Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Always consistently inconsistent
Now can you see the light?
No, it is not over yet
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat
The mark of a mature leadership
You must only be seen, not heard
There is change and there is change
Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM?
The excitement of the chase
Sending mixed signals

Posted: 07 Dec 2012 05:10 PM PST

But why is no one talking about this? Is it true that the MAS multi-billion scandal is linked to the RM30 billion Forex losses? And why say that the RM30 billion Forex losses is an old issue? Yes, it is 20 years old. I agree. But are not the Sabah and Tanjung Kupang air crashes and the Jalil Ibrahim murder even older than that? Yet you want me to talk about those issues, which are even older than the RM30 billion Forex losses episode. And the MAS issue is still current. It is not an old issue.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some readers who have demanded to know why I have not written about this issue or that issue. They have even mentioned some of the issues I should be writing about such as the Sabah air crash, the Tanjung Kupang air crash, the Jalil Ibrahim murder in Hong Kong, and so on.

Why do they want me to write about issues of days gone by? And why pick on these issues in particular?

The answer is simple. These issues would be extremely unfavourable to those who walk in the corridors of power. Hence, anything that is unfavourable to those who walk in the corridors of power would be favourable to those in the opposition who aspire to be the ones to walk in the corridors of power.

If I were to write about those issues, would this see justice for the victims of the air crashes or for the family of Jalil Ibrahim? Is there anything new I can write about, which you do not yet know, or will I merely be rehashing the same old story, which everyone already knows about anyway?

In short, what do you hope to achieve by me writing about this 'old story' other than to embarrass certain people who may have been involved in those incidences, assuming some of these people are still alive?

There is a question of motive here. You are the very same people who always question motive. When Deepak Jaikishan makes his revelation you question his motive. Why now? What is his motive? When ex-IGP Musa Hassan makes his revelation you question his motive. Why now? What is his motive?

Motive appears to be at the top of your list of ten questions. Should that not also be what we ask you? Why now? What is your motive in asking me to write about this, that or the other?

When I do write about something that happened in the past and by coincidence it involved someone who was then in the government but now in the opposition, you lament that that is an old story. You do not want to read about an old story. You want to read about something new.

So, when do you want to read about an old story and when do you not wish to read about an old story? You demand that I write about an old story. And when I do write about an old story this angers you and you pose questions like 'why now?' and 'what is your motive?' and so on.

You may not have noticed this, because it takes an intelligent mind to be able to notice it, but I normally write about something that no one talks about. And when every man and his dog start talking or writing about that issue, I lay off the issue. I do not jump onto the bandwagon and scream the same thing that others are screaming.

How many of you had even heard the name Deepak Jaikishan until Malaysia Today revealed that name and identified who he is in relation to the 'First Family'. Now he is a 'household' name so I do not need to talk about him any longer. Today, people the length and breadth of Malaysia, are talking about him.

How many of you had heard about Birkin handbags until Malaysia Today revealed that the First Lady has a collection of those bags in all the different colours? Many people did not even know about the existence of Birkin and I bet many of you till today have not even seen one 'in the flesh' other than the photographs that Malaysia Today published.

Today, you know about ex-IGP Musa Hassan's links with BK Tan and 'Tengku' Goh, the underworld bosses. Had you ever heard of BK Tan and 'Tengku' Goh before this? And Malaysia Today did not just make a wild allegation of these links, we published eight Statutory Declarations, two by underworld figures, one by the IGP's ADC, and five more by serving (not retired) police officers confirming what Malaysia Today alleged.

So, yes, today, everyone is discussing these issues. But you are able to discuss these issues only because Malaysia Today exposed these issues. If not you would never have known about these issues.

And that was the reason why Malaysia Today revealed these issues. We wanted you to know about these stories. We wanted you to talk about the matter. And now that you know, and now that you are talking about them, our job is done. We can then sit back and allow you to talk about the matter and then come to your own conclusion as to what you should be doing about it.

Most of the issues being discussed today came from Malaysia Today. I admit that the NFC issue is not ours. That was one expose that we missed so we do sometimes miss one or two. But missing one or two out of 20 or 30 is not too bad a track record, though.

But what about the many other issues that we raised which no one seems to be talking about? For example, we revealed that the MAS multi-billion fiasco is linked to the RM30 billion foreign exchange losses of 20 years ago. And we published Tajudin Ramli's Affidavit that he filed in court as evidence to support our allegation.

Tajudin Ramli filed an Affidavit in court. If he lied in that Affidavit he can be sent to jail. Hence, until and unless the court can prove that he lied (which they did not) then we have to assume that what he said in that Affidavit is the truth.

Since then, MAS has settled its case with Tajudin Ramli 'out of court'. This gives an impression that Tajudin Ramli's case is strong and that MAS realises it may not win. Or maybe MAS is worried that if it proceeds with this case then the truth about what Tajudin Ramli said in his Affidavit might surface. Hence better they 'kill' this case and allow it to go no further.

I have not written anything in this column for the last ten days or so. I thought I would sit back and monitor your comments below the news items and articles written by others, which I published in Malaysia Today. And one thing that is very clear is: you regard anything that is not right with this country as Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's fault. He is to be blamed and he must be accountable for all the ills facing the country.

In other words, the buck stops at the top man's table.

I can buy that. After all, someone has to take responsibility when something goes wrong. And the person who should take that responsibility must be the top man.

But then who should take responsibility when something goes wrong on the other side? The Selangor, Penang, Kelantan and Kedah State Governments have come out with certain policies and have done certain things that have upset the people. Who must take responsibility for this?

When something goes wrong under the Barisan Nasional administration, whether at federal or state level, the Prime Minister must take the blame. But when something goes wrong under the Pakatan Rakyat administration, the Opposition Leader cum Prime Minister-in-Waiting is not to be blamed.

When the Local Council demolishes Hindu temples, Dr Xavier screams sabotage. It is not Pakatan Rakyat's fault. It is not the Advisor to the Selangor State Government cum Opposition Leader's fault. It is sabotage.

What about the confiscation of beer at the 7-Eleven? Is this also sabotage? What about the ruling regarding the segregation of males and females in the cinema? Is this also sabotage?

If all this happened in a Barisan Nasional run state then Najib must take the blame and Najib must resign because of it. But when it happens in the Pakatan Rakyat run states who should take the blame and who should resign?

Today, Selena Tay wrote an article in Free Malaysia Today called Political blockbuster: Dragon vs Dinosaur. In that article, she compared Malaysia's economic growth during the time when Anwar Ibrahim was the Finance Minister from 1992 to 1997 to the time when Najib is Prime Minister from 2009 to 2011.

Basically, what Selena says is that Malaysia performed better when Anwar was the Finance Minister compared to when Najib is Prime Minister. Note, and I repeat, the analysis that Selena did compares Anwar as Finance Minister to Najib as Prime Minister.

Now, when Anwar was Finance Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the Prime Minister. So, should not Dr Mahathir be credited for the good performance instead of Anwar Ibrahim?

Okay, let us assume that Dr Mahathir had no hand in this. Let us assume that it was the Finance Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, who should be credited for this good performance. However, during that same period, 1992 to 1994, Malaysia also lost RM30 billion 'playing' the Forex market.

So, who is to be blamed for this? Since the good economic performance of the country during the period when Anwar was the Finance Minister must be credited to Anwar, should not Anwar, therefore, also take the blame for whatever bad that happened?

In this case, no! The RM30 billion Forex losses are Dr Mahathir's fault. Dr Mahathir was the Prime Minister so he must take all the blame -- just like Najib, the present Prime Minister, must take all the blame for whatever happens to Malaysia today.

Who, therefore, is at fault here? Najib is both Finance Minister and Prime Minister. When something bad happens to Malaysia we blame Najib. But do we blame him because he is the Prime Minister or because he is the Finance Minister?

If we blame Najib because he is the Prime Minister and hence the Prime Minister must take all the blame -- and hence take all the credit as well -- should not Selena credit Dr Mahathir rather than Anwar for Malaysia's good economic performance from 1992 to 1997?

Assuming Selena feels that the Finance Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, and not the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, should be credited for Malaysia's good economic performance from 1992 to 1997, then why is Dr Mahathir and not Anwar being blamed for the RM30 billion Forex losses during that same period?

We need to be clear as to who we put the blame on -- or give credit to -- for what happens in Malaysia. On the one hand we say that the blame must go all the way to the top. On the other hand we say that the buck stops at the bottom and the top is not to be blamed. Why do we change the rules as and when it suits us?

Now can you see the light?

Posted: 28 Nov 2012 05:55 PM PST

No, I am not going to write about this matter. I just want you to read what the news portals reported (below) and for you to form your own opinion and come to your own conclusion. What I want you to take special note about, though, is to compare what was reported below to what I have been saying for more than five years since early 2007.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

'Criminal elements present in police, politics'

(FMT) - Criminal elements have infiltrated the police force and even politics, the former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan suggested when he kick-started a new anti-crime NGO, MyWatch. "Looking at the present situation, where there is a lot of illegal activities, do you think there is no links? You can answer yourself," he told a press conference where he was named patron and advisor to MyWatch yesterday.

He revealed that there are cases where the links are too high up and "nobody dares talk about it". He cited a case of a high-ranking police officer he did not name who was brought overseas for golfing by a "shady businessman".

"Sometimes I feel they can even dictate officers, sometimes even spend [money] on police officers," he said. "It is very bad now. Later on the Mafia will be ruling this country, we don't want that to happen, it took 30 years to clean up the Mafia in America," he said.

Musa himself has been accused of such links, especially in the case of Johor kingpin Goh Cheng Poh a.k.a. 'Tengku' Goh but has repeatedly dismissed the claims as attempts to bring him down. "During my time, there was a professional way of doing things if we needed to get close to underworld characters. That is undercover work. When I was in narcotics, my relationship would be to purely gather evidence. There must be a line drawn," he explained.

Musa named Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and his deputy as the people who would usually try to give instructions to the force, and that this bad trend was still occurring. "During my time whenever I arrested some crooks, there will be phone calls from top people. They even ask us to release. I will ask for an instruction in black and white," he said, adding that the politicians would usually back off after being asked for a written order.

He also said that aside from ministers and deputy ministers, there were also "others" who attempt to give orders to the police, including opposition politicians.

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

'Bala's U-turn foiled Anwar-Umno's Altantuya expose'

(Malaysiakini) - Because there was a concentrated effort. There were two factions here - you had Bala sitting down with (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) and you had another faction (in Umno) that didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power.

They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this and both had the power to do so. Hence the absolute concern.

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

Deepak to reveal more dirt from under the carpet

(FMT) - "The SD was not just about the opposition. There was a concentrated effort of two factions here. You had Bala sitting down with Anwar and you had another faction who didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power. They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this. Both had the power to do this," he said, adding that the other side came from Umno itself.

He said that the side that wanted to push for the second SD and overturn the original SD was the one that protected or ensured that Najib became prime minister. "I got involved in the second SD to protect the interest of Najib. There is no other logical reason, is there?" he said.

No, it is not over yet

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 10:06 PM PST

AG Gani Patail has seen Rosli's witness statement and he is worried. It is explosive. It tells the real story behind why they brutally arrested and charged him one day before Hari Raya in 2007. Why else would AG Gani Patail ask the Judge, Hue Siew Kheng, to not allow Rosli to give his witness testimony if Gani was not afraid of Rosli's tell-all evidence? Gani is afraid. That is very clear.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why is the Attorney General so afraid of allowing lawyer Rosli Dahlan have his say in court? Well, maybe the previous reports on the issue can enlighten you as to why.

Ahah! Did we not say so?

According to Tajudin Ramli: "At all material times, I was acting as a nominee and agent of the Government and in the performance of a public duty and I was bound to act under the instructions and directions from the government."

Malaysia Today, 12 August 2011 (READ MORE HERE)

10th episode: Now let's see how else MAS was plundered

Since 15th August 2010, Malaysia Today published nine reports on how Tajudin Ramli plundered MAS and reduced this airline company from a surplus of more than RM600 million to a deficit in excess of RM8 billion. Malaysia Today also showed documents to not only prove this but also to prove that there was collusion between the AG Chambers, MACC and PRDM to sweep this entire episode under the carpet. But that is not the whole story. Today, we are going to show you how else MAS was plundered.

Malaysia Today, 27 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The police and AG Chambers colluded to cover up the fraud in MAS

On 20th May 2009, Shahari Sulaiman, the Managing Director of MASKargo, lodged a report with the MACC alleging, amongst others, that when Tajuddin Ramli took over MAS it had more than RM600 million in cash reserves and when he left seven years later the national airline company had accumulated losses of more than RM8 billion. He also gives details of Tajuddin's various fraudulent dealings plus he raises allegations of collusion between the Malaysian police (PDRM) and the AG Chambers.

Malaysia Today, 23 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The web of deceit

Datuk Ramli Yusuff, the head of the CCID, managed to untangle the web of deceit and presented to the prime minister the corporate and organisation chart of Tajuddin Ramli's holdings and cross-holdings plus that of his family, his cronies and his mistress, Wan Aishah Wan Hamid. The prime minister decided to do nothing. Was this because his own family would also be implicated if the shit were to hit the fan?

Malaysia Today, 22 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

How the RM9 billion 'hole' was left to the taxpayers

In seven years, Tajuddin Ramli turned a profitable airline company that had more than half a billion ringgit in cash reserves into a company that was RM8 billion in deficit. In March 2007, the head of the CCID, Ramli Yusuff, wrote to the Prime Minister, going into great detail about what happened. But it was Ramli and not Tajuddin who was dragged before the courts on various fabricated charges -- where he was acquitted without his defence being called.

Malaysia Today, 21 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Tajuddin Ramli enters into a contract with himself

In May 2005, Dato' Ong Jyh Jong, the Senior General Manager Cargo of MAS, made a police report (12532/05) at the Dang Wangi Police Station alleging that Tajuddin Ramli entered into many fraudulent contracts. The police report was made on the instructions of MAS's Board of Directors. One such contract involves Advanced Cargo Logistics of Germany, which is a company owned by Tajuddin himself.

Malaysia Today, 20 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Eight years and still counting

On 4th January 2002, Mohamadon Abdullah, the Senior General Manager Corporate Services of MAS made a police report (number 347/02) at the Dang Wangi Police Station about a crime committed in 2000. That was eight years ago and the crime was committed ten years ago -- but then who's counting? Even the MACC has stopped counting.

Malaysia Today, 19 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MACC says thanks but no thanks

On 6th July 2010, the lawyers for Malaysian Airlines (MAS) wrote to the MACC. A copy of that letter was also sent to the MACC Chief. On 22nd July 2010, the MACC replied that since two police reports about the same matter had already been made (back in 2002 and 2004), then the MACC will not get involved and will let the police investigate the matter instead. This means the MACC is 'washing its hands' over the matter.

Malaysia Today, 18 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MACC Chief can't plead ignorance

Thus far we have come out with two reports on the MAS scandal. Just in case the MACC Chief tries to plead ignorance, we are going to show you a copy of the letter that he received from the lawyers acting on behalf of MAS. This letter was smuggled out of the MACC office. You can see the 'pointing finger' stamp plus the acknowledged receipt chop and signature.

Malaysia Today, 17 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MAS scandal: what the MACC swept under the carpet and marked NFA

On 20th May 2009, Malaysian Airlines (MAS) wrote to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and lodged a report (no. 119/2009) with regards to an act of corruption by its previous Executive Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, which MAS asked the MACC to investigate. The MACC report also refers to two previous police reports made on 4th January 2002 and 4th May 2004.

Malaysia Today, 16 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Abu Kassim Mohamed, are you now going to resign?

On Saturday, 31st July 2010, the MACC Chief, Abu Kassim Mohamed, pledged to resign if any graft reports were not investigated by his agency. Tomorrow, Malaysia Today is going to reveal reports, letters and documents of one such corruption case that has been swept under the carpet. Malaysia Today's question to Abu Kassim is: will you now resign?

Malaysia Today, 15 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Long before Dato' Ramli Yusuff, the former Director of the CCID, and his lawyer, Rosli Dahlan, got into trouble with the authorities in 2007, Malaysia Today had already revealed the connection between the then IGP, Musa Hassan, and the loan shark (a.k.a. ahlong) syndicate of Goh Cheng Poh @ 'Tengku' Goh.

Malaysia Today had warned Rosli to distance himself from Dato' Ramli and the then Home Minister, Johari Baharom. However, Rosli not only did not listen, he even volunteered to act for Dato' Ramli as the latter's lawyer when the IGP tried to fix him (Dato' Ramli) up on fabricated corruption, abuse of power, and failure to declare assets charges.

Malaysia Today had known all along that IGP Musa Hassan is the underworld boss who was giving protection to the BK Tan/Tengku Goh crime syndicate. That was why AG Gani Patail refused to prepare the CCID's affidavits and subsequently released 'Tengku' Goh on what was rumoured for a payment of a few million Ringgit. (Later they tried to pin a RM5.5 million bribe charge on Johari Baharom on the allegation that he had released a few underworld bosses).

Other than his 'crime' of acting as a lawyer for Dato' Ramli, the IGP's sworn enemy, Rosli was representing MAS in its suit against Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli, the airline's ex-Chairman who had plundered the company to the tune of billions. It was actually a national project to enrich certain people who walked in the corridors of power -- a sort of 'backdoor' Malay Affirmative Action Plan but only for the Umnoputeras.

That was the reason why no action was taken against Tajudin and also why last year Nazri Aziz publicly announced that the Government will make an out-of-court settlement with Tajudin. And that, too, was was why AG Gani Patail plus his wife and son were 'hosted' for a Hajj trip with Tajudin's proxy, Shahidan Shafie, the former Officer-in-Charge of Secret Societies in Johor -- BK Tan's and 'Tengku' Goh's home state -- who was charged for corruption in 1990.

Because of his recalcitrancy, on 11 October 2007, Rosli was brutally arrested in his office by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) -- now called the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) -- in full view of his staff. He was then locked up overnight like an animal in the MACC underground cell and then, the following day, was paraded through the Jalan Duta Court corridors to face a trumped-up charge of 'not replying to ACA's letter' (although he did reply to that letter).

However, Rosli was acquitted of this frivolous charge in 2011 and the AG, who had initially wanted to appeal the acquittal, made a last minute withdrawal of the appeal application.

Rosli then launched a RM50 million law suit for criminal conspiracy, wrongful arrest, assault and defamation against the most powerful Umno-owned newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, the MACC, the Government and various MACC officers.

The AG Chambers, however, is blocking Rosli from being allowed to take the witness stand and tell his side of the story (see the Malaysiakini report below).

So the predictable thing would happen. They will tire Rosli down, make him spend astronomical legal costs, drag the case, make technical objections to delay the case, as they are doing now, and, after all that, they will still not allow Rosli to take the witness stand and tell his story. And Malaysians will never know what Rosli was going to say in court.

But no worries. If that happens on 28 December 2012, Malaysia Today will fill in the gaps for you. You see, the Malaysian Courts now has a new e-filing system. What most people do not realise is that this e-filing system is created by friends of Malaysia Today. As documents are filed in court using this e-filing system, they are routed to Malaysia Today's secret server.

So, if what Malaysia Today says is going to happen and they do block Rosli from telling his story, we will post all the evidence regarding this case. Malaysians will then understand what a screwed-up country Malaysia is. Did I not say that Malaysia Today has eyes and ears in Bukit Aman, the AG's Chambers and the judiciary? If not, how we would know who is bonking whom in the AG's Chambers and how the boardroom has been turned into a bedroom?

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

AG moves to silence Rosli on roles of Gani, Musa

(Malaysiakini) - In a bid to silence lawyer Rosli Dahlan, the Attorney-General's Chambers today objected to him giving evidence on matters pertaining to the 'Copgate affair' involving attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan.

Rosli applied to Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Hue Siew Kheng, in chambers, to allow him to read his witness statement in open court, which the judge allowed.

However, Rosli's lawyer Chethan Jethwani said, senior federal counsel Azizan Md Arshad, representing the officers from the (then) Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the government, objected to certain portions of Rosli's testimony.

Following this, Justice Hue fixed Dec 28 to hear submissions on the matter and ordered Azizan to file a formal application to expunge those portions before the application is heard on that day. The judge also fixed Jan 25 for to hear Rosli's testimony.

Azizan argued that third parties were named in the statement of the witness, which was why the AG's Chambers was objecting.

It is learnt that the objection arose because Rosli's testimony would touch on the role of Musa and Gani in Rosli's charge of not complying with the ACA's procedures to declare his assets, before the sessions court in 2007, on which he was acquitted without his defence called.

Rosli, 51, had named several officers in the ACA, the precursor to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, including present chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed and deputy head of prosecution Anthony Kevin Morais, as defendants in his RM50 million defamation suit.

He had also named Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia and its senior editor Mohd Zaini Hassan.

The lawyer, who had represented former Commercial Crime Investigations Department director Ramli Yusuff, in is seeking damages over defamatory statements made, the injury to his reputation, assault and false imprisonment.

Ramli, who was later charged by the ACA, was also acquitted of the five charges against him and the decision was further upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, Justice Hue had called on the parties to try and settle the case and to take into account the decisions made by the other courts.

'Arrest of Goh an act of disloyalty'

Rosli in his writ described the acrimonious relationship between Ramli and Musa and how the IGP had used the ACA and the AG's Chambers to implicate him and Ramli following the arrest of an underworld kingpin, Goh Cheng Poh or 'Tengku Goh'.

Rosli said he acted for Ramli and the then deputy home minister Johari Baharom against Goh's habeas corpus application in 2007, after the AG's Chambers refused to draw up their affidavits.

He said Musa saw the arrest of Goh as disloyalty on the part of Ramli, resulting in the IGP initiating further ACA investigations against Ramli. This resulted in a strained relationship between Musa and Ramli and Johari.

Rosli further claimed that he earned the wrath of Musa and the attorney-general when he drew up the affidavits for Ramli and Johari, and this led to the ACA investigations against him and his subsequent arrest.

He said an ACA officer kicked his leg, twisted his arms and handcuffed him tightly, resulting in lacerations and swelling of his wrists.

He gave his statement at the ACA headquarters, but was held overnight and taken to court and charged on the eve of Hari Raya, on Oct 27, 2007. These were malicious actions out to tarnish his image, he added in his writ.

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 04:02 PM PST

First of all, I don't think that the next general election is going to be held in December this year. It would most likely be around February-March next year. And the timing of the general election would all depend on whether Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is able to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are four very interesting news reports that I would like to comment on today. (Maybe you can read those four news reports below before you read what I am going to say).

Assuming Najib fails to perform his magic trick and things more or less remain the same, then this is what I forecast we may see.

Umno will sail through with about 70-75 parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia. MCA will not win more than ten seats. MIC, Gerakan and PPP will get wiped out. Barisan Nasional Sabah and Sarawak will pull through with 30-35 seats while 20-25 seats will go to Pakatan Rakyat plus some 'independent' parties.

This would mean Pakatan Rakyat could win 100-110 parliament seats while Barisan Nasional would win 110-120 seats.

If Pakatan Rakyat wins 110 parliament seats this will mean Malaysia will see a hung parliament with Barisan Nasional winning only 112 seats. Then about 5-10 Barisan Nasional MPs will cross over to help Pakatan Rakyat form the new federal government. And the majority of these crossovers will be from East Malaysia.

However, it can also work the other way. In the event of a hung parliament, 5-10 MPs from Pakatan Rakyat can cross over to Barisan Nasional to help Barisan Nasional increase its majority in Parliament.

Hence both sides need to be very careful in their choice of candidates because 'negotiations' are ongoing by both sides of the political divide for potential crossover candidates.

Kelantan, Penang and Selangor are safe states for Pakatan Rakyat. Sabah, Sarawak, Perlis, Terengganu, Pahang and Johor are safe states for Barisan Nasional. Kedah, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka can go either way. For the 13 Federal Territory seats, five can go to Barisan Nasional and eight to Pakatan Rakyat.

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

Najib: GE could be in Dec, or next year

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said the 13th general election can be held in December, even though the country will be facing the monsoon at that time.

He was confident that despite the monsoon season, the machinery of the political parties contesting in the election could face any eventuality.

"If it rains or a flood occurs, (then we) can use the boat," he said in jest when asked whether the GE would be held in the near future or Parliament would dissolve on its own on the expiry of the current mandate.

He said this in an interview with editors of Bernama and Utusan Group in conjunction with the Umno General Assembly 2012 at his office in Parliament House, recently.

Najib, who is also Umno president, however, did not rule out the possibility that the election would be held next year if it is not held next month.

"If there is no election in December, then it will be held next year," he said.

Najib has up to April 28 next year to dissolve Parliament to make way for the 13th general election before the Parliament dissolves on its own, and the Election Commission is compelled to set a date for the general election within two months of the dissolution of Parliament.

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

Dr M: Barisan can retain power with two-thirds majority

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has predicted that Barisan Nasional will keep Putrajaya and that regaining a two-thirds majority in Parliament is not an impossible target.

He said Kedah, Selangor and Penang were winnable on condition that Umno did not indulge in the politics of sabotage and members supported the selected candidates.

Dr Mahathir has been driving home the "no sabotage" message at a string of meetings he has had with Umno leaders and groups from all over the country.

He also made it crystal clear that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has his unreserved support, slamming pro-Pakatan Rakyat news portals which keep claiming that he wanted Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to take over.

"That is their propaganda. Have they ever heard me promoting Muhyiddin? During Pak Lah's time, yes, I did try to promote Muhyiddin. But Muhyiddin told me he is fully behind Najib and would not go against Najib. They are harping on this because they want to make Umno weak.

"I have spoken to Umno all over the country. I told them they have to support Najib to win the election," he said.

"Najib has done a lot of good, maybe there are things which could be improved but we can tackle that after the general election."

He was confident that Johor and Negri Sembilan would stay with Barisan despite the Opposition's ambitions in these two states.

He said that although Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was so powerful that he was known as tokong (deity), there were people who were not happy with him.

Dr Mahathir also said it was time Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat kept his promise to retire.

"He promised to step down when I stepped down. These people never keep their word. They are supposed to be religious people but religious people who don't keep their word are not very religious," he added.

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

Professor: Barisan can win 120 seats if polls are held now

(The Star) - Barisan Nasional can win 120 seats if the general election were to be held now, said National Council of Professors deputy chairman Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin.

However, he told Sinar Harian that 24 seats were still considered "grey areas" while Pakatan was expected to win 70.

He predicted that Barisan would still be able to form the Federal Government in spite of a comparatively slimmer majority than in 2008.

"They will win no fewer than 120 seats. Now, Barisan has 140 seats, 24 are "grey areas" while the remaining are taken up by Pakatan Rakyat. Overall, the majority is narrow," he said in a pre-Umno annual general assembly interview.

Currently, Barisan has 137 seats in Parliament while Pakatan holds 72. Seven seats are held by independents, PSM has one while SAPP has two.

Dr Shamsul Amri said his prediction was based on research conducted in September by his team.

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

BN confident of recapturing Selangor

(Bernama) -- Barisan Nasional (BN) is confident of re-capturing Selangor from the opposition pact in the 13th general election, said Selangor BN Coordinator Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed today.

"The momentum is with us now. Based on the response and support shown by the Selangor people the advantage is on our side.

"Therefore, we should build up the momentum and not do anything that can weaken it," he said when opening the Selangor People's Progressive Party Convention at SJK (C) Yuk Chyun, Jalan Klang Lama near here.

Towards this end, he said, members of all BN component parties should move in one group and made decisions collectively so that BN would remain strong.

He also told members of BN component parties in Selangor to unite and not to sabotage one another or the parties in BN.

The mark of a mature leadership

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

And unless Malaysian politicians are able to make statements that can prove to us that they know what Malaysians need, then it really does not matter whom you vote for. At the end of the day, whether women are or are not allowed to cut men's hair, your life is not going to be any better other than you will not suffer the indignation of a Bad Hair Day.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

While our top political leaders in Malaysia -- from both sides of the political divide -- talk about whether Muslims should be allowed to leave Islam, whether the Prime Minister should be from PAS or PKR, whether women barbers should be allowed to cut men's hair, and all those other issues that are not going to change our life one bit anyway, the top leaders in the UK are discussing issues more important to the British man-on-the-street.

Read the letter below, which I received from my party leader, Nick Clegg.

Yes, I know, I may be too idealistic and should not expect the same level of maturity from Malaysian leaders. Maybe I have been living in the UK too long (actually it has been only less than four years since March 2009) and have lost touch with what is happening in Malaysia. Maybe I am getting old and senile now that I am 62 years old.

Whatever it may be, there are certain things we need in life and we should make it known to the aspirants in the coming general election that these are what we are looking for.

No, this article is not about whom you should vote for. Voting is the right of every Malaysian who has come of age. So vote whosoever you want to vote for, be it Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. Just make sure you do come out to vote. I suspect, however, only 50% or so of eligible voters will be voting in the coming general election. And more than half of these 50% are not even registered to vote.

Nevertheless, whether you do or do not vote and regardless of whom you vote for, Malaysians must be assured of three basic things -- a roof over our heads, a good education, and good healthcare.

Of course, there are many other things we need as well. We need an assurance of our safety and security, a job so that we can put food on the table and clothes on our backs, and so on -- all basic needs for humankind and to ensure that we can not only live but also can enjoy a certain quality of life as well.

Is there corruption and abuse of power in the UK? Of course there is. Even as you read this more cases of abuse of power are being dug up all over the UK. When we talk about corruption and abuse of power, the UK and Malaysia are no different. We even have racism here in the UK, though not 'institutionalised racism' like in Malaysia.

The only difference between the UK and Malaysia is that in the UK the press is allowed to korek as deep as they want all these cases of corruption and abuse of power. And once they are exposed, all hell will break loose. In Malaysia…well, need I say more?

I don't blame the politicians. I don't blame those in power. I blame the voters who do not know what they should be asking for and what (not who) they should be voting for.

As what Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan of Bersih said last week. She is not concerned whether you vote for Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. She is just concerned that the general elections are clean and fair.

I can also say the same thing as what Ambiga said. I am not concerned whether you vote for Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. I am just concerned whether Malaysia can offer Malaysians a decent quality of life.

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

Dear Petra,

I'm writing this as we come to the end of an incredibly hectic week in politics.

The negotiations over the budget in Europe, securing of a much needed ceasefire in Gaza, rising speculation about the upcoming Leveson report, and Ed Davey's important announcement of a landmark coalition deal on low carbon energy that will deliver billions of pounds of investment in clean technology and create thousands of jobs.

But in this letter I want to focus on an issue that wasn't so high on the radar screen, but matters enormously to me: housing. I gave a speech to the National House Building Council (the people who issue guarantees for new homes) on Thursday, which brought the numbers into focus for me and made me determined to step up our efforts.

As a country, we have built too few homes for far too long - and the economic and social consequences are massive. Prices out of reach of too many young families. Our economy vulnerable to boom and bust in the housing market. The housing benefit bill spiralling. Homelessness and overcrowding.

All these problems are solvable but only if we think big.

We've been talking about housing in the coalition for well over two years. At every budget and autumn statement we've brought forward new measures. We've reduced red tape and regulation for house builders. We've supported mortgage lending with products to help first time buyers. We're backing housing associations with £10 billion of treasury guarantees.

And yet it isn't enough. This year we will probably build just 110,000 homes. If that sounds like a lot to you let me put you straight: it's one of the worst years since the Second World War. When you realise that the population grew by about 270,000 households it's clear it's nowhere near enough.

No wonder prices are out of reach for so many families. The average first time buyer is now 35, and home ownership is falling for the first time in a generation.

The only way out of this crisis is to build our way out.

This week I announced funding of £225 million to kickstart development at eight sites, each with plans for over 5,000 new homes. But I want to think bigger - much bigger. We can't go on building a home here and a home there and hoping it's enough.

I want us to go back to some of Britain's proud heritage of urban development and build a new generation of "garden cities" - places that will grow, thrive and become part of the fabric of the nation.

Of course, development is always controversial. It's right to protect our precious rural landscape and not let England be concreted over. But the point I've been making in government (and there have been some lively debates) is that planning big new settlements is the best way to protect our countryside because the alternative is endless urban sprawl.

Instead of eating away at the green belt, we can build big and even designate new green belt around new towns and cities. I think that's why even the Telegraph was supportive of the plans I outlined this week (READ HERE).

We could easily build new garden cities totalling a million new homes in the next ten years without building on any green belt, National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And by doing it we could deliver homes people can afford in places they want to live.

We can't do this overnight. Scale and ambition take time. But I believe if we put aside partisan politics and think collectively about the housing needs of the next generation, we could set Britain on track for a major wave of new development, new jobs, and new hope.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg

You must only be seen, not heard

Posted: 21 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

Take the recent freedom of religion and apostasy issue as another example. Everyone has something to say about that, mostly the non-Malays and non-Muslims. You hide behind freedom of speech to attack Islam. You, the non-Malays and non-Muslims, demand that Malays-Muslims be allowed the right to leave Islam. You say that Islam is an outdated religion from the Dark Ages and any religion that does not allow its proponents to leave is a bad religion.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hmm…now PAS and Umno are calling each other the party of devils. Actually, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed quoted the saying 'better the devil you know'. I think what he said was: 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't know'. The correct idiom is 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

Nevertheless, whichever it may be, what it means is: you take your chances with the known rather than take your chances with the unknown. In short, both are risks. But one risk is a known risk while the other is an unknown risk.

I suppose if you know for sure then you just go with the proven thing. You need not dabble in the unknown. However, when you are not sure, then you stick with what you know.

No doubt this latest round of name-calling is about whether Barisan Nasional is a better devil than Pakatan Rakyat or whether Umno is a better devil than PAS. If we go by the adage of 'better the devil you know', that would mean you know one of the devils but you are not really quite sure of the other. Hence choose the one that you know.

This 'ideology' probably makes sense in some situations. This, however, does not apply to everything. It all depends on what you hope to achieve.

Are you talking about the economy? Are you talking about abuse of power and corruption? Are you talking about civil liberties and human rights? Are you talking about racism and political persecution? Are you talking about freedom of religion? Are you talking about transparency and good governance? Are you talking about public perception and investor confidence?

You would be idealistic to expect a package deal. You must compromise on some things in the interest of others. For example, PAS would offer a more honest and corrupt-free government compared to Umno. But PAS would be less tolerant of apostasy and proselytising compared to Umno. You gain on one but you must be prepared to lose on the other.

I have been accused of being too idealistic for expecting the perfect form of government. Actually, I am more realistic than many of you give me credit for. No, I do not aspire for perfection. I am realistic enough to know that perfection is quite impossible to achieve. What I aspire for is the perfect balance where we can see a compromise of sorts. There are certain things that are priorities and certain things that may have to be sacrificed for the sake of these priorities.

So what are our priorities and what are we prepared to sacrifice for these priorities?

During the Siege of Leningrad in the Second World War, the Russians adopted the same strategy that they used to defeat the French 130 years or so earlier. Basically, they let hunger and the cold defeat the Germans. However, this meant that Russia had to sacrifice millions of its own citizens as well. The objective and priority was to defeat the Germans. Russian civilians would have to be the collateral damage. Russia could not have both. They could not defeat the Germans plus save their own people.

We, too, the Malaysian citizens, have certain objectives and aspirations. But are we prepared to place these objectives and aspirations as our priority and accept the downside to whatever action we need to take?

Malaysians want everything. We want an end to Barisan Nasional/Umno rule. We know we can't do that unless the second largest party in Malaysia (and a Malay party, too, on top of that), PAS, supports us to do that. But we want PAS on our terms, not on their terms.

When one delegate to the PAS annual general assembly stands up to propose his own party president as Prime Minister, we go berserk. We hurl insults at the entire one million members of PAS, call them Talibans, call them backward village bumpkins, question their educational background, question their level of intelligence, and so much more. We even hurl insults at Islam and suggest that Islam is the cause of the backwardness of Muslims in general and PAS people in particular.

In other words, we are telling the one million PAS members that they are not suited to become our leaders. We only want them to kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. But we do not want them as our leaders.

Okay, I have read what you said about the one million PAS people. It is like a white man telling a non-white woman: you are only good enough for me to have sex with but you are not good enough to become my wife because of your 'colour'.

I bet none of you looked at it in this manner. Well, that is because you are looking at things from only your perspective. You are not looking at things from the perspective of those on the receiving end of your vilification and insults.

PAS is only good enough to help us change the government. PAS is not good enough to head that government. That is your message to the one million PAS members. Even if that is not your real message, your words certainly give the impression that that is your message.

Do you all not stop to think before you say something? And now that you have said it how are you going to unsay it?

For more than a decade since the mid-1990s (when the Internet first emerged in Malaysia), I have had to endure the Malay- and Islam-bashing, by mainly the DAP Chinese supporters. And when I spoke up in defence of PAS back in the 1990s, I was whacked to kingdom come. Those who were on the late MGG Pillai's chat group would know what I am talking about.

I eventually left that chat group because I realised I would never be able to convince those hard-core DAP supporters that we need PAS if we are going to see a change of government. It is not that I, too, had not been critical of PAS. In fact, some of the articles I wrote criticising PAS were even published in Harakah. At least PAS is democratic enough to allow articles that criticise them to be published in their party organ, Harakah.

But I criticised PAS regarding some of its stands or regarding its strategies. I did not insult Islam or Prophet Muhammad like those DAP hard-core supporters in MGG Pillai's chat group.

I admit that I did criticise the conduct of Muslims, which got me into a heap of trouble with the authorities. But my criticism was only about the conduct of Muslims who deviate from Islamic teachings. I did not blame Islam for this conduct and say things like this proves that Islam is a bad religion -- like what those DAP hard-core supporters commented in MGG Pillai's chat group.

Many of you have probably noticed that of late I have written articles uncomplimentary of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. I have even written some articles uncomplimentary of the Christians. And I know many of you just hate this. And you call me a racist. Some even say that, because I am now 62, I am trying to 'get closer' to Islam (since I am about to die) and I do this by whacking Christianity.

If you really believe this then you are even dumber than I thought.

It is good that you hate this. I want you to hate this. I was hoping that you would hate this. I wanted you to feel what the Malays have had to endure these last many years since the 1990s when the Internet first came to Malaysia.

I write just a few articles and you get so hot and bothered. The Malays have had to take what you dish out for almost 20 years. You, however, feel that you are justified in what you do and that you have every right to do what you do because the non-Malays and non-Muslims have suffered persecution in Malaysia for 55 years since Merdeka.

There is nothing good about Islam. Everything about Islam is bad. PAS is an Islamic party. We want PAS to help us kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. After that the one million uneducated PAS people can return to their villages and not interfere in the running of the country. And for sure we want none of them as our top leaders.

Do you think you have just won the support of the more than one million PAS members and supporters?

You don't like me whacking the non-Malays and the non-Muslims? I am glad that you feel that way. I am glad you don't like being whacked. Let me share a secret with you: the Malays-Muslims also do not like the way you whack them and Islam. And they have had to endure this much longer than you have.

Now that you know what it feels like, maybe you can reassess the situation and tell me where we go from here. Your comments regarding Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, apostasy, freedom for Muslims to leave Islam, etc., have caused a lot of damage.

These comments were uncalled for. Worse of all, it shows that you will not even allow PAS members the freedom of speech in their own annual general assembly where members are supposed to be free to tell their leaders what they want for their party. And you say that you are fighting for liberalism? Your liberalism means only the freedom for Muslims to leave Islam but not the freedom for Muslims to express what they want or don't want.

There is change and there is change

Posted: 20 Nov 2012 07:21 PM PST

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let's not be carried away just because some unknown young politicians wanted to be recognised as candidates for the coming general elections got emotional and raised some issues, which will need the approval of the three component parties in Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for. They have a common leader in Anwar who has gone through trials and tribulations that no other leader has been through. He may not be perfect but the question is who is?

He has held this coalition together that it has become a formidable force that has woken up the political minds of the public. Today, it is where it is because of this one leader. So suddenly there are some ungrateful young politicians who have not made any sacrifices raise issues, which in the first place should not have been raised at all.

Are they for real or Trojan horses put to create a rift within the coalition. We have a long way to go put this country at level and there is much work to be done rather than create a division at this crucial stage. We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life. – Comment posted by 'bobby brown'

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

That was a comment by a reader going by the name of 'bobby brown' posted in Malaysia Today. I have only slightly edited the bad grammar but other than that no changes have been made to that comment -- other than the editing of the grammatical mistakes.

That is one example of many similar comments made over the last few days. Even Oon Yeoh said in The Sun today, "The answer quite simply, is that PAS has a tendency to become too big for its britches. It exhibited such behaviour after the 1999 General Election, where it did quite well, and now it's exhibiting such tendencies again."

Before I comment on that issue, however, I would like to touch on the following news report: Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M. Manoharan's call to fellow DAP assemblyman Ronnie Liu (DAP-Pandamaran) to resign if he failed to address the condominium project in Batu Caves shows all is not well in Selangor DAP.

I am actually quite surprised that Manoharan wants Ronnie Liu's head. I thought Pakatan Rakyat said that Barisan Nasional was the one who approved that housing project in Batu Caves. Is Manoharan saying that it was not Barisan Nasional but Pakatan Rakyat that is the culprit -- and Ronnie Liu in particular?

This would mean Manoharan is contradicting what his party said and I was made to understand that DAP does not allow its leaders to contradict their own party -- as the Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim episode has proven. So who approved the Batu Caves project? Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? And if it was Barisan Nasional then why must Ronnie Liu resign?

I remember relating a story a couple of years ago about Ronnie Liu, 'Bangsar' Bala, my wife Marina, I, and a fifth person, going to Manoharan's house to meet his wife when he was in Kamunting under ISA detention. The purpose of that visit was to ask Manoharan's wife to send a message to the five Hindraf ISA detainees that we want them to contest the March 2008 general election.

We suggested that they contest parliament seats because the Indian cause is a national issue and it would be better that the problems facing the Indians be raised in Parliament. Ronnie even indicated that he was prepared to 'vacate' his seat if Manoharan or any of the other four Hindraf detainees wanted that seat.

In other words, Ronnie was prepared to give way to Manoharan if need be. Not many politicians would be prepared to sacrifice their own political career for the benefit of someone else. Ronnie, however, was prepared to do that and that is why I am his loyal friend. He has shown that he is not in politics for personal gain and is prepared to sacrifice himself for the sake of the party.

Anyway, back to the posting by 'bobby brown'. "We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life," said 'bobby brown'. I suppose what he means by that statement is we should be focusing on how to make Malaysia a better country.

And I would agree with that. However, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of 'better'. 'Better' can mean different things to different people.

For example, a company that was 'in the red' last year to the tune of RM250 million can be said to have done better this year when it reduces these loses to just RM150 million. Next year it does even better when the losses get reduced to just RM80 million. By the fifth year it does even better (the best performance in five years) when it breaks even, although it still does not make any money.

So what does 'better' mean? And how would we translate that to a better Malaysia?

Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant corruption and abuse of power but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant racism, discrimination and political persecution but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean only 5,000 Malaysians died in traffic accidents this year compared to 6,000 Malaysians the year before? Does 'better' mean now only 100 people die in police custody compared to 180 people in the past?

Let me put it another way: does 'better' mean now your spouse commits adultery only once a month compared to every week before this? Why should you tolerate your spouse committing adultery even once a year? How can you consider your spouse committing adultery once a month as 'better' than once a week?

What is 'better' for you may not be 'better' for me. If all you mean by 'better' is the degree of transgressions, and you are prepared to accept lesser incidences over larger incidences as 'better', then we clearly do not share the same ideals. Would someone who murdered just one person be better than someone who murdered ten people? Would not even one murder make that person a murderer? There is no such thing as a 'worse' murderer and a 'better' murderer. Either way you still hang.

And herein lies the problem. You are looking at how bad Barisan Nasional or Umno are and anything lesser than that you are prepared to compromise and accept.

We all talk about change. We all aspire for change. We all fight for change. But we are yet to agree on that definition of change. And this is why we are always in disagreement. While we agree that change is required, we cannot agree on what is meant by 'change'.

This next paragraph is aimed at just Muslims so non-Muslims can skip this paragraph if they wish to.

Let's say that a Muslim never prays or fasts and lives a life of sin that includes drinking, gambling and adultery. Then, one day, this Muslim starts praying once in a while on Fridays and fasts a couple of days a year during the month of Ramadhan. However, this person still drinks, gambles and indulges in adultery. Does this make that person a 'better ' Muslim or is that person still a bad Muslim?

I know the answer to that so no need to reply to my question. In short, there is no such thing as a better Muslim. There are no degrees of Muslims. A Muslim is someone who abides to and follows the rules laid down in Islam. You just cannot be a little bit pregnant.

So what is my interpretation of a better Malaysia? My interpretation of a better Malaysia is a society that can tolerate dissenting or opposing views. And that is my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno.

No, my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno is not the arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc., that they perpetuate Those, to me, are merely the symptoms of another disease. Those are not the causes of the disease. Those are signs that there is a disease.

And this 'disease' is we do not have freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on. And because of all these lacks of freedoms, we end up with rampant and blatant arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc.

And this is what many of you do not understand. You look at the symptoms of the disease and you try to cure the symptoms. I look at the cause of the disease and attack the cause of that disease. And if we can eliminate the cause then the symptoms will automatically disappear.

I have written about this next point before but allow me to repeat what I said.

200 years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte attacked the 'disease' that was plaguing Europe. Around 35 years after that, society began to change. Then, roughly another 35 years later, the whole of Europe changed and what we see today in Europe is the result of that change.

So Napoleon did not try to cure the symptoms of the disease. He attacked the cause of that disease. In time, changes happened and the symptoms of the disease disappeared.

I know I am repeating what I have written many times before. But how do I not keep repeating myself when after saying it so many times you still do not get it?

Even people like Haris Ibrahim (Sam) cannot understand what I am saying. And he is a lawyer, too, mind you. Yet even he cannot understand what I am trying to say. He, too, like many of you, go by the adage that a duck swims, you swim, so you must be a duck. You do not support ABU. So, if you do not support ABU, then you must be supporting Umno.

In the first place, did I ever say I do not support ABU? What I did say is that just shouting ABU is not enough. It has to be more than just that. Kicking out Umno will do no bloody good if the problem is not Umno but the culture that breed organisations like Umno. We can get rid of Umno but that will not get rid of the problem. And the problem is the way we think and do things.

Let me go back to what 'bobby brown' and Oon Yeoh commented. One delegate during the PAS general assembly last week said that he felt Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang should become the prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. And then all hell broke loose.

This was the opinion of just ONE delegate from amongst more than one million PAS members. One man from ONE MILLION said this and the party DID NOT adopt that proposal as one of its Resolutions. In other words, PAS allowed that delegate to speak but they did not adopt what he said.

And in spite of that everyone whacks the whole party as if the party had committed a cardinal sin. Are you saying that the party should not have allowed him to speak? Are you saying that they should have switched off the microphone and shout at him to sit down? Are you saying that they should do what MIC does -- get the security guards to drag him outside and beat him up?

And that is why we don't want Umno. They do not respect freedom of thought and freedom of opinion/expression. But then you want PAS to do the same thing. So what ABU are you talking about when you want to be just like Umno?

We have to be better than that. If we are going to be just like Umno then why would the voters want to kick Umno out? We have to make it clear that we will not compromise on violations of our freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

Currently, I find that many, if not most, of the opposition leaders and supporters do not respect freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

And this is my beef with the ABU-screamers. My interpretation of ABU is CHANGE. Your interpretation of ABU is Anwar Ibrahim and only Anwar Ibrahim must become the prime minister. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh thinks like this. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh does not tolerate freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

So, yes, I support ABU. But my ABU is politik baru, budaya baru, Malaysia baru, Melayu baru, etc. Your ABU is old wine in a new bottle. So you can fight for your ABU your way and I will fight for my ABU my way. You can walk if you want. I will swim. But we are both going the same direction. And just because a duck also swims does not make me a duck -- just like just because a monkey also walks does not make you a monkey. Or does it?

By the way, 'bobby brown', PAS is the second largest party in Malaysia in terms of membership. There are more PAS members than DAP and PKR members combined. Pakatan Rakyat needs PAS more than PAS needs Pakatan Rakyat. So stop being pompous and condescending.

"PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for," konon. You sound just like Umno. This is how Umno normally talks. So what ABU are you talking about when you ape Umno in everything that it does and say?

East Coast Malays will call this gong telajak. Go find out what this means from your Malay friends, if you happen to have any.

Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM?

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PAS wings' support for Hadi as future PM continues to put Opposition partners in a spot

(The Star) - The PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings' support for party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to be made prime minister should Pakatan Rakyat come to power continues to put other Opposition coalition members in a spot.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, widely seen as the premier-in-waiting, was evasive when reporters asked for his response.

"It's okay. No problem. We will discuss in a nice manner", he said as he walked briskly to his car after launching a convention on national education at Universiti Selangor (Unisel) in Shah Alam on Sunday.

He said he had to rush off to another function in Kuantan.

However, DAP was characteristically vocal.

Its deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said bluntly on Sunday that Anwar would be prime minister should Pakatan win the 13th general election and hudud law would not be implemented.

"All of us have agreed that Anwar will be the PM should we take over Putrajaya."

"In a democracy, we, of course, allow for differing opinions, but the consensus in Pakatan that Anwar remains the PM-in-waiting is final, so even if the PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings say otherwise, it makes no difference," he said.

He said that the Pakatan Rakyat leadership would only implement policies that have the consensus of all three-component parties, and reject those which have yet to obtain it.

At the same time, it was the lack of consensus that has stopped the implementation of hudud law from becoming part of Pakatan's common framework policy.

"If there is consensus, we will enforce it. If not, we won't. And the decision from the leadership is final," he told reporters after a DAP ceramah in Kepong Baru on Sunday morning, reiterating the DAP's position on the matter.

He also said that it was "pure politicking" by Barisan National to imply that the Islamic penal code could be so easily implemented.

He said that it required an amendment to the Federal Constitution to implement hudud and any amendment to the constitution required consent from two-thirds of the members of parliament.

At the 58th PAS muktamar in Kota Baru on Saturday Dewan Ulama representative Hairun Nizam had said Hadi was the best candidate for the job if the coalition took over Putrajaya, a sentiment echoed by PAS Muslimat on Sunday. When pressed for a reaction, Hadi had earlier dodged responding directly, saying instead, that he would rather be a "servant" to the people and country.

"Whoever becomes the prime minister needs the support of the party and people. I would rather be a khadam (servant) to the people," he had said.

Meanwhile, in Ipoh, Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said Sunday the Opposition's inability to agree on a common platform and contest under a common flag in the upcoming general elections showed that they could not govern the country.

"PAS will definitely want to implement their Islamic ways if Pakatan comes into power and if it is not done, it will destroy the Opposition."

"Intellectually, if they cannot even be united in contesting as a single party, then they are incapable of being united to rule the country," he said in a press conference in Manjoi here on Sunday.

"As such, I do not see that they have any hope of winning in the upcoming elections," he said.

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

The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) was launched two years ago in London with a specific agenda in mind -- to try to reform Malaysian politics and introduce what back in 1999 PKR (then PKN) called 'Politik Baru' or 'New Politics'. This basically means to discard race/religion-based politics in favour of a more mature form of politics and to try to end 'money politics', or the practice of voting based on financial considerations.

It was certainly a tall order indeed and not a journey that we imagined we would achieve in our lifetime. Europe took two generations for the seed that was planted by Napoleon Bonaparte over 12 years from 1803 to finally germinate with the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Even then it took another 22/23 years (or one more generation) until 1870/1871 before real change finally came to Europe.

In short, Europe took 60-70 years for change to happen. And it only happened through an armed and bloody revolution, which proves what Mao Zedong said: power comes from the barrel of the gun. Hence, short of embarking upon a Chin Peng sort of armed insurgency, how long do you think it is going to take for change to come to Malaysia?

Those were the issues troubling us back in 2010. And those were the issues MCLM was supposed to address, or try to address. But many things would need to be done to even come close to what we were seeking. Amongst those many things would be to seek out at least 30 Malaysians suitable to be fielded as Member of Parliament candidates in the coming general election.

Haris Ibrahim (Sam) then began to approach a few likely candidates -- some who had earlier been approached by the opposition back in 1999, 2004 and/or 2008 -- to explore the possibility of them standing as candidates in the coming general election. Almost all said 'no'. However, due to Sam's power of persuasion, eventually five relented and said 'yes' while another two said they would seriously consider the proposal.

So we had five yeses and two tentatives. And then it stopped. We could not move beyond those seven. And we were not even close to the 30 that we had targeted.

The rut we found ourselves in was due to the hostile reaction from Pakatan Rakyat. While we made it clear we were seeking these candidates to offer them to Pakatan Rakyat, Pakatan Rakyat in turn said that MCLM itself was planning to contest the election to trigger three-corner contests. Hence we are going to jeopardise the opposition's chances of forming the new federal government. Hence, also, we are Barisan Nasional's 'Trojan horse' whose job is to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat.

It was apparent that Pakatan Rakyat was not going to welcome these independent candidates. Pakatan Rakyat was only going to field party members and if MCLM's independent candidates wanted to contest the elections then they would have to join one of the three parties first. Even then there was no guarantee they would be fielded as candidates.

With that very negative reaction from Pakatan Rakyat, the two tentative candidates backed off. From the balance five, another four also decided to withdraw, leaving only one still prepared to go the distance. However, this last candidate would have to contest the Kapar seat on the basis of a three-corner contest, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.

MLCM is not a political party so it does not intend to contest the general election. It was seeking candidates on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, not to contest against Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat does not want these candidates then the whole exercise would need to be aborted.

It was agreed that the candidates who wished to withdraw would say nothing for the time being. We had to first seek an exit strategy so that they can gracefully bail out without losing face. And that exit plan offered itself on 1st January this year when I did my second interview with the mainstream media. Because of that interview, the candidates were able to announce that they were distancing themselves from MCLM. Sam, too, was able to bail out gracefully by resigning from MCLM and embark upon his ABU agenda outside MCLM.

In the meeting we had in Chiengmai in late January this year, three weeks after my 'explosive' 1st January 2012 interview, it was agreed that I, too, would withdraw from MCLM and a new committee would take over. My continued involvement in MCLM would 'taint' the movement. Hence we would need to call for an AGM, which we did soon after, and I left the scene and the new committee took over. It was also agreed in that Chiengmai meeting that MCLM would now focus purely on matters involving civil liberties and it would no longer be involved in politics.

A month before that Chiengmai meeting, a meeting was held in Phuket to discuss many issues regarding not only MCLM but also about Malaysian politics in general. And one of the issues of concern was the information that Sam received from his contacts in Umno that Anwar Ibrahim would be acquitted from the 'Sodomy 2' charge. The information that Sam received was that Najib had made a deal with Anwar. However, it was not too clear what type of deal it was.

This was definitely troubling news indeed. Sam was convinced that the information was accurate because it came from 'high-ups' in Umno and they have never been wrong before. My response to that was we would have to wait another one and a half months or so to see if it was true that Anwar was going to be acquitted and if so, why.

Nevertheless, we would need to pre-empt this, in case, so one week later I did that interview with the mainstream media where I whacked Anwar. Basically, as what Sam and I discussed in Phuket, we needed to launch a 'Get Anwar Campaign', or GAC for short. We needed to neutralise Anwar in case he had turned Umno Trojan horse. And his acquittal would more or less confirm this.

In fact, Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2' would have been 'good politics'. The sympathy factor would be high and Anwar could be 'marketed' as a martyr and a victim of injustice. Having Anwar in jail would benefit the opposition a great deal. Plus it would solve the additional problem of not having him as the Prime Minister in the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government.

Maybe Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak realised this. Maybe he realised that acquitting Anwar works better for Barisan Nasional than putting him in jail. Najib, too, knew that PAS did not want Anwar as Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister would be doing PAS a favour by putting Anwar in jail. But if Anwar were to be acquitted, then PAS would face a dilemma. Do they keep quiet and accept Anwar as Prime Minister or do they openly declare that they cannot accept Anwar as Prime Minister?

Was Anwar's acquittal an independent decision by the judge or was the judge's decision to acquit Anwar a brilliant political move by Najib to drive a wedge between PAS and PKR (plus also now between PAS and DAP it seems)?

The issue here is, ABU or 'anything but Umno' is about rejecting Umno, which invariably means rejecting Barisan Nasional as well. However, as Sam and I discussed in Phuket, ABU does not translate to 'Anwar for PM'. But then the judge (with or without Najib's instructions) threw a spanner in the works by acquitting Anwar of the Sodomy 2 charge. So now ABU also means Anwar for PM.

And herein lies the problem for many people, those in PAS included.

Many in PAS are not convinced about Anwar's innocence. They are convinced that Anwar is guilty. But they do not want to be the ones to say so. They want the court to say so by convicting Anwar. But when the court did not do that, PAS either has to accept that as an indication that Anwar is innocent or else they would have to come out and say that they do not want Anwar as Prime Minister -- without explaining why and leaving it unsaid that the reason is because they think Anwar is guilty.

Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 120 seats in Parliament (to be safe, although 112 seats gives it a simple majority with a two-seat margin) to form the federal government. PAS says it plans/hopes to win at least 60 seats. If it does, that would mean DAP and PKR combined would have won only 60 seats. And this would also mean PAS would become the Prime Minister.

Hence it is not impossible for Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister if PAS wins more seats that PKR and DAP -- unless DAP wins the most number of seats and they nominate Anwar for Prime Minister.

The meeting in Phuket a year ago and one year after the birth of MCLM

The excitement of the chase

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have friends who like to go fishing. (A couple of people I know also like to go hunting). I asked them as to why they bother to waste so much time fishing. It is also not cheap, mind you. The tackle costs quite a bit of money, especially when you lose the lures (which cost more than the fish). Would it not be easier and cheaper to just go buy the fish at the market? It would be faster too -- fishing 'expeditions' can take a whole day.

One day they invited me to join them in their fishing trip. In an hour we caught 56 fish. That is almost a fish a minute amongst the five of us. I must say it was quite exciting. I proudly brought the fish I caught home to show my wife. I did not tell her that that was the only fish I caught, though.

You see, for the first half hour or so, I was flat out on the deck of the boat due to an attack of seasickness (which I suffer from if the boat is not moving and rolls from side to side). I was vomiting my guts out and polluting the sea. Only when my fishing mates carried me over the side of the boat and threatened to drop me into the sea did I stop vomiting. It seems the fastest way to end your seasickness is to get dumped into the sea. I must say it worked. The threat was good enough.

It was then that I understood that the excitement was not in the cooking and the eating of the fish. After all, how could five of us eat 56 fish anyway? It was the excitement of the hunt or the chase, as they say. And that goes for 'people hunting' as well. Friends who go 'hunting' in the clubs on Saturday night tell me the same thing. It is not about getting the women into bed. If not then they just need to go visit a brothel. It is the excitement of the 'hunt' -- to see whether you can 'nail' your 'prey'.

What would you think of that woman if you smile at her and she immediately walks up to you and says 'you can poke your pecker into my pussy any time'? That would be a turn off. You need to sweet-talk her first -- such as 'what's a nice woman like you doing in a place like this?' or 'what's a woman like you doing in a nice place like this?', etc. Then you offer to buy her a drink, ask her if she would like to dance, and then ask her if she would like to adjourn to somewhere 'quieter'.

In that same context, we need to make the politicians and political parties 'hunt' or 'fish' for our votes. They need to 'court' us to get us to vote for them. If we tell them that they are guaranteed our votes and come hell or high water we would still vote for them that will make them complacent.

They must not take us for granted. We are not prostitutes. They can't just throw some money onto the bed and expect us to strip and lie down on our backs so that they can screw us. If they want us then they will need to work hard at wooing us.

As what we told Anwar Ibrahim in London in 2010, in the 2008 general election many of us would have voted for a donkey or a monkey as long as they stood on the platform of Pakatan Rakyat. However, we have since seen what these monkeys and donkeys have turned out to become. Some have deserted the opposition. Some are not performing as we had hoped. Some proved to be as corrupt as the Barisan Nasional people we kicked out. Some are making silly statements that do not help the opposition cause and actually helps Barisan Nasional. Some have demonstrated arrogance. Some are pompous and condescending and talk to us as if they are our betters rather than our 'servants'.

At this point of my article some of you 'apologists' are going to scream that we can't expect perfection. We can't expect Pakatan Rakyat to achieve everything in a mere five years. If we can give Barisan Nasional 55 years then why can't we also give Pakatan Rakyat 55 years before we judge them?

These apologists tend to forget that the leaders and politicians from DAP, PKR, and PAS are not five-year-old politicians. The opposition politicians have been around a long time, as long or longer than those from Barisan Nasional. Some have served as Cabinet Ministers (even some from PAS during the time that PAS joined Barisan Nasional 40 years ago). Some have been Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar). Nik Aziz is probably the second-longest serving Menteri Besar after the Sarawak Chief Minister.

So the opposition leaders and politicians are not 'new'. Why must we give them 55 years? We must not forget, when they campaigned for our support and our votes, they told us what was wrong with Barisan Nasional and they told us what they were going to do to right all these wrongs. Hence they knew what was not right and they knew what to do to put it right.

They promised us, not we promised them. So it is their job to deliver on these promises.

The other excuse the apologists offer is that Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government so we can't expect them to achieve much until they take over the federal government. Granted in some cases this is true. But this is not true for everything.

Not everything requires you to be the federal government before you can do it. Many things are party matters. Many things are coalition matters. Many things are state government matters. Many things are council matters. Some things, of course, are federal matters. But not everything is a federal matter.

Is the selection of candidates a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of seats a federal government matter? That is a coalition matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the election or selection of council members a federal government matter? That is a state government matter (and decided by the party, mind you) and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the declaration of assets a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the distribution of tithes (zakat and fitrah) a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the building of low-cost homes for the homeless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of state land to the landless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the abolishing of negotiated tenders and the implementation of an open tender system for state contracts a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

There are many things that are party matters, coalition matters and/or state government matters. You do not need to wait until you form the federal government before you can do something about them.

Take the Islamic State and Hudud matter as another example. Do you need to be the federal government before DAP, PKR and PAS can come to an agreement on that issue? You do not even need to be the state government before you can come to an agreement on this.

Barisan Nasional would not dare announce their candidates until the morning of Nomination Day. This is because Barisan Nasional does not trust its own members and they know that if they announce their candidates too early then there would be a genuine danger of internal sabotage. Hence they wait until the eleventh hour to announce their candidates to reduce the danger of internal sabotage. Even then it still happens, as Barisan Nasional recently confessed.

But why does Pakatan Rakyat not announce its candidates early so that these candidates can start working the ground and the voters can get to know them early instead of finding out who they are at the last minute on the morning of Nomination Day? Well, for the same reason why Barisan Nasional does not dare announce its candidates early, plus for an added reason -- to avoid Barisan Nasional buying them off.

Hence Pakatan Rakyat does not trust its own candidates plus it does not trust its own party members. Pakatan Rakyat is worried that if the candidates are announced too early then it may suffer internal sabotage and/or the candidates may get bought over.

What, therefore, does this say about the candidates? Are these the people we want? If 'A' is chosen to contest instead of' B', then 'B may sabotage 'A' or Barisan Nasional may buy off 'A'. And if 'B' is chosen instead, the same thing may happen as well. Hence do not announce yet whether it is 'A' or 'B'. Wait until the last minute to make the announcement.

Is this because Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government? Would none of this happen once Pakatan Rakyat is already the federal government?

Pakatan Rakyat needs to convince us that it is worthy of our vote. Pakatan Rakyat must work for our vote. If we tell Pakatan Rakyat that we are definitely going to vote opposition never mind what they do or do not do, then we are going to have a very complacent and very lazy Pakatan Rakyat.

There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that every one of you reading this article is going to still be alive tomorrow. If you do die tonight, there is no guarantee that you are going to go to heaven or to hell. In fact, no one can give you a money-back guarantee that heaven and hell even exist.

So how can we guarantee Pakatan Rakyat our votes? In the first place, should we even be giving anyone this guarantee?

If you want me then come and court me. Bring me flowers and chocolates. Take me out to dinner. Come meet my parents and bring me to visit your parents. Then I will decide whether you are going to get into my pants. If you merely want a wham bam, thank you ma'am, then go visit a brothel.

And if you are a prostitute and are prepared to prostitute yourself, well and fine. But don't expect me to do the same just because you are doing that. If you can't convince me to vote for you that is your problem, not mine. If you don't know how to win my vote then you do not deserve my vote. That is the long and short of it all.

I am not here to serve the politicians. It is the politicians who must serve me. So serve me. And convince me that you are worthy of being my servant. I need not convince you of anything because the vote is in my hand, not yours.

As the boy said to the girl when he dropped his pants to show her his dick: I have this, which you need. And the girl dropped her knickers to show the boy her pussy: ah yes, but with one of these I can get ten of those.

Sending mixed signals

Posted: 14 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Don't mix Islam with politics: Selangor Sultan

(Bernama, 14 Nov 2012) -- The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has warned against an inclination of mixing Islam with politics for it could confuse and divide the Malays.

He said confusion arose when people who were not qualified to interpret Qur'anic verses began elucidating them based on their own understanding and desire or it could go against the actual meaning.

"Qur'anic verses are not like poetry verses that can be interpreted according to one own taste and belief."

"I want the Malays to defend the sanctity of Islam through their might and wisdom as had been done by Prophet Muhammad, his companions, mujahid (warriors), and Islamic leaders."

"The Malay leaders of yesteryears had used their wisdom to define the characteristics of the Malays in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution that they should adopt the Malay culture, speak Bahasa Melayu and being Muslims," he said at the state-level Maal Hijrah celebration at the Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque here, tonight.

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

That was what His Highness the Sultan said last night, as reported by Bernama. As what His Highness has titah (royal decree), I will not quote and interpret any verses from the Qur'an. After all, I am not taking Qur'anic studies in Oxford. I am just taking history, plus philosophy of religion thrown in. Hence I shall restrict my comments to only the historical aspects of the subject.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are what we call the Abrahamic faiths. And note the word 'faiths', which means you need to believe in the absence of evidence. Now, they are called 'Abrahamic' faiths because all three have their roots in the Prophet Abraham (or Ibrahim, to the Muslims). In fact, the Muslims believe that Abraham and his son Ismail (Ishmael) built the Ka'bah in Mekah, the direction Muslims face when they pray.

The Jews are a race. You need to be born a Jew. You cannot 'become' a Jew like you can become a Christian or a Muslim -- although some people have converted to Judaism. Followers of Christianity and Islam, however, are not a race. Christians regard Christianity as a faith (of the Christian faith) while Muslims regard Islam as an adeen (a way of life).

And that was why the Jews wanted a 'homeland', which they now have. So the Jews went on to create a nation called Israel. The Christians went on to separate the church from the state. And the Muslims went on to form governments and conquered new territories to extend their system of government to these territories.

If you were to ask a Muslim as to why Islam 'interferes' in the lives of the people, why they 'police' behaviour/morality, why they want to impose an Islamic system of administration and laws, etc., they will reply that this is because Islam is not a religion but a system of governance -- meaning a complete way of life (adeen, as mentioned in the Qur'an).

Using the Muslims' own arguments, Islam is a total/complete political system that determines the administration and laws of the country. And that is why Muslims talk about an 'Islamic State' -- or, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, Malaysia is a Muslim country.

Hence, Islam is not merely a religion where you pray, fast, pay tithes, etc., and then go on and lead your own life without any interference from the government. Islam is a form of government -- it governs what you can and cannot do very strictly, even in the privacy of your bedroom.

So how can His Highness the Sultan of Selangor decree that Islam and politics should not mix, or that you should separate politics from religion? Islam is politics!

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

Now, 'nation' does not necessarily mean 'country'. For example, the 'Indian Nation' is a collection of various Native American tribes within the United States of America. So it can, in a way, be called a nation within a nation.

If you were to trace the history of the three Abrahamic faiths, you can see that the Jews started, from the very beginning, as a race or tribe -- for example, Moses led his people out of Egypt to cross the Red Sea. The 'religion' came later. (If Moses had been smart enough to lead his people a bit farther east they would have ended up in Saudi Arabia and today they would own all the oil).

Christianity and Islam, however, started as cults. It was much later that Christianity became a religion (with a doctrine or dogma) and Islam became a political system (or way of life, adeen, government, etc.).

Hence the Jews emerged immediately as a Nation the day Moses led his people out of Egypt and settled in the 'Promised Land'. The Christians and Muslims, however, evolved over time and transformed into what Christianity and Islam is today by 'reinventing' itself through a clearly defined doctrine.

Christianity began to lose its cult status after the time of Jesus and during the time of Paul (see the timeline below). However, it was not until more than 300 years later that Christianity was 'defined' with a clear doctrine and almost 800 years before Catholicism took root.

As for Islam, as early as during the time of Prophet Muhammad it established itself as a system of government and the Battle of Badr in 624 defined what Islam was going to become -- a political force.

Now, since His Highness the Sultan is Malay, and hence will be from the Shafi'i school of Islam, let us talk about Mazhab Shafi'i or the Shafi'i school of Islam.

The Shafi'i school of Islam was established around 200 years or so after the time of Prophet Muhammad during the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (the Caliph of the One Thousand and One Nights fame). Hence Malays are following a branch of Islam that was established long after the death of the Prophet and during the time of 'liberalisation'. This can be said to be the beginning of the 'separation of church and state', when power over religion was transferred into the hands of the scholars (ulama') who were not too happy with the 'liberal' lifestyle of the Caliph.

Let me conclude this piece as follows. Islam says it is not a religion but a way of life. Prophet Muhammad embarked upon setting up a system of government based on an Islamic system of administration. Malays follow the Shafi'i school of Islam, which was established 180-200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad and when the Hadith began to emerge (and that is why Malay Muslims talk more about the Hadith than the Qur'an).

In short, just like what happened in Christianity, Islam was defined (or redefined) later and what Malays practice today is the 'reinvented' version of Islam, just like what the Christians are doing. Hence His Highness the Sultan's Royal Decree is not in line with the Medina version of Islam but follows a later form of Islam where religion and state are separated. If you follow Prophet Muhammad's Medina version of Islam then Islam is the state.

Of course, I am analysing things from the historical point of view and not from the theological point of view -- so certainly theologians will disagree with my hypothesis. But then that is their view (based on theology) while I have my own view (based on history).

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

TIMELINE

Paul the Apostle's (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67) leadership, influence and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped the God of Israel, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses, that these laws and rituals had either been fulfilled in the life of Christ or were symbolic precursors of Christ, all on the basis of Paul's teachings of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant (or "new testament") established through Jesus' death and resurrection.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, 13 March (AD) 624.

The Second Council of Nicaea met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.

Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (17 March 763 or February 766 – 24 March 809) was the fifth Arab Abbasid Caliph that encompassed modern Iraq.

Imam Shafi'i a.k.a. Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (AD 767-820) or 150-204 years after Prophet Muhammad's hijrah/migration from Mekah to Medina.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 8 Disember 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan