Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The Church & Allah
- 'Allah' belongs only to Muslims and Islam: Jakim
- Seeing is believing
- DAP Protestors Caught Eating During Hunger Protest!
- Pakatan yakin dapat 35 dari 60 kerusi Dun Sabah
- Be realistic with seat demands, Anwar urges SAPP
- ‘Endorse our blueprint if you want our support’
- ‘Hisham’s liaison officer more powerful than IGP’
- Sabah DAP will bury hatchet with SAPP if…
- Standards of evidence
| Posted: 31 Dec 2012 04:15 AM PST
KTemoc Konsiders I'm not surprised by the adverse feedback I've received regarding my post Now, who are the Arab wannabes? here as well as at Malaysia-Today, because firstly, it's an issue related to religions and secondly, I have the seeming effrontery to side with UMNO (and PAS). I am again not surprised that many have missed the point, evidenced by remarks like: (a) So, based on this simple etymological track, the used of ANY word/name to describe a Superbeing that the follower used was/is Highly localised. It should not be monopolised, just like some local Muslims like to dictate! (b) Will you be happy if I forbid you from using certain words because I find it offensive? Who am I to impose this on you? If I forbid you to call your wife, your brother or sister with an alternative name because I find it offensive with their current names which you been calling them all these years. Will you be glad? Please think through. None of above had been what I proposed in my previous post on subject matter.
Just to refresh your memories (and a bloody lack of reading skills, wakakaka) I wrote: While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic). Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language. Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand. But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason. The reason why I have not (still am not) been sympathetic with the Church, I had already expressed as follows:
let us also not forget that Christianity and indeed Islam as well are both evangelistic missionary religions with an obligation on the faithful to convert the so-called pagans, for altruistic reasons of course. So, what is the meaning of 'missionary' and 'evangelistic'? In their adjectival forms, the dictionary has these to say, respectively: Missionary = reflecting or prompted by the desire to persuade or convert others.
Evangelistic seeking to evangelize; striving to convert sinners (where sinners mean all not within the Faith). Dictionary also defines the word evangelize as 'to convert to Christianity', and where we can also substitute the word Christianity with Islam. Thus, both Christianity and Islam require their respective followers to evangelize. In my post I had written: I dare say those Dutch Christian missionaries were out to convert the Indonesian pagans (Muslim and others) into Christianity with whatever it took, and would have found the use of the word Allah as a convenient substitute for the Christian God in persuading the native Muslims that the conversion to Christianity would be nothing more than a seamless worship to the same Allah, albeit with some minor adjustments to the rituals. Thus the argument that the 16th Century Dutch had been doing this or that during dictatorial colonial circumstances would today be just not good enough for the Church to persist along that line.
Leaving aside the legal aspect, where I had already accepted that Father Lawrence Andrew is on very strong grounds, my post points out the several areas and factors where I have found the stand of the local Catholic Church and Father Lawrence Andrew quite disturbing. Thus I asked and continue to ask again: Really, I have to ask again of Father Lawrence Andrew and the Church: "What is really your goal in obdurately pursuing the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God in a Malay-language newsletter and Bible when so many other names of your Christian God, with even better biblical pedigree, remain available?" If the aim of the Church is to spread the word of God, why not use Tuhan or Elohim or a multitude of other Hebraic names available from its source, the Tanakh. Why insist on the Allah word when everyone in Malaysia, especially Peninsula Malaysia knows that Allah is familiarly (automatically) visualized and known as the God of Islam.
Thus I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche who reminded us: "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." Isn't the goal of the Church to spread the word of its Christian God, which can be done without using the word Allah because Elohim and Yahweh and Tuhan are available? Why has the Church represented by the person of Father Lawrence Andrew remain stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, namely, to use the Allah word in their Catholic Newsletter, the Herald, and the Bahasa version of the Bible, al Kitab? Without too much hubris I believe I have successfully challenged every position Father Andrew and the Church had presented as to why the Allah word is essential and cannot be substituted, but some comments here as well as at RPK's Malaysia-Today have totally ignored my points, and continue to come up with comments equally as obdurate as Father Andrew's or as if they haven't read my post at all (which has been why I mentioned some readers' 'lack of reading skills' wakakaka).
In other words, my post questions the sincerity of the Church's insistence in using the Allah word, which I do not support because of the likelihood of confusion over whose (Islamic or Christian) god is Allah. The ensuing confusion would not be unlike a dangerous sampan in a very turbulent evangelistic sea. Now, my dear friend Ong Kian Ming wrote a piece in Malaysiakini titled Allah row - what's the name of the game? Much as I (platonically, wakakaka) love Kian Ming (and I am not joking, he's a great guy) I am not persuaded by his article. He argued that as Yahwah is already translated into Tuhan, then Elohim (if also translated into Tuhan) following the Yahweh word would result in Tuhan … Tuhan, giving us a double or repetitive Tuhan which won't make sense or provide cohesive reading for the mentioned passage.
He provided the example of Exodus 29:46, which (KJV) states: And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God. Kian Ming provided the NIV (1984) version which doesn't make much difference to KJV for his arguments and the point I intend to make. But let's use his NIV 1984 version which states: They will know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the LORD their God. He argued that a Bahasa translation minus the use of the Allah word would give us: "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Tuhan (rather than Allah) mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Tuhan mereka." But in that translation, Kian Ming has become just like Father Lawrence - though as his matey, I believe Kian Ming has been sincere - in believing that both Yahweh and Elohim must both be translated into Tuhan.
Thus, according to his arguments, if we are to avoid the awkward Tuhan Tuhan translation, we require both the Tuhan and Allah words, so as to show each as a different word in that passage. But my point is why must Elohim be translated from Hebrew into Arabic (Allah)? Why not retain the Elohim word as is in al Kitab instead of translating into Arabic and then daringly claim Allah is a Malay word. If one can claim the Arabic Allah is a Malay word, why not claim and use the Hebraic Yahweh and/or Elohim as also Malay words.
Thus the Bahasa translation of Exodus 29:46 should read as follows (two forms): (a) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Elohim mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tinggal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Elohim mereka" or (b) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah Yahweh, Tuhan mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah Yahweh Tuhan mereka" I personally prefer the second. And don't forget, we also have Adonai, El Elyon, El Shddai, El Olam, etc. Sorry, Kian Ming, as a matey I regret I can't even say 'good try' because your arguments have been based on the totally incorrect premise that the Allah word is a Bahasa word when it's patently not – it is as Middle-Eastern (Arabic) as much as are Yahweh and Elohim (Hebrew).
Now, what about my idol Karpal Singh's comments in Malaysiakini's that Karpal rises to Guan Eng's defence over 'Allah' row which reported: DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh has risen to the defence of the party's secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's Christmas day call for Christians to be allowed to use the term 'Allah', stating that it was not intended to hurt Muslim sensitivities. He explained that Lim's call was meant for Christians in Sabah and Sarawak where the word has been in use for generations. I think that's fair enough, though if we have already published a Malay edition of the al Kitab which uses Elohim instead of Allah, why not use it to acquaint Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians on the Elohim and/or Yahweh word(s). Why have a further division of Peninsula from the Eastern States even in al Kitab? It is surprising, therefore, that Penang Umno secretary Azhar Ibrahim has publicly come out with a scathing attack on the Penang chief minister that what he had said in his Christmas message should not hurt the feelings of Muslims, he said in a statement yesterday.
| ||||||
| 'Allah' belongs only to Muslims and Islam: Jakim Posted: 31 Dec 2012 12:07 AM PST
(Bernama) - The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) today repeated its stand that the word 'Allah' is a holy word that belongs only to Muslims and Islam and cannot apply to non-Muslims and other religions. Its director-general, Datuk Othman Mustapha, said the matter had been finalised at the 82nd meeting of the Fatwa Committee of the National Council for Islamic Affairs on May 5 to 7, 2008. "Therefore, it is compulsory for all Muslims to protect it to the best of their ability. Any attempts to insult or abuse the word must be prevented according to the provisions stipulated under the Federal Constitution," he said in a statement here today. He said statements made by certain quarters to create racial and religious disharmony just for the sake of gaining political mileage were very disappointing. Hence, he said Jakim would like to urge all quarters to return to the rule of law to ensure that racial and religious harmony was well preserved and protected under the Federal Constitution.
| ||||||
| Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST
Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ... Perception. That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia. That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation. Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now. And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month. Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime? How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts? And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound. It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering. Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines. To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented. And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day. The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference. There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs. Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception. Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider **************************************** Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception. The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down. My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts. Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God. Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class. To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you. There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more. Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place. It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place. A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic. Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change. And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said. And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault. This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault. Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah. But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad. However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault. So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point. We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others? Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages? Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor. Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter? In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians. The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this. Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good. What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be? Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad. Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted. And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause? Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?
| ||||||
| DAP Protestors Caught Eating During Hunger Protest! Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:59 PM PST
STOP THE LIES What a bunch of scums! These Anti-Lynas protestors attempted to fool their zombie supporters and the press that they were staging a hunger protest. Eighteen of these so-called protestors vowed to the world that they would starve for 100 hours starting from Thurs, Dec 27, 8pm but they have been caught having their meals at a nearby hotel! They would have most likely ate merrily earlier but an alert reporter from a news portal MYNEWSHUB caught them sneaking off to the Swiss Hotel after entering the 63 hours of purported fasting. When the press were present, they acted like they were drained of energy and tired but the minute the photographers went off, one by one, they also disappeared – for their makan! The absence of these protestors had aroused the suspicions of the reporter, who quietly followed these protestors, mostly DAP members, to the hotel nearby. He recorded pictures of these protestors having their meals with family members and supporters.
| ||||||
| Pakatan yakin dapat 35 dari 60 kerusi Dun Sabah Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:36 PM PST
"Selain itu juga 15 kerusi parlimen akan turut kita perolehi bagi membantu Pakatan Rakyat menawan Putrajaya," jelas beliau kepada Harakahdaily. (Harakah) - Pakatan Rakyat Sabah yakin dapat menawan 35 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Sabah pada Pilihanraya Umum Ke-13 (PRU13) nanti. Bekas Timbalan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT), Datuk Lajim Ukin berkeyakinan penuh selain dari 35 kerusi Dun, Pakatan Rakyat juga turut dapat memenangi 15 kerusi Parlimen di negeri itu.
| ||||||
| Be realistic with seat demands, Anwar urges SAPP Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:09 PM PST
Ida Lim, The Malaysian Insider Hard-nosed Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) negotiators may jeopardise Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) bid to make inroads into the east Malaysian state considered a key Barisan Nasional (BN) vote bank, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has said. With the 13th general election fast approaching, Anwar urged SAPP leaders to cut down on their demands for seats, saying that it would be hard to continue talks otherwise, the Sin Chew Daily reported today. The opposition front in Sabah currently includes DAP, PAS, PKR and two newly-formed PR-friendly parties – Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS), Pakatan Perubahan Sabah (PPS) – working together with SAPP and the State Reform Party (STAR) against BN. "Besides Sabah Pakatan Rakyat's five member parties, we still want to negotiate with SAPP; if SAPP continues making demands that are too high, it'll be hard for us to continue negotiations," Anwar was quoted as saying by Sin Chew Daily today. But Anwar reportedly denied that PR was issuing an ultimatum to SAPP, saying that he only wanted to let the party know that the pact was in its final stages of seat negotiations. The Borneo Post yesterday reported Anwar as saying that SAPP has to be a strong party to justify its desire for half the seats up for grabs in the coming election. "As far as the three parties are concerned, it is very good, but then there is very little progress with SAPP; (that) is the report I have. We have to convey this to SAPP because we must have some formula of compromise. "Each party should not demand too much... we have to be realistic as to the strength of each party. If SAPP for example wants half of the seats, it has to be a formidable party. "For now we will not stop discussions but we will have to convey our position on behalf of the three parties which include APS and PPPS," the PKR de facto leader said. According to the Borneo Post, Anwar said that the parties involved in seat negotiations should not carry out attacks during talks. "We are negotiating and therefore it is not wise to go on attacking, like this spat between SAPP and DAP," he said, likely referring to reported tension between the two parties. SAPP had in September declared that the party was eyeing the parliamentary seats of Sepanggar, Penampang and Kota Kinabalu in Sabah – the same seats that DAP wishes to contest. On December 20, Anwar reportedly rejected claims that PR's seat negotiations with SAPP were faltering.
| ||||||
| ‘Endorse our blueprint if you want our support’ Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:02 PM PST
Hindraf is not prepared to give any political block free lunch as it did in 2008 general election. Athi Shankar, FMT Hindraf Makkal Sakti will only support a political coalition that gives written pre-election agreement to implement the movement's five-year blueprint for ethnic Indian community. Either Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional must pen down written assurances on Hindraf blueprint agreement that they would implement its demands if they come to power in the forthcoming general election. "That's the condition if either political block wants our backing to canvass Indian votes," Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy made it clear at a gathering here last night. He stressed that the civil rights movement was not prepared to give any political block free lunch as it did in 2008 general election. "We will throw our support to any party that gives written endorsement that if they come to power they will implement our blueprint for the betterment of much marginalised working class Indians. "We will not compromise on this," insisted the Hindraf supremo. Those present in the Juru community hall raised their arms to give unanimous support to Hindraf's stand. They also displayed banners and placards in support of Hindraf and its blueprint, and calling PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan to endorse it. They also give unanimous endorsement to Hindraf's decision to contest in the next election. Speculations already rife that Waythamoorthy was contemplating to take on MIC president G Palanivel in the next polls, probably in Cameron Highlands parliamentary constituency. He declined comment when asked about it.
Hindraf's blueprint was launched last month to mark 5th anniversary of the movement's mammoth rally held in KLCC on Nov 25, 2007. It generally demands for comprehensive and constructive Felda-type socio-economic programmes, such as community re-settlement, quality housing and equal education opportunities, for displaced ethnic Indian plantation workers and their families.
| ||||||
| ‘Hisham’s liaison officer more powerful than IGP’ Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:54 PM PST
MyWatch is claiming that the Home Minister's special liaison officer has powers to bypass the Inspector-General of Police himself. Teoh El Sen, FMT Anti-crime watchdog MyWatch alleged today that a police officer with a rank of deputy commissioner [DCP] appointed by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein as his special liaison officer is 'more powerful' than the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar himself. The NGO's chairman R Sri Sanjeevan claimed that this was because the officer was able to bypass the IGP to give instructions to top officers of the Royal Malaysian Police [PDRM], including state police chiefs, state CID chiefs and district police heads. Sanjeevan said that never in the history of the police force has a liaison officer held such a high rank of DCP, which is even higher ranked than the prime minister's aide-de-camp who is only ranked an Assistant Commissioner of Police [ACP]. The home minister's current liaison officer is identified as DCP Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Mohamad. "MyWatch urges the home minister to explain why does he need a PDRM liaison officer in his office with the rank of DCP which is equivalent to state CPO position when all the while it was only a Superintendent [Supt] position." Sanjeevan claimed that this "clearly shows that home minister is indeed meddling into PDRM matters without relaying orders directly to the IGP himself". "Since the officer advises the home minister, then I think the IGP would have to listen to him as well, right?" he added. "MyWatch strongly believes that the home minister is having a DCP as PDRM liaison officer… is only because he can give instructions and orders directly to CPOs [state police chiefs], OCCI [state CID chiefs], and OCPD [district police chief]. This is also another form of waste of police resources and shows non-productivity," he said in a press statement.
Sanjeevan also lamented that complaints to Hishammuddin sent to his Twitter account @HishammuddinH2O were only simply forwarded to Wan Ahmad Najmuddin's account @tok_we, which he claimed was a "dormant account" that was hardly used. Transferred for refusing to follow instructions A police source said that the previous officer, ranked Supt, was apparently transferred out when he refused to follow instructions from the home minister. Najmuddin, according to the source, was promoted very fast when he replaced his predecessor. Previously, MyWatch or The Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force, had claimed that it has in its possession evidence that top police officers were involved in criminal activities, including officers that were involved in money laundering, illegal gambling, prostitution, football bookies and have direct links with underworld figures and kingpins.
| ||||||
| Sabah DAP will bury hatchet with SAPP if… Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:49 PM PST
Sabah DAP totally agrees with Anwar's comment that each party should not demand too much during seat negotiations. Queville To, FMT KOTA KINABALU: Sabah DAP has urged Sabah opposition parties, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) in particular, to respect Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim's advise to stop attacking each other in the midst of seat negotiation efforts. "Sabah DAP could not agree more with the advise of Anwar, that it is a matter of principle that all parties must not attack in the midst of negotiations. Therefore, we respect the call by Anwar to stop the spat between DAP and SAPP," said its publicity secretary Chan Foong Hin. But Chan, while advising SAPP to respect Anwar's advise and to stop attacking DAP, did not let up on his criticism of the Sabah opposition party. "It is most regrettable that if SAPP continues to repeat their allegations towards DAP such as that we are 'prepared to form the government with Umno', 'attempts to sabotage the PR – SAPP negotiations' etc. It is high time also for SAPP cyber troopers to stop their labelling DAP Sabah as "biaDAP" and "Malayan Party". The first rule of seat negotiations is respecting each other. "Let us all go back to the negotiation table. Sabah DAP respects Anwar's advise to stop the spat between us and SAPP. This statement is the concluding remarks of all the unhappiness and uneasiness created by the spat in the year of 2012. We look forward for a better year of 2013, when all the oppositions can stay united to work for a change of government by upholding the principle of equality and respect to each other. Any party attempt(ing) to dominate the seats is beyond compromised," he said. He maintained that SAPP's demand for half of the state seats is the root cause of "little progress" achieved in the seat negotiations among the opposition parties. Chan demanded SAPP put aside all their political rhetoric such as "state party must control half of the state seats in order to uphold state autonomy" if they really want to continue with seat negotiations to achieve the ultimate goal of 'one to one fight' between the opposition and the Barisan Nasional. He was responding to Anwar's recent statement that "little progress had been made" in the Pakatan-SAPP seat negotiations. "Anwar's statement totally contradicted SAPP's statement the day before, which said that Pakatan- SAPP negotiations were almost completed," he said. "Furthermore, it is evident that Pakatan never agreed with the suggestion by SAPP that "local parties contest the majority of the state seats while Pakatan focuses on parliamentary seats," Chan noted. Nonetheless, he stressed that Sabah DAP totally agrees with Anwar's comment that each party should not demand too much during seat negotiations. Chan said such comment was in line with Sabah DAP's principle of equality adopted in seat negotiations, that no single party should be bigger than anyone.
| ||||||
| Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:43 PM PST
Can you respect my different political faith and beliefs the same way you respect my different religious faith and beliefs, asks Raja Petra. Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable. Raja Petra Kamarudin, Free Malaysia Today How many of you can claim to be believing what you believe in out of choice? Were you once a Christian from the west who visited India and then fell in love with Hinduism? Or were you once a Buddhist who studied Islam and then decided that Islam is the true religion after all (and you did not convert because you wanted to marry a Muslim spouse)? The majority of you believe what you believe because you happened to have been born into that belief system and were raised within that belief system and received an education, or rather an indoctrination, regarding that belief system. There is a more than a 99% chance that if you had not been not been born a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, today you would not be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. As they say, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives. You were not given any choice as to which family you would like to be born into. And with that lack of choice as to which family you are to be born into, you also have no choice as to what religion you will be following. Your family and environment shape your beliefs and you grow up adopting a certain belief system, which you invariably accept as the correct belief system. Then someone comes along and tells you that you are wrong. You have been misled or misinformed and are a victim of conjecture, superstition, fallacies, and folklore. What you had believed your entire life is false. What you presumed as the truth is not the truth. Truth can be tested and would pass the test. Your beliefs are not founded on truth and therefore cannot pass the truth test. And this contradiction will upset you. Someone is telling you that you are wrong and this makes you angry. It makes you angry because you are not able to rebut this. You are not able to offer any evidence that what this person is telling you is wrong. And you are also not able to offer any evidence to prove that you are right. The truth test Beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, are called faiths — religious faith. The reason they are called religious faiths is because you need to believe based on faith, not based on evidence. Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable. Can I use this same basis of 'evidence' in a court of law? Can I sit in the witness box in court and testify that I have faith and hence this faith will be my evidence to support my testimony? The court can never accept my faith as evidence. Evidence has to be tangible. And tangible evidence must be in the form of documentary evidence or the testimony of an eyewitness. Even if I were to adduce documentary evidence or quote the testimony of an eyewitness that is not acceptable. I must be the producer or maker of that document. If I am not, then that document will be rejected. The maker himself or herself needs to go to court to testify that he or she is actually the maker of the document. Only then will the document be admitted as evidence. The same applies to an eyewitness testimony. If I were to relate an incident or the testimony of someone else, that would be mere hearsay. That too is not admissible in court. The eyewitness who told me about the incident or made that statement must personally go to court to testify that he or she saw what happened or heard what was said. That would be the rules of evidence and the court is very clear on this. You must have been personally there and you are relating what you saw or else the court cannot accept what you say. Either you personally created that document or else that document cannot be admitted into evidence. Religion does not work on this basis. Religion is all about hearsay and third party or hand-me-down evidence. And yet while we will reject such standards of 'evidence' in a court of law, we can readily accept it when it comes to religion. And we build our belief system around these so-called standards, which under normal circumstances would be unacceptable. And based on this system of belief, we will pass judgment and make decisions that affect the life of people.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan