Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

God’s voice on earth
The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 20)
The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)
Seeing is believing
My response to Alan Yeap of Taiwan
The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Posted: 06 Jan 2013 03:01 PM PST

Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God's representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In the past, until about 500 years or so ago, the 'common people' in Christendom did not interpret religion themselves. That is because religion was communicated in a language that the masses did not speak. Hence they needed 'middlemen' to help interpret religion. And these middlemen would in interpret religion in a 'politically correct' manner.

Then, by the late 1400s to early 1500s, religion began to be communicated in the people's mother tongue. The English read religion in English, the Germans in German, and so on. This reduced the need for middlemen and made them redundant. And people began to realise that the middlemen had been taking the people for a ride and were 'tailoring' religious decrees (fatwah) to suit the political agenda of the powers-that-be.

For example, for Catholics, divorce was not allowed. However, if the king wanted to take on a new wife then the religious authorities could always declare that the king's first marriage was null and void. Hence he need not divorce his first wife to marry his second wife since his first wife was not really his wife in the first place. The first wife no longer exists so the second wife becomes the first wife.

Then, when he wants to get rid of his second (but now first) wife to marry his third (but now second) wife, he can declare that she has committed treason against God's representative on earth and hence by offending the king she has offended God and can, therefore, be put to death. Then, on the day they execute his second (but considered first) wife, he can go marry his third (but considered second) wife.

Religious decrees or fatwah have been a very useful political tool for Christendom. The Church and the Crown shared power. Hence rules need to be laid down that serve both the Church and the Crown. When the Church ignores the Crown then the Crown will act against the Church and the Church would lose its powers and status.

That was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. Since then, especially around 200 years ago, the people got rid of this menace called the Church and later even the menace called the Crown. Hence the two biggest exploiters and oppressors of the people were removed. Today, many people go to church only three times in their life -- when they are christened, when they marry (if they have a church wedding), and when they die (unless they get blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan). Other than that they go to the pubs.

As I said, that was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. In Islamdom, they still have not got rid of the 'Church' and in many countries the 'Crown' as well. And that is why is some Muslim countries we still have monarchs who are the head of religion. And we also still have religious authorities that pass decrees or fatwah.

Basically, many Muslim countries are still hundreds of years behind Christendom. Hence those who live in such countries suffer what the people in Christendom suffered up to about 200 to 500 years ago. And that is why we still read news reports such as the two below from NST (regarding dogs) and Hakarah (regarding fatwah or decrees).

The religious authorities tell us what we can and cannot believe in plus what we can and cannot do. They interpret what is and is not allowed. And we are compelled to follow these rulings or face arrest and punishment.

But is this really what God stipulated? This is what the religious authorities say God has stipulated. Can we disagree with this? We cannot disagree with this. Can we interpret things our own way? We cannot interpret things our own way. They will interpret it for us.

You will notice one thing, though. Most times they will quote the Hadith when they pass rulings or decrees. But why quote the Hadith and not the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam? That is because the Qur'an is 'silent' on many issues so if they quote the Qur'an then they will not be able to support what they say. Hence they need to quote the Hadith.

What if you do not accept the Hadith? You cannot. You must accept the Hadith. If you reject the Hadith then you are a deviant and can be arrested and punished.

What if you follow a certain sect of Islam that does not recognise the Hadith or it recognises a different set of Hadith and not the ones that you recognise? You cannot. You can only follow the sect of Islam that the government says you can follow and if you follow another sect of Islam then you can get arrested and punished.

Basically, Islam, today, is where Christianity was 500 or 200 years ago. However, while Christendom has reformed and has allowed freedom of choice, Islamdom does not allow freedom of choice. The religious authorities in Islamdom decide what you can and cannot do and there are no two ways about it.

Hence, while the Qur'an does not say that dogs are not allowed (in fact, there is a verse that allows dogs to be used for hunting and game procured from hunting is halal to eat), because they use the Hadith and not the Qur'an to make their rulings, most Malays will not keep dogs.

And note that I said 'Malays' and not 'Muslims'.

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

Islam allows blind to use dogs

EYES AND EARS: There is no issue in using the services of trained dogs, says Perlis mufti

(NST) - There is no rule in Islam which prohibits the use of service dogs to guide the blind, said Perlis mufti Dr Juanda Jaya.

"Using the services of guide dogs which are well trained is allowed in the religion, including the Syafie mazhab, which is subscribed to by Muslims in the country.

"There is no issue on using service dogs for various purposes like hunting, guarding and as guiding dogs," he told the New Straits Times, yesterday.

Considered as one of the most sought after service dogs, guide dogs are trained from young to act as eyes and ears for the blind.

Guide dogs are also trained to improve the mobility of the blind and have been proven to help them lead independent lives.

On why blind Muslims in the country do not consider having guide dogs, Juanda said there was confusion on the exact ruling and status of dogs in the religion.

"People need to learn to differentiate between religion and culture in order to make decisions in their lives and to not follow blindly what others say about rulings in Islam."

Fatwa Council president Tan Sri Dr Abdul Shukor Husni said there was no specific fatwa issued for guide dogs for the blind.

"It is mainly because we didn't receive any enquiry or requests from the affected community to consider a fatwa on guide dogs.

"If there is a request and we see a present need for the issuance of a fatwa on guide dogs, we will have a meeting to discuss this issue thoroughly," said Shukor, while calling for Muslims who are concerned about the issue to come forward.

In 2008, the United Kingdom's Muslim Law (Syariah) Council issued a fatwa stating that "a blind person, in the light of syariah law, will be allowed to keep a guide dog to help him and if required to take him to the mosque for his prayers".

Then, 18-year-old Mohammed Abraar Khatri, who lost his sight because of a degenerative disease the same year, championed the rights of Muslims to use the services of guide dogs with help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Muslim Council of Britain.

His guide dog, named Vargo, accompanied Mohammed to school, outings and to the mosque.

A special compartment was set up within the mosque compound to let the dog stay while Mohammed went to pray.

Perak mufti Tan Sri Dr Harussani Zakaria said Muslims were allowed to keep dogs if they were trained to be guard dogs, to watch over the garden (kebun) or to be seeing-eye dogs.

"It is said in a hadith that the angels do not like the barking of dogs and will not enter a house in which a dog is kept. But that does not mean that we cannot keep them for certain purposes."

"We are permitted to keep them, as long as they are not kept in the house, and we have to sertu if we touch them when they are wet."

Sertu, he said, is the act of washing the skin with water six times and with a mixture of water and earth once.

It is often mistaken for the term samak, which is the act of cleaning an animal's skin with rough materials such as sand or ashes.

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

Tidak boleh buat fatwa berdasar andaian – Mufti

(Harakah Daily) - Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh mengeluarkan sesuatu fatwa hanya berdasarkan andaian atau laporan akhbar semata-mata.

Mufti Pulau Pinang, Datuk Seri Hassan Ahmad berkata, dalam menyelesaikan isu yang disebut sebagai 'Amanat Haji Hadi', Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan perlu bersemuka dengan Presiden PAS itu sendiri.

"Ia mesti mengikut prosedur. Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi perlu dijemput untuk berbincang dan bagi mendapatkan penjelasan. Ia tidak boleh diselesaikan mengikut andaian," katanya dipetik Sinar Harian Online.

Semalam, Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi berkata, sejak 31 tahun lalu, beliau langsung tidak pernah menerima apa-apa surat atau dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan kepada Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung petikan ucapannya yang dibuat di Banggol Peradong, Terengganu, 31 tahun yang lalu yang kemudian dipopularkan pihak tertentu sebagai 'amanat' itu.

Katanya, tindakan itu tidak adil bagi dirinya kerana tidak diberi peluang menjelaskan perkara sebenar berhubung polemik itu sehingga kini.

Sebelum ini hanya Majlis Fatwa Negeri Melaka, yang mengeluarkan fatwa berhubung amanat itu yang diwartakan pada tahun 2002.

Sebaliknya tiada fatwa khusus di peringkat Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung perkara itu.

Mengulas fatwa yang dikeluarkan di peringkat negeri itu, Hassan berkata, Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh bergantung kepada fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh majlis fatwa di peringkat negeri.

Kuasa mengeluarkan fatwa, katanya, adalah kuasa negeri dan fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak semestinya satu keputusan mutlak kerana kuasa agama kekal di bawah kuasa negeri.

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 20)

Posted: 04 Jan 2013 06:01 PM PST

Haji Hamid and I discussed this matter and it was agreed that if the police do arrest and charge Dr Wan Azizah then I would have to admit that I had, in fact, smuggled Anwar's blood, urine, hair and fingernail samples into Australia. Then the Melbourne pathologist office can make their test results official. This would save Dr Wan Azizah from the charge of making a false police report but I would instead face the risk of being charged for smuggling.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar's trial is halted by arsenic claim

(The Independent, UK, 11 September 1999) - Malaysia politician Anwar Ibrahim is being poisoned with arsenic by the authorities while in prison, his lawyer said yesterday at the trial of the former deputy prime minister on sodomy charges.

Karpal Singh said secret tests on Anwar's urine proved that the politician, who is already serving six years for corruption, has an alarming level of arsenic in his body. "I suspect some people in high places, in all likelihood, are responsible for his condition," Mr Singh said. "The family and Anwar Ibrahim are alarmed. He is in jeopardy of his life."

The trial was adjourned by Judge Ariffin Jaka, who ordered that Anwar, 52, be taken to hospital for tests. Later, Mr Singh showed a report said to be from an Australian pathology lab, indicating the urine sample tested had 77 times more arsenic than normal human urine.

Anwar's relatives somehow obtained a urine sample and smuggled it out last month using a false name, Mr Singh said. The lab report carried the name Subramaniam and an age of 59.

Before the hearing was adjourned indefinitely, prosecutors said there was no proof that Anwar was being poisoned in prison. Arsenic could have entered his body through food given to him by family and friends in court, the Attorney General, Mohtar Abdullah, said

Anwar flew into a rage at that, pounding the wooden railing of the dock and stamping his feet. "Fed by my wife! I was poisoned by Azizah!" he shrieked ironically, referring to his wife, who heads an opposition party that has vowed to end the government's 18-year rule.

Anwar is accused of sodomising his former family driver. He says the sex and corruption charges are part of a political conspiracy to end his challenge to the Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad. He faces up to 20 more years in prison if convicted of sodomy.

Anwar was arrested on 20 September last year, 18 days after the Prime Minister fired him. He was beaten on the night of his arrest by the police chief of Malaysia.

When the judge asked Anwar how he felt, he said: "I am generally all right, I am not feeling any pain, but certainly I am not my usual self." Anwar said he had lost weight and hair, symptoms he connected to arsenic poisoning. His wife later said he lost 9kg (19lb) this year.

"This is attempted murder," said Azizah. "I'm very alarmed, very frightened, to learn that his life is in danger."

The Deputy Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, said that he had ordered an immediate investigation.

Anwar Ibrahim (R) smiles as he arrives at hospital under guard in Kuala Lumpur September 10. Anwar was taken to the hospital on Friday after his lawyer Karpal Singh said a pathologist in Australia had found arsenic in Anwar's urine.

Anwar Ibrahim, second from left, is welcomed by staff of National University Hospital on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur as he arrives for his medical test Friday, Sept. 10, 1999.

Anwar Ibrahim, center, waves to his supporters as he was discharged from National University Hospital where he was admitted to be checked for possible arsenic poisoning, Monday, Oct. 4, 1999 in Kuala Lumpur.

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

I can't quite remember the exact day in August 1999 it was, but I know it was a Friday and before the 10th of September 1999, the day the arsenic poisoning of Anwar Ibrahim issue exploded.

I remember it was a Friday because I had just returned from my Friday prayers when I received a phone call from Anwar's MCKK classmate, Haji Hamid Rashid, who was also my 'boss'.

I was then working in the R&D division of Parti Keadilan Nasional (now called Parti Keadilan Rakyat or PKR), basically a psychological-warfare (psywar) unit to handle the Internet media war long before the advent of Blogs or new portals such as Malaysiakini.

At that time there were only 280,000 Internet subscribers in Malaysia compared to 15 million or so today. Nevertheless, we saw the importance of the Internet long before Umno realised it in 2008 and we decided to get in from the ground floor because he who is first 'controls the market', so to speak.

Haji Hamid's phone call was rather strange. Normally he would drop in to the PKR office at Phileo Damansara -- a building owned by Anwar crony, Datuk Ravi Dharan, one-time Samy Vellu crony who made millions as a Barisan Nasional stooge -- and we would hold our discussions in a special 'bug-proof' room.

Haji Hamid never considered the phone a safe medium of discussion as the powers-that-be can listen in on whatever we discuss. Hence that phone call was most unusual. And the discussion was even stranger.

"No names!" said Haji Hamid. "Meet me now at the PJ Hilton car park. No further explanation."

I jumped onto my motorcycle, a Yamaha Virago, and rushed to the PJ Hilton. I arrived there in less than 15 minutes, parked my bike, and hung around. There was no sign of Haji Hamid so I thought that maybe I was early.

After waiting for about 10 minutes or so my phone rang and Haji Hamid said, "Turn and face the highway." I was facing the PJ Hilton, expecting Haji Hamid to come from there. I turned to face the highway as instructed and I saw someone hiding behind one of the pillars of the flyover. He signalled to me to come over.

I walked over and as I got closer I could see that it was Haji Hamid. Apparently he had arrived before me but he wanted to monitor me before showing himself lest I was followed.

Haji Hamid then explained that Anwar had been poisoned with arsenic. They had secretly taken some of Anwar's blood, urine, hair and fingernail samples and had sent them to the Melbourne for testing under the name of Subramaniam and the tests proved that Anwar had a high level of arsenic in his system.

They then tried to send a second set of samples, this time in Anwar's name, but the Malaysian police had found out and had intercepted and confiscated them before they could leave the country.

Now Anwar was under close monitoring so no one could get to him for another set of samples. However, what the police did not know is there was a third set of samples. But these cannot be sent through the normal channels because the police were monitoring all the courier companies. Hence they needed to be smuggled out.

Haji Hamid explained that none of Anwar's family dared smuggle the samples out because the minute they try to leave the country they will be stopped and subjected to a 100% check. Haji Hamid wanted me to help find someone who can act as a smuggler.

I told Haji Hamid it would be too risky to trust someone else to do this job and that I had better do it myself.

We walked in to the PJ Hilton and asked the concierge to check flights to Melbourne, Australia. The earliest available flight was Monday. Haji Hamid told the concierge to make the flight booking, who asked me the name of the passenger. Haji Hamid pointed to me and the concierge replied, "Raja Petra, right?"

Haji Hamid went pale. Haji Hamid told the concierge to hold on and he pulled me aside. "He knows who you are," Haji Hamid said. "It's too dangerous. We need to abort."

I assured Haji Hamid that he had nothing to worry about. Clearly the concierge was one of us since he knows who I am. Reluctantly Haji Hamid agreed to proceed but he cautioned me that if I got caught I was on my own. I assured Haji Hamid that he would not get dragged into this if I got caught.

The flight booking for Monday was done and we went back to the car park. Haji Hamid then handed me a polystyrene box with a sealed container submerged in dry ice inside it. "Put this in the fridge until your flight on Monday night," he told me. "But do not break the seal."

I went home and emptied the fridge in my bedroom and placed the sealed box inside it. "What the hell are you doing?" my wife Marina asked. I explained to Marina what was going on. "You are storing Anwar's piss in my fridge?" she asked.

"Well, look at it this way," I replied, "one day when Anwar becomes Prime Minister and when he complains that I piss him off we can remind him that when he was in prison we were the trustee to his piss. Hence we have every right to piss him off."

On Monday night Marina drove me to the airport and I tried to look as cool as I could when I checked in. "Any luggage?" they asked me. "Only this box, which I will hand carry," I replied.

I walked through the security check and immigration clearance. They X-rayed the box and allowed it through. There was also no 'red flag' on my passport. I breathed a long sigh of relief as I walked onto the plane and sat down. My last two days were filled with visions of getting stopped or arrested but it was plain sailing with no hiccups.

I arrived at Melbourne airport and phoned the number that Haji Hamid had given me. The man at the other end asked me my name and said he would call me back in a few minutes. He then called up Haji Hamid to verify my identity and then called me back with instructions on where I was supposed to go.

I jumped into a taxi and headed for the place. The person I had spoken to earlier, one of Anwar's Malaysian lawyers, was waiting outside the gate. He then escorted me in and told me he is not allowed to touch the box I was carrying.

We went to the pathologist's office where a local Australian lawyer was waiting. They asked me to place the box on the table and then took photographs of the box from all angles. The Australian lawyer then inspected the seal and confirmed that it had not been broken or tampered with.

In the presence of both the Malaysian and Australian lawyers, they broke the seal and removed the contents from the box. I waited while they did a test on the samples and confirmed that there was indeed a high level of arsenic.

Nevertheless, the test would have to be 'off the record'. This was because not only were the samples smuggled out of Malaysia but they were also smuggled into Australia, which was a crime. The only way they could make the test official would be if I were to declare that I had smuggled them into Australia. But that would mean I would also be admitting that I had committed a crime and would have to face arrest.

The rest of the story is in The Independent news report of 11th September 1999 (above).

When this issue exploded on 10th September 1999, the Malaysian police interrogated Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who had made a police report on the matter, and threatened to arrest and charge her for the crime of making a false police report.

Fortunately the Malaysian police did not carry through with their threat of arresting and charging Dr Wan Azizah for the crime of making a false police report and I was spared the agony of having to face a charge of smuggling. I hear that the Australian government does not take too kindly to those caught smuggling human tissue samples into Australia.

TO BE CONTINUED

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 05:44 PM PST

I was totally sold on the idea, so much so that a couple of years later I joined the Iranians in Mekah to protest against America and the Saudi government, the stooge of the Americans. My commitment to Islam, PAS and the Islamic State was absolute. And Anwar was going to lead this Islamic Revolution of Malaysia and turn Malaysia into the Islamic Republic of Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some say that Anwar Ibrahim and I have a love-hate relationship. I suppose this is true in some ways. It is probably because after 'travelling the same road' for 50 years since 1963, so to speak, there are many things about each other that we can no longer tolerate.

Back in the 1960s, when we were in the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK), Anwar demonstrated strong anti-British tendencies. This, of course, irritated me like hell because I always felt more British than Malay. Hence I took very personal his anti-British rhetoric.

You see; I was the only 'Mat Salleh' in MCKK at that time so I considered Anwar's anti-British stand as a personal attack. And the fact that Anwar's classmates (who were three years my senior) threw stale bread at me and shouted "Hoi, Mat Salleh sesat!" made it even worse, even though Anwar did tell them, "Janganlah kacau dia."

And that is one reason why just two and half years later, halfway through form three, I left MCKK to join the Victoria Institution (VI). I felt I had no place in a 'Malay school'. I hated the MCKK and was very happy when, in form three, I transferred to the VI and was able to surround myself with non-Malay friends.

That ended my relationship with the MCKK and hence with Anwar Ibrahim as well.

In 1974, my family moved to Kuala Terengganu. Family then meant my wife and one-year-old daughter, Suraya. Later my mother-in-law joined us and stayed with us till the day she died. She converted to Islam just before she died and was buried in Masjid Kolam, Kuala Ibai, Kuala Terengganu.

1974 was the same year that Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). We talked about it, of course, but his detention never bothered me. In fact, I felt that they should not only detain him but they should throw away the key as well. After all, Anwar was the one who used to whack the British ten years before that back in 1964 when we were in the MCKK (I was in 'The Big School' in form 2 and he was in form 5 when I first heard him speak).

We must remember that Anwar was the President of the Muslim students association or Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM). He was also the President of University Malaya's Malay language association or Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Furthermore, he was one of the founding members of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia or Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM).

I used to live in Bangsar, not far from the University Malaya, and I would go to see the demonstrations that they organised. I would take photographs of these demonstrations (I still have the photos, all black and white, though). I also saw all the English language signboards and road signs that they vandalised by painting them over with red paint.

Therefore, as far as I was concerned, Anwar was an anti-British, Malay supremacist racist. I heard him talk and I saw him in action at those demonstrations. He deserved what he got and the government should keep him locked up for a very, very long time.

About 20 months later, Anwar was released from detention. He then took over the leadership of ABIM and started campaigning against Umno and the government. A year or so later, as I had written many times, I 'discovered' Islam and became a 'Born Again' Muslim.

I soon began to attend the ceramah or rallies organised by PAS. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution of Iran rocked the world and I got dragged in to 'political Islam'. I strongly believed that Islam is not a religion but a way of life or adeen. And this adeen involves the setting up of an Islamic system of government a la Iran.

Anwar attended some of those PAS ceramah as a guest speaker and I was mesmerised by what he said. Man, could he talk! Back in the early 1960s he would 'talk bad' about the British. By the late 1970s he was whacking Umno and Barisan Nasional and was espousing the virtues of Islam and an Islamic State.

And this cannot be achieved by mere rhetoric. It has to be a bloody revolution. People must die, thousands of people, like in Iran.

I was so bold as to even declare to an Umno man, Dr Zakaria, in a gathering at the Sultan of Terengganu's palace, that we must line up all the Umno people against a wall and shoot them dead.

Dr Zakaria was flabbergasted. He shook his head and walked away. The head of ITM Dungun, Ibrahim, who was standing beside us, pulled me away and whispered to me that I should be careful with what I say. That type of talk can get me sent to Kamunting.

What is Kamunting? Nothing! We are talking about blood flowing on the streets. We are talking about shooting dead 20,000 corrupt people like they did in Iran. We will burn down Kamunting together with the Prime Minister's house, then Hussein Onn, of course.

Then, in 1981, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister. Soon after that Anwar 'abandoned the cause' and joined Umno. We were walking around in a daze like a cucaracha sprayed with Shelltox or, as the Malays would say, macam anak ayam hilang emak ayam.

Not long after that I went to Mekah to find peace with myself. I needed to contemplate where our so-called Islamic Revolution was now heading with the loss of our 'Imam Khomeini of Malaysia'. I now felt only hatred for Anwar and my new perjuangan was to see the destruction of this traitor to our cause named Anwar Ibrahim, and his boss, Dr Mahathir.

TO BE CONTINUED

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Seeing is believing

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ...

Perception.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation.

Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now.

And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month.

Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime?

How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts?

And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound.

It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering.

Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines.

To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented.

And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day.

The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference.

There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs.

Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception.

Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider

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

Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception.

The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down.

My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts.

Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God.

Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class.

To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you.

There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more.

Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place. It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place.

A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic.

Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change.

And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said.

And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault.

This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault.

Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah.

But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad.

However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault.

So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point.

We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others?

Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages?

Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor.

Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter?

In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians.

The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this.

Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good.

What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be?

Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted.

And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause?

Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?

My response to Alan Yeap of Taiwan

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 12:06 AM PST

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

EDITOR: Many of you were not born yet in 1957 and yet you make so much noise about Article 153. Why apply different standards for different people?

RPK, do you realize how consistently inconsistent you really are? By the way, May 13 tragedy happened in 1969 and not 1957.

I remember reading your article on this tragedy and that you yourself interviewed Tunku Abdul Rahman in person. You got your article published in Harakah and this was repeated in your blog not too long ago when you were the RPK that people looked up to.

I have to honestly say that I don't know what Article 153 is. I assume it to be the May 13 tragedy.

EDITOR: You can't simply sue The Edge. You need locus standi and must prove you have been personally injured. Why are Pakatan supporters so stupid? Janganlah buka mulut kalau jahil. Malulah!

RPK, you were once an avid supporter of Pakatan and even risked your own safety canvassing and helping them win handsomely. You even got sent to Kamunting for that cause. I won't repeat your last two phrases. It sounds too …… demeaning.

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

That was Alan Yeap's comment, which he posted from the Shangri La Far Eastern Plaza Hotel in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.

First of all, when someone accuses me of being consistently inconsistent, he or she has to be specific and offer some examples. I may be accused of being cheong hei (longwinded), but at least there is no confusion as to what I am trying to say.

If I were to say that the DAP leaders are not sincere, that would be a sweeping and very vague statement. Such an allegation would need examples to support what I say. In what way are they insincere and what is it they have done and/or said to give me the impression that they are insincere? To make a sweeping and vague statement is just not acceptable. That, sometimes, is the advantage of being cheong hei. You go into details and throw in a lot of examples to support whatever statement you make.

Thus, where is my inconsistency? Did I say yesterday that Islam is the best religion and today I say that Islam is the worse religion? That would be inconsistent for sure. So give me your examples.

Alan Yeap said that May 13 occurred in 1969 and not in 1957. I don't know why Alan Yeap is telling me something that I already know. The whole of Malaysia knows it was in 1969. After all, I am not only a student of history but I have written many articles about May 13. Hence I know that May 13 was in 1969 and not in 1957. And I never said that May 13 was in 1957. So I do not know what gave Alan Yeap the impression that I said it was in 1957 and not in 1969.

As for the second part of Alan Yeap's comment, I said something else and he responded with something totally unrelated to what I said. What has what he said got to do with what I said?

Alan Yeap challenged Khairy Jamaluddin to sue The Edge. Why are the Pakatan Rakyat supporters asking this person and that person to sue this, that or the other? You scream about freedom of speech and how Barisan Nasional and the government do not respect freedom of speech. And then you ask people to sue other people to stifle freedom of speech.

You have to decide whether you do want freedom of speech or not. You can't keep asking people to sue other people every time they give their opinion. Now, if they slander you that is another thing. If they say you cheated your company or you had an affair with your secretary and this is not true then you have every right to sue them. But you can't sue people for expressing their opinion.

I don't think that giving out ang paus in white envelopes during Chinese New Year is bad luck or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That is my opinion. But do you sue me just because that is my opinion and because I expressed my opinion?

I can even say that I think you are silly for believing in such things but that is still not grounds to sue me. What if I were to say that I do not believe that God exists and I am of the opinion that all those people who believe in such nonsense are silly people? Can you sue me for that?

Slander is one thing. That hurts you and you can sue me if I lied. But my opinion is my opinion and you can't sue me for that. Can I sue you because you said that all those who do not accept Christ will never go to heaven and only those who accept Christ will be saved and will get to see heaven? You have just insinuated that I will be going to hell and you have hurt my feelings. But is that grounds enough for me to sue you?

You cannot scream about wanting freedom of speech/opinion/expression and at the same time threaten to sue everyone when they express any opinion that differ from yours. And to sue someone you must have locus standi and whatever was said must have hurt you personally. This has nothing to do with whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional.

Can you sue me if I were to say that the Japanese committed a lot of atrocities in Nanjing during WWII? First of all, it was true. Secondly, are you Japanese and are you personally hurt by my statement? Has your reputation suffered or did you suffer financial loss because of my statement regarding the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing?

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

Finally, I do not know how long Alan Yeap has been living in Taiwan but it must have been for quite some time since he does not know what Article 153 is. Or is Alan Yeap Taiwanese rather than Malaysian and that is why he does not know what Article 153 is?

Anyway, my response was specifically regarding those people who say that Khairy should not talk about May 13 since it happened in 1969 and he was not born yet then (he was born in 1976). In that case can I comment about things that happened during WWII since I was born in 1950? And what about those who were born after Merdeka in 1957 and yet make comments about Article 153? Do they have a right to talk about a matter that happened before they were born?

Those are the issues. The first issue is about suing someone who gives his or her opinion and the second issue is about telling someone not to comment about something that happened before he or she was born. Tony Pua was born in 1972 and Hannah Yeoh in 1979. Going by the standards we apply for Khairy, Tony and Hannah also have to stop talking about a lot of things. After all, all these things they are talking about happened before they were born.

But then this 'don't talk about something that happened before you were born' is only a rule for Umno people and does not apply to opposition people. And when I point this out they respond with: do you no longer support the opposition? What shallow thinking and narrow-minded mentality?

Wrong is wrong and should not be only wrong for those who are pro-government but right for those who are anti-government. Why can't these people understand something so simple and so basic?

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Posted: 23 Dec 2012 05:02 PM PST

If Syed Hamid had accepted the court's decision and had left me alone then my move to the UK would have been delayed, at least by more than a year or even two years. But because he wanted me back in Kamunting he left me no choice but to leave the country earlier than planned. And because of that Marina's cancer had been detected probably two years earlier than it would have.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We would like to believe that we are masters of our own destiny. Sure, there is such a thing called fate. But we would like to believe that we decide our own fate. Man proposes but God disposes is seldom a concept that we think about until after the event. And even then we always look at external events that influenced these changes to blame for that failure.

Are there such things called silver linings in dark clouds? I suppose those who believe in blessings would categorise it as a blessing in disguise. But why must blessings come in disguise? Why can't blessings come dressed in labels so that we can recognise them when they arrive rather than much later down the road long after the event?

We all have dreams. Those who no longer dream are those who have died, said the late Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba, one time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. As long as we breathe we will still dream, explained the Tun. Hence to dream is what spurs us. The day we stop dreaming is the day we stop living, figure of speech, of course.

My dream was to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. That never happened. I plotted and I planned, but God is the greatest plotter of all, as the Qur'an says. Hence whatever we say must always be tempered with the phrase Insha Allah (God willing or if God wills it) lest we tempt fate. Don't the English always say 'touch wood' to avoid the mischief by the devil of the trees that humankind worshipped in the days before 'Holy Books and 'Abrahamic Faiths'?

My father died, I had to seek employment to support myself, I got married, my first child Raja Suraya arrived, all within a space of two years to make that bike ride from Kuala Lumpur to London a dream that would never come true. Maybe I would still do it one day. Maybe I will still live my dream. But that would have to wait. It would now no longer be what I do before I begin my life. It would have to be something I do before I end my life. It would be what I do once I retire.

And so my wife, Marina, and I planned that retirement. But how would I interpret 'retirement'? I suppose retirement would be something that I stop doing. It would be a change of lifestyle of sorts. I would no longer do what I am doing now. I would stop doing what I am doing and do nothing. And then I would fill that empty space with something new.

But when should I retire and what do I do to fill in that time of retirement? Marina and I discussed it many times and for quite some time. This was during the height of the Reformasi days. Retirement would be when I reached 60. And that would, therefore, be after 2010. And when I retire we would move to England, buy a second hand Mini Cooper, and then tour Europe.

Okay, this is not quite riding my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. But that was my dream when I was still just 20. At 60, dreams have to be modified slightly. It was no longer just about me but would include Marina as well. And at 60 my bones were no longer what they used to be when I was 20. Hence driving my Mini Cooper all over Europe may be less taxing on my body than riding a motorcycle from Kuala Lumpur to London. And I doubt sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle for almost 10,000 miles would have been Marina's idea of fun.

The groundwork for our eventual move to the UK was laid in December 2001 soon after my first ISA detention that same year when we relocated two of our sons to Manchester. Three years later, in November 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched, Marina and I made a trip to Manchester together with our youngest, Raja Sara, to see how the boys were getting on. Were they happy in the UK? Would they like to stay on or would they like to return to Malaysia? Could our youngest join them later to continue her education in the UK?

It was decided that the move to the UK was viable after all. The children were okay with living in the UK and we found that life in Manchester was tolerable enough as a life of retirement. Another three years later, in 2007, we bought a family home in Manchester. There was no turning back now. Come 2010, when I reach 60, we would pack our bags and build a new life for ourselves in Manchester.

The following year, in 2008, I was detained under the ISA a second time. My sons wanted to return to Malaysia but Marina told them to stay on. The detention will not be forever. Probably in two years time, by 2010, I would be released. We would then join the family in Manchester.

I was, however, released earlier. After only two months the court declared my detention illegal and ordered my release. The Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, an old friend of 30 years, was outraged. They tried appealing my release and when that appeared to go awry Syed Hamid signed a new Detention Order and wanted to detain me a third time.

This time I was not going to get off so easily. Syed Hamid realised his mistake and he was not going to make that same mistake again. He was going to make sure that the new Detention Order was airtight so that no court would find any loopholes to order my release. And that was when Marina decided that enough is enough and demanded that I leave the country.

It was a week of confrontation and negotiation. Marina finally gave me an ultimatum. Either I leave the country or else she was going to leave me. She had had enough of driving up to Kamunting every Saturday to visit me. She was going to leave Malaysia with or without me.

Finally I relented. We were going to leave in or soon after 2010 anyway. 2009 was only a year or two earlier than planned. What difference does one year make? We left on a Saturday night and by Sunday we were across the border. On Monday, the police arrived at my house to detain me. We had made it with just 24 hours to spare. Our information was spot on and we got out in the nick of time.

It took a month to sort out our papers so that we could travel to the UK. Finally, in March 2009, we arrived in Manchester. It was now time to settle down into a British way of life. We registered with the NI and NHS and also registered as a voter. We needed an identity, as we were still a non-entity.

The NHS sent us letters to go in for a medical examination. For women of a certain age they also offer to do a test for breast cancer. Marina ignored the first letter she received, as she did the second letter. By the third letter I persuaded her to go in for the test since it is free anyway. If not they might keep sending her letters until she responded.

We drove to the place and they did the test. They then sent Marina another letter asking her to go in for a more thorough test. They suspected she might have breast cancer after all. My blood ran cold. I knew what breast cancer can do to a woman. I have lost enough friends and family members to that scourge to know.

Further tests proved that Marina did, in fact, have breast cancer. But it was still within stage one-stage two. Hence the chance for recovery was good. They would need to remove the cancer through surgery and thereafter put her under radiotherapy treatment. She would also require five years of medication, which would cost a bomb in Malaysia but was free in the UK.

We met the surgeon who told us that it was lucky that they had detected the cancer early. Hence Marina's chances of recovery were greatly enhanced. It was still stage one-stage two. If it had gone to stage three, or worse, then the chances of recovery reduces drastically.

Cancer is about early detection. If you must get cancer then better you know early because it increases your chances of survival. As fate would have it, Marina's cancer was detected early because we were forced to bring forward our plan to retire more than a year or two years earlier than planned.

Yes, man proposes but God disposes. We can dream but not always do our dreams come true. My first dream to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK never came true. My second dream to retire in or soon after 2010 and then move to the UK once I am 60 also did not come true. Instead, it happened earlier, soon after I turned 58. But it was not one of choice. It was what I was forced to do.

On hindsight, Syed Hamid did me a favour. If he had left me alone I would have done nothing. But if I had done nothing would that have meant by the time they detected Marina's cancer two years later it would have been too late? I suppose that is what fate is all about. You never know. You can only talk about blessings in disguise. You can only talk about silver linings in dark clouds. As they say: the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

TO BE CONTINUED

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)