Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The Malays must wake up konon
There is freedom of religion in Malaysia
The doctrine of I’m right and you’re wrong
And whose fault is this?
Same difference
The al-Bukhary story: how it all began
The timber mafia is larger than you suspect
We didn’t start the fire
Dr Mahathir’s masterstroke
MyNewsHub propagates Nazism

Posted: 10 Nov 2012 06:30 PM PST

The Malays must wake up konon! Podah! Everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of the Malays. The non-Malays are mere victims. You buggers deserve to be victims and I hope you will remain victims for another 100 years for your sin of being traitors to the cause back in the 1980s that allowed the country to decline to its present level and for allowing Umno to rule for 55 years.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have not written anything over the last two days because Mat Sabu and another PAS leader from Melaka were visiting me in Manchester so I was quite tied up. I must admit that we had a most interesting two days discussing current issues affecting Malaysia, in particular about politics and matters related to politics.

Anyhow, all I can say is that Mat Sabu and I share the same views on practically most of the issues. I don't think I need to go into details about what we spoke, though, or else this article is going to run into ten pages. Furthermore, my opinions have already been clearly expressed in the numerous articles I have written over these last 20 years or so since I started writing about politics back in the early 1990s.

What I want to address today is the 'favourite' comment many readers have posted in Malaysia Today over the last four years since 2008. And this comment is: the non-Malays have already woken up. When are the Malays going to wake up?

These readers are, of course, referring to the March 2008 'Tsunami' where 50% of the Malays voted opposition while the figure for the Chinese and Indians was much higher -- an estimated 70% plus and 80% plus respectively.

Many argue that in the coming general it is going to be higher for the Chinese -- maybe more than 80% -- while for the Malays it may remain at 50% or even decline to below 50%. They do not talk too much about the Indians, though, but it is estimated that this time around the Indian vote for the opposition may fall to just 50% or less.

It is puzzling as to why you say it is the Malays who need to wake up. The Malays had already woken up back in the late 1980s. And that was 25 years ago. When the Registrar of Societies deregistered Umno in 1988 and two new Malay parties were formed in its place -- Umno Baru and Semangat 46 -- the Malays became divided and have remained divided ever since.

In the 1990 General Election two years later, Kelantan fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since. The PAS-Semangat 46 coalition called APU (Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah) also captured many seats in Terengganu, although not enough to take the state.

Unfortunately, the other two coalitions that Semangat 46 had with the non-Malay political parties -- with DAP on the West Coast (called Gagasan Rakyat) and with PBS in Sabah -- did not do as well as APU. While the Malays voted opposition, the non-Malays on the West Coast and those in East Malaysia refused to do the same.

Hence the opposition dream of kicking out Umno and Barisan Nasional and of taking power at federal level was shattered. In the end it became a Malay dream and not a Malaysian dream.

Since Umno had been deregistered (Umno no longer existed), MCA had to take over the leadership of Barisan Nasional and the MCA President took over as the Chairman of Barisan Nasional.

By right, although not by law, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was now 'partyless' and an independent Member of Parliament should have resigned as the Prime Minister and the MCA President, who was now the Chairman of Barisan Nasional, should have taken over as the new Prime Minister.

But Barisan Nasional (meaning the non-Malays) did not do this. They allowed Dr Mahathir, a man without a party and hence with no majority in Parliament, to remain as Prime Minister. In that sense, even Ibrahim Ali or Zul Nordin (who both also have no party) can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia -- going by what they did 25 years ago in the late 1980s.

We Malays were very disappointed with the non-Malays in both West and East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir should have been kicked out. Umno no longer existed and Dr Mahathir was no longer the leader of the largest party in Parliament. Dr Mahathir was now merely a calun bebas. Why was he still the Prime Minister? And why were the non-Malays still retaining him as Prime Minister when the majority of the Malays wanted him out.

Umno Baru was then formed. Technically, however, it was still an independent party and not a member of Barisan Nasional. Barisan Nasional then called for an emergency meeting, chaired by the President of MCA. No one from Umno (Baru) attended the meeting.

At this emergency meeting, it was UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Umno Baru be admitted as a member of Barisan Nasional (not READMITTED but ADMITTED, because Umno no longer existed and Umno Baru was a brand new party). It was also UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Dr Mahathir be invited to take over as the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional.

I was there that day (standing outside the meeting room, of course, since I was not a leader of Barisan Nasional and hence could not be inside the meeting room). We were anxiously expecting at least one member of Barisan Nasional to vote against admitting a 'new party' into Barisan Nasional -- and hence Dr Mahathir would have to resign as the Prime Minister and the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional, who was also the President of MCA, would take over as Prime Minister.

I was very angry that day. The Malays had made their move. We were going to be rid of Umno and Dr Mahathir. But the non-Malays sold us out. The non-Malays betrayed us. From that day on we realised that the non-Malays cannot be trusted to change the country. We Malays are on our own and will have to do it ourselves.

Ten years later, we had our second chance. This time it was because of the conflict between Anwar Ibrahim and Dr Mahathir. In the 1999 General Election we did better than in the 1990 General Election. Not only did the opposition retain Kelantan (without the help of Semangat 46 this time, mind you, since that party had closed down and most of its members had rejoined Umno) but it also won Terengganu after 25 years of trying (since 1974).

Furthermore, the opposition won 8 out of the 15 Parliament seats in Kedah (more than half) plus it managed to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (which happened exactly one year later in the Lunas by-election).

That was a new landmark for the opposition. Unfortunately, all this happened in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah. In those constituencies where the Malays do not represent 90% or more of the voters, Barisan Nasional still ruled. In fact, any constituency where the Malay voters are less than 80% it was quite impossible for the opposition to win.

No doubt, in constituencies where the voters are predominantly Chinese and the candidate is a Chinese from DAP, then there is a strong possibility that DAP can win that seat. But this was the exception rather than the rule -- sometimes even the top guns of DAP suffered defeat because the Chinese voters rejected them.

In 2008 that all changed, of course. But whether this change is permanent or temporary is left to be seen -- and we shall know soon, come the next general election. But what perturbs me is that the Malays have been struggling to see change for about 25 years now. But we failed to see change because of the recalcitrant Chinese and Indians, and those from East Malaysia.

No doubt, in 2008, more than half the Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia voted opposition while only 50% of the Malays did so. But the Malays have been divided between Barisan Nasional and the opposition since the 1980s. The Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia have only just woken up very recently (while those from East Malaysia are still sleeping).

Hence I can't understand why the Chinese (and some Indians) keep asking the Malays to wake up. Can't they understand that the Malays already woke up a long time ago? The Chinese and Indians (and even then only those from West Malaysia, mind you) woke up only very recently. If they had woken up 25 years ago like the Malays had, Dr Mahathir would have ruled Malaysia for only 7 years and not 22 years and Umno would have been in power for only 30 years and not 55 years.

So what's all this nonsense about 'ABU' and '55 years is enough' and 'the Malays must wake up' all that shit? We have seen 55 years of Umno rule and we need an ABU movement because of the treacherous Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia and those non-Malays from East Malaysia.

And, today, you blame the Malays and scream that it is time that the Malay woke up. What crap is this? And stop giving the excuse that the non-Malays had no choice. Stop saying that back in the late 1980s if MCA had refused to allow Umno Baru to become a member of Barisan Nasional and had refused to allow Dr Mahathir to remain as Prime Minister the army would have stepped in -- hence the Chinese and Indians and those from East Malaysia were forced to do what they did.

Are you saying that the army has already been disbanded? Are you saying that only in the late 1980s Malaysia had an army and today we no longer have an army? That is utter bullshit and a bloody lame excuse. If you could not change the government in the 1980s because of the army then what makes you think you can change the government today when we still have an army?

Would you accept the excuse that the Malays have no choice but to vote Umno because if Pakatan Rakyat takes over then apostasy would be allowed and Muslims will leave Islam in droves to become Christians? I think this is as legitimate an excuse as the one that the non-Malays are giving as to why they did what they did 25 years ago back in the late 1980s.

Let me assure you I have already woken up. 35 years ago back in the late 1970s I woke up to the evils of the government and 25 years ago back in the late 1980s I woke up to the treachery of the non-Malays who propped up Umno and kept them in power.

So no need to ask me to wake up! Today I have woken up even more. I have woken up to the hypocrisy of the non-Malays who 'created' Umno and then now blame the Malays for what Umno does.

There is freedom of religion in Malaysia

Posted: 07 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST

Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Improper to use freedom of expression to confuse people, says Mashitah

(Bernama) - It is improper for an individual to use the freedom of expression as a reason to state an opinion which can confuse the people, especially Muslims, in the country, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim said that though the government believed in the principle of freedom of expression to state an opinion, matters related to religious issues were most sensitive to Muslims.

"In the effort to exercise control over sensitive issues among Muslims, action can be taken under Section 298A of the Penal Code which relates to causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion," she said when replying to a question from Amran Ab Ghani (PKR-Tanah Merah) on the measures taken by the government to control the issuing of 'fatwa' (rulings) by unauthorised individuals.

Mashitah said the legal proceedings under the provision were handled by the civil courts and a convicted individual could be sentenced to jail for between two and five years.

Replying to a supplementary question, from Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN-Sri Gading), Mashitah said that though there were no legal provisions to act against Muslims who propose that Muslims should be free to choose their religion, action could be taken against them for insulting Islam or causing it to be despised.

Mohamed Aziz has asked what action could be taken against PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar for having said last Saturday that Malay Muslims should be free to choose their religion.

Mashitah said enactments in certain states provided for a fine of up to RM3,000 or a jail sentence of up to two years, or both, for those convicted of insulting Islam or causing it to be despised orally or in writing.

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

Jais should probe Nurul Izzah's statement: Khalid

(Bernama) -- The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) needs to carry out an investigation regarding Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on freedom of religion, said Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

Abdul Khalid, who is also the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, this was necessary to prevent Muslims from becoming confused and ensure that there was no negative impact to the ummah (faithful) in the wake of the controversy surrounding the issue.

"I support an investigation into the matter and the actions taken by Jais on it as it is a positive thing, no Muslim wants another to leave the religion (Islam)," he told reporters here today.

However, he added that Nurul Izzah, the MP for Lembah Pantai, should be given the opportunity to come forward to clear the air over the matter as there were many versions on the issue in media reports.

He was commenting on a report in a news portal which had reported Nurul Izzah as saying at a forum held in Subang Jaya on Saturday that each citizen of the country had the right to profess the religion of his or her choice and that this included the Malays, all of whom are Muslims.

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

Siti Kasim, a member of the Bar Council human rights committee -- and the person who asked Nurul Izzah Anwar that most controversial question regarding freedom of religion -- said she is disappointed that Nurul has "retracted" her remark.

"I believe Nurul was just trying to impress the people, she didn't think of the consequences," she told FMT. Siti said Nurul should have stood firm on her remark that freedom of religion was a right for all including the Malay-Muslim.

(READ MORE HERE)

I would have to agree with Siti. Whether what Nurul Izzah said was politically correct or politically incorrect, she has already said it so she should stick to her guns. She should challenge her critics to explain what it is she said that was wrong. If they think that what she said was wrong then they have to come out to explain what is wrong with her statement.

Nurul Izzah is now blaming Utusan Malaysia for this whole thing. Is she saying that she did not say what they said she said and that Utusan lied? Or is she saying she only meant that freedom of religion is for non-Muslims and Muslims do not have freedom of religion?

I personally know a number of ex-Muslim Malays who have left Islam to become Christians. And according to the Perak Mufti, about 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam.

I doubt someone of a Mufti's status would lie. Hence it must be true that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam. But why did the Mufti say 'want to leave', as if they have not quite left yet? Islam is about akidah or faith. And if you no longer have faith in Islam then you no longer have any akidah. And if you no longer have any akidah then you are automatically no longer a Muslim.

In short, you do not have to 'leave' Islam. By your very lack of faith you have been 'kicked out' of Islam, so to speak. Hence, it is not that 500,000 Malays 'want to leave' Islam but 500,000 Malays 'have already left' Islam because they no longer have any akidah.

The absence of akidah means you are not a Muslim, plain and simple. Is this too difficult to understand?

Now, how does the Mufti know that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam? He can only know because the government has checked and they know the numbers because they know whom these people are.

There are two ways to leave Islam. One would be to no longer have any akidah. Another would be to go to the National Registration Department (NRD) and inform them that you have left Islam and you want the 'Islam' on your identity card removed.

Now, whether the NRD does or does not remove the 'Islam' on your ID does not matter. 'Legally', you may still be a Muslim if they do not amend/update your ID. Technically, you are no longer a Muslim.

Hence Islam is not about the word 'Islam' on a piece of plastic. Islam is about what is in your heart. And if you heart is no longer a Muslim then you are no longer a Muslim, never mind what that piece of plastic says.

Some people dispute the Perak Mufti's figure of 500,000. They say that figure is too high and that it is actually much lower than that. Okay, so it may not be 500,000. It may be only 100,000 or 50,000 or just 10,000. Whatever the figure may be, the government does not deny the fact that some Muslims want to or have already left Islam. And I personally know some of these people.

I also know many Muslims who still regard themselves as Muslims but reject the Hadith. The government calls these people 'anti-Hadith'. However, these people say they are not anti-Hadith but pro-Qur'an -- or as what some would call 'Qur'an alone' Muslims.

Trust me, there are many such Muslims, even amongst the Malays or Malaysians.

Now, according to the Malaysian government's interpretation of Islam, you must accept the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sunnah to quality as Muslim, all three. If you reject even one of the three then you are no longer a Muslim. In other words, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslims are no longer Muslims because they refuse to accept the Hadith and/or the Sunnah.

Hence, according to the Malaysian government, these people have 'left' Islam. In fact, they would be considered heretics or even apostates, and heresy as well as apostasy attracts the death sentence in all three Abrahamic faiths (although those in the west no longer follow this rule -- as they no longer follow the rule on homosexuality, gay marriages, etc.).

The bottom line is, by act of rejection of certain doctrines of Islam or by total rejection of Islam, many Malays have already 'left' Islam (or have been 'kicked out' of Islam). That is the reality.

And has the Malaysian government arrested these people or punished these people in any way? The answer is, of course, 'no'. And since the government has not taken action against so many Malays who by act of omission or act of rejection have left or have been kicked out of Islam, would that not mean there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even freedom for Muslims to leave Islam?

And that is why Nurul Izzah should not act like she has done something wrong. Instead of sounding very defensive and apologetic she should go on the attack. She should challenge the government to prove her wrong. She should challenge the government to state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam will be arrested and will be put to death.

Nurul Izzah is probably afraid that she will lose Malay support if the Malays believe that she supports apostasy. Hence she is doing some damage control. It looks like the government has her on the run and she is falling right into it.

The video recording of that forum is now on Youtube and what Nurul Izzah really said is there for all and sundry to see. It is too late to try to explain what she really meant or accuse Utusan Malaysia of distorting or twisting what she said. Maybe she meant something else and they interpreted it as something else. But so what?

Nurul Izzah should not play this 'I have been misquoted' game that most politicians play. Instead, she should say, "Yes, I said that there is freedom of religion and prove that I am wrong." Challenge all those people who whacked you and make them state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia.

Then, once they do that, challenge them to explain, if there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia, why has the government done nothing about all those many Malays who have left Islam?

The best form of defense is an offense. Nurul Izzah should go on the offensive rather than appear defensive. They are trying to bring her down, that's for sure. If she has to go down then go down fighting. She should stand by what she said and make the government explain what it is she said that is wrong.

I doubt anyone will dare say that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam must be put to death. If they dare say this they would have said it a long time ago. I would play poker and see what hand they have. I bet you their cards are, as the Chinese would say, chekai.

Come on Nurul, fight back, don't back down. And cancel your meeting with JAIS tomorrow. Tell them to go to hell. Why do you need to explain yourself unless you have done something wrong?

Who the fuck are Nurul Izzah's advisers anyway?

The doctrine of I’m right and you’re wrong

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 08:04 PM PST

The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mujahid Yusof Rawa, a PAS leader and the son of one-time PAS President of about 30 years ago, has taken Nurul Izzah Anwar's side in the current controversy she is facing. And this controversy is about her statement regarding freedom of religion.

The ex-Mufti of Perlis, Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, also supports Nurul Izzah's statement. None of the other muftis have said anything yet though, although I am eagerly awaiting their statement so that we can resolve this matter once and for all.

Ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, however, disagrees with Nurul Izzah. The Tun said that Islam is like Hotel California: you can check out but you can never leave. That means once you are a Muslim you cannot leave Islam.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Mashitah Ibrahim, agrees with Dr Mahathir, as does Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa.

In short, never mind whether they are government supporters, opposition supporters, or neutral like Mohd Asri -- and I would like to believe that includes me as well -- Malays-Muslims are deeply divided on matters related to Islam.

You see, religion, Islam or otherwise, works on the doctrine of I'm right and you're wrong. All religions work on this principle. They also work on the principle of if you are not with me (meaning of my same religion) then you are against me (meaning you are my enemy).

Sure, religionists would deny this. They would say that their religion is not like that. That, of course, is utter bullshit. At best they would tolerate your religion, as we have heard them say often enough.

Tolerate is what you do when you are faced with something obnoxious like your neighbour's dog shit on your lawn or the loud noise from your neighbour's karaoke session way past midnight. You tolerate something foul. So, if you tolerate another religion that means you consider that religion as foul.

But religionists would deny this. And this is because they have perfected the art of self-hypnosis. They can make themselves believe in something false. Hence they can make themselves believe that they are not like that even though they are exactly like that. They have made denial syndrome into an exact science.

And this means whatever comes out of the mouths of religionists must be treated with great suspicion. They are great con artists. They can con themselves so what more con other people.

And this is why Nurul Izzah Anwar is now in trouble. She gave her opinion. But as long as her opinion is also your opinion that is okay. Once her opinion differs from yours, then you will make her eat shit.

In the first place, why was Nurul Izzah so silly as so attend that forum? And who was that stupid person who trapped Nurul Izzah by asking her that question? Did they intend to trap Nurul Izzah knowing that once they pose that question she would be in trouble whichever way she replied to it?

If Nurul Izzah had said she does not support freedom of religion she is in trouble. If she says she supports freedom of religion she is also in trouble. Both ways she is cooked. And if she had said' no comment' she is also cooked.

I suspect that Nurul Izaah was set up. I thought she would be savvy enough to realise that religionists can never accept opinions. The correct opinion is their opinion. Your opinion is the wrong opinion. That is how it works.

According to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (MAIS), who spoke on behalf of His Highness the Sultan of Selangor, His Highness is upset with Nurul Izzah. That is what the MAIS chairman, Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa, said. Whether that is true or not I am not sure but most times these people put words into the Sultan's mouth and the Sultan would be too scared to contradict them lest His Highness is accused of supporting apostasy.

So there you are. After trapping Nurul Izzah, they now trap the Sultan, knowing that His Highness would not dare say otherwise. Did I not say that Umno is clever? How many times must I repeat that Pakatan Rakyat is not as clever as Barisan Nasional at this game?

Religionists in general and Muslims in particular do not tolerate differences of opinion and differences in interpretation. Religion, after all, is just that -- opinions and interpretations.

For example, when religious scholars or ulamak make a statement or issue a decree, they will always start with "According to so-and-so….yada, yada, yada…" or "As reported by so-and-so…yada, yada, yada…".

That means this is the opinion of a third party. And this also means that it is purely hearsay.

The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to?

Yes, what does it mean? Some Muslims (from both sides of the political divide) say it means you cannot leave Islam while others (from both sides of the political divide) say you can. Muslims are not really sure what it means but they take the stand that it means whatever I say it means.

Okay, let's look at this from another angle. Is Malaysia a Parliamentary Democracy or a Theocratic State? It can only be one or the other. If, as some people say, the Sharia applies and all Muslims are bound by the Sharia, then clearly Malaysia is a Theocratic State.

And if Malaysia is a Theocratic State then we have to abolish general elections and elect our leaders based on the principle of a Council because general elections will allow non-Muslims to become leaders -- which is not acceptable at all in a Theocratic State.

However, if we elect our leaders through a general election (which will allow non-Muslims to become leaders) then we are a Parliamentary Democracy -- and that would mean we are not bound by the Sharia but the Federal Constitution would prevail instead.

Our political leaders from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat must clarify this point. Are we a Theocratic State where the Sharia applies or are we a Parliamentary Democracy that allows its citizens freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of association and freedom of religion?

Currently, Malaysia's status is very confusing. And that is why Nurul Izzah is in trouble. She spoke as a Democrat. But the religionists will not allow that. They want her to speak as an Islamist, not as a Democrat.

As a Democrat she is right -- you do have freedom of religion. As an Islamist you do not have freedom of religion. Once you are a Muslim you remain a Muslim till the day you die. And if you leave Islam then you die, now. In short, you are put to death as an apostate.

Do you know who is to blame for all this? The politicians use religion for political gain but they leave things very vague so that we remain confused. The more confused we are the more they can exploit the issue.

Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader, must take a stand on this since he is the Opposition Leader. Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister, must also do the same since he is the Prime Minister.

Can Muslims leave Islam and if they do then what does the government do to them? Will they be arrested, jailed, or put to death? Malaysians need to know so that this episode can be put behind us and we can move on to more important matters.

And as long as Anwar and Najib remain silent that is how long this matter would go unresolved and Malaysians will continue to fight over religion.

Now do you know why I don't support both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat? They are both very devious and mischievous. They confuse us and make us fight just so that they can gain power.

And whose fault is this?

Posted: 05 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST

So, no, whatever is happening in the country is not Umno's fault. It is not the fault of the Malays or the Muslims either. It is the fault of the non-Malays and the non-Muslims from West Malaysia and East Malaysia who collaborate with Umno to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what they think.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(The Malaysian Insider) - Following attacks on Nurul Izzah Anwar for her statement that allegedly supports religious freedom, the PKR vice president today said she is ready to give her statement to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS).

The Lembah Pantai MP also said she will take legal action on those who had hurled accusations against her, and will leave the issue to the country's legal system.

"I'm ready (to be called by JAIS)...(but) on lawyer's advice, I will take legal action," she said.

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

(The Star) - Police have re-arrested a 27-year-old man alleged to have posted insulting remarks on his Facebook page against the Johor Sultan.

State police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff said the suspect was detained again after police failed to get an extension on the first remand order from the court.

He added that police have opened two investigation papers against the suspect.

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

(The Malaysian Insider) - The Johor police have started criminal defamation investigations against The Malaysian Insider and Malaysiakini for their coverage of last week's arrest of a man who allegedly insulted the Johor Sultan on his Facebook page.

Johor CID deputy director Asst Comm Nor Azizan Anan said the probe was following two police reports lodged by state police on articles carried by the two news portals regarding the arrest, Berita Harian reported today.

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

You have read the three news items above, right? Now, in case you do not yet understand what is going on in Malaysia, allow me to enlighten you a bit. I know that many Malaysians are brain-dead so unless I help walk you through the issue this whole thing would be lost on you.

The issue is simple, really. When the mainstream media reports that you said something, you are in deep shit. Action will be taken against you super-fast. You might say that the mainstream media lies, it never tells the truth, it cannot be trusted, and so on. That will still not save you from the long arm of the law.

Hell, I should know. When the mainstream media reported that I had made an allegation against 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor regarding her alleged involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, I was arrested and charged in court. The fact that I never made such an allegation but actually said that someone else (Lt. Kol. Azmi Zainal Abidin) had made that allegation did not save me. If the mainstream media said I said it then I said it. Plain and simple!

Then when I gave an interview with the mainstream media to explain what happened and I stressed that I was arrested and charged for something that I did not do (meaning I did not make any allegation against Rosmah Mansor), the mainstream media reported that I had done a U-turn and that I now withdraw the allegation. And that got me into a heap of other problems.

So, can we believe the mainstream media or can we not believe it? In my case the mainstream media report was to be believed. Then I suppose in all those other cases the mainstream media reports are to be believed as well.

You have to make up your mind. Do you accept what the mainstream media says or do you not? One day you appear to accept what they say and the next day you reject what they say. In short, you accept and reject things at your convenience. It is no longer about the truth. It is about what fits in to your agenda.

Okay, never mind, whether the mainstream media lied or not is not as important as the next issue. And the next issue is that Malaysia does not allow freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, etc. So that means you are not allowed to think and certainly not allowed to say what you think. Doing so is a crime and you can get arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail.

And there are certain taboos or sacred cows that if you 'touch' you will get into trouble. The Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc., are at the top of this taboo list. You 'touch' these issues and you die.

Okay, now tell me, whose fault is this? Yes, that's right, it's the fault of Umno. It's the fault of the Malays. It's the fault of the Muslims. Am I correct?

Hmm…I can just imagine most of you reading this now jumping up and down excitedly like what the Malays would call 'kera kena belacan'.

Actually, that is not right. No, it is not the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. How can it be Umno's fault, or the fault of the Malays or the Muslims? I mean, do you really think that Umno, the Malays, or the Muslims, have ABSOLUTE political power? They don't. And look at the four graphics below to see what I mean.

The first graphic shows that out of 505 state seats contested in the 2008 General Election, BN won 307 and PR won 197. In the Sarawak State Election last year (graphic number 4), BN won 55 seats against only 15 by PR and one independent.

Now, out of a total of 362 state seats won by BN, how many were won by Umno? In Sarawak, not a single seat was an Umno seat.

Look at the pie chart (graphic number 2) and the third graphic. Umno controls only about one-third the seats in Parliament, which it won with less than 30% of the popular votes. How can Umno be in power with only one-third the seats and less than 30% of the votes?

Okay, for the benefit of those of you who are brain-dead -- and there are a lot of those types of people reading Malaysia Today -- Umno DOES NOT have ABSOLUTE political power and it CANNOT form the government with only one-third the seats and less than 30% the votes.

Am I angry with Umno? Of course I am not. Umno is a political party. It is the job of a political party to exploit any issue that can be exploited for political gain. That is what politics is all about.

Umno does not hide the fact that it is a party that upholds Ketuanan Melayu and that it will not tolerate anyone who comments unfavourably on issues related to the Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc. Umno is honest about its 'struggle'. So why get angry with people who are honest about what they are and then demonstrate that they are honest about what they are?

The people I am angry with are the dishonest hypocrites who say one thing and then do the opposite. These are the non-Malays and the non-Muslims who talk a lot and claim the moral high ground but help Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament and less than 30% votes to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what we think.

What ABU! ABU bullshit! You make it appear like everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. Everything bad that happens in the country is the fault of Umno, the Malays and the Muslims.

Yes, Umno all on its own and with merely a few seats in Parliament that cannot even give them a simple majority in Parliament is to blame for everything that is wrong with Malaysia. Blame Umno. Blame the Malays. Blame the Muslims. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims are not to blame. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims have nothing to do with this.

It sometimes puzzles me that Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament can form a government and end up controlling almost two-third the seats in Parliament. Magical, don't you think so?

I think what is even more magical is how the non-Malays and the non-Muslims can shift the blame entirely on Umno, the Malays and the Muslims as if they are not equally guilty of denying Malaysians freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

The Malays-Muslims, in particular those from Umno, are very open about what they stand for. The non-Malays/non-Muslims, however, pretend a lot. They pretend they are not to blame whereas without them Umno would be an opposition party and not the ruling government. The non-Malays/non-Muslims are so full of shit.

Same difference

Posted: 04 Nov 2012 06:20 PM PST

"I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles. I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya was quoted in Berita Harian today.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia Today's readers have a serious problem in trying to understand the difference between partisan, non-partisan, bipartisan, etc. And that is why many of them fall into the 'either you are with me or you are against me' rut made 'popular' by US President Bush.

How would you take it if a Muslim who propagates the concept of an Islamic State says to you that 'either you are with me or you are against me'? If you do not support the concept of an Islamic State then you are the enemy of Islam and being an enemy of Islam that can be regarded as a declaration of war and anyone who declares war against Islam can be lawfully killed.

According to the doctrine of 'either you are with me or you are against me' that would certainly make sense. It may not make sense to non-Muslims or to those who are opposed to an Islamic State but then these people are the enemies of Islam anyway so who the hell cares what they think?

Yes, if we support President Bush then we support the concept of a powerful nation having the right to invade another country just because the US does not like its politics. Basically, might is right. Those who control the guns control the world and dictates what the world can and cannot do.

Brunei refuses to hold democratic parliamentary elections and refuses to abolish its outdated system of absolute monarchy. Should Singapore bomb and invade Brunei so that democracy can be installed in that Sultanate? Indonesia discriminates against the Chinese and murdered 500,000 Maoist Communist supporters. Should China send a few nuclear bombs to Indonesia to teach it a lesson even though those Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians and not Chinese citizens or of Chinese ethnicity?

What about Saudi Arabia and all those other kingdoms, sheikhdoms, emirates, etc? They too do not practice democracy a la the west. Should the US bomb and invade those countries so that the citizens of those countries can hold free and fair elections and elect the government of their choice? If democracy can be forced down Iraq's throat surely the same should be done to those other autocratic monarchies in the Middle East as well.

Okay, so we do not support the idea of a powerful nation being allowed to bomb and invade another nation just because the US does not like its politics. If we support that idea then no country is safe. Anyone who is not pro-US (or worse, anti-US) can get bombed into the Dark Ages with a great loss to property and lives. Who appointed the US the policeman of the world anyway? Must the world do things only the American way? Is the US the trustee of morality and anything considered immoral by US standards must be solved by military action?

If we do not support America's action then does that mean we are pro-Saddam Hussein? Saddam just did what Hitler did and if we do not support what Hitler did then surely we cannot support what Saddam did, especially what he did to his own citizens of Kurdish ethnicity. Saddam embarked on ethnic cleansing just like what Hitler did. So how can Hitler be wrong and Saddam be right?

Okay, so we do not support Saddam. But then we do not support what the US did either. So what is our stand then? We must either be pro-Saddam or pro-Bush. We can be against both. Either Saddam is right or Bush is right. Both cannot be wrong. Hence it is our duty to support one and oppose the other.

My stand is clear. I do not support both. While I do not support what Saddam did to his own people I also do not support the idea that might is right and a powerful nation can legitimately bomb and invade another country.

There are many evil regimes in this world. Iraq is not the only one. But why bomb and invade only those evil regimes that are anti-American and then support, uphold and defend other evil regimes that are pro-American? (And this is the basis of America's foreign policy).

Is it possible to be opposed to both? Are you obligated to support one above the other? Well, it all depends on whether you are sincere in your 'struggle' and whether your struggle is based on principles or you have other personal and ulterior motives in mind.

Most times our struggle is not based on sincerity or principles but is motivated by personal gain (parochial, ethnic, racial, religious, etc., included). And this is what we are seeing in Malaysian politics.

The Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar, has just attracted some controversy regarding her statement about freedom of choice -- which can also be said to be about freedom of religion. (Read the news report by Malaysian Digest below).

The issue is: do we have freedom of choice or do we not have the freedom to choose? In short: is Malaysia a democracy or is Malaysia a theocracy? It is either one or the other. It cannot be both at the same time.

This faux pas, as some view it, (or misquote, as Nurul Izzah explains it) is going to be used against her. Trust me on that. Was she misquoted? Was she misunderstood? Did Nurul Izzah do a U-turn? Or are Malaysians not prepared to allow freedom of choice?

Now, this is not about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. Just for purposes of this article let's not be partisan. Let's look at things as if we are not supporters of either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. I know most Malaysian brains have not developed to the level where you can do that. But try anyway, sort of like hypothetically speaking.

I say this is not about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat because there are Muslims in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, as there are non-Muslims. Malays, Chinese, Indians, and 'lain-lain' are in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. So this cannot be about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, I have been talking about change for quite some time now. Hence our struggle, at least as far as I am concerned, is about change. But are you also talking about change? I hear some of you screaming ABU (Anything But Umno). I hear some of you screaming that we must vote for Pakatan Rakyat. I hear some of you screaming that 55 years of BN is enough.

Okay, whatever it may be, those are merely the means to an end. We change the government because we seek change. We are not changing the government just for the sake of changing the government. There must be an endgame and changing the government is just the means to that end.

But are we going to see that end? Will changing the government achieve the change that we seek? That is the fundamental question and the question we must address before we take this to the next level, which is the change that we are looking for.

Nurul Izzah talked about freedom of choice. And now she is getting whacked for that. So now she has to explain herself or even do a U-turn and retract that statement.

The issue is not whether she did say it or she did not say it or whether she was misquoted or misunderstood. To me that is not important. What is important is even if she did say it what is wrong about her saying it?

Nurul Izzah was talking about freedom of choice. Was she wrong? Does Pakatan Rakyat or PKR, the party she represents, not support freedom of choice? It appears like Nurul Izzah is going to have to fight this controversy all on her own. No other opposition leader is going to come to her defence. PKR, DAP and PAS are not going to get involved.

Let me be clear on this. Pakatan Rakyat is not supporting or is opposing freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat is going to remain neutral. Pakatan Rakyat is not taking sides in this issue. Pakatan Rakyat is not for or against freedom of choice, which means that Pakatan Rakyat does not have a stand.

Okay, back to the issue of change. I am talking about change. Change means to deviate from what is. Change means to discard the old ways in favour of the new ways. Change means you have freedom of choice. Change means not being forced to do something that you do not wish to do. Change means to be allowed the freedom you do not currently have.

So why is Pakatan Rakyat keeping mum? We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat supports change. We want to know whether this change includes freedom of choice. We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat's policies are opposite to Barisan Nasional's or exactly the same as Barisan Nasional's?

Currently it appears like there is no difference between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional share the same policy. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat, just like Barisan Nsional, does not support freedom of choice.

In that case are we really talking about change? Explain to me what you mean by change because I do not quite understand what you mean by it when both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat do not support freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional appear very united on this issue. That would mean we will not be seeing change never mind who we vote for.

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

Fathul Bari Claims Nurul Izzah 'Ignorant', Lacks Religious Knowledge

(Malaysian Digest) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president Nurul Izzah Anwar has come under fire over her statement allegedly supportive of freedom of choice for Muslims in selecting their religion.

The statement, made at a forum on Saturday, has since drawn heavy criticism from certain quarters, including Muslim scholars.

Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya said ignorance was to blame for her statement.

"I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles."

"I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," he was quoted in Berita Harian today.

Fathul Bari, who is also Umno Young Ulama (Ilmu) working committee secretariat chairman, said her statement goes against what has been repeated by Nurul Izzah's father, Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on maqasid syari'yyah or the key reasons why the Al-Quran was passed down, which are religion, mind, life, property and dignity.

"Nurul Izzah should have referred to PAS ulama first. Even the Opposition leader himself always spoke about maqasid syari'yyah," he said.

Fathul Bari said Nurul Izzah's statement could have implications on Muslims in the future, resulting in Muslims not placing religion as the most important subject, and steer towards pluralism ideology.

"How can we say religion is free and open, or place Islam on the same level as other religions. If this happens, think of why Islam is enshrined in the constitution and what is the purpose of the Malay rulers," he said.

Meanwhile, Puteri Umno chief Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said Nurul Izzah's statement can create unease within the Muslim community.

"Imagine, even with enforcement, there are Muslims who become murtad. The situation will be worse if there is absolute freedom," she said.

She said, in matters of faith, it is clearly stated that Muslims should do all they can to preserve Islam and not place it in a vulnerable position.

Nurul Izzah, however, has since denied that she had trivialized the issue of Islamic faith and that she supported apostasy.

The Lembah Pantai MP said she was disappointed that certain quarters were twisting her statements on the subject of religion being forced onto Muslims in Malaysia.

She said she had attended a forum titled 'Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?' as a panellist on Saturday. In the question and answer session, one of the questions posed to her was on the issue of Islam being imposed on Muslims.

"My answer stressed on the phrase 'there is no compulsion in Islam'. This was taken from verse 256 of the Surah Al-Baqarah in the Al-Quran. The phrase applies to all mankind," she said.

Nurul Izzah added that she holds firm to the belief that after embracing Islam, a Muslim is bound by Syariah law, just as how a citizen is bound by the Federal Constitution.

"I am disappointed that there are efforts to twist my statement as if I had trivialised faith or easily accepted how Muslims can become apostates," she said, adding that she has always been supportive of educational programmes to strengthen one's faith and increase understanding of the religion.

Malaysiakini had on Saturday quoted Nurul Izzah as saying that people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion, with the same applying to Malays.

"If you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion... how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying.

The report also quoted her as saying that her secondary school education, set amidst a Catholic school backdrop, did not influence her.

"Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in the hall and an active singing Catholic society did not influence me," she was quoted as saying.

However, the report said she stopped short of saying that Malays should be legally granted religious freedom, saying: "I am, of course, tied to the prevailing views."

The al-Bukhary story: how it all began

Posted: 29 Oct 2012 08:50 PM PDT

Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of USNO and the third Chief Minister of Sabah. Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Tun Datu Mustapha and the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Mustapha.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

An embarrassment of business opportunities, political patronage and debts. The Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary story.

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary is like a king? First it was FLOM and now it is SMIK? (Syed Mokhtar is King). What will our king have to say about this pretender to his throne who also happens to be a tycoon – something which our king is not.

All this came from that MP from Kinabatangan, Bung Mokhtar Radin.

The first question I want to ask of this Sabah Umno leader is why has he got his beady eyes trained on this Syed Mokhtar guy?

I am no fan of Syed Mokhtar but why is Bung Mokhtar breaking ranks with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak in the same way he did with Shahrizat Abdul Jalil – and you know what happened to Shahrizat after that.

Or is Bung Mokhtar taking a position to the rear of Najib's unprotected left flank ready to do battle against Najib?

Or has Syed Mokhtar done an Abdul Razak Baginda on Bung Mokhtar?

Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

Remember what Razak Baginda did to Altantuya Shaariibuu? He did a runner on her once he was in the money! Did Syed Mokhtar not deliver on what he promised Bung Mokhtar?

There may be loyalty amongst thieves but amongst politicians it is a scarce commodity. Today Najib, tomorrow Muhyiddin Yassin. Today one wife tomorrow two. This is the stuff Barisan Nasional MPs are made of… deceit, duplicity, greed, arrogance, large doses of libido and a misplaced self worth.

But Bung Mokhtar's life is just a little sandiwara as opposed to the operatic saga that is Syed Mokhtar's. Is Syed Mokhtar too big to fail? I think the adage that when you owe the banks billions, your continued success in business is as much the banks' interest as it is yours rings true with Syed Mokhtar.

(READ Umno's chief crony HERE)

(READ The timber mafia is larger than you suspect HERE)

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

Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun

Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of the United Sabah National Organisation (USNO) and the third Chief Minister of Sabah from 12th May 1967 to 1st November 1975. He is considered by some as one of the founding leaders of Sabah and was an important party in the negotiations leading to the formation of Malaysia on 16th September 1963.

In the first state election of 1967, USNO won 14 seats against UPKO's 12 and SCA's four. USNO then set up a state coalition government with SCA where combined they controlled 18 of the 30 seats.

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

Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed

Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Sabah Chief Minister Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun. On 15th June 1967, Syed Kechik was appointed the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth.

That was more or less the beginning of Sabah's 'timber politics' that prevails until today. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Haji Mustapha.

The rest of the story is self-explanatory.

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

Muhyiddin Visits Tan Sri Syed Kechik's Grave

(Bernama) — Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin on Saturday visited the grave of Syed Kechik Foundation chairman, Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed, who died of old age and was buried at the Al-Bukhary Mosque graveyard yesterday.

Muhyiddin was accompanied by wife, Puan Sri Norainee Abdul Rahman Seri, and Al-Bukhary Foundation executive chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and his wife, Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah Al-Bukhary.

Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary

Syed Mokhtar, who is the late Syed Kechik's son-in-law, said his father-in-law, who was also his uncle, died at the age of 81 at 3.41pm in his house at Jalan Sultanah here yesterday.

He said Syed Kechik served as legal adviser to then Sabah Chief Minister from 1968 until 1975 and was political secretary to then Information and Broadcasting Minister Datuk Senu Abdul Rahman from 1964 to 1965.

Syed Kechik left behind a wife, Puan Sri Sofiah Abdullah, three children and 12 grand-children.

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

Feud over Syed Kechik's millions goes to High Court

(The Star) - The children of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary have gone to court to fight over the RM400mil estate he left behind.

The High Court granted an injunction applied by his two daughters – Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira – to prevent their half-brother Syed Gamal from interfering in Syed Kechik Holdings Sdn Bhd's affairs yesterday.

Syed Gamal, 45, who is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage, is not allowed to intervene in the administration, enter the premises and access the records and accounts of the company.

Syed Gamal, the only male heir to the late Syed Kechik

He is also barred from interfering in the duties of the company directors.

The sisters, who are directors of the company, were not present but were represented by laywer Datuk Vijay Kumar.

This is the second injunction granted by a court in the family saga that started after Syed Kechik's death last year.

Syed Gamal had obtained an ex-parte injunction at the Syariah Court on Sept 14 to stop his 44% stake in the company from being sold or liquidated.

Justice K. Anantham, who presided over the High Court case in his chambers at the Jalan Duta court complex here, ruled that the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction over the company because it is a corporate entity.

Syed Gamal, who was with his cousin Syed Azman Syed Mansor Al-Bukhary, said his lawyers would appeal against the decision.

"I will continue with my struggle to pursue my rights according to Faraid law. My rights have been denied almost all my life. This is not a struggle for myself but also for my family," he said when met outside the courtroom.

Syed Gamal was represented by his three lawyers – Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad, Az-mi Tan Sri Dr Mohd Rais and Zulkifli B.C. Yong. Syed Kechik died at the age of 81 on April 10 last year.

His son-in-law is Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary.

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

Syed Kechik's second wife, daughters lose appeal

(Bernama) - The wife and two daughters of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary failed in their appeal today to stop his (Syed Kechik's) son from his first marriage to be joint administrator of his RM400 million estate.

Justice Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, leading a three-man Court of Appeal panel, ruled that the High Court had correctly given due regard to Syed Gamal's right to be co-administrator of his father's estate.

He said it was the court's view that the acrimony between Syed Gamal and his stepmother Puan Sri Sofiah Moo Abdullah, 67, and his half-sisters Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah, 42, and Sharifah Munira, 44, was not a good ground to exclude Syed Gamal from being co-administrator of his father's estate.

Low said allegations made by Sofiah and her daughters that Syed Gamal lacked knowledge of the father's business, that he (Syed Gamal) was a failed businessman in a T-shirt business and the subsequent sale of a Mercedes car by Syed Gamal were not valid grounds to remove his (Syed Gamal's) right to be considered for appointment as co-administrator.

"Success and failure in life, business or any other activity is purely a matter of subjective judgment. Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts," he said.

The panel, which also comprised Court of Appeal judge Datuk Wira Abu Samah Nordin and High Court judge Datuk Azahar Mohamed, unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Sofiah and her two daughters and upheld Judicial Commissioner Lee Swee Seng's decision given on July 30 last year that the late Syed Kechik's estate be jointly administered by his wife and three children.

"In our view, section 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 provides for the entitlement of all persons who are interested in the estate to be appointed administrators of deceased's estate.

"We are unable to identify any error on the part of the Judicial Commissioner in appointing all appellants (Sofiah, Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira) and respondent (Syed Gamal) as co-administrators of the deceased's estate," Low said.

The panel ordered Sofiah and her daughters to pay legal costs of RM40,000 to Syed Gamal.

Syed Gamal, 46, a cyber-cafe owner, is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage to Zainab alias Eshah Abdullah.

The feud over the estate began after Syed Kechik died of heart disease on April 10, 2009 at the age of 80 without leaving a will.

Syed Kechik was the father-in-law of Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, a billionaire listed as one of the richest people in the country.

On September 15, 2009, Sofiah and her daughters petitioned the court for a letter of administration to the estate. On April 14 last year, Syed Gamal filed a caveat to stop his stepmother and half-sisters from being appointed sole administrators of his late father's estate.

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

Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad

Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad is the flagship corporation of the Kumpulan Syed Kechik Group of Companies with diverse interests in multifarious industries incubated and nurtured by Tan Sri Syed Kechik Bin Syed Mohamed Rahmat Al-Bukhary over the past three decades and more.

1. Nira Sendirian Berhad owns and manages its signature corporate address, the Syed Kechik Foundation Building (picture above).

2. Budiman Sendirian Berhad owns and manages Wisma Budiman.

3. Pasar Borong Development Sendirian Berhad holds vast prime lands situated along busy Jalan Ipoh. It also owns and manages a complete block of dual frontage four storey shop offices comprising thirteen (13) units at Block 28, Jalan 6/3A, Bandar Utara.

4. Castlefield Development Sendirian Berhad owns a choice plot of over two acres of commercial land in Puchong, Selangor.

5. Tenaga Minyak Corporation Sendirian Berhad owns and manages five adjoining premium dual frontage four-storey shop offices at Block 7, Jalan 2/3A, Bandar Utara.

6. Taman Melanti Sendirian Berhad owns fully refurbished units of Double Storey Shop Houses, Double Storey Terrace Houses and Single Storey Terrace Houses in the developed, mature and vibrant neighbourhood of Taman Seri Kluang.

http://www.kskgroup.com.my/

The timber mafia is larger than you suspect

Posted: 28 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT

Gani and Hishammmuddin told the ICAC that the money actually belongs to Umno and that Michael Chia was only the courier or bagman for Umno. The ICAC told the 'official Malaysian delegation' that they (the ICAC) were going to 'freeze' the money, but for only three years. After the three years 'time bar' (or by 2011), the money would be released and thereafter allowed to leave Hong Kong.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

If you have not yet read Friday's report by Sarawak Report, Million Dollar Bribes Disguised As 'Donations' – UMNO's Ever Changing Stories!, you can do so HERE. Then read the three reports below.

Basically, Malaysia Today first exposed this timber 'commission' scandal involving Umno Sabah back in 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched. That was eight years ago. However, no one appeared concerned about the matter then.

Today, the issue has met with much brouhaha -- as if this is something that has just surfaced very recently rather than something that has been going on for decades since Sabah first became part of Malaysia back in 1963.

East Malaysian politics is the politics of timber. Any idiot or dimwit knows this. A Sabah warlord is not a Sabah warlord unless he has at least RM200 million or RM300 million to his name. And that is why Sabah politics is big money. If you want to buy someone worth RM200-RM300 million, the price definitely has got to be huge. RM1 million or RM2 million does not even come close.

The Sabah warlords are known to spend RM3 million to RM6 million a night at the casino. So what is RM1 million or RM2 million? RM1 million or RM2 million is pittance. It is not enough for even a few hours at the roulette table.

Musa Aman, the Sabah Chief Minister, was already worth RM600 million when he took office, according to his official asset declaration. Today, he is estimated to be worth not less than RM1.5 billion, second only to the Sarawak Chief Minister in wealth -- who also made his pile from timber.

And trust me, even those Barisan Nasional turncoats who have joined Pakatan Rakyat recently, or are about to join Pakatan Rakyat soon, are also worth millions. And they, too, made their money the same way. If these are the people Pakatan Rakyat is attracting then it makes no difference whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat rules Sabah.

This is how Sabah's dignitaries travel around the State, in pomp and style

Anyway, as usual, Malaysia Today does not like to repeat what others are already reporting. Malaysia Today only wants to focus on The Untold Story. That is why we do not talk about the Shahrizat Jalil RM250 million cow scandal. As it is, we are already suffering from over-exposure from that story that is close to giving us indigestion. So let me fill in the blanks regarding this Umno Sabah 'donation' scandal instead and tell you The Untold Story of this episode.

Umno Sabah gives out timber concessions to its cronies and warlords at way below market price (or underpriced like hell) and it collects a commission (or kickbacks) on the export of logs, mainly to Japan. The money, however, is paid in Hong Kong. And note that there is no open tender for giving out timber concessions. It is all done on a 'negotiated' basis and awarded to the lowest bidder that offers the highest under-the-table 'commission'.

And this was why Michael Chia -- a man Musa Aman says he does not know but photographs of the two show that they know each other -- was caught in Hong Kong. But what most do not know is that Michael Chia and Musa Aman are not the only ones involved. There are many other people involved as well -- such as a lawyer by the name of Richard Barnes.

When this matter first 'exploded' in 2008 (four years after Malaysia Today had revealed the scandal), Attorney-General Gani Patail and Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Hussein went to Hong Kong to try to 'settle' the matter with the Chinese authorities (an act known as kowtim in Malaysia).

Then we have the Rural and Regional Development Minister, Mohd Shafie Apdal, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's buddy, who was then the Deputy Chief of Umno Sabah. However, he told Najib that he was totally in the dark about what was going on.

Yes, that's right, every man and his dog in Sabah knew about this Hong Kong drama except the Deputy Chief of Umno Sabah.

The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Nazri Abdul Aziz, who said, "Opposition receives political donations too, not just Sabah Umno", (read that report here), is also involved. Michael Chia met Nazri in Parliament House to hand over RM3 million in cash as the 'fee' for the latter to help the former resolve this matter. And that flashy car that Nazri's son drives (see picture below) actually belongs to Michael Chia.

Further to that, AG Gani Patail and CM Musa Aman's brother, Foreign Minister Anifah Aman, are related by marriage. Anifah's wife is sister to Dr Johan Samad, the Deputy Director of Yayasan Sabah, who is in turn married to Fazar Arif, the sister of AG Gani Patail's wife. Hence what we are seeing here is an all-in-the-family mafia. And where there are no blood ties, money ties make up for it.

This scandal, if not properly resolved, may result in Barisan Nasional losing at least 10 of the 25 Parliamentary seats in Sabah. Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan, Tawau, Sipanggar, Penampang, Beaufort, Keningau, Pensiangan, Tuaran and Kota Marudu can most likely fall to the opposition. Nine of those ten seats are Chinese-Kadazan-Dusun seats, except Beaufort, which is a Malay seat. Three other seats -- Kota Belud, Ranau and Papar -- would also be close fights and could go either way.

Hence the likelihood of half the Parliamentary seats in Sabah falling to the opposition is not an impossible scenario. And if that happens then the state can fall as well. That is how serious this matter has become. It seems, according to the financial audit done by Price Waterhouse, about RM3 billion from Yayayan Sabah has mysteriously 'evaporated', mainly timber revenue. So this is no small issue and the voters are terribly upset about the whole thing.

If Pakatan Rakyat is clever and if they know the correct way in playing up this issue, Sabah may fall and they might even win enough Parliamentary seats to march into Putrajaya. My concern is that Pakatan Rakyat will instead fight amongst themselves over seat allocations, which will allow Barisan Nasional to retain Sabah.

If this state of affairs continues, Umno may have to replace the head of Umno Sabah as soon as the State Assembly is dissolved and general elections are called. The voters will then have to be told that Musa Aman will not continue as Chief Minister if Barisan Nasional retains the state. Then, most likely, only two seats will fall to the opposition -- Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan -- and Barisan Nasional will sail through with enough seats to form the state government and at least 23 Parliamentary seats in Sabah to deny Pakatan Rakyat the federal government.

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

Sabah Umno official: 'We have nothing to hide'

(The Star, 17 December 2004) - KOTA KINABALU: Sabah Umno is of the view that everything is in the clear for its new RM35mil, 11-storey headquarters now under construction in the city.

"As far as Sabah Umno is concerned, I can assure you that everything is above board," state Umno information chief Datuk Rahim Ismail said, when contacted over a letter that appeared in the website of a local newspaper on Dec 3.

A similar letter was posted on an online newspaper on Wednesday. The letter insinuated that something was amiss in the deal for the construction of the Sabah Umno building on a 0.48ha site in Karamunsing.

Among the questions raised were why Umno did not use its own 2ha land in Sembulan to construct its headquarters and who was overseeing the construction.

The letter purportedly written by someone known as Haniffa, raised various questions on who was the real owner of the new building and if there was any relationship be-tween Sabah Umno and the company developing it.

Rahim, who is a member of the building committee, declined to say anything else other than stressing that everything about the project was above board.

It is learnt that Sabah Umno would let the matter rest although the party discussed it at a meeting a few days ago.

The explanation given was that the building, for which the groundbreaking ceremony was held on May 16 last year, had the blessing of the Umno headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

Umno officials said yesterday that the land was donated by a private company, with the full knowledge of the party leadership.

They said they decided not to construct their building on their own 2ha land at Sembulan because the party wanted to keep it as a prime city property.

"There is nothing secret about this deal," said a senior Sabah Umno official.

The new Sabah Umno headquarters, which is expected to be completed next year, would not only house the party's offices but also banks, shops and a hall with a seating capacity for 2,000 people.

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

HK anti-graft probe widens

(Malaysia Today, 8 November 2008) - KOTA KINABALU: Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has widened its investigations to Sabah over a money-laundering case involving millions of ringgit.

Three of the officers arrived here on Wednesday seeking information on a Sandakan businessman, a lawyer and a top state politician as well.

They left yesterday after securing details and documents on the trio to help them in a probe into a Hong Kong bank account believed to be holding more than RM100mil. The account has been frozen.

It is understood that the ICAC has been probing allegations of money laundering in Sabah for more than three years.

They had briefly detained the businessman in Hong Kong in mid-August in connection with the money-laundering allegations. He was released on bail pending the completion of the probe.

At a press conference yesterday, Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigations chief Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull confirmed that the ICAC had sought its assistance.

"We cannot reveal details as it is their investigations," said Shukri, who declined to state the specific nature of the ICAC probe.

He said the ACA was not conducting an investigation into the matter but was helping the ICAC under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Shukri was in Sabah to witness the official handing-over of duties from Sabah ACA director Deputy Comm Latifah Md Yatim to the new director, Deputy Comm Jalil Jaaffar. Latifah has been promoted as the new Penang ACA director.

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

Musa denies business links with Michael Chia

(Free Malaysia Today, 12 April 2012) - Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman today said corruption allegations made against him by whistleblower website Sarawak Report was an act of defamation and conspiracy by certain quarters with the agenda to topple the Barisan Nasional government.

"I deny all these allegations. I wish to put it on record once again that I have no business association whatsoever with an individual named Michael Chia," he said today.

Musa said these allegations were trumped up by his political opponents dan desperate individuals who would resort to anything to gain political mileage.

"It is unfortunate that there are people out there who will keep using recycled allegations to get to the top when election is near.

"The people of Sabah can decide for themselves based on my track record. Not faceless and nameless people who use blogs to serve their political interest," he added.

Musa said he would give full cooperation to the authorities if needed but in the meantime his responsibility was to ensure the wellbeing and development of Sabah.

He said he did not wish to waste his time entertaining these frivolous allegations, adding that his main priority was to serve the people of Sabah and to administer the state.

Caught with money

Last week Sarawak Report published leaked Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) documents that revealed Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail allegedly shelving files and refusing to prosecute Musa and his brother Anifah over allegations that the Sabah chief minister had corruptly issued timber licences to his brother worth tens of millions of ringgit.

Investigations were prompted after Musa's "agent" Michael Chia was arrested in Hong Kong in 2008 and MACC investigations later unearthed details of the secret timber concessions within the family and Gani's close ties to the Aman family.

Chia was detained by the Hong Kong authorities at the Hong Kong International Airport for alleged money trafficking. He was caught trying to smuggle out of Hong Kong some S$16 million (RM40 million).

Apparently when he was caught, Chia told the Hong Kong authorities that the money was for Musa.

We didn’t start the fire

Posted: 23 Oct 2012 08:42 PM PDT

Be careful what you wish for. The Malays get angry very easily. The Malays suffer from what we call the Amok Syndrome. But just because the Malays are emotional this does not mean they are stupid as well. They know who to get angry with. They know who these people who 'rampas' all the land in the cities are. And this was precisely one of the reasons (I said 'one of the reasons') why the Malays 'mengamok' in May 1969.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Properties in Penang only for the rich, says Chua

(The Star) - The Penang Government has come under fire for depriving more than 100,000 local families of the chance to own houses on the island.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said the properties on Penang island were now beyond the reach of those earning below RM7,000.

"It seems that Penang island is now only meant for the rich."

Dr Chua said this in response to the drastic increase in the price of condominiums/apartments (by 411%), flats (339%), low-cost flats (157%) and detached units (103%) within the span of a year.

According to the Valuation and Property Services Department statistics, the price of a detached unit, which was RM1.72mil during the first quarter of last year, has soared as high as RM3.5mil during the corresponding period this year.

The price of condominiums/apartments rose from RM528,000 to RM2.7mil, low-cost flats from RM68,000 to RM175,000 and flats from RM132,000 to as high as RM580,000 during the corresponding period.

Chua also lambasted Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for misleading the public into thinking that the state was doing well based on the size of its coffers.

"They (the DAP-led state government) go around proudly showing how much they have collected. But generating revenue from the sale of land is not sustainable, especially in a land-scarce state like Penang."

"Income from sale of land should be regarded as extraordinary gain, as it is certainly not recurrent, sustainable or long term," he said.

Dr Chua said the claims by some quarters that people in Penang were happy with the state government was a mere illusion.

"Reality will hit them when the majority start pushing for decent, affordable homes," he said.

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

"It seems that Penang island is now only meant for the rich," said Chua Soi Lek today. Actually, that was what we in the Malay Chamber of Commerce have been lamenting about for over 30 years since the early 1980s when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad first became Prime Minister.

Not only was this a complaint about Penang. Syed Ali Alattas, the then Chairman of the Johor Malay Chamber of Commerce, also complained about the same thing regarding Johor Baru.

"Do you know only 3% of the land in Johor Baru belongs to the Malays?" asked Syed Ali.

We laughed when someone asked him, "3% of the land in Johor Baru belongs to the Malays or 3% of the land belongs to the Arabs?"

Syed Ali did not find it amusing. "At least 3% belongs to the Arabs. If not because of the Arabs then it would be zero!"

You see, in Johor, Arabs are not considered Malays (they can't buy Malay Reservation land) so that 'joke' was actually a sore point for Syed Ali.

Anyway, the point is, this is a 30-year old grouse amongst the Malays regarding Penang, Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, etc. And that was why UDA was formed -- to solve this problem of the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays in the main cities.

However, along the way, UDA lost its way and deviated from its charted course. And this was one of the bones of contention of the then Federal Territory Malay Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Izat Emir, who whacked UDA kau kau.

Today, 30 years on, 30 years after the Malay Chamber of Commerce raised the issue, MCA is talking about it. The only thing is MCA is making it appear like this happened only over the last four years since Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang.

This is NOT something that happened only over the last four years since Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang. And this is NOT happening only in Penang. This has been going on (slowly and silently) over the last 55 years. And 51 of those 55 years were under a Barisan Nasional (Alliance Party earlier) government.

Kuala Lumpur has always been under the Alliance Party/Barisan Nasional since the beginning (even now when they hold only 1 of the 11 seats). Johor has always been under Barisan Nasional since the beginning. And the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays in Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, etc., is as bad or worse than in Penang.

If MCA wants to talk about this then let's talk about it. We in the Malay Chamber of Commerce have been talking about it for 30 years since Dr Mahathir first became the Prime Minister of Malaysia. And it has not improved. In fact, it has become even worse. (Even Dr Mahathir tried to solve it but failed, as he admitted).

This has nothing to do with Lim Guan Eng, DAP or Pakatan Rakyat. Maybe they are guilty of not addressing the problem since they took over Penang four years ago. But the culprit is not Lim Guan Eng, DAP or Pakatan Rakyat. The culprit is CAPITALISM.

Yes, that's right. When property prices go up, only the rich can afford to buy them. And those who happen to own property in areas where prices have spiralled will sell their property when the price is good. That is called CAPITALISM.

So how to avoid this? How to avoid the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays (and poor Indians and Chinese as well) in the big/main cities of Malaysia?

One way would be to not develop these places. Do like what you do in Kampong Baru in Kuala Lumpur. 'Gazette' the land and leave the place poor like an urban slum. Then the land will have no value and the Malays would remain living there because their land has no value. Once it has value and they can get millions if they sell their land then they would sell their land. I would! So I don't know why the others wouldn't.

Chua Soi Lek and MCA are trying to get the Malays to become angry with Lim Guan Eng and DAP/Pakatan Rakyat. That, I agree, is what politics is all about. I would do the same if I were a politician.

But this strategy can backfire. The Malays, in particular those from the Malay Chamber of Commerce, have been angry that the Malays are being slowly 'ousted' from the city centres. And we have been angry about it since way back 30 years ago. But 30 years ago it was Barisan Nasional that we blamed, not the opposition.

Hello, Mister Chua, this did not happen since only four years ago. This has been going on since 55 years ago. And we blame Umno, the Alliance Party and Barisan Nasional for this.

Actually, I am no longer in the Malay Chamber of Commerce. So, many of us have given up talking about this matter. Yes, we no longer talk about it. But now that you have resurrected something long 'dead' and have reminded us about something we talked about 30 years ago but have now forgotten, you have just opened a Pandora's box.

So now I do want to talk about it. You have just reminded me about a matter we talked about 30 years ago but have since forgotten about it. And that matter is the Chinese have kicked the Malays out of the city centres.

And those Chinese who kicked the Malays out of the city centres are the rich Chinese, the capitalist Chinese, the crony Chinese, the Chinese aligned to the ruling party -- Barisan Nasional, Umno and MCA.

So let's get angry. Let the Malays rise up in anger about being kicked out of the city centres. Let's see the Malays outraged about the Chinese taking over all the expensive property in the cities. And when that happens they will hate the government and the rich Chinese from MCA for this 'injustice'.

These MCA people are so stupid. They start a fire and end up burning their own house down. Just remember: we didn't start the fire!

7AXGIl1yHWA

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXGIl1yHWA

Dr Mahathir’s masterstroke

Posted: 23 Oct 2012 06:18 PM PDT

Then Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad stirred the pot to see what surfaces from the bottom of the pot. And this shows that Dr Mahathir is savvier than the PAS politicians. Dr Mahathir said that PAS promised -- if they manage to take over Terengganu -- that they would implement Islamic laws. Now that PAS has taken over Terengganu where are these Islamic laws? PAS is utter bullshit, said Dr Mahathir.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This whole thing started about 12 years ago soon after the November 1999 general election when PAS retained Kelantan, which it won in 1990, and added Terengganu as the second state to fall to the opposition.

Losing Kelantan or not being able to retake Kelantan was not as disastrous as losing Terengganu. This is because Kelantan is poor and it needs federal aid and grants to develop the state. Terengganu, however, has oil and gas and it contributes to about 50% of Petronas' income.

Hence losing Terengganu is extremely bad news. Terengganu has only eight Parliament seats, which is no big deal. But it is not the Parliament seats or the state government that is the issue. It is the RM800 million to RM1 billion a year Oil Royalty that the opposition is going to get its hands on. Imagine that amount of money in the hands of the opposition.

And this RM800 million to RM1 billion a year represents only 5% in 'Royalty' mind you. To know what the total revenue is, you need to multiply that figure by 20. And that figure is huge for a state that has only about one million or so inhabitants.

(Just to digress a bit: and that was why Dr Mahathir withdrew the Oil Royalty merely five months after GE11 and changed it to 'Wang Ehsan', which was then managed by Umno -- meaning Idris Jusoh -- and no longer by the state government. And that was also why His Highness the Sultan of Terengganu did not want Idris Jusoh as the Menteri Besar -- because of his mismanagement of Terengganu's 'Wang Ehsan').

Terengganu is supposed to be the second richest state after Selangor. Terengganu even beat Penang and Johor. This was what a Malaysian business magazine reported back in the mid-1990s. However, said the same business magazine, the Terengganu citizens are second poorest after the people in Perlis.

I was still in Terengganu then. We rushed out to buy copies of that magazine but found that none of the local newsagents or bookshops had any copies left. They had sold out every copy. Then we discovered that the Menteri Besar had instructed his office to buy up every copy.

We then called up Kuala Lumpur and managed to get the people there to help buy some copies and put them on the next plane out to Kuala Terengganu. Hence we had to wait another day before we could read that most damaging report.

Basically, the issue that the Terengganu State Government wanted to hide from us is that Terengganu was the second richest state (in terms of state wealth) but the second poorest (in terms of the people's wealth).

And, a couple of years later, on 29th November 1999, Terengganu fell to the opposition because the people were pissed big time that the state was so rich but the people were still very poor. In short, money talks and bullshit walks, and the people had had enough of the Umno bullshit.

PAS knew this. So, as soon as they took over the state in November 1999, they abolished the toll charges on the Terengganu bridge, they abolished council tax, they gave scholarships to poor students, and much more. Basically, PAS tried to turn Terengganu into a welfare or socialist state, so to speak.

The Menteri Besar, Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, was also very careful about the perception he gave. First of all, he never referred to the Terengganu government as 'Kerajaan PAS' or the PAS Government. He would refer to it as 'Kerajaan BA' or the Barisan Alternatif Government.

Then he appointed non-Muslims to head certain committees and held meetings with the Christians, Hindus and Buddhist before changing any policies or before implementing any new policies. (I know because I helped arrange some meetings between Hadi and the church groups from Kuala Lumpur, as Goh Kiat Peng can confirm).

For example, when the state wanted to ban liquor and gambling, Hadi called the non-Muslims for a meeting and asked them what they had to say about the matter. The non-Muslims agreed that gambling is bad. Gambling was one of the causes of families breaking up, they said. So they have no problems if gambling is banned as long as the Chinese could still play Mah Jong in the privacy of their own homes.

As for liquor, the non-Muslims want to still be allowed access to liquor in the state. Hadi agreed to this on condition that only non-Muslims were allowed access to liquor and not the Muslims.

In other words, 'public' gambling is banned. Gambling in the privacy of your homes is not. Liquor is banned only for Muslims. Non-Muslims were still free to sell and drink liquor. Pubs and clubs could still operate in Terengganu on the basis of 'For non-Muslims Only' -- just like coffee shops selling pork have to post 'Non-Halal' signs whether in Terengganu or Kuala Lumpur.

This worked well. Both PAS and the non-Muslims appeared happy with the arrangement. PAS will not deny non-Muslims their rights. Non-Muslims, however, must not involve Muslims in their 'vices' or do things in public. Gamble at home and drink in the pubs/clubs (or at home). Don't 'go public' or do all this in front of the Muslims.

Hadi suddenly forgot that he had always called the Terengganu government 'Kerajaan BA' and not 'Kerajaan PAS'. In fact, he had told his people to do the same -- say 'Kerajaan BA' and not say 'Kerajaan PAS'. But now, with Dr Mahathir's goading and provocation, Hadi and PAS forgot all this and suddenly announced that the PAS government of Terengganu was going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu.

Why 'the PAS government of Terengganu'? Was it not 'the BA government of Terengganu'? BA includes PKR and DAP as well. But this is not a BA decision, explained Hadi. This is a PAS decision.

When I heard this I shuddered. This was the beginning of the end for BA. And I said so in the articles I wrote back in 2000. And I got whacked for saying that, by none other than Anwar Ibrahim himself, who told me to back off and not attack PAS.

Yes, Dr Mahathir engaged PAS in a staring competition and PAS blinked first. PAS announced it was going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. But in the same breath they also announced that they have not quite formalised these laws yet.

In other words, they have no idea yet what these laws are going to look like. This was merely a 'pre-emption' announcement. Announce first and sort out the details later. Even Tun Salleh Abas, the one-time Lord President, admitted this. So what more could I say? This was hara kiri. This was political suicide. And I wondered why they could not see this.

Basically, Dr Mahathir laid a trap and PAS walked into that trap and got caught. Now, instead of sorting out the financial welfare of the people of Terengganu, they focused on the issue of Islamic laws.

But the people wanted to talk about money. They didn't want to talk about Islamic laws. And they found that as more and more PAS talked about Islam, their pockets became emptier and emptier.

(Of course, the withdrawal of the Oil Royalty and handing the money to Idris Jusoh as 'Wang Ehsan' for the exclusive use of Umno helped accelerate this financial disaster. But that was the intention in the first place).

Then, on 21st March 2004, the Terengganu people kicked out PAS and gave the state back to Umno. And the reason why the Terengganu voters made PAS/BA a one-term government is all because of money, or rather the lack of it.

In the meantime, Barisan Alternatif broke up. DAP left the opposition coalition and went independent. And 2004 was the worse election performance in history for the opposition.

This all started 12 years ago as a contest of 'one-upmanship' between Umno and PAS. It was a contest to see who can be more Islamic than the other. It is like two peacocks showing of their feathers, each thinking it is more beautiful than the other.

This was a contest that would go nowhere. PAS can demonstrate all it wants that it is more Islamic than Umno by announcing that it is going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. But as had been proven almost a decade earlier in Kelantan, it cannot be done unless Parliament approves these new laws first. And there is no way Parliament is going to approve it.

Once PAS and Umno were done with flexing their muscles and showing off their peacock feathers, this thing should have died a natural death -- like what had happened in Kelantan almost ten years earlier.

Back in the early 1990s, when PAS announced the implementation of Islamic laws in Kelantan (and which Parliament blocked), no one cared. No one said a damn thing (other than Zaid Ibrahim who took the matter to court). It was not even discussed, debated or argued. The only two groups that were quarrelling over it were Umno and PAS. And soon that quarrel ended and died a natural death when they got tired or arguing over a non-starter.

Surprisingly, though, when PAS did the same thing in Terengganu almost ten years later, the whole issue did not die there. It was no longer just a PAS-Umno issue like ten years earlier. The non-Muslims got involved.

Why did the non-Muslims not express outrage when Kelantan did the same thing back in the early 1990s? Why ten years later express outrage when it was done in Terengganu? Terengganu just did what Kelantan did almost ten years earlier. But for Kelantan it was a non-issue. For Terengganu it was such a big issue that resulted in the breakup of Barisan Alternatif.

Maybe this was because the 1990 Kelantan Government was a PAS-Semangat 46 government while the 1999 Terengganu Government was a BA Government (which means DAP was supposedly part of it although they did not win a single seat in Terengganu).

Whatever it may be, Dr Mahathir laid a trap and PAS and DAP walked right into it and got caught. Now, in 2012, 12 years on, the trap is still working. Today, the non-Muslims are talking about the matter more than even the Muslims themselves.

What Dr Mahathir wanted was to goad PAS and make them do something that would upset the non-Muslims. PAS did what Dr Mahathir had hoped and the non-Muslims got upset as Dr Mahathir had hoped. And that proves Dr Mahathir is a far better politician than those from Pakatan Rakyat.

Today, the non-Muslims are giving their opinions regarding Islam. And this just upsets the Muslims, even those who are pro-opposition. Dr Mahathir, as he always said, wants the Malays to unite. He means, of course, to unite under Umno, not PAS.

But he failed to get them to unite. Race just can't seem to unite the Malays. However, religion can because most Malays (more than 50% according to the poll) consider themselves Muslims first, Malays second, and Malaysian third.

Hence what Dr Mahathir started 12 years ago in 2000 has finally succeeded. The non-Malays have jumped onto the Islamic law bandwagon and are offering their 'expert' opinions regarding Islam.

It is the right of non-Muslims to talk about Islam. Even if Islamic laws only affect the Muslims and not the non-Muslims the non-Muslims still have a right to talk about it and must talk about it. The non-Muslims are merely trying to save the Muslims who will be subjected to barbaric and outdated laws from the Dark Ages if Islamic laws are implemented. The Muslims must be allowed the freedom to do what they want even if it is to leave Islam, drink liquor, eat pork, etc.

Yes, the non-Muslims are merely trying to help the Muslims. The non-Muslims want the Muslims to have the same rights as the non-Muslims and not have to suffer discrimination and persecution under separate (Islamic) laws. The non-Muslims are sincere and only have the interest of the Muslims at heart. Malaysia is a Secular State and not an Islamic State so Islamic laws have no place in Malaysia.

Whatever it may be, the Muslims are now very divided. In fact, they have always been divided since 1,400 years ago anyway. The question is are the Muslims divided between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat or divided between Islam and Kafir?

I suppose the coming general election will reveal the answer to that question and we shall find out whether Dr Mahathir's strategy that was launched 12 years ago has finally borne fruit. Dr Mahathir was hoping that the non-Muslims would become kay poh. And now the non-Muslims have become kay poh much to the delight of Dr Mahathir.

MyNewsHub propagates Nazism

Posted: 22 Oct 2012 06:53 PM PDT

Unless MCA, MIC, Gerakan and all those 10 or so other 'non-Malay' parties in Barisan Nasional come out to openly deny this, we will have to assume that this is true. There is such a thing as consent by silence. An allegation has been made against all the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional that they support the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State. Until it is proven otherwise we have to take this as true.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I picked up the commentary below (Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims) from MyNewsHub. I suspect that website is pro-government. The reason I am publishing it here is so that I can reply to it. As I said, we must also read news from 'the other side' so that we know what they are saying and can then respond to their spin.

First of all, the article below is very badly written. It looks like a Malay-educated writer wrote this piece. Did I not say that mother-tongue education is bad for the brain? If this is the standard of English of those who are pro-government then they can't expect to impress us with their 'logic' -- if in the first place we can find any logic in their arguments.

Anyway, let's dissect what this person said (and, incidentally, who did not dare put his/her name to the piece). Let the game begin -- let's debate.

I am going to start with the title of that article -- Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims.

Okay, even if that is true so what? Is this not what war and politics is all about -- to divide the enemy? If this is DAP's strategy and if it works then jolly good for DAP. At least, after four years of whacking the opposition, DAP has finally woke up to the fact that the strategy of divide-and-rule is a very powerful strategy.

Less than 10,000 Englishmen were able to rule over hundreds of millions of Indians using the divide-and-rule strategy (which means the Mat Salleh are clever while the Indians not so clever). Hence it is a proven strategy and if this is what DAP is doing then that makes them very clever indeed. So why grumble about how clever 'the other side' is? It just makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

Anyway, is this not also BN's and Umno's strategy? If this is what DAP is doing then they are merely using your same strategy against you. So stop sounding like a school kid in the playground. Stand and fight. If you don't dare stand and fight then don't start a fight. You can't start a fight and then go crying to the teacher "teacher, teacher, he beat me".

Let me put it another way. If DAP is really doing this and if it works, then you are just admitting that the Chinese are clever and the Malays are stupid. Now, why in heaven's name do you want to go and admit that the Chinese are clever and the Malays are stupid? Tak malu ke?

Okay, next point. MyNewsHub said, "DAP's actions in really denying the fact that this is an Islamic country is enough to prove their anti-Islam/Malay mindset which has been running through their veins."

Who says that Malaysia is an Islamic country? Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Westminster Parliamentary system of government and the government is elected every five years through a general election. The Constitution does, however, say that Islam is the religion of the Federation. But that does not make Malaysia an Islamic country. If I declare that English is the language of Malaysia Today that does not make us England Today. We are still Malaysia Today but using English as the medium of communication.

Islam is the religion of the Federation. That's what is stated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that Malaysia is an Islamic country. It states that Malaysia is a Federation. And do you know a Federation means? A Federation is a grouping of many smaller States. How does that make Malaysia, which is a Federation, into an Islamic country?

MyNewsHub then said, "No other non-Malay parties in Malaysia has ever turn this country's administration concept, either secular or Islamic, into a huge issue but DAP."

Okay, let me try to understand that very badly worded statement. MCA, MIC, Gerakan and all those 10 or so other 'non-Malay' parties in Barisan Nasional support the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State. DAP is the only party opposed to this idea. Is this what MyNewsHub means?

I suppose this is just like the God Debate. If you think that God does not exist then prove it. If you can't prove it then we must assume that God exists. The onus, therefore, is on you to prove me wrong and not for me to prove I am right.

MyNewsHub then quotes Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as saying, "UMNO would like to clearly state that Malaysia is an Islamic Country."

I suppose what MyNewsHub is saying is, since Dr Mahathir has said Malaysia is an Islamic Country then Malaysia is an Islamic Country. No two ways about it. I will risk courting the displeasure of the Mahathir-haters by agreeing with Dr Mahathir. So, since Dr Mahathir said it, then there is no dispute.

Dr Mahathir also said that there is no freedom of speech in Malaysia. Dr Mahathir also said that Malaysia is a police state. Dr Mahathir also said that the mainstream media is merely spinning and is not reporting the truth. Dr Mahathir also said that there is only one type of Islam -- there is no Islam this or Islam that (meaning there is no Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's version of Islam Hadhari, PAS' version of Islam, Umno's version of Islam, etc.). Dr Mahathir also said that we must not vote Umno (ABU) to teach them a lesson. Dr Mahathir also said it is wrong to detain Raja Petra Kamarudin under the Internal Security Act as he is only a Blogger and is not a threat to national security.

Okay, okay, okay, I can write 600 pages of what Dr Mahathir said but I think you get what I mean already. Dr Mahathir said many things. So I take it since we accept what Dr Mahathir said then everything else he said should be accepted as well.

Aiyoh! No need to continue rebutting this very low class spin by MyNewsHub lah. It's a total waste of time because all their arguments defy logic and are weak as hell. For example, what do they mean by saying, "In a way, an Islamic Country is formed on the policy and intention which does not break Islamic rules"?

What kind of shitty English is this? That statement is total nonsense. Malu nak jawab.

MyNewsHub then tries to defend its argument that Malaysia is an Islamic country by saying, "According to Hassan al-Banna, an Islamic government is a government where all of its leaders follow Islamic teachings, do not commit vice and they are the ones who practice all rules in Islamic teachings within themselves."

Another nonsensical statement with bad English to boot.

Okay, so now we are followers of Hassan al-Banna are we? Okay, let's follow Hassan al-Banna then if that is what you want. I can live with that.

Hassan al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (Jamaat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) and a student of Islamic reformists such as Egyptian Muhammad 'Abduh and 'Abduh's disciple, the Syrian Rashid Rida.

Their main concern was regarding the decline of Islamic civilisation in comparison to western countries. They believed that this trend could be reversed only by returning to a 'pure' form of Islam, free of all the exegesis and innovations that had diluted the strength of Islam's 'original message'.

Al-Banna believed that the main danger to Islam was not the conservatism of Al-Azhar but the domination of the West and, more importantly, secularism. He wanted the conservatives to be more active in condemning atheism and Christian missionaries, and in combating colonialism.

Al-Banna launched the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood in March 1928. The brotherhood was extremist and violent from its inception. Its motto is, "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way, and dying for God's cause our supreme objective."

This is what al-Banna said:

My brothers! The ummah that knows how to die a noble and honourable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the next. Degradation and dishonour are the results of the love of this world and the fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death. Life itself shall come searching after you.

My brother, you should know that one day you will face death and this ominous event can only occur once. If you suffer on this occasion in the way of Allah, it will be to your benefit in this world and your reward in the next.

And al-Banna also said:

"Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated."

Al-Banna considered the Muslim Brotherhood as equal to that of the German Nazi party and the Third Reich. From the ideological point of view, the Jew-hatred, authoritarianism, acts of violence, and the desire to defeat the British is shared by both the Muslim Brothers and the Nazis and gave the two movements a common cause. The Brotherhood's political and military alliance with Nazi Germany blossomed into formal state visits, de facto ambassadors, and overt and covert 'joint ventures'.

So that, in a nutshell, is what MyNewsHub is propagating Nazism, violence, Islamic domination, anti-Semitism, etc. And they are calling DAP bad? Heavens!

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

Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims

(MyNewsHub) - DAP's actions in really denying the fact that this is an Islamic country is enough to prove their anti-Islam/Malay mindset which has been running through their veins. No other non-Malay parties in Malaysia has ever turn this country's administration concept, either secular or Islamic, into a huge issue but DAP.

DAP's argument was based on a verbal statement made by Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia who said that Malaysia is a Secular Country instead of an Islamic country. This was proven through a report from The Star on February 9, 1983, during the former Prime Minister's 80th birthday, which state "Do not turn Malaysia into an Islamic Country."

According to Kit Siang, on February 13 the same year, former third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn then stated that he supports Tunku's stand who rejected Islamic country.

If the verbal statement made by the first Prime Minister is taken as an official and base to determine the country's administration concept, then Kit Siang should also consider verbal statements made by other former Malaysian Prime Ministers who instead announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's fourth Prime Minister announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country on September 29, 2001 as he launched the National Conference of Perwakilan Representatives. He strictly stated, "UMNO would like to clearly state that Malaysia is an Islamic Country."

The same thing goes to the fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who also announced Malaysia as an Islamic country on July 17, 2007.

When he was the Deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak also stated that "Islam is the official religion and Malaysia is an Islamic Country," during an International Conference on Islamic Countries' Role In Globalization.

And now, having Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as Prime Minister, Malaysia continues to gain acknowledgement not just as an Islamic Country, it is also an exemplary Islamic Country and confirmed by international acclaimed Ulama including Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. In his acknowledgment letter for Malaysia's contribution towards Islamic Countries around the world, he stated, "What is more important is that Malaysia is acknowledged as few of Islamic Countries which has an amazing development strategy and open, which currently became the center for reference and an example for the world of Islam."

Taking into consideration for all of the verbal statements, declaration and written letters on whether Malaysia is either a Secular or Islamic country, we could find that two former Prime Ministers stated that Malaysia is a Secular country, and another two former Prime Ministers including our current Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak have announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country.

That is why there should be no reason for Kit Siang to quote our former Prime Minister's stated, Tunku Abdul Rahman to go against other former Prime Ministers.

In another angle, Kit Siang should not have held onto the former PMs statement alone. Instead, he should have seen this matter as a whole, in terms of the constitution and the social landscape of the society in this country.

A few Ulama stated that an Islamic country is defined as a place which is ruled by a Muslim and the sign would be when all Muslims live peacefully at the place and its society could follow all of its teachings without having any fear or worry, and that the laws are also implemented towards the kafir, while bid'ah members do not rule in pressuring the Sunnah members.

According to Hassan al-Banna, an Islamic government is a government where all of its leaders follow Islamic teachings, do not commit vice and they are the ones who practice all rules in Islamic teachings within themselves.

In a way, an Islamic Country is formed on the policy and intention which does not break Islamic rules. Instead, Secular Country is formed based on power where it practices end justifies the means.

It is clear that based on the facts above, Malaysia is indeed an Islamic country, and for Kit Siang to deny it by just using a single excuse, Tunku Abdul Rahman's statement, is simply irrelevant.

Kit Siang's intention in raising this matter is not that hard to be read. He actually wants to break up Muslims by raising doubt upon Islamic governance.

But, at the same time, he also in a way confirmed DAP's mission where the party fights for a Secular Country and with PAS to cooperating with them, shows that Muslims in PAS do fight for the same objective. Logic dictates that PAS should provide a swift response, whether they support the statement or they would simply play the political game by criticizing DAP for their fight for a Secular Country.

If PAS really fights for Islam and they do not hold on to the principal of end justifies the means, Kit Siang's statement should be the end of their cooperation with DAP to avoid themselves from being an accomplice in fighting for a Secular Country.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 12 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan