Mahathir Mohamad mengambil alih jawatan itu dalam tahun 1998. Beliau juga bertanggungjawab menubuhkan Kumpulan Wang Amanah Negara dan Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen, bertujuan menjaga kepentingan rakyat melalui dana amanah yang dikawal ketat dan bebas dari salahguna kerajaan. Malangnya, dana ini turut disalahgunakan dan menyimpang dari niat asal penubuhannya. Tun Mahathir sewajarnya membersihkan imej beliau di mata rakyat dengan menjawab dua isu melibatkan keluarga beliau. Adalah lebih baik beliau menerangkan mengenai penglibatan beliau dalam urusan menyelamatkan perniagaan anak beliau, Mirzan Mahathir yang melibatkan wang rakyat berjumlah RM2 billion dalam tahun 1998 daripada cuba menegakkan benang basah bahawa beliau menolak bantuan kewangan Bank Dunia. Apatah lagi apabila Mirzan Mahathir mempunyai dana yang cukup besar kebelakangan ini untuk membeli konglomerat arak terbesar di Filipina iaitu San Miguel yang dilaporkan berharga sekitar RM2.9 bilion.

Don: Don’t make same mistake Posted: 18 Dec 2011 11:41 AM PST 'Failure to include ethnic ties expert on education review panel may have serious consequences' "As far as I know, no expert on ethnic relations is a member of any of the six committees. This neglect on this matter is a real surprise for a society that claims to be 'Malaysia truly Asia'. The expert or experts could have pointed out on what is sensible and sensitive to our multi-ethnic society," he said. Azril Annuar, The Malay Mail THE flames of hate and racial anger over issues such the controversial Interlok novel might once again be resurrected should the government continue to neglect to include ethnic relations experts on its Special Committee to Review Education in Malaysia. Independent Panel on Interlok chairman and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's (UKM) Institute of Ethnic Studies director Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin voiced out his concern that the "Interlok incident" might occur again. "The Special Committee to Review Education in Malaysia, appointed last week, is made up mainly of scientists and nonspecialists on ethnic relations. They have popular knowledge but not deep research-based knowledge on ethnic relations," he told The Malay Mail. "Isn't our education system an ethnic-oriented one, with vernacular schools still functioning and alive? I am not surprised if we were to make the same mistake again, like the Interlok episode, when the review was done devoid of research-based knowledge on the dynamics of ethnic relations in Malaysia." Shamsul said there were six zones with different textbooks for secondary school literature, with each zone having its own committee to select and review each textbook. However, he was surprised there were no ethnic relations experts in any of the committees. "As far as I know, no expert on ethnic relations is a member of any of the six committees. This neglect on this matter is a real surprise for a society that claims to be 'Malaysia truly Asia'. The expert or experts could have pointed out on what is sensible and sensitive to our multi-ethnic society," he said. Touching on whether or not politics had taken hold of Malaysian education with the cabinet decision to withdraw the controversial novel, Shamsul said it was not about politics. "This is about being knowledgeable and educated about our own society, with the depth and breadth expected from a society that has 1,700 professors in the public universities. "It is not ignorance but neglect that is the critical issue here, neglect as a result of and informed by the simplistic notion that having 'goodwill' is enough for this multi-ethnic society to survive. We need more than goodwill to survive in the long-term." Asked whether the panel had wasted its time negotiating and discussing the novel as it was going to be withdrawn from the Form Five school syllabus next year, he said "negotiations for peace and stability of the society is never a waste of time". He said the withdrawal meant the selection process of textbooks had been improved. Shamsul also said he was proud of the negotiation process handled by the independent panel as it was resolved amicably, where he witnessed "social cohesion" being alive and functioning in Malaysia. Written by national laureate Abdullah Hussain in 1971, Interlok was made a compulsory Bahasa Malaysia literature text for Form Five students this year. It was criticised for containing material offensive to the Indian community, such as the inclusion of the words kasta pariah. On Friday, MIC deputy president Datuk S. Subramaniam said the cabinet had, in its meeting, decided to withdraw the novel from the school syllabus.

'Only bumi companies for govt projects' Posted: 18 Dec 2011 11:39 AM PST (The Malay Mail) - Bumiputra companies must be the only choice for government projects irrespective of whether they can deliver. This is the stand of the Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia (MCCM). Its president, Syed Ali Alatas, said projects such as the RM3 billion Pudu Prison redevelopment must be given to a bumiputra company regardless of whether there are better parties - local or foreign - which can see the project through with the best returns to taxpayers. "The issue is not whether the contract should be given to a bumiputra or a non-bumiputra company," he told The Malay Mail. "The bumiputra companies should be given such projects but we never get this kind of deals. "Such projects should be given to us. Period," he said before ending the call abruptly. He was responding to UDA chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohammed's statement earlier this month that the Finance Ministry had mandated UDA to focus solely on bumiputra investors even if it means taxpayers do not get the best deal from development projects. The Finance Ministry had ordered UDA to drop China-based Everbright Ltd in favour of a bumiputra company - resulting in Nur Jazlan warning that hiring a bumiputra company would eventually result in a bail-out as these companies lack the funds and skills to take on such a huge project on its own. Everbright which boasts RM4 billion in reserves, had had offered RM2.9 billion in building costs with projected annual returns of at least RM300 million to RM400 million. Opposition party leaders however said the best company, be it a local or a foreign company must be chosen to reconstruct the site of the 116-year-old prison. They also want selection process made transparent and approve contractors based on merit. Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) deputy president Mohamed Azmin Ali told The Malay Mail that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should "walk the talk". "The PM talks about being transparent and he should practise it. If he wants to see progress then he should make the tender open for everybody not just select contractors based on cronyism or nepotism. "The contractor who will eventually be selected must have an excellent track record as the area they will be redeveloping is prime land in the capital. "The project also must result in profits return and value for money," said the Gombak MP. PAS vice-president and Kubang Kerian MP Salahuddin Ayub said the contractor does not have to be specifically a bumiputra or a local company. "It can be anybody but what's more important is that the project is completed properly and the contractor meets the set requirements. The new complex must be have have the it safety features, quality control and it's facilities intact. This is a must if they want to win the rakyat's trust," he said.

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #93 Posted: 18 Dec 2011 11:34 AM PST M Bakri Musa Chapter11: Embracing Free Enterprise The catalyst that drives, or more accurately the spark that ignites, capitalism is the entrepreneur. She is the individual who sees the opportunity to sell an item or service at a price higher than the cost of making or obtaining it. She sees the need or demand, and then goes about to meeting that need, and in the process makes a profit for herself. Entrepreneurs are, in the words of the MIT economist Lester Thurow, "…the change agents of capitalism." It is at this point that the religious types sense an argument against capitalism. Their argument is simply this: capitalism feeds on the individual's motivation to make a profit, to get rich. My rebuttal is equally simple. The entrepreneur provides a much-needed service or product where none exists before. If that product or service is not needed, then his enterprise will fold soon enough. As for the personal greed motive, it is worthwhile to note that every successful entrepreneur ignites a chain of events that brings benefit to countless others. Ray Kroc who founded McDonalds restaurants with the simple premise that consumers need a reliable place to get consistently tasty and affordable meals, started a chain of process that helps ranchers and butchers (source of meat), potato growers (the chips), and countless youngsters with their first job. This is separate from the great services it provides consumers. As for the personal greed argument, it is well to remember McDonalds create more Black millionaires in America than the all the professional sports leagues combined. Similarly when Bill Gates created that software operating system, he also provided opportunities for thousands of other software engineers to write applications for his Windows program. Of course Ray Kroc and Bill Gates became fabulously rich, but they were not alone; they brought along countless others. Equally important and bears repeating, they provided much-needed services, products, and most importantly, jobs. The value of the benefits to society they created with their services and inventions far outweigh the wealth and rewards that they get. That is the beauty and genius of free enterprise. While the religious types may emphasize the material gains accrued on the individual businessman and trader, I emphasize the goods, services, and jobs she provides to the community. READ MORE HERE

Umno bloggers gunning Ku Li Posted: 18 Dec 2011 11:29 AM PST It must be assumed that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah commands allegiance from people within Umno itself, otherwise why would Pakatan Rakyat be keen on him? Now to me the urgent matter at hand is for the big three in the opposition to sit down and talk about rational seat allocations. But they must first accept their individual limitations and establish the ground rules for negotiations. Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, Free Malaysia Today There is no present or past tense in politics. There's only relevance. Is Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) relevant? In my mind, given the manic and xenophobic stage of our politics, we urgently need political sanity. How do we achieve that? Through a leadership committed to the rule of law, fair play and inclusiveness, and democratic and liberal principles. Relevance comes with the commitment to immutable principles – a sense of fair play, rule of law, good governance, and jealous adherance to democratic principles. It's funny to see judgmental stands on this – Razaleigh is old, yet (Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad), who is in his 80s, is waiting in the wings because some people think he is relevant. I am old, but (Prime Minister) Najib (Tun Razak) and (his deputy) Muhyidin (Yassin) who are older, aren't classified as old. Hence old, young, or whatever is just management of subjective and very personal numerical perception. It depends on how you want to angle it. Hence the managed perception has no universal application. It's subjective. A frequent objection to Razaleigh has been this concerted effort to link him with the infamous (Bumiputra Malaysia Finance) BMF financial scandal (in the 1980s). As Finance Minister at that point in time, Razaleigh had no involvement at all with the BMF scandal. BBMB (Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd) was answerable to the PM's office at the time and the person principally responsible over BBMB affairs was Mahathir. Razaleigh won many defamation cases against international newspapers which attempted to link him with the BMF affair. But these legal victories received scant coverage in local papers controlled by Mahathir. Set ground rules first Now to me the urgent matter at hand is for the big three in the opposition to sit down and talk about rational seat allocations. But they must first accept their individual limitations and establish the ground rules for negotiations. The negotiations should start with each of the big three being given the same number of seats. There are 222 seats so each party gets 74 seats. After that, all sit down to renegotiate and rescale the numbers. No party should be fielding a candidate where one of the partners has been given a seat. Ideally it should be a one-to-one fight with the "winnable" BN candidate. How does Razaleigh fit into the scheme of things? READ MORE HERE

New resolution irks Dayaks in SUPP Posted: 18 Dec 2011 11:28 AM PST Rival SUPP group headed by former deputy secretary general Wong Soon Koh wants the ROS to look into a resolution which they claim will sideline Dayak members. (Free Malaysia Today) - Former Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) deputy secretary-general Wong Soon Koh and his G7 (group of seven) who boycotted the party's triennial delegates conference (TDC) due to alleged irregularities have now turned their guns on the party's newly elected deputy president Richard Riot. They have accused him of being used for "window dressing" for the predominantly Chinese party. According to Engkilili assembyman Johnical Rayong, who is a G7 member, the recent TDC had passed a resolution to elevate the secretary-general into the second most powerful position ahead of the deputy president. "Being the only Dayak in Peter Chin's line-up in the party central committee, it is not unexpected as he was a lone ranger," said Rayong. Besides Wong and Rayong, the other members are MP for Lanang Tiong Thai King, assemblymen Jerip Susil (Bengoh) Ranum Min (Opar) Francis Harden (Simanggang) and Lee Kim Shin (Senadin). Wong and his group refused to attend the TDC, citing various irregularities and manipulations at branch and TDC elections. They have filed complaints with the Registrar of Societies (ROS) and are still awaiting his decision. Riot, who was said to have been with the G7 initially, turned his back and joined forces with Chin believing that any problems in the party should be settled in the TDC. His support for Chin, who was elected SUPP president during the TDC which was held from Dec 9 to 11, has irked the Dayak members of the G7. Among the most vocal are Rayong and Jerip. Rayong called on the ROS to look into a resolution which confirmed the secretary-general's post as the most powerful within the party. He said that such a resolution, if approved by ROS, would deprive a non-Chinese from becoming president of the party, adding out that the Dayak members of the party are unhappy with it. With that provision which effectively removed Riot from becoming president, Rayong said that Riot's election as the first Bumiputera deputy president was rather hollow in SUPP. READ MORE HERE

Change in government, not change of government 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.

They don’t seem to have a clue! Posted: 18 Dec 2011 09:14 AM PST ALIRAN BN leaders don't seem to have a clue about the grim outlook of the global economy and how it will affect Malaysia. Jeyakumar Devaraj laments that policy makers also seem incapable of thinking outside the neoliberal box.  Thank you Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to address the House on the 2012 Budget. I would like to start by referring to two articles that appeared recently in our newspapers. On 13 October 2011, Starbiz carried an article that read, "The Philippine President unveiled a 72 bilion peso (US$1.7bn) stimulus package of public works and poverty reduction projects as a weakening global economy forced the country to cut growth forecasts." On the same day there was another article in The Star which said among other things, "The Monetary Authority of Singapore warned that the headwinds from slower global growth will mean slower growth in Singapore in the next few years." In denial mode It is clear that our neighbours are worried. They are aware that there is a real possibility of a global recession, and they are lowering their forecasts for growth of their GDPs. But we in Malaysia appear oblivious to this! Our Finance Minister declared during his budget speech that our GDP will attain an overall growth rate of 5.5 per cent for 2011. This is despite the fact that (annualised) growth rate for the first quarter was only 4.5 per cent and that for the second 4.0 per cent. Yet our Finance Minister remains confident that we can attain 5.5 per cent for 2011, and that we will grow our GDP by 5-6 per cent in 2012. Our Finance Minister claims that our "fundamentals" are strong. What fundamentals may I ask? We are a trading nation – about 53 per cent of the goods and services we produced in 2010 were exported. Which among our "fundamentals" can protect us from a global downturn in demand? But our government is in denial. They claim that a downturn in Europe will not affect us much as we have diversified our trade. According to their statistics for the period January-July 2010, exports to Europe ranked fourth, only RM39.8bn, compared to Singapore (RM48.6bn), Asean, and China (RM46.7bn). Therefore, argue the government planners, a recession in Europe will not have much of an effect on us! What kind of thinking is this? Are they really that confused? Sure, Singapore was the number one destination for our exports for that period. But would Singapore have consumed most of what she imported from Malaysia? Surely not. Singapore would have exported to other countries including to Europe. Another argument that our government trots out is that the slow rates of growth in Europe and the US will not affect us much because of the much faster rates of growth in China and India. Mr Speaker, the GDP of the European Union region was US$16.2 trillion in 2010 according to the IMF, even larger than the GDP of the US, which stood at US$14.5 trillion! Taken together the GDP of Europe and the US represents close to 50 per cent of global GDP, which stood at US$62.9 trillion in 2010. In comparison, the GDP of China in 2010 was US$5.9 trillion while that for India US$1.6 trillion. So to argue that the 7-10 per cent growth rates seen in these two countries will offset a downturn in Europe and America is not based on fact. It is mere wishful thinking. And it does not take into account the fact that economic growth in China and India is based to an extent on the demand from the EU and the US. Permit me to quote an article from the Business Times on 10 October 2011, which said, "The European Union is the world's biggest buyer of Chinese exports – worth about US$380bn in 2010 – and a collapse in demand could trigger heavy job losses in China." And that is the sober truth of the matter! So the government's estimation that the Malaysian GDP will grow between 5-6 per cent in 2012 is not only unrealistic but also irresponsible. Why do I say "irresponsible"? The Annual Budget is the economic plan for the nation. Through it the government of the day informs the public and the business community how the government intends to steer the economy especially in times of uncertainty and turbulence. We need a realistic budget to reassure all parties that the government knows what it is doing. Larger deficit looms The government says it wants to reduce the budget deficit to RM43bn for 2012. However, the government's income is predicated on a GDP growth of over 5 per cent. Taxes, which make up about 70 per cent of the government's income, are forecast to be RM35.6bn. What if we only grow at 2-3 per cent because of the downturn in Europe and America? Definitely tax revenue will drop. But public expenses will remain the same. It is almost certain that our deficit for 2012 is going to be much higher than the RM43bn forecast! If our government takes a realistic look at the global economic situation, it would realise that a default in sovereign debt in countries such as Greece is almost a certainty. This has the potential to shake the banking system in the West and precipitate a sharp downturn. The capacity of many European countries to re-finance their private banks in their countries is severely curtailed by the size of public debt in Western countries. Public debt in Greece has reached 147 per cent of GDP. But public debt for Germany has already exceeded 80 per cent of their GDP, while that in the US stands at 99 per cent of the GDP of the US. If we are realistic, if we are responsible, we can take several steps to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the effects of a serious downturn. We could, for example implement a Retrenchment Fund. During a time of recession, some workers will experience "lock-outs", where their employers run away because they have no cash to meet their commitments. This happened to the Nikko workers in Butterworth not too long ago. And workers in this situation get no compensation at all. Even the pay for the last month of work may not be paid to them. If there was a retrenchment fund, this group of workers will get some relief! Many families face problems keeping up with loan payments when there is a downturn. The government should set up a fund to help such families restructure their debts so that they do not lose their homes or their businesses because of the downturn. We have set up Danaharta and Danamodal for the big companies. Why not something similar and smaller for the ordinary citizens? A government that is sensitive to the needs of its people will set up several funds and programmes that can help the ordinary citizens if a recession were to take place. But to be prepared in this way, the government must first recognise the risk of a recession. Unfortunately our government is in denial. They reject the possibility of a recession. We shall continue to enjoy a 5.5 per cent growth rate, says the Finance Minster. READ MORE HERE

No need for me to swear on the Quran, says Anwar Posted: 18 Dec 2011 08:40 AM PST (The Star) - Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim says he will not swear on the Quran that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had asked for funds from the World Bank in 1999. He claimed that there was no need for him to do so because the World Bank had records to confirm the approval of an application by the Malaysian Government that year. "I have also issued a statement on the report by the World Bank. "These are facts and the World Bank approved the application by Malaysia. What is there to swear on?" he asked. Dr Mahathir challenged Anwar on Satur-day to swear on the Quran in a mosque that he had written a letter to the World Bankasking for funds. The former prime minister said he was willing to swear in a mosque that he did not write such a letter. Anwar said the World Bank's annual report showed the kind of loans given to Malaysia since 1999. "How am I supposed to find the letter sent by the Government to the World Bank?" he said during a break at the Penang Muslim Congregation Convention at Evergreen Laurel Hotel here yesterday. Asked to comment on reports of PKR members leaving the party, Anwar said it was "normal" before an election. "But at polling time, there will be votes," he quipped.

‘TENDER GATE’ KKLW (SIRI PERTAMA) Posted: 18 Dec 2011 08:37 AM PST SABAHKINI MENTERI Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah (KKLW) Dato' Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal, secara jelas telah mengarahkan Timbalan Ketua Setiausaha (SE) Dato' Yussoff Dohab, agar meluluskan projek Jalan Access Kg. Menawo, Keningau Sabah secara Tender Terhad kepada 10 syarikat PKK Kelas B di Negeri Sabah. Surat Pekeliling Perbendaharaan (SPP) Bil.9 tahun 2009 dan SPP Bil.2002 jelas menyebut bahawa semua tender melebihi RM10 juta perlu kelulusan Kementerian Kewangan terlebih dahulu. Ini bermakna kuasa tender KKLW di bawah RM10 juta adalah di bawah kuasa sepenuhnya Menteri KKLW. Adalah jelas Menteri KKLW telah menyeleweng dan mengarahkan tender terhad kelas B diluluskan dalam Lembaga Perolehan KKLW untuk Projek Jalan Access Kg. Menawo, Keningau Sabah. Namun selepas tender dijalankan, kos melaksanakan projek tersebut melebihi had tender PKK Kelas B dan terpaksa melantik Syarikat Juz Jati Sdn Bhd (Syarikat Kelas B) dengan harga RM 11 juta. Sehubungan itu KKLW terpaksa membuat permohonan semula kepada Kementerian Kewangan agar meluluskan projek tersebut di atas secara khas memandangkan segala urusan tender dan pelantikan kontraktor telah dibuat. Kementerian Kewangan melalui suratnya S.K.KEW/PL/KI 1/700/810209/156/12-43 JLD 12 SK 3 (7) bertarikh 3 Oktober 2011 telah memaklumkan kepada KKLW bahawa pelaksanaan tender terhad bagi projek di atas tidak teratur kerana tidak mematuhi peraturan yang ditetapkan dalam Surat Pekeliling Perbendaharaan (SPP) Bil.9 tahun 2009 dan SPP Bil.2002. READ MORE HERE

Magnificent Pearls Of Wisdom Posted: 18 Dec 2011 08:12 AM PST SYED AKBAR ALI Folks, sometime ago more than one person requested that I write more about religion, Islam, etc. Today I want to post something I have never done before in my Blog. These are a few hadith from the Bukhari collection. Most of the following hadith are from the collection of Bukhari - which is considered to be the most 'sahih' or authentic. There is also one from Abu Muslim - who is considered the second most authentic after Bukhari. . .  It is said by many that hadith represent the most important source of reference for the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah (the Sunnis) after the Quran. . .  I have given the references for these hadith as I found them through the Internet. I hope all these references are the correct ones. There are so many. I have just picked a few. . .  For non-Muslims and anyone else who does not know, hadith are extra-Quranic writings of the religious scholars who came long after the Prophet had died. . .  Muslims must believe that the Quran is  revealed by Allah to His Messenger (the Prophet).  The hadith however represent (what the religious people think) the sayings of the Prophet. By their context, sometimes the actions of the Prophet are also described in some of these hadith.   The big issue that has always bugged the 'hadith' is their authenticity. Among the Sunnis, they have six major compilations of hadith of which the compilation by Bukhari is thought to be the most authentic. Abu Muslim's collection is ranked number two and so on. That is why I have chosen the following hadith from Bukhari and one from the Muslim collection.  Some admirers of the Bukhari collection of hadith say that they are like "magnificent pearls of wisdom".  Just another point of accuracy - the hadith collection of Bukhari does not come to us directly from the hands of Bukhari himself.  Bukhari is believed to have died in 256 H or 835 AD - about 200 years after the Prophet. So he compiled information that was about 200 years old. However what is generally accepted today as the Bukhari collection of hadith was actually put together by someone else, by the name of Ibnu Hajar Askalani in Cairo in 852 Hijrah or 1430 AD (over 800 years after the death of the Prophet) and 596 years after Bukhari.  Ibnu Hajar's work was called the "Fath Al Bari" from which the present collection of Bukhari hadith has been compiled. Ibnu Hajar in turn based his selection of Bukhari hadith from other earlier sources like Khushaymani (389 H / 960 AD) 470 years prior to him and Firabri (320 H / 910 AD)  520 years before him .    Here is a timeline :   11 H / 632 AD  death of Prophet   256 H / 835 AD  Bukhari  320 H / 910 AD Firabri   389 H / 960 AD Khushaymani   852 H / 1430 AD Askalani  Here is some reference :   "The scholars themselves say that "Bukhari's text has not come down to us in a single uniform version, but exists in several 'narrations' (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushaymani (d.389 H) on the authority of Bukhari's pupil al-Firabri (d. 320H) is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema" (Abdul Hakim Murad, Cambridge University). So Ibnu Hajar did not have a complete, fully bound set of "Bukhari hadith" to work with. They were in various collections.  OK here are some of those  'magnificent pearls of wisdom'.  I have some comments only. READ MORE HERE

Sailing into a sea of corruption Posted: 18 Dec 2011 07:42 AM PST SAKMONGKOL AK47 In one of my conversations with The Oracle of Syed Putera- we talked about the subject of corruption. Corruption is the number one problem of our country. When leaders are corrupt, they can't transform the country. It sends the wrong signals to society. It says you can get rich easily and crooked ways are rewarding. In the longer run- it destroys the one important ingredient that makes for a progressive society- the acquisitive mindset through hard and honest work. With corruption, people can cut corners. It turns our society into marauding groups of shysters and hustlers. Already we are now experiencing some sort of a perverted Stockholm syndrome. Kidnapped victims get syok with the kidnappers. In our case, captive minds get captivated with our captors through their hustles. We get enamored with crooks and hustlers. We induct into the committee on education celebrities and all that. Where are the serious academics and thoughtful people? Why can we induct Danny Quah into our committee if we are serious about education? But then, I quickly appease myself when I remember, we have a PM who is at home launching premium outlets as he is with public toilets. Back to the scourge of corruption. How was it, I asked, the double tracking project originally given to China Railways which was endorsed by the cabinet was rescinded? How did it come to the state, when cabinet revised its earlier decision and in light of new 'data and information', the project was taken away from China Railways and given to China Harbours? Who provided new data and information? Who directed the provider of the information to submit new evidence?   Any layman would think, China Harbours is a company expert in doing harbours and China Raiwlays in rail lines.  The proper thing is to give it to China Railways. The Oracle answered as a matter- of- factly- because huge sums of money have changed hands. This is the number one problem of our country. Once our leadership is corrupt, it's difficult for the leadership brought up within the same system to correct things. It will take paramount political will by a leadership and a messianic zeal to stem corruption to succeed. In our country, the only answer is a change in leadership. The present leadership has no political will and no messianic zeal. As Dr Mahathir said, the whole country, from top to bottom is corrupt. I take that to mean, Dr Mahathir also includes the PM. Money changing hands- that's bribery simpliciter. The businessmen who pays the aides to the PM and DPM monthly allowances, engages in bribery. The politician, who pays Najib's people to always say good things about him so that he continues to be minister or CM, does a bribery number. Where the money involved run into hundreds of millions and even billions, the bribery reaches a more sophisticated levels. The oracle must have meant that- manipulation of facts and figures and methods to arrive at decisions. Appointing a project management consultant that deducts points from the track record of China Harbours to make it look unqualified and extolling the virtues of another competitor. These manipulations take place. This is corruption of a more sophisticated level. It means, the level of corruption here in Malaysia, takes a network of likeminded people to work. Corruption is a team effort. These teams are running wild in this government. This government is suffering from a serious credibility problem. Every purchase, contract and project that it dishes out is never free from suspicions of financial improprieties. Every damn business decision involving for example even GLCs or any companies linked to the government is not above shiftiness. We haven't got answers about allegations surrounding E&O business. We haven't got answers behind the questionable MAS-AA deal. Mahathir wants the proton shares to be sold- but already has the buyer in mind. His method is the Henry Ford method- you can have any color as long as it's black. Hence, you can sell to anyone as long as its DRB and Syed Mokhtar. It seems that politicians are coming out with all sorts of projects and purchases in order to make money on the side. Everyone seems to be on it. They make hay while it shines. The number one issue of this country is corruption. Over the last 10 years, we lost over 1 trillion through illicit transfer. What does this term mean? It means precisely that- money gotten through illicit means is transferred into accounts belonging to groups of people. Perhaps one day, the identity of these people will be published so that people can get heart attacks going through the gallery of rogues. The recent exposure of the Nataional Feedlot Centre (NFC) scandal represents yet another chapter in a seemingly unending series of gross financial irregularities. That has become the hallmark of the BN government beginning from the 1980s. These scandals always involved politicians. The BMF affair for instance was used by politicians to assassinate rivals. The main protagonists in that scandal were Dr Mahathir and Tengu Razaliegh Hamzah. READ MORE HERE

Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam Posted: 18 Dec 2011 07:31 AM PST The offence of apostasy is not unique to Islam and applicable to the Muslim community alone. The other religions such as Christian and Judaism also have their own legal mechanism to resolve problems on apostasy. In fact, both religions clearly declared apostasy as public offense and punishable by law. For instance in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, the stipulated punishment for an offence of apostasy is death penalty. This indicates that apostasy is not unique and exclusive to Islam but other major religions in the world also considers apostasy as a serious offence which is contrary to their basic religious epistemological foundation. Zulkifli Hasan, NEW MANDALA Freedom of religion is frequently misunderstood by many and this includes the issue on apostasy. The misunderstanding by the public and even in the Muslim community on the concept and legal position of apostasy has negated the image of Islam as a religion of peace. This is not surprising as there are numerous negative allegations upon the religion of Islam such as condemning it as barbaric and incompatible with modernity and human rights. This serious misconception should be rectified and in fact, it is a religious duty for every Muslim to portray a true picture of Islam and to respond to any allegation and negative arguments upon this issue. In view of this negative phenomenon, this article aims to refine the misconception of apostasy in Islam and attempts to respond to two articles published by New Mandala entitled 'Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view' by Joshua Woo Sze Zeng and 'Malaysian Muslims Responses to Conversion' by Norani Bakar whereby the former heavily relies on the essay written by Abdullah Saeed entitled 'Freedom of Religion, Apostasy, and Islam' and online resources and the latter highlights Malaysian Muslims responses to apostasy with reference to the HIMPUN initiative by several non-governmental organisations. Before presenting my arguments on the issue of apostasy in Islam, it is important to note that ABIM was not involved with the HIMPUN initiative. It is worth to emphasise here that ABIM has been very consistent with its stand to promote healthy discussion, interfaith dialogue and intellectual discourse rather than advocating any confrontation or provocation. With the aim of refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam, the preceding discussion in this article will consist of the position of the law of apostasy in other religions; the position of Islam in guaranteeing the freedom of religion, the limitation on freedom of religion, framework for implementation and finally the concluding remarks. Apostasy is not unique to Islam only The offence of apostasy is not unique to Islam and applicable to the Muslim community alone. The other religions such as Christian and Judaism also have their own legal mechanism to resolve problems on apostasy. In fact, both religions clearly declared apostasy as public offense and punishable by law. For instance in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, the stipulated punishment for an offence of apostasy is death penalty. This indicates that apostasy is not unique and exclusive to Islam but other major religions in the world also considers apostasy as a serious offence which is contrary to their basic religious epistemological foundation. Islam guarantees freedom of religion Islam is the religion of peace and it protects the basic individual rights and these include freedom of religion. Islam treats freedom of religion as a matter of right. Every individual has the right and free to choose his religion either Islam or any other religions that he likes. This is unconditional freedom guaranteed by Islam. To evidence this, al-Quran strongly repudiates religious coercion as stated in (10:99) "Had your Lord so willed, all the inhabitants of the earth would have accepted faith altogether. Would you then coerce people to become people of faith". In another verse (2: 256), Allah says "Let there be no coercion in religion." Freedom of religion is not absolute Nevertheless, the situation is different once an individual is a Muslim. The right and freedom of religion is not absolute. As a matter of fact, the notion of absolute freedom is against the principle of natural justice. The freedom of religion should not be abused and any elements of irresponsible religious anarchy that may lead to religious disharmony should not be allowed. This is because Islam considers religious freedom as a matter faith and not as legal or political issues. In this instance, in order to protect the sanctity of this religion, Islam has laid down specific sanction on the matter of apostasy. READ MORE HERE

An open letter to the Minister of Education - SM Convent Bukit Nanas Posted: 17 Dec 2011 10:59 PM PST The mission schools in Malaysia are owned by the mission authorities, however the operations are now managed entirely by the federal government. This however does not preclude for a break in the terms of the pre-agreed contract and it is not merely unlawful, but extremely insensitive, offensive, and disrespectful to all parties involved that the appointment was made at the autocractic discretion of the FT Education Department, with no consultation of the members in this decision-making process. By Dr. W. Vinita Perera DVM, MRCVS - an old girl Convent Bukit Nanas Dear Sir, I wish to bring to your attention the deep concern being conveyed, regarding the approach taken in the recent appointment of the new principal at SM Convent Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur. Before this is turned into yet another debacle of ethnicity and creed by any quarter, I look forwards to your timely and wise intervention to resolve the matter objectively. The points of contestation is as follows:   The FT Education Department is in gross breach of the terms stated in the revised Royal Commission on Teaching Services Report which states:"The assignment and deployment of teachers for these schools, especially the head teacher, should be done only after consultation between the personnel management authority and the boards of these schools". Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad reaffirmed and pledged that the government would honour this again, to consult mission school authorities over the choice of school heads and teachers, at a meeting with the Heads of Churches in Kota Kinabalu in 1998. In this case - all parties involved - The Board of Governors, Parents Teachers Association and the Old Girls Association were all in the dark about this appointment. The recommendation submitted were completely disregarded. I am sure you are aware, SM Convent Bukit Nanas is a mission school. The mission schools in Malaysia are owned by the mission authorities, however the operations are now managed entirely by the federal government. This however does not preclude for a break in the terms of the pre-agreed contract and it is not merely unlawful, but extremely insensitive, offensive, and disrespectful to all parties involved that the appointment was made at the autocractic discretion of the FT Education Department, with no consultation of the members in this decision-making process. This move is perceived as a threat and a means of undermining the community which promulgate the ethos of excellence in education behind these schools. There is no contestation regarding the academic qualifications and experience of the nominee in question whatsoever, and I am sure many of us symphatise with the nominee for being caught in the cross fire. Having Puan Sharifah Bt. Ibrahim as one of my beloved principals during my time in Convent Bukit Nanas, I can attest that there is no ethnic or creed motivation behind this uproar. There is only the outcry of disbelief at the less than adequate handling, shortsightedness and inefficiency of the FT Education Department in seeking the input of key stakeholders, symptomatic of cutting corners. This lack of foresight has the ability to incite racial-religious tension and burgeon into something much bigger. The person involved should be held absolutely accountable and taken to task.   I look forward to your objective intervention toward a diplomatic recourse. A healthy dose of accountability by the FT Education Department with a formal apology, should reinstate our confidence in your ministry. Simple in Virtue, Steadfast in Duty, Dr. W. Vinita Perera DVM, MRCVS an old girl Convent Bukit Nanas, Colorado USA

The Ballad of Chia Thye Poh Posted: 17 Dec 2011 10:56 PM PST Chia Thye Poh, 70, the longest-serving political prisoner in Asian history, was awarded the Lim Lian Geok (LLG) Spirit Award on 18 December 2011 by the LLG  Cultural Development Centre. The former Singapore Member of Parliament was detained for 32 years from 1966 to 1998 by Lee Kuan Yew's government, a much longer term compared to Nelson Mandela's 28 years of detention. Kua Kia Soong (Adapted by Kua Kia Soong from The H-Block Song, 18 December 2011) "I am a proud yet simple man In the lion city my life began A caring teacher I became In search of truth and peace - And when my age was tender still My country's wrongs my mind did fill By tens of thousands patriots' trills And my questions would not cease … Chorus: Don't shed no tears for my plight             I'll boldly serve my time             Let Harry brand our noble fight             Thirty two years of crime… "I learned of many years of strife Of cruel laws, injustice rife I saw in Vietnam how they ruled The same colonial way – Protestors beaten, tortured, maimed Divisions nurtured, passions flamed Outraged, provoked, rights, cause defamed This is the conqueror's way… (chorus) "They locked me up in sixty six On trumped up charges hard to stick They tried to force me to confess To all their made-up lies - I stand for human dignity For freedom, just democracy I know that through those years deprived My spirit will touch lives…" (chorus) Chia Thye Poh, 70, the longest-serving political prisoner in Asian history, was awarded the Lim Lian Geok (LLG) Spirit Award on 18 December 2011 by the LLG  Cultural Development Centre. The former Singapore Member of Parliament was detained for 32 years from 1966 to 1998 by Lee Kuan Yew's government, a much longer term compared to Nelson Mandela's 28 years of detention. The citation for the award read: "… for upholding his belief in democracy, without compromising and never losing faith throughout the 32 years of unjust detention without trial." In 1963, many activists in Singapore were arrested and detained.  Chia selflessly stood in for a detained candidate in the general elections and was elected Member of Parliament on a Socialist Front ticket. He was thus also a Malaysian member of parliament from 1963 to 1965 when Singapore was part of Malaysia. A defender of the freedom of expression and justice, he was banned from entering Malaysia after he had delivered a speech at the Perak division of the Labour Party of Malaysia on 24th April 1966. He was arrested under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) by the Singapore Government on Oct 29, 1966 which allows for indefinite detention without trial.  In May 1989, he was placed under house arrest in the island of Sentosa for nine more years.  After 32 years of incarceration, he was finally granted unconditional freedom on 27 November 1998.  Immediately after his restriction order was lifted, Chia issued a statement condemning the ISA.  Soon after, he went to Netherlands and completed his Master's and PhD degrees at the Institute of Social Studies at The Hague. Established in 1988, the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award is the highest honour in the Malaysian Chinese community bestowed on those who live up to the spirit of Lim Lian Geok, the civil rights leader of Dong Jiao Zong in the fifties and sixties. His citizenship was revoked by the Alliance government in 1961 because of his opposition to the 1960 Rahman Talib Report that aimed to convert the Chinese secondary schools to national schools. Since his passing in 1985, Lim Lian Geok has been beatified as the "Soul of the Malaysian Chinese".

Fixation Over Pakatan's Cracks is Unwise for Barisan Nasional Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:53 PM PST Khoo Kay Peng PM Najib said the Opposition coalition is forged through the members hatred for Barisan Nasional. He predicted such coalition is not sustainable. He is partly accurate. Dap, PKR and PAS are cooperating to seize the federal government from Barisan Nasional. The aim of defeating Barisan Nasional is strong enough for the three major parties to put aside their party's agenda for a moment. The fact that the newly minted coalition has achieved very little in integrating their political platforms is going to be a flash point for the parties should they succeed in capturing Putrajaya in the next general elections. The process of forming a government and a new cabinet is expected to take some time because it is obvious that they have not reached an agreement on even the simplest structure of governance. However, it may not be a bad strategy for the three political parties to set aside some of these fundamental issues until they have really captured the federal government. Early disagreements over matters such as number of cabinet seats, portfolio, present race and religious centric policies, socio-economic policies, governance structure etc. may be too premature and counter productive to the fragile coalition. However, it is important for PM Najib to note that their 'hatred' for Barisan Nasional, particularly UMNO, is a strong catalyst for the Opposition parties to work together too. This is not the first time the Opposition parties had collaborated with the aim of challenging the hegemony of the ruling regime. They had tried numerous times since 1969. The seed for a two coalition system had borne fruits only in 2008. One of the most important factors which will dent PM Najib, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and A Jalil Hamid's hope to see the Opposition pact breaking apart is the voters' sentiment and anger towards Barisan Nasional and UMNO. Pakatan is a platform forged by the voters to teach the ruling coalition a lesson. Its electoral success is beyond the dictate of any Pakatan leaders or parties. The desire for change was people driven. The change was not about making Anwar Ibrahim the next prime minister. It was not about making Dap the head of a coalition government in Penang. The change was moved by the people's desire to see a better future for Malaysia. READ MORE HERE

Perkasa ‘suppresses’ ethnic minorities, says MIC Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:49 PM PST (The Malaysian Insider) - MIC today accused Perkasa of "doing its worst" to suppress ethnic minorities in response to Perkasa's accusations that the Barisan Nasional (BN) party was responsible for scrapping the controversial novel Interlok from the school syllabus. The Malay rights group had yesterday predicted that Malay voters would reject MIC's candidates in the coming polls, with secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali saying the decision showed Putrajaya's "weakness and failure to not succumb to pressure by minorities." He also claimed this was a part of MIC's elaborate plan to woo Indian voters. "In Malaysia, the BN government is doing its best to take care of the minorities but Perkasa is doing its worst to suppress the minorities like Indians, Eurasians, Kadazans, Dayaks, Orang Aslis and all the other mini-minorities. "Perkasa is obviously living in the dinosaur age... they should send their office bearers overseas to see how even the once backward politicians have now recognised the need to protect the minorities so that they are not bullied by senseless politicians from amongst the majority," MIC leader Datuk R Ramanan said in a statement today. Ramanan, who is MIC deputy social and welfare bureau chairman charged that Perkasa's viewpoint on the matter was illogical, saying that in a democractic system, the majority race is always protected. "It is the minorities who need protection. "Thank God in this country we have Leaders like (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) who cares for the rakyat." READ MORE HERE

Politicians demand Putrajaya explain RM9b nod for six patrol ships Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:42 PM PST (The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Najib Razak must justify his government's purchase of six patrol ships for a whopping RM9 billion, an increase of RM3 billion from the original RM6 billion approved earlier this year, DAP's Lim Kit Siang demanded. The opposition politician rang the alarm after a local shipbuilder said it won a RM9 billion "letter of award" from the Defence Ministry late last Friday. "Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd had received the Letter of Award dated 16 December 2011 from the Ministry of Defence Malaysia for the Contract to design, construct, equip, install, commission, integrate, test and trials, and deliver six units of 'Second Generation Patrol Vessels Littoral Combat Ships (Frigate Class)'. "The Contract carries a ceiling of RM9 billion, to be implemented over three Malaysia Plans, 10, 11 and 12. The delivery of the First of Class ship is estimated in 2017 with follow on ships every six months thereafter," Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation Bhd (BHIC) said in a filing to Bursa Malaysia. Lim said the prime minister had promised full transparency in government procurement projects and must now take responsibility and explain the price hike. "Justify the increase. Was the contract open to tender? The basic rules of integrity and accountability should be followed," the Ipoh Timur MP told The Malaysian Insider when contacted. Former Umno minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, echoed Lim but directed his questions to Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the Minister of Defence. He said it was very unusual for a contract to be couched in terms such as "a ceiling of RM9 billion". "How can you have a contract of up to RM9 billion? What happens if they exceed that amount?" he said to The Malaysian Insider over the phone last night. "That's not a contract in law. At most, that's a letter of intent. In a contract, you must spell out the specs. But here, it seems the equipment has not been evaluated … the whole system is not finalised. That means they are not sure what it is they are buying," he said, with a little laugh. Zaid said Boustead's statement was "very misleading", adding that the deal was an attempt to "bulldoze through a contract … that would strengthen the commission for DCNS, the French company". The naval defence company hit headlines worldwide for its Scorpene submarine deal with Putrajaya, which was also linked to the murder of a Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaariibuu. It was recently investigated by French authorities. "It's a fait accompli [French for an accomplished fact]," the one-time de facto law minister said. The government had approved RM6 billion for the navy to spend on the six ships, DAP national publicity chief, Tony Pua said, in a reminder of Ahmad Zahid's announcement to Parliament on February 5. The Petaling Jaya Utara MP said the defence minister had claimed the six patrol ships were "littoral combatant ships (LCS)", which Pua said meant advanced warships, noting that only the United States owned two such vessels in the world. READ MORE HERE

Najib to counter online ‘slander, false news’ with 1 Malaysia TV Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:37 PM PST (The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Najib Razak today unveiled his administration's first internet protocol television site, saying that the move would enable the government to disseminate information to Malaysians in "real-time." Speaking at a glitzy launch, the prime minister said "1 Malaysia TV" would allow "speedy" and "accurate" information to be disseminated to the public. He acknowledged that there was currently an information "vacuum" with regards to news and current issues related to the country, causing Malaysians to turn to "other sources" online to gain access to said information. "We do not have a choice. We have to disseminate fast and accurate information to the rakyat. "When there is a vacuum, that vacuum is filled with (information through) other sources, sometimes it is mixed with fairytales, false news and slander," Najib said. He said that everyone, including politicians, needed to start using social media to interact with their fellow Malaysians, and that he has made it a point to meet up with his Facebook friends once every few months. READ MORE HERE

PKR shows World Bank records, claims proof Dr M received aid Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:31 PM PST (The Malaysian Insider) - PKR today refuted Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's claims that he had refused monetary aid from the World Bank by furnishing online records of loans made by the global financial body during his tenure as prime minister. World Bank records provided by PKR showed that Dr Mahathir's administration had accepted financial aid numerous times between May 18, 1982 to Malaysia's post-financial crisis period of March 30, 1999. This includes three loans for projects inked six months after Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked as deputy prime minister in September 1998. A US$300 million (RM953.10 million) loan package, titled the "Economic Recovery and Social Sector Loan Project' was signed on June 18, 1998, according to the World Bank website. An Education Sector Support Project (US$244 million), Year 2000 Technical Assistance Project (US$100 million) and Social Sector Support Project (US$60 million) was subsequently inked on March 30, 1999. "If seen carefully, this is clear proof of the World Bank's commitment to Malaysia during Tun Dr Mahathir's administration. "It should be noted that while still Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar had written to the World Bank, expressing the view that Malaysia no longer needed assistance from the global financial body," PKR's communications bureau said in a statement. The statement said that the records furnished showed that Dr Mahathir's allegations against Anwar was untrue. The former PM yesterday issued a challenge to Opposition leader Anwar over a purported letter that the former had written to the World Bank to appeal for funds during the financial crisis in 1999. Dr Mahathir alleged the accusation as false as he did not write such letter as claimed by Anwar. The former prime minister stressed that he had refused any help offered by the World Bank as this would render Malaysia a 'slave' to the world body, according to Bernama Online. READ MORE HERE

Najib knows not what he does! Posted: 17 Dec 2011 06:26 PM PST STEADYAKU47 I have no doubt that we have the numbers to put Pakatan Rakyat into government. UMNO and Barisan Nasional are now in a free fall. All that we have thought Najib to be he is proving us to be right. In our eyes the most humbling of all for him is his inability to make his wife understand that he is the Prime Minister – not her! He has dealt with the problems and issues that besets him in the only way he knows, run away or use the sanctuary of his office to keep himself hidden and untouchable from the possible repercussions of his deeds. Altantuya and Saiful are two instances of his cowardice. In both situation he is quick to involve himself at the first opportunity. With Altantuya there would be no Razak Baginda without Najib Razak's connivance! And without Najibs connivance in giving Razak Baginda that hideously profitable submarine contract there would not have been a Razak Baginda Altantuya liaison  - a liaison that led to her death!  With Saiful he took it upon himself to meet and discuss with Saiful before the fact. After the fact he was quick to deny his involvement in same until confronted by irrefutable evidence. Does he think us stupid enough to not be able to put two and two together? By all means he might win in court against DSAI but this deed of his will be remembered by the people when they cast their votes at the 13th general elections.      Some would see his shenanigans in Perak as a mastery act to bring Perak back into Barisan Naasional fold. Many would see it as an act of arrogance by Najib in ignoring the wishes of the people of Perak who had already voted for a Pakatan Rakyat state government. Najib's use of money and  Royalty to further his end only proves a point: That the Sultan of Perak can be bought notwithstanding his previous judicial pedigree. Everyone has his price –some cheaper then others! Najib being Najib at the recent UMNO general assembly was his pièce de résistance, the crème de la crème of Najib at his best or his worst – depending on how you would want to see him! It was Najib in full flight, full of himself and his self importance in an assembly in which he was the alpha male! In the land of the blind the one eyed is king. In this assembly Najib by virtue of being its president, had no equal. Just as Pak Lah had no equal in the general assembly that he attended when he was President of UMNO. When he could have raised to the occasion and made the assembly to be a memorable one for UMNO and for the country he chose to go the easy route of race and religion. Blaming the Chinese for the deplorable economic situation of the Malays and the Christians for the supposed danger that Islam now faces in Malaysia. No serious discussions on what was needed to bring the Malays and the country to the level aspired – only the apportion of blame to the Chinese and the Christians for non existent threats. All this would have been laughable had it not been for the self centered seriousness by which the UMNO faithful chose to take these 'threats'. Echoing Najibs clarion but empty calls to be ready for God knows what, the UMNO faithful managed to work themselves into a frenzy of empty rhetoric's and promises to the Chinese and the Christian's that the day for retribution is nigh! A comical general assembly indeed had it not been for UMNO's ability to deliver what retribution they promise upon the Chinese and the Christians if they chose to do so. So far nothing yet but all it would take is for Najib to rouse them from their slumber and all hell could break lose! Another May 13th is a distinct possibility! READ MORE HERE

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net