Sabtu, 31 Disember 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Vote opposition, says Zahid Hamidi

Posted: 29 Dec 2011 08:44 AM PST

Defence Minister and Umno Vice President Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has asked Malaysian voters to vote opposition to show their disappointment with the government. Ahmad Zahid urged Malaysians to reject the present government, which has not shown any changes and only makes promises that are never delivered.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Vote BN To Show Frustration Against State Govt

(Bernama) - The people of Selangor must show their disappointment with the state government leadership by giving their mandate to the Barisan Nasional (BN) to lead the state again, said Umno vice-president Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

The people of Selangor were seen to begin to realise and were rising up to reject the present state government which had not shown any positive change except to make promises during their ceramah, said Ahmad Zahid, who is also the Defence Minister.

"This fact has become a reality in Selangor. They are angry, (they) regretted the outcome of the last general election due to their anger against a certain people and the local leader in their areas."

"As such, the resurgence of BN in Selangor especially under the leadership of the Prime Minister as the Selangor BN chairman, will rebuild the people's support for the BN," he said when opening the 'Love Selangor Carnival' organised by the Selangor BN at i-City, here last night.

Also present were 'Love Selangor Carnival' operations director Mohd Zin Mohamed, Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Chua Tee Yong and senior Selangor BN leaders.

Meanwhile, Ahmad Zahid said the carnival was a catalyst to evaluate to what extent the programmes organised by the BN were getting public support.

This was apparent from the presence of 100,000 visitors to the carnival after two days and the figure was expected to rise to 300,000 by Saturday.

The four-day 'Love Selangor Carnival' which began on Wednesday will climax with the 2012 New Year Eve celebration which will be launched by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
 

God versus religion

Posted: 25 Dec 2011 09:08 AM PST

The Abrahamic faiths all believe that there is only one God. That makes it easy. However, there are three Abrahamic faiths and many more branches and sub-branches of these three faiths. And each of these faiths, branches and sub-branches claims that it is the only true faith and that all the others are false. That makes it complicating.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Just a short 'Boxing Day' note to assure you that I am still around.

"Is it rational to believe in God?" asks Giovanni Serritella, which was published in Harakah, the party organ of PAS. You can read the article here: http://en.harakah.net.my/index.php/articles/depth/4048-is-it-rational-to-believe-in-god.html

The world has always addressed this matter as a theist versus atheist issue. You believe in the existence of God or you do not. However, it is not as simple as that. And because they have allowed very narrow parameters to the discussion it falls into a mere 'yes' or 'no' exercise.

I would like to introduce a new word, religionist, so that I can break the two groups into three (theists, religionists and atheists).

What I mean here is: there is one group that believes in the existence of God, another that does not, and a third that believes in the existence of God but not in religion. Once we expand the two groups into three it becomes easier to discuss the issue.

And this is where the religionists have been very devious. They not only reduce the groupings to two (theist and atheist) but they also tie the belief in God to the belief in religion. In other words, to believe in God you must also believe in religion.

Hence you must believe in the Trinity, that the road to salvation is through Christ and therefore you must accept Christ, or that Muhammad is the last Prophet and only by following Prophet Muhammad will you be ensured paradise, and so on. You are not allowed to believe in God independently. The belief in God must be packaged and tied to the belief in a religious doctrine. To reject this doctrine means you also reject God.

The Abrahamic faiths all believe that there is only one God. That makes it easy. However, there are three Abrahamic faiths and many more branches and sub-branches of these three faiths. And each of these faiths, branches and sub-branches claims that it is the only true faith and that all the others are false. That makes it complicating.

If we reduce everything to just the belief in God then it makes life very simple. Only when the belief in God also involves the belief in religion and you are not allowed to believe in God without also believing in one of the so many religions does it make our life messy.

Granted, you may believe that God exists and that the universe (and everything within it) was created by God. The question now would be: but was religion also created by God or was this an invention of humankind? God can exist because there is only one God. But how can there be so many religions if they were from God?

Well, we can talk more of this later if you wish.
 

Change in government, not change of government (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 18 Dec 2011 10:52 AM PST

Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Three days ago I completed my Oxford course, Philosophy of Religion. I will know in two weeks or so whether I passed or not. On 1 February 2012, my new course, Age of Revolution, will commence. This course is about the transformation and reformation (meaning: revolutions) in Europe from the period of the French Revolution to the First World War.

I have two textbooks to read, which I am already halfway through, and even before I start the course I can already see many parallels with what happened more than 200 years ago with what is happening today.

The article below, Talk to us, not talk at us, by Thomas L Friedman, which was published in the New Straits Times, makes interesting reading. This article also summarises some of what I have read thus far.

Basically, (pre-empting what my course is going to reveal), many of these revolutions are bottom-up rather than top-down events. Another 1,000-page book I read a couple of months ago about the French and Russian Revolutions appear to reveal the same thing.

Furthermore, it revealed that revolutions are started by the masses and not by political leaders (and succeeds only when critical mass is reached) but are eventually hijacked by politicians. For example, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, etc., did not mastermind the revolution. They grabbed power once the revolution started. In fact, some of the so-called leaders were actually in exile outside Russia and came home to take over once the revolution succeeded in ousting the government (remember Khomeini as well?).

Another point would be about the transformation or reformation itself. What the people seek is change. And the route they chose is to change the government. But in the end they did not actually see change. Hence the title of my article today: Change in government, not change of government.

And that is what we should seek. We should learn from more than 200 years of history. And the lesson is: we may see a change of government but that does not mean we are going to see a change in government. This is what I normally call old wine in a new bottle.

Can we be assured that by changing the government we will see change? Can a change of government guarantee us a change in government? Can more than 200 years of history be wrong?

Well, just look at the so-called changes of recent times such as in Iran in 1979. Did the US see change with Obama at the helm? Did Britain see a change when they kicked out Labour last year?

Look at Egypt. The people took to the Tahrir Square to force a change of government. But they did not see a change in government. So now they are taking to the Tahrir Square again and the killings are continuing, barely a few months since the last revolution.

And this is the history of the French Revolution as well. We always talk about the French Revolution of 1789. But how many of you know that that is actually the First French Revolution. And that revolution was a disaster. There was more anarchy and chaos after the revolution. They needed a second revolution to address the errors that the first revolution brought. But no one talks about the Second French Revolution of 60 years later (in fact, many are not even aware of this second revolution).

I am not gungho about Pakatan Rakyat. That does not mean I am gungho about Barisan Nasional either. It is just that I am not gungho about all politicians who use the people to change governments and then grab power and perpetuate what the old government did.

Over the next few months I am going to demonstrate why we need to focus on a change in government and not a change of government. I am going to reveal the excesses and transgressions of those who are offering themselves as the saviour of the nation.

My purpose in doing this is not to frustrate a change of government. Certainly, ABU must happen. So we need a change of government for that to happen. But we must not only remove Umno (and its cohorts in Barisan Nasional). We must also ensure that the spirit of Umno is removed as well.

Why would we want a new government that perpetuates the spirit of Umno? Is this not what Britain is currently facing? And why do you think the British voters are going back to voting for Labour in the by-elections barely a year into a new government? My own area in Manchester fell back to Labour in the recent by-election.

I have evidence of some very troubling shenanigans in the states currently under Pakatan Rakyat control. And what I see is basically a continuation of the spirit of Umno. But are you, like me, also concerned about this? Or would you rather we close our eyes (and our minds) to all this and pretend that nothing is wrong?

As I said, more than 200 years of history has taught us how changing the government without focusing on a change in government can bring about disastrous results. We have more than 200 years of history (plus what is currently going on in Egypt) to learn from.

Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat.

And if Pakatan Rakyat continues to be just like Barisan Nasional in the states they are running, how can we trust them as the new federal government? Will we need to do a Tahrir Square Version 2.0 later after voting them into Putrajaya?

That is what we wish to avoid. So Pakatan Rakyat has to accept the whacking. It is better we whack them now than the voters whack them at the ballot box.

I know there will be allegations of selling out, turncoat, Trojan horse and whatnot. But that is how they normally respond when we whack the opposition leaders. They regard criticising the opposition leaders as if we are insulting Prophet Muhammad. But then the opposition leaders are not Prophet Muhammad and above criticism. This, they need to learn and we shall teach them this lesson how much it may hurt.

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

Talk to us, not talk at us
By Thomas L Friedman, New Straits Times

THE historian Walter Russell Mead recently noted that after the 1990s revolution that collapsed the Soviet Union, Russians had a saying that seems particularly apt today: "It's easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than to turn fish soup into an aquarium".

Indeed, from Europe to the Middle East, and maybe soon even to Russia and Asia, a lot of aquariums are being turned into fish soup all at once. But turning them back into stable societies and communities will be one of the great challenges of our time.

We are present again at one of those great unravellings -- just like after World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War. But this time, there was no war. All of these states have been pulled down from within -- without warning. Why?

The main driver, I believe, is the merger of globalisation and the information technology revolution. Both achieved a critical mass in the first decade of the 21st century that has resulted in the democratisation -- all at once -- of so many things that neither weak states nor weak companies can stand up against.

We've seen the democratisation of information, where everyone is now a publisher; the democratisation of war-fighting, where individuals became super-empowered (enough so, in the case of al-Qaeda, to take on a superpower); the democratisation of innovation, wherein start-ups using free open-source software and "the cloud" can challenge global companies.

And, finally, we've seen what Mark Mykleby, a retired Marine colonel and former adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls "the democratisation of expectations" -- the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted.

I've been struck by how similar the remarks by Russians about Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who just basically reappointed himself president, are to those I heard from Egyptians about Hosni Mubarak, who kept reappointing himself president.

The Egyptian writer Alaa al-Aswany said to me that Egyptians resented the idea that Mubarak would just hand power to his son Gamal as if the Egyptian people "were chickens", who could be passed by a leader to his son.

Last Sunday, a New York Times article from Moscow quoted the popular, imprisoned Russian blogger Aleksei Navalny as saying: "We are not cattle or slaves. We have voices and votes and the power to uphold them."

"The days of leading countries or companies via a one-way conversation are over," says Dov Seidman, the chief executive officer of LRN and the author of the book How.

"The old system of 'command and control' -- using carrots and sticks -- to exert power over people is fast being replaced by 'connect and collaborate' -- to generate power through people."

Leaders and managers cannot just impose their will, adds Seidman. "Now you have to have a two-way conversation that connects deeply with your citizens or customers or employees."

Netflix had a one-way conversation about raising prices with its customers, who instantly self-organised; some 800,000 bolted, and the stock plunged.

Bank of America had a one-way conversation about charging a US$5 (RM16) fee on debit cards, and its customers forced the  bank to reverse itself and apologise.

Putin thought he had power over his people and could impose whatever he wanted and is now being forced into a conversation to justify staying in power. Coca-Cola repackaged its flagship soft drink in white cans for the holidays. But an outcry of "blasphemy" from consumers forced Coke to switch back from white cans to red cans in a week. Last year, Gap ditched its new logo after a week of online backlash by customers.

A lot of CEOs will tell you that this shift has taken them by surprise, and they are finding it hard to adjust to the new power relationships with customers and employees.

"As power shifts to individuals," argues Seidman, "leadership itself must shift with it -- from coercive or motivational leadership that uses sticks or carrots to extract performance and allegiance out of people to inspirational leadership that inspires commitment and innovation and hope in people".

The role of the leader now is to get the best of what is coming up from below and then meld it with a vision from above. Are you listening, Mr Putin?

This kind of leadership is especially critical today, adds Seidman, "when people are creating a lot of 'freedom from' things -- freedom from oppression or whatever system is in their way -- but have not yet scaled the values and built the institutional frameworks that enable 'freedom to' -- freedom to build a career, a business or a meaningful life."

One can see this vividly in Egypt, where the bottom-up democracy movement was strong enough to oust Mubarak but now faces the long, arduous process of building new institutions and writing a new social contract from a democracy coalition that encompass Muslim Brothers, Christian liberals, Muslim liberals, the army and ultraconservative Muslim Salafis.

Getting all those fish back and swimming together in one aquarium will be no small task -- one that will take a courageous and special leader. Help wanted.
 

Updated with Chinese Translation at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_21.html

 

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

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Why bully a pastor?

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 10:01 AM PST

(The Malaysian Insider) - So, the latest act by Ibrahim Ali and his band of Perkasa men is to lodge a police report against Reverend Dr Eu Hong Seng for raising concerns revolving Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. The way these Perkasa boys reacted makes one wonder, if the mentioning of Article 153 by any non-Malay is like committing a deadly sin.

Then again, could we have expected anything less from the Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas? On that account, and true to his nature, he didn't disappoint — neither us nor his taskmasters. 

Our prime minister has only recently stated his intent to transform Malaysia to be the best democracy in the world; and yet — despite 54 years after Merdeka - we are instead left to rue individuals such as Ibrahim Ali, who take pleasure in being paragons of fear mongering, when pertinent issues surrounding Article 153 are highlighted. If national unity vis a vis nation-building is one of our goals, and the construction of Bangsa Malaysia is part of Vision 2020, then why should we cower from confronting stumbling blocks that stand in our way? 

I attended the CFM Christmas hi-tea gathering, and I heard Reverend Eu's speech, and amongst the things he mentioned in his speech was that, "in order to move forward as a nation, we must be willing to address impediments to our progress".  Surely, that is a wise call for mature and temperate heads to come together and discuss our way forward. 

Reverend Eu further explained that the interpretation and more serious debates concerning Article 153 should be attended to by our parliamentarians. He also made it clear that ordinary Malaysians have no problem with the rights of the Malays and the Sultans as stipulated in our Constitution. 

Where he did call a spade, a spade, was in pointing out what many people unfortunately experience, at 'ground level', and that is in the context of the implementation of Article 153, where unfairness of treatment rears its ugly head. It was on this otherwise valid remark that Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa pounced upon. 

I would like to ask Ibrahim, at which point did Reverend Eu question Article 153, as the former purports that he did? Where was the "irresponsible provocation"? Should one deem it as irresponsible provocation, when another rightfully highlights weaknesses that permeate the system? 

In fact, wouldn't silence in the course of inequity, constitute a graver act of irresponsibility? It is within this context that Reverend Eu spoke of the precarious predicament of 'shifting rights' — a burdensome shadow under which many Malaysians have lived by and endured, hoping that their space wouldn't erode any further. Sadly, more often than not, that has not been the case. 

I stand in agreement therefore with Reverend Eu, that in the context of the implementation of Article 153 — yes, we do feel bullied. This is not a minority opinion, for many agree with Reverend Eu's forthright observation. 

This includes constitutional expert Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, who opined that Reverend Eu has not uttered anything seditious.  Couple that with the support shown by MCA's Young Professional Bureau Chairman Datuk Chua Tee Yong, as reported by The Star on 31.12.2011, and it appears that Ibrahim and Perkasa are the ones who are isolated in their warped and immature outlook. 

As Aziz Bari reportedly told them, "grow up".

READ MORE HERE

 

Najib likely to reshuffle Cabinet, push polls back

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 08:32 AM PST

(The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Najib Razak is likely to reshuffle his Cabinet as early as this month and delay calling elections to later this year as scandals engulfing at least two ministers are threatening the feel-good factor of Budget 2012 where the prime minister dispensed direct cash aid to some 5.3 million households, Umno insiders say.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Prime Minister's Office (PMO) senior officials have a list of potential new ministers and deputy ministers that will be seen as Najib's people to execute his New Economic Model (NEM) and political transformation programme as he heads into the general election.

"Najib needs more of his own men in the Cabinet. And he needs to replace those seen as tainted before he calls an election," said an Umno lawmaker close to the party president, referring to scandals surrounding Wanita Umno chief Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, religious affairs minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom and deputy minister Datuk Awang Adek Hussin who admitted to receiving some financial contributions.

There has been speculation in the Chinese media and also among political analysts that Najib could dissolve parliament after the Chinese New Year celebrations on January 23 for a March election, four years after Election 2008.

It is understood that the Election Commission (EC) has booked school halls and community centres for a possible election in March. However, others say Najib is waiting for electoral reforms and the initial public offering by state land developer Felda before calling an election.

Another Umno source said the party is also not ready for polls despite Najib telling party members to be on a "war footing" for an early election. "We are not exactly ready. Some warlords don't want to give up their chance of standing in the next polls," he told The Malaysian Insider.

The source pointed out only former Terengganu mentri besar and Umno chief, Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh, has openly said he will not contest in future elections.

"Most warlords think they can win if they are picked. And if they are not picked, they will refuse to work for those named just like what happened in 2008," he added.

READ MORE HERE

 

Hasan Ali joins Jais raid

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:57 AM PST

(The Star) - Controversial PAS leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali joined a rare raid on drinking spots at Mutiara Damansara and Petaling Jaya, which saw the arrest of 41 Muslims.

Among those nabbed in Ops Mungkar were 18 people who were caught taking alcohol, an offence under Selangor's syariah law.

They include six women.

Dr Hasan said the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais) has strong evidence to charge them for alcohol consumption under the Syariah Criminal Enactment 1995, which provides for a jail term of up to two years and a fine of not more than RM3,000, or both.

Unlike other states, Selangor does not whip offenders caught drinking alcohol.

Dr Hasan said the other 23 pub goers caught in the raid, including 13 women, would be required to attend counselling sessions.

"They will have to give their statements on Jan 11 and 12, before Jais fixes the dates for counselling," he said at the Jais office here yesterday.

He said the raiding party, which included the Bukit Aman police, was led by Jais director Datuk Marzuki Hussin following a tip-off. Those arrested were aged between 18 and 58.

"We could see there was entertainment going on and the drinking (of alcohol)," said Dr Hasan, who is in charge of Islamic affairs in the state executive council.

He refuted suggestions that the operation was connected to the recent controversies surrounding him.

Dr Hasan, the former Selangor PAS commissioner, is embroiled in a feud with the leadership over the party's policy switch from an Islamic state agenda to a welfare state.

In August, he defended the Jais checks on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church and had also locked horns with the state over the sale of alcoholic beverages at convenience stores and the mushrooming of massage centres.

 

Nanyang urged to withdraw reports and apologise

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:46 AM PST

(Sinchew) - Negeri Sembilan PAS, PKR and NGOs presented a memorandum demanding Nanyang Siang Pau to withdraw its feature series entitled "Looking at the Islamic Penal Law the rational way" and apologise within seven days, at the newspaper's Seremban office yesterday.

Protest if no apology

They said if Nanyang refused to withdraw the reports and apologise, they would lodge police reports across the country and hold peaceful demonstrations in front of Nanyang's offices nationwide.

PAS Negeri Sembilan commissioner cum Paroi state assemblyman Hj Mohamad Taufek Abd Ghani said when presenting the memorandum that PAS was of the opinion that the images published in Nanyang were cruel and should not have been selected for publication in relation to the Islamic Penal Law.

"The Islamic Penal Law will never allow such cruel punishments on children. Even though it was not mentioned in the captions that those were the punishments under the Islamic Penal Law, it gave the public an impression that they were the punishments under the Islamic Penal law, as reflected from political leaders' reactions.

"This is very unfair to us."

Roundtable meeting proposed

Negeri Sembilan PAS Youth chief Khairil Anuar Abd Wafa said that in one of the photos published, a man was seen holding a microphone beside a punished boy as if he was staging a show, adding that this was not the way punishments were handed out under the Islamic Penal Law.

"Nanyang Siang Pau has an obligation to clarify on this," he continued.

PKR Rembau divisional secretary Norazizi Abd. Aziz suggested that a roundtable meeting be held between the media and PAS to better understand the true significance of the Islamic Penal Law.

PKR Teluk Kemang division committee member Muhd Saufi bin Miad said they were not censuring Nanyang, as they believed such undesirable development could have stemmed from a lack of real understanding of the Islamic Penal law.

Also present were Negeri Sembilan PAS Supporter Congress chairman Yao Con Seng and members from NGOs.

 

Witches, riches, victories in Taib-land

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:37 AM PST

HORNBILL UNLEASHED

PBB president Taib Mahmud will not allow Umno's Najib Tun Razak or Muhyiddin Yassin to ever corner him again.

In Sarawak, the highlight of 2011 was the "unravelling" of "godlike" Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and the exciting historic victory by the opposition in the state election.

Frankly, Taib has been the preoccupation of politicians, activists – both local and abroad – and the man-on-the street.

Why, one may ask, and we will say it is because Taib has over the last 30 years woven himself into the very fabric of Sarawakian lives in politics, trade and practices.

Observers here claim that Taib controls everything.

He has wielded his political clout muzzling local dissent, monopolising corporate Sarawak, and exuding uncharacteristic charm and fatherly "benevolence" at the longhouses littering the rural interior – wooing native Sarawakians into believing that he is "clean and corrupt-free" and that those accusing him are "evil" and not to be trusted.

The year 2011 saw Taib's secrets exposed by a UK-based investigative portal Sarawak Report (SR) and its bold Radio Free Sarawak (RFM), with its broadcasts in local Iban dialect.

SR in collaboration with the Swiss-based Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) made shocking revelations of Taib and his family's "unimaginable" wealth running into billions in US dollars across eight countries.

BMF alleged that Taib was corrupt and had pillaged and plundered the state since he came to power in 1981.

BMF has also released figures showing that Taib and his family held influential stakes worth US$1.46 billion in 330 companies in Sarawak and in 80 other companies globally.

In response, Taib simply said " my children are clever".

BMF has also pressured several countries to investigate Taib's alleged money laundering and already probing Taib's global links are Switzerland, Germany and Australia.

Here in Malaysia, there's been increasing pressure for the authorities to investigate Taib.

Witches and gangsters

On the local front, opposition DAP, emboldened by its 13-seat victory in the April 16 state election, has been openly demanding for transparency over contracts awarded to Taib-linked companies in Sarawak.

According to the party, no major contract in Sarawak is without a Taib-linked company stamp.

During the April state election campaign, DAP – together with its Pakatan Rakyat allies PKR and PAS – had successfully highlighted the issues of corruption, power abuse, nepotism and cronyism allegedly committed by the state government.

Land grabs by the authorities, land rents, premiums, education, Chinese education and schools were also hot topics that eventually saw the thrashing of the Chinese-dominated Sarawak United People Party (SUPP) at the state polls.

Since winning the polls, Taib has tightened the noose on his own Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB).

He has made it clear that his party can and will rule Sarawak with or without coalition members SUPP, Party Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) and Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP).

In the run-up to the April 16 polls, Taib saw an unexpected spoiler in his cousin and former deputy education minister Salleh Jafaruddin.

Salleh, who stood against Taib in Balingian constituency, brought to light Taib's fetish for bomohs and witches who "guided" his continued stay in power.

According to Salleh, Taib was notorious for consulting with black magic practitioners and after the death of his wife Laila Taib, his daughter Raziah had moved in to consolidate her influence with her father by introducing her own in-house female bomoh – a blonde named Stella – to him.

A SR report noted that Stella's signature ritual included "tip-toeing and howling".

"Each morning she (Stella) would cross the garden from Raziah's house to the ground of Taib's residence and would perform a ritual of chasing away evil spirits before the chief minister rose for his early run!"

Salleh also spoke of Taib's conniving mind and his bevy of "gangsters" who cast a shadow of fear over Balingian in the run-up to the April 16 state election, which Taib eventually won.

Taib's majority, however, was far less than in 2004 as was Barisan Nasional's overall support in Sarawak.

READ MORE HERE

 

Hasan Ali sertai operasi serbu pusat hiburan

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:29 AM PST

18 pelanggan minum arak ditahan

(Berita Harian) - Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) menahan 41 pengunjung beragama Islam di dua pusat hiburan di Mutiara Damansara dan Petaling Jaya dalam 'Ops Mungkar' kerana melakukan kesalahan jenayah syariah, awal pagi semalam.

Mereka yang ditahan didapati melanggar Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Selangor 1995 dan 18 termasuk enam wanita akan dihadapkan ke mahkamah kerana kesalahan meminum arak selain 23 lagi dikenakan kaunseling.

Operasi diketuai Ketua Pengarah JAIS, Marzuki Hussin dan turut disertai Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Hal Ehwal Islam, Adat-Adat Istiadat Melayu dan Kemudahan Awam negeri, Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali.

Hasan berkata, mereka yang ditahan itu berusia antara 18 hingga 58 tahun dan mereka yang memerlukan kaunseling itu termasuk 13 wanita akan dipanggil memberi keterangan pada 11 dan 12 Januari ini sebelum diberikan tarikh yang sesuai untuk kaunseling.

Katanya, operasi yang dibantu polis Bukit Aman itu dilaksanakan selepas mendapat maklumat mengenai aktiviti bercanggah syariah dilakukan individu Islam di pusat hiburan terbabit termasuk di sebuah hotel terkemuka di Petaling Jaya.

"Operasi ini tertumpu kepada orang Islam selari dengan peruntukan Enakmen Jenayah Syariah 1995. Kita dapat lihat dengan jelas ada hiburan dan ada minum-minum (arak). Hasilnya, Ops Mungkar itu setakat ini mendapati ada bukti kukuh mendakwa individu terbabit, " katanya.

Hasan berkata, semua yang ditahan akan dimaklumkan kepada ahli keluarga mereka untuk diikat jamin.
Selain itu, Hasan menafikan pembabitannya dalam operasi itu ada kaitan dengan kontroversi membabitkan dirinya beberapa minggu kebelakangan ini, sebaliknya ia menunjukkan komitmen bersama khususnya penguatkuasaan JAIS.

"Selama ini saya memang serahkan semua operasi atas sebab keselamatan serta bagi memastikan kejayaan kepada semua operasi yang dilakukan. Saya terbabit secara langsung pada hari ini untuk melihat dan menentukan Prosedur Operasi Standard (SOP) kita dipatuhi, " katanya.

 

Student leader Safwan in critical condition after ‘assault by police

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:22 AM PST

UPPERCAISE

Student leader Mohd Safwan Alang was critically injured after being attacked and assaulted in a police lockup after being arrested at a New Year's Eve student rally for academic freedom, held at University Pendidikan Sultan Idris in Tanjung Malim last night.

Details of the attack were not immediately available. On-the-scene reports sent via Twitter messages said Safwan had lost consciousness after the attack and had initially been taken to Tanjung Malim hospital. Parti Socialis Malaysia said Safwan had been seriously assaulted by police while at the police lockup, and was in critical condition. He had been transferred to Slim River hospital.

Parti Socialis also said another person had received stitches in Tanjung Malim hospital for his injuries

From inside Tanjung Malim police station, student activist Adam Adli posted a message on Twitter that Safwan was punched twice in the face and was being assaulted in the police station.

READ MORE HERE

 

We won't eat halal meat, say MPs and peers who reject demands to serve it at Westminster

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:16 AM PST

Some parliamentarians have eaten meat at Westminster having been assured it was halal

(Mail Online) - The Palace of Westminster has rejected demands to serve halal meat in its restaurants.

Muslim MPs and peers have been told they cannot have meat slaughtered in line with Islamic tradition because the method – slitting an animal's throat without first stunning it – is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues.

The stance has infuriated some parliamentarians who have eaten meat in the Palace's 23 restaurants and cafes, having been assured that it was halal.

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said: 'I did feel misled. I think a halal option should be made available.'

In 2010, The Mail on Sunday revealed schools, hospitals and restaurants were serving halal meat to unwitting customers.

Alison Ruoff, a member of the Church of England, said: 'It's a bit hypocritical that the Houses of Parliament, which have allowed other people to provide halal food, have ruled it out on their own premises.'

Spokesmen for the House of Lords and the House of Commons confirmed that halal meat was not served in their restaurants.


Siapa yang pengkhianat? Introspeksi betul-betul

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 07:14 AM PST

ASPAN ALIAS

Isu saya yang dispekulasikan akan menyertai DAP membuatkan pihak tertentu marah-marah dan yang marah-marah itu seorang dua memang saya kenali. Saya tidak bercadang untuk menjawab dan melayani mereka ini kerana seperti yang saya katakan mereka ini masih bercabang kencingnya dan belum lagi kenal yang mana satu tangan kanan untuk menyuap nasi dan yang mana satu tangan kiri untuk beristinja'.

Bagi pihak yang mengkritik saya ini, mereka tidak ada isu untuk membahaskan apa yang telah saya perkatakan selama ini: tentang apa yang terlalu kurang dalam UMNO. Mereka ini belum pun pandai menyebut nama UMNO itu tetapi bercakap mempertahankan UMNO itu seolah-olah mereka telah lama mengenali UMNO dan perjuangannya.

Saya ini kononnya bangkrap politik dan telah menjadi barang 'reject'. Kalau lah betul apa yang dikatakan terhadap diri saya itu saya hairan kenapa isu ini diperbesarkan sedangkan saya ini adalah barang ' reject' dan bangkrap politik.

Saya ingin menyatakan dengan terang dan jelas. Yang telah bangkrap ialah UMNO dan yang sedang di 'reject' ialah UMNO dan keseluruhan sekutunya. Mereka yang kononnya pejuang ini harus berfikir bukankah UMNO hanya tinggal 56 kerusi sahaja di Semenanjung dan 13 kerusi sahaja di Sabah. Jumlahnya hanya 69 semuanya. UMNO telah kalah dalam banyak kerusi dan akan kalah banyak lagi dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang ini.

Siapa yang kena 'reject' ini? Kalau UMNO kena 'reject' tentulah ada sebabnya. Orang seperti saya bukan suka-suka hendak 'reject' UMNO tetapi oleh kerana keadaan yang membuatkan UMNO itu terpaksa di 'reject'. Saya perhatikan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO dan penyokong-penyokongnya yang membela membabi buta ini hanya mahu mendengar apa yang mereka hendak dengar sahaja.

Segala hujjah kami tidak pernah dibahaskan dengan cara baik, sebaliknya melakukan 'name calling' yang tidak berbudaya dan beradab dengan bahasa yang sangat hina dan membosankan. Oleh kerana mereka tidak mampu memberikan perbahasan yang baik mereka terpaksa menyerang orang seperti saya dengan kata-kata nista. Membina budaya kotor merupakan satu kejayaan besar UMNO.

Sesungguhnya apabila seseorang yang berbahas dalam hal politik itu menggunakan bahasa kasar dan 'name calling' seperti yang kita dengar sekarang, secara automatik parti dukungan mereka akan di 'reject' oleh rakyat kerana cara itu merupakan 'self defeating' bagi mereka sendiri. Menggunakan perungkapan kotor itu bukan bahasa dan adab Melayu. bagaimana nak kita katakan UMNO itu pejuang Melayu sedangkan bahasa dan budayanya pun bukan budaya dan bahasa seorang Melayu.

Menyertai mana-mana parti adalah perkara biasa yang berlaku dalam sistem demokrasi. Menyertai DAP yang begitu telus itu bukannya pengkhianat seperti yang dilabelkan kepada saya dan Ariff. Untuk pengetahuan mereka yang masih lembut ubun-ubun ini, menggunakan wang rakyat yang berbillion ringgit untuk menyelamatkan perniagaan anak itu adalah pengkhianat negara. Menyalahgunakan wang pinjaman mudah untuk memelihara lembu untuk negara itu adalah pengkhianat. Wang yang mudah didapati kerana pengaruh menteri itu telah di gunakan untuk membeli kondo mewah di Kuala Lumpur dan Singapura adalah kerja khianat kepada negara.

READ MORE HERE

 

RPK: There’s life after Anwar

Posted: 31 Dec 2011 01:04 AM PST

The sodomy charge against Anwar was not trumped up and he will be found guilty on Jan 9, says popular blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin.

"I think it is a foregone conclusion: Anwar is going to be found guilty. PKR will certainly go to town on the issue, but PAS and DAP will not be too excited about turning the Pakatan agenda into a 'free Anwar campaign'.

K. Kabilan, Free Malaysia Today

Reform activist and influential blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin believes that Anwar Ibrahim was a victim of a honey-trap, but quickly added that the opposition leader was given a fair trial.

He is also certain that Anwar will be found guilty on Jan 9. However, he predicts a low-key reaction from the people on the guilty verdict. Interestingly, he says both PAS and DAP would be less than keen to make Anwar's conviction a Pakatan Rakyat agenda.

"I think it is a foregone conclusion: Anwar is going to be found guilty. PKR will certainly go to town on the issue, but PAS and DAP will not be too excited about turning the Pakatan agenda into a 'free Anwar campaign'.

"Ultimately, there is a bigger fish to fry and that would be to focus on the coming general election," he told FMT in an exclusive interview.

He said that the second sodomy trial "came and went as a non-event", unlike the 1999 trial.

"In 1999, there was the 'black eye' issue and the high exposure of the trial: hence the public awareness regarding the flaws in the trial. This time around, not many people followed the trial or were even concerned about the trial," he said.

He said that the jailing of Anwar this time around would not garner extra votes for the opposition.

Anwaristas and the PKR leadership will definitely take umbrage at Raja Petra's frank opinion on the matter, but the popular blogger said even the reaction of the PKR supporters against the verdict would settle down quietly.

"For a while, PKR will rant and rave. Then the excitement will tone down and people will get on with their lives.

"Umno, meanwhile, will just sit back and watch. If the Anwaristas get out of hand and try to turn the event into a 'Malaysian Spring', the government will just round them up and silence them.

"The government is ready for the attempt to turn Jan 9 into a Malaysian Spring and they know how to handle it. It will be doomed from the start. This is not going to be Sept 20, 1998," he said.

Why didn't he take the stand?

Raja Petra, who is based in London, also said that while the Barisan Nasional-Umno leadership is definitely "out to get Anwar because he is a political threat", the PKR leader was nevertheless allowed a fair trial.

"I know for a fact that the prosecutor agreed to handle the prosecution only if he was allowed to conduct a fair trial and without any political interference."

"Therefore, I would say that Anwar was allowed a fair trial," he said.

Raja Petra added that Anwar was also allowed more than 60 postponements throughout the trial.

"He was supposed to subpoena more than 50 witnesses to testify on his behalf, which in the end he did not and which we are not told why.

"It appears like Anwar was allowed a lot of leeway to defend himself. Why did he not take the stand to testify under oath?

"Saiful took the stand and he was vigorously cross-examined by the defence. Why did Anwar avoid doing the same?" asked Raja Petra.

"I do not think that the charges were trumped up. But I do believe that Anwar is a victim of a honey-trap. In a way it was entrapment, which in a country like the US is illegal," he added.

READ MORE HERE

 

Electoral reform a farce without free and fair media coverage

Posted: 30 Dec 2011 09:09 PM PST

An electoral contest with one contestant monopolizing the media to the exclusion of his adversary is akin to a debating competition where one debater is using a microphone to speak to the audience while the other is using none.

By Kim Quek

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's call for free and fair media coverage for the coming election strikes at the core of the fundamental flaws that have made Malaysian elections a mockery of democracy.

This is because electoral democracy is a game of perception. And perception is shaped by the media.

Hence, an electoral contest with one contestant monopolizing the media to the exclusion of his adversary is akin to a debating competition where one debater is using a microphone to speak to the audience while the other is using none.

And the Malaysian media is notorious for its biased reporting, as the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) has never been shy in exploiting to the fullest, its iron-grip on the entire spectrum of the local mass media (save the Internet) to advance its political fortune.

Such complete control is made possible through a combination of repressive legislations and media ownership, as the BN government possesses the arbitrary power to grant or terminate any media license (printed and electronic) without legal redress, and all such media are owned either by BN's component parties or by their allies.

And public TV and radio, which are legally bound to be politically neutral, have long been corrupted by BN to serve its parochial political interests – a practice that has emphatically breached our Constitution.


GOLIATH vs DAVID MEDIA WAR

With such unlimited media power at the exclusive disposal of a ruling power as ruthless as BN, one can imagine what kind of scenario will be seen at a Malaysian national election. It will not be a democratic election for sure. More likely, it will look like giant Goliath fighting little David, as far media war is concerned. And yet, it is the media that influence the mind, and the mind that influences the vote.

Granted that advancement in Internet has somewhat mitigated the unleveled playing field, but its current stage of usage in Malaysia is nowhere near the kind of level that would enable the opposition to meaningfully counter BN's vicious propaganda perpetrated through the main stream media. TV, radio and newspaper are still the regular information feeders depended upon by overwhelming majority of Malaysians, particularly those in the non-urban areas.

And the opposition's serious handicap in information dissemination is further critically compounded by the 8 to 10 day campaign period (though allowable period is 60 days), a practice perpetrated in recent decades by an obviously manipulated Election Commission (EC) to favour BN. With such a ridiculously short campaign period, it is impossible for the opposition to carry its message – not to mention countering BN's false propaganda – to the far flung territories that include the hinterlands across the South China Seas.

More than any other factor, BN's monopolistic abuse and exploitation of the mass media, coupled with the indecently brief campaign period, has been accountable to BN's unfailing victory in every general election in the past.  


BN NO MATCH FOR PAKATAN IN FAIR CONTEST

Surveying the current scenario ahead of the election, what we see is a fundamentally altered political landscape. On one side of the battlefield, is an aged and decadent coalition with antiquated policy, kept in power by dint of its grip on the state machinery. On the other, a newly emerged coalition brimming with ideas to rejuvenate the nation, with proven record of sound governance in its state governments.

Under such circumstances, it is fair to say that BN should be no match for Pakatan Rakyat in a free and fair contest, more so in the current trend of dissent against decadent and aged power that has swept across the world including our region.

But of course, we have never had a free and fair contest, and in fact, our unleveled playing field has gone from bad to worse. It is in the realization that we may once again be cheated of a fair choice of government that hitherto docile voters have risen strongly to brave brutal crackdown to demand fair election in the Bersih 2.0 rally.

It is not difficult to surmise that, given the present extreme lop-sidedness of Malaysian election, whether the people will be given a fair choice in the coming poll hinges on how effective the current attempt at electoral reform will be towards rectifying the current flaws.

The recent focus by the parliamentary select committee (PFC) and EC on introducing indelible ink and advance voting in lieu of postal voting is of course a welcome improvement. But we must be cautious not to allow such focus to blur our priorities, top among which is the mandatory practice of free and fair and non-discriminatory media coverage for all contestants. And of course, the current unconstitutional abuse of public media (TV, radio, news agency etc) to disseminate biased information in favour of BN has to cease forthwith.


FREE MEDIA NON-NEGOTIABLE

This is something that BN can do right away without waiting for new legislation or alteration of election regulation. All that is needed is the political will and commitment to honour the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

Knowing the critical importance of free media to democratic election, it should be made a non-negotiable issue.

 I have no doubt that Bersih 2.0, political parties and all who cherish democracy and the Constitution will stand very firm to demand that BN gives its solemn pledge to restore free and fair media coverage as pre-requisite to the return to democratic election.

Immigration Blues

Posted: 30 Dec 2011 08:59 PM PST

I supposed the warning signs were there, the extensions to his visa getting shorter from 3 months to 2 months then 1 month. He has tried applying for a religous teacher's visa but since he's not attached to any known temple, the move was a non-goer!!

By Chuen Tick Teo

"John Doe", a British Buddhist monk (he goes by the same Buddhist address, Bhante -teacher) has been a regular feature at the Super Tanker and Lip Seng wet market in Penang on Sundays the last 6/7 years; that is, unless he has to go over to Thailand every 3 months or so to have his tourist visa renewed.

One will find him standing by his favourite spots, barefooted, alms bowl in hand by about 7am.

The regulars will be offering him via the vendors, vegetables, eggs, fruits, dry foodstuff and consumables. Other market goers will offer likewise whatever food item they like.

And, he is very particular about this aspect of Buddhist practice. He does not accept cash on these alms rounds at the 2 markets. Those not conversant with this aspect are politely requested to buy some food item to donate.

Yes, Bhante has a racket going on there on Sundays and many ordinary men and women on the street are happy to be part of it. By about 9am, all the items have been consolidated and Chee Ying*, his regular helper will have sorted them out.

One portion is for his personal consumption; one portion goes to the Shan's Children Home at Mt. Erskine, Penang; one portion goes to another regular Mr Chan* who distributes them to 6 destitute families and there's always some for the young lad's family that helps him on these alms rounds. (The current distribution model as it is is fluid and was changed over the years.)

He makes no distinction between race nor creed and in the years I've known him, I know of a Malay family, 2 Hindu families and a Christian voluntary organisation who have accepted the items Bhante had collected.

Bhante will take a puff before setting off in faithful Mr Lim's* car for the journey home to Hong Seng estate. No, he makes no pretense about this worldly habit he has been unable to kick. What you see, is what you get.

And, yes, he stays in no regular temple. A supporter rented this place for him so that Bhante can carry out this racket, this sort of providing the channel for ordinary people to do some good that makes an important and immediate impact on someone's life. 

I supposed the warning signs were there, the extensions to his visa getting shorter from 3 months to 2 months then 1 month. He knows it, his supporters in the know also knows it - that he's flouting immigration rules but the Malaysian government's immigration rules against non-Islamic foreign religous teachers are very rigid. He has tried applying for a religous teacher's visa but since he's not attached to any known temple, the move was a non-goer!!

Then, it happened - on 30.12.2011 he was denied entry into Thailand. Bhante has no idea why Thailand is part of the action taken and that he's on the Malaysian Immigration Entry blacklist. Since his visa expires on 31.12.2011, he has been told to leave Malaysia by midnight today.

I'm writing this as way to put forward the idea that certain immigration rules pertaining to non-Islamic religous teachers needs to be amended. Yes, I also know there are many bogus monks/nuns/religous teachers around but there must be ways for genuine practitioners to be issued proper/legal visas.

I'm writing this to bid farewell and Bon Voyage to this unorthodox Buddhist monk, who in his own way has taught one important aspect of dana, giving in Buddhist practice to many lay people. He harbours hopes of returning but as matters stand now, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved