Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Reclaiming Reason (part 2)
- The missing man in the Altantuyaa story
- Quick Response to PM’s Challenge on How PR Will Fund Buku Jingga Promises
- Project IC for Chinese?
- Adakah Lagi Tempat Melayu Bergantung?
- Malaysian government's debt to approach RM1 trillion by 2020
- Big Gamble for PM Najib in Selangor
- Pakatan Bala & Deepak, Bom Jangka Untuk PR
- Freedom of Religion at Stake: So much for 1Malaysia
- Bernama’s spin on EIU report on Malaysian polls
- Sabah - A Prized Catch
- SYA : 10 Reasons Why Ong Tee Keat is Not A Winnable Candidate
- Quran Was Already Written Down
- Megatrends Malaysia #1: "Crossroads"
| Posted: 25 Feb 2013 01:33 PM PST While Auguste Comte was labelled the "father of sociology" by the West, having first coined the term "sociology" in 1838, Ibn Khaldun was already delving into the rise, development, organisation and fall of societies as well as characteristics and institutions of the State 400 hundred years earlier. Muslims' thinkers and their works were well respected and their thoughts largely contributed to modern Western thoughts so much so that some of them were ascribed Latinised names. Thus al-Faribi, al-Kindi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rashid, for instance, were also known as Alpharibus, Alkindus, Avicenna and Averroes respectively. There is no denying that freedom of thoughts and expressions as well as rationalism were at the forefront of Islamic intellectualism and achievements. Islamic intellectualism and its attendant polemics did not divide the Muslims. They did not create schisms and drive deep wedges into Islam as we now see. Quite to the contrary, they served to enhance Islam with a vibrancy of thoughts that we, in 2013, could only dream of seeing. Politics however tended to be harmful to religion, especially when the seat of power sought to utilise religion and its jurisprudence to legitimise its existence and continuity. As soon as the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed away, the seeds of discontent were sowed over the choice of the person who was to be the 1st Caliph. The Prophet, in his last sermon before he died, said: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor does a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood." This however did not stop the Muslims from invoking tribal precedence in matters relating to the election of the first Caliph. The Ansars said the first Caliph should be from their tribe because they were the ones who welcome the Prophet and the Meccans to Madinah. The Quraish said the first Caliph should be from their tribe because the Prophet was a Quraish. Soon the Shiites would say the Caliph should only be from the Prophet's family members only. These disputes were by no means theological in nature as much as they were political. Twenty-four years after the Prophet's passing, the 3rd caliph, Uthman was murdered. Ali, his successor was blamed by Muawiyah for failing to punish Uthman's killers. Muawiyah soon declared his own Caliphate. A civil war, known as the Battle of Siffin, would ensue. Facing defeat, Muawiyah ordered his army to put pages of the Quran on the tip of their lances. This ploy led to arbitration. That arbitration resulted in an uneasy truce, namely, Muamiyah was to rule Syria whereas Ali was to rule Arabia, Iraq and Persia. Over time, Ali's supporters would be known as Shi'atu Ali (supporters of Ali) or Shiites in short. Muamiyah outlived Ali and founded the Umayyad Dynasty. A third group, the Kharijites (the "dissenters") promptly declared both Ali and Muamiyah infidels. The Kharijites became arguably the first ever terrorist group in Islam. Four years after the Battle of Siffin, one of the Kharijites killed Ali. Ali was the 4th Caliph, the last of what the Sunii called the Rightly Guided Caliph. Islam thereafter morphed from a way of life to an empire ruled by a dynasty, After Muamiyah died, he was replaced by his son, Yazid. His despotic characteristic made him hated by both the Sunnis and the Shiites. He later killed Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet at Karbala, marking a tragic black dot in the history of Islam. It also marked the first full-fledged incursion by politics into theological intellectualism.
| ||||
| The missing man in the Altantuyaa story Posted: 25 Feb 2013 12:35 PM PST After all, they are the new G-Ds of "truth" as I had posted in Age of Gemini?
Apparently after hearing what Balasubramaniam had to offer, regarding what he was informed by Razak Baginda who in turn was informed by Najib Razak who in turn was informed by Altantuyaa Shariibuu who in turn confessed she liked 'getting it' in her behind, Sivarasa (remember, he's coincidentally the PKR MP) 'suggested' that Balasubramaniam get 'someone' neutral to record everything down. What a wonderful suggestion! And coincidentally, that neutral 'someone was Malaysia's very civic-minded lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu. In fact it had been Malaysia's very civic-minded lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu who assured us that he was nominated because he was coincidentally the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter (presumably the Altantuuyaa case). I recall Sivarasa was coincidentally(?) at the press conference when Balasubramnaiam revealed his 1st SD, sitting just beside Anwar Ibrahim who coincidentally was there to grace the press conference. And if you are thinking of blaming Anwar or suggesting he had something to do with Balasubramniam;s SD, please don't bother because coincidentally Malaysia's very civic-minded lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu had 'cleared' Anwar Ibrahim from that. If I recall, it was on 26 Nov 2009 that we read Malaysiakini's PI's lawyer: 'Anwar not behind Bala tapes' which led me to post Bala's SD - Americk Sidhu clears Anwar Ibrahim from involvement. Malaysia's very civic-minded Mr 'Neutral' asserted that: "… Anwar had nothing to do with the release of the first SD except to deliver a speech prior to the press conference at the PKR headquarters last July. I have had no communication with Anwar at all, and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me."
Then, I was greatly comforted by Malaysia's very civic-minded lawyer's assertion, though I was somewhat puzzled, just a tad though, that despite having no communication with Anwar or any PKR member whatsoever (except of course for an encounter with Sivarasa Rasiah at 'The Backyard' pub and Anwar Ibrahim at the press conference) Mr Americk Singh Sidhu was able to further assert: "… Many people think Anwar Ibrahim is behind all this. That is absolutely untrue. Anwar has no idea about this whole episode except what he may have read in the blogs and on Malaysiakini." In my post I had commented that I was (coincidentally) in a somewhat similar position as Americk, sharing with him a status where I too coincidentally "…have had no communication with Anwar at all, and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me", indeed wakakaka. Thus I too would definitely not accuse Anwar Ibrahim of being behind Balasubramaniam's 1st SD ... Absolutely NOT! But precisely for that very reason, that I was and am not in communication with Anwar wakakaka, I wouldn't be able to claim whether Anwar was involved or not involved.
But strangely but most wonderfully (coincidentally?), Malaysia's very civic-minded lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu was able to, proving he must be a better man than most, especially me, dungu kaytee.
| ||||
| Quick Response to PM’s Challenge on How PR Will Fund Buku Jingga Promises Posted: 25 Feb 2013 11:59 AM PST The response is crude as I was rushing, but the no's speak for itself. I welcome any comments A) PHILOSOPHICALLY - BN has always said that many things cannot be afforded or it will bankrupt the country, especially the ones that involve direct assistance to the people - In the past, the kind of massive state assistance now implemented in Selangor and Pulau Pinang would have been unthinkable under BN, as they claimed the government lacked money - Since taking over, PR government in Selangor has spent approximately RM150 million per annum giving back to the people, in the form of free water scheme, one off bursary for university students, microcredit etc. - The reason why PR could do it and BN never had done, because we plugged the leakages caused by rampant corruption B) HUGE LEAKAGES DUE TO CORRUPTION - Auditor General's report estimated that the country lost RM28 billion a year due to corruption – shoddy procurement practices, incomplete projects, massive cost escalations etc. - Even without coming up with any fancy national financing schemes or new loans, by tackling corruption there is a potential RM28 billion that will be used to fund all these programs - These amounts are real, it is the money lost each year to cronies. This amount should go back to the people - Likewise, putting a stop to excessive and wasteful spending by government will also set the right spending culture e.g. stop PM's frequent overseas trips to the point he spent almost an equal time overseas than in Malaysia, or the huge consultancy fees paid to APCO (RM77 million) or for the setting up of PEMANDU (RM66 million) – BN may argue this amount is small, but it's a reflection of careless and carefree spending culture that ignores the plight of the people C) RE-DIVERTING CORPORATE SUBSIDIES BACK TO PEOPLE - Each year, PETRONAS has to fork out RM19 billion to pay for gas subsidies so that IPPs (owned by cronies or political establishment) can enjoy massive profits (billions each year) because they are shielded from the fluctuations or energy price - PETRONAS has to buy gas from Natuna and JDA at much higher prices, then sell to IPP at a third of the market price – this amounts to RM19 billion each year - If this arrangement is abolished, there is RM19 billion extra profit that PETRONAS can pay back to the government/people - Similarly, the government spent RM4 billion each year to pay compensation to highway concessionaires – this amount can easily be reverted to people if the toll system is restructured, as promised in Buku Jingga D) TOTAL SUM AVAILABLE - Just by plugging the leakages due to corruption (RM28 billion) and eliminating corporate subsidies to IPP (RM19 billion) and toll compensation (RM4 billion), there is a sum of RM51 billion each year that escapes the system and went to cronies - This amount is more than enough to pay for the promises of Buku Jingga Read more at: http://rafiziramli.com/2011/01/quick-response-to-pms-challenge-on-how-pr-will-fund-buku-jingga-promises/
| ||||
| Posted: 24 Feb 2013 05:10 PM PST Tun Dr Mahathir rebutted to say that if he was bad for issuing IC to Filipinos, then Tunku Abdul Rahman is worse for issuing one million IC. It did not permanently silenced the opposition but after their lame rebuttals, it was sufficient to stop further attack on Dr Mahathir.  The figure for 1964 to 2012 shows the total issued blue ICs are 66,682 in which 59,726 are still living and not reported to have died. This differs vastly to previous claims of 73,000 to 200,000 of blue ICs issued in the tumultous years prior to and after 1994, the year PBS was ousted. Not to mention is the claim by a University Professor that Sabah population increased drastically at a certain years. So does the mytical numbers been bandied around for real? The second table provides information on the number of issued ICs in accordance to place of origin:  In this figure, it shows that the highest number of ICs are issue to immigrants who are based from Malaysia at 38,214. This are likely those immigrants already residing in Malaysia and most likely are stateless but was not issued ICs. One could assume that the majority are Filipinos from Southern Phillipines. There is probably Chinese and other ethnics. The highest other country of origin other than from within Malaysia are China at 13,556. This excludes those from Hong Kong at 1,981. Neighbouring Indonesia and Brunei are only 7,501 and 1,126, respectively. India is only 233. Another country of origin that is likely to be Malays is Cocos Keeling island near Australia is 958. This statistics is not complete because the total is only 64,889 but it only differs by about 2,000 from the total in Table 1. Thus far it looks like the largest recipient of blue ICs from outside Malaysia is from China. Could this be the possible reason Dato Chong Kee Kiat fought tooth and nail against Dato Musa Aman with DAP, SAPP and others supporting the building of the the Ma Tzu stature in Kudat? Perhaps, it is inconclusive to steer the wrath of the KDM and other Sabah ethnics towards Chong for bringing in immigrants from China. Let's see the ethnic breakdown in table 3 for 1964 to 2012, below:
| ||||
| Adakah Lagi Tempat Melayu Bergantung? Posted: 24 Feb 2013 04:53 PM PST Bukan alang kepalang punya soalan itu. Orang putih kata, a million-dollar question (soalan sejuta dolar). Saya kata, soalan yang tidak ada jawapan. Lagi hebat, dia bertanya soalan itu (melalui sistem pesanan ringkas/SMS) dari di Milan, Itali yang berupa ibu kota fesyen dunia. Untuk sama-sama memahami dan memikirkan jawapan kepada soalan berkenaan, izinkan saya mengemukakan beberapa fakta, andaian dan keluhan sebagai asas perbahasan: 1. Di saat-saat kedudukan orang Melayu semakin terdesak dan terancam, kepemimpinan Melayu di kedua-dua belah sempadan politik dilemparkan pelbagai dakwaan, tuduhan dan insinuasi yang sangat dahsyat. Ada tuduhan sudah terbukti. Ada tuduhan sekadar sensasi. Ada tuduhan disangkal sepenuh hati. Ada yang pucat kesing, murung berdiam diri. Apabila tuduhan tidak dibalas, tentu ada yang percaya ia berasas. 2. Persepsi yang semakin negatif di kalangan orang Melayu sendiri terhadap jati diri, integriti dan moral pemimpin politik Melayu. 3. Yang malu, rugi dan dicaci adalah orang Melayu. Dan Melayu bukanlah ramai sangat di Malaysia ini. Menurut Bancian 2010, penduduk Malaysia seramai 27,484,596 orang. Daripada jumlah itu, Melayu 50.1%, Cina 22.5%, Bumiputera bukan Melayu 11.8%, India 6.7%, kaum-kaum lain 0.7% dan orang asing 2.25 juta atau 8.2%. 4. Jadi hanya separuh penduduk Malaysia orang Melayu dan orang Melayu pula, secara purata, adalah lebih daif daripada orang Cina dan India di segi ekonomi. Orang Melayu dan Bumiputera adalah warga ekonomi kelas tiga. 5. Orang Melayu semakin lemah di segi politik kerana berpecah tiga antara Umno, Pas dan PKR. Hanya Umno boleh dianggap parti yang berorientasikan Melayu. Itu pun azam Melayunya semakin luntur. Pas mengaku parti Islam dan PKR parti pelbagai kaum.
| ||||
| Malaysian government's debt to approach RM1 trillion by 2020 Posted: 24 Feb 2013 04:26 PM PST Statistics reveal that in the last 15 years, the Malaysian government's debt increased at an unprecedented rate. The graph below shows the statistics for the government's combined domestic and foreign debts from 1991 till the present. Forecasts are provided up to the year 2017. Here we ignore private debt, even though it adds to the government's debt burden, because a portion of private debt is publicly guaranteed. We also ignore other unrevealed debts. What the statistics are saying During the 1990s, the reported debt level was mostly flat. It declined slightly towards the end of the decade. At the close of 1991 it was RM99 billion, and by the end of 1996 it was close to 91 billion. After 1997, the government's debt began to steadily climb until 2007. In those 10 years, the debt level rose from RM91billion to RM274 billion. This is an increase of RM183 billion, or an annual average addition of debt of RM18.3 billion. From 2008 onwards, the borrowings escalated exponentially. In 2008 alone, an extra RM43 billion of debt was amassed. From RM274 billion at the start of that year, the debt level rose to about RM502 billion by the end of 2012 — an increase of RM228 billion in five years. The average increase in debt in this period was RM45.6 billion per year. The IMF forecast the debt level for the years 2013 to 2017. The annual increase in debt is predicted to be higher, at a yearly RM55.4 billion. The projected debt level for 2017 is RM779 billion. This assumes that there is still plenty of domestic funds available to carry the borrowing up to that level (the lion's share of government debt, is after all, domestic debt). If not, debt would have to be secured from external sources. The assumption is also that the government will continue to borrow. This is likely to be true. As we have seen, the trend suggests that the government's appetite for debt has been growing, not abating. The annual increases in debt are substantial sums: a single year's borrowing can dwarf a decade's worth of inward foreign direct investment. There has been no sign of the debt accumulation reducing or levelling out since the year of the East Asian economic crisis of 1997. Large government deficits were first incurred in the aftermath of this crisis. Then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad justified this as part of government spending in commercial enterprises to stimulate the economy. In reality, the loan proceeds were allegedly used for questionable purposes, such as to fund large-scale projects awarded to crony capitalists and to bail out their failing companies. The federal government's borrowing shifted into higher gear from 2008, the year the Barisan National coalition lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority. The deficit expenditures have been justified as a short-term tool. But they have continued for almost a decade and a half; they have become a permanent feature of the government's financial policy. The government's financial imprudence is therefore a primary cause of the country's indebtedness.
| ||||
| Big Gamble for PM Najib in Selangor Posted: 24 Feb 2013 04:13 PM PST Two Selangor Umno leaders are widely seen as potential MB candidates - state BN coordinator Mohd Zin Mohamed and his deputy, Noh Omar. There are rumours that both of them do not get along well.
| ||||
| Pakatan Bala & Deepak, Bom Jangka Untuk PR Posted: 24 Feb 2013 03:24 PM PST Walaupun disebut-sebut bahawa kepulangan Bala akan membawa rahmat yang tidak terhingga kepada Pakatan Rakyat, terutama dalam menghidupkan semula isu pembunuhan model Monggolia, Altantunya Shaariibu pada 2006, tapi suarapakatanrakyat.com melihat Bala hanya akan membawa 'bala' kepada Pakatan Rakyat sahaja. Asas utama bercakap begitu ialah, jika ramai masih tidak sedar, Bala telah menarik balik SD (Akuan Bersumpah) pertama yang mengaitkan Najib dengan pembunuhan tersebut apabila mengemukakan SD kedua yang menafikan kenyataan dalam SD1 – dalam tempoh kurang 24 jam. Jadi, walaupun Bala bersumpah dengan kitab Hindu apa nama yang disebutkannya semalam bahawa SD1 adalah benar berbanding SD2, suarapakatanrakyat.com yakin ia tidak memberi apa-apa kesan kepada rakyat Malaysia, terutama sekali orang Melayu dan Islam. Alangkah Najib bersumpah menjunjung Al-Quran pun tidak ada orang yang percaya, apatah lagi sumpah guna kitab Hindu ini. Yang perlu dilakukan Bala sekarang ialah dengan mengadakan SD3 untuk menafikan SD2. Di dalam SD3 ini masukkan sekali penjelasan kemana wang RM 50,000 dari Razak Baginda yang diserahkan kepada Bala untuk dibayar kepada Altantunya yang menjadi persoalan sehingga sekarang. Biarlah banyak-banyak SD pun tak apa, asal sahaja boleh memberi logik kepada apa pun tindakan yang mahu dilakukan. Selain itu ada beberapa isu berkaitan Bala ini yang menggusarkan kami, antaranya kenapa dia melarikan diri dulu, siapa yang menaja kehidupannya dan keluarganya di luar negara dan sebagainya. Yang kami difahamkan sebelum ini, Bala dilarikan Najib ke luar negara, tapi kenapa dia pulang sekarang kononnya untuk membantu kempen Pakatan Rakyat pula? Selain itu, cadangan untuk menggandingkan Bala dengan peniaga karpet, Deepak Jaikirshan dalam kempen pilihanraya Pakatan Rakyat nanti adalah satu kesilapan yang besar kerana pakatan antara Deepak dan Bala ini boleh memberi masalah kepada Pakatan Rakyat. Deepak seperti yang kita tahu, tidak begitu boleh diharap kerana sering kali mengeluarkan kenyataan bercanggah, termasuk menyerang pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat seperti Rafizi Ramli dalam isu pembelian barang kemas oleh syarikat Deepak untuk Rosmah Mansur. Sama seperti Bala juga (kenyataan bercanggah). Suarapakatanrakyat.com masih tidak memaafkan Deepak kerana pernah menuduh Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebagai dalang yang mengaitkan Najib dan Rosmah dalam satu skandal jual beli tanah walaupun sebelum itu dia juga yang mengaitkan pembabitan Najib. Perkara itu dirakamkan di dalam video oleh blogger UMNO, Papagomo.
| ||||
| Freedom of Religion at Stake: So much for 1Malaysia Posted: 24 Feb 2013 09:30 AM PST  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RELIGIONES.png When a religious controversy arises, there will be a lot of hoo-ha among Malaysians – no matter how unproductive it is to debate about it. While our Primer Minister Dato Seri Najib Razak and his cabinet members are trying so hard to promote unity through their 1Malaysia concept, there is, arguably, zero tolerance amongst Malaysians when it comes to religious and/or racial issues, despite the fact that we have been living together for more than 50 years. Does this show that the 1Malaysia concept has failed to achieve its objective? The most recent controversy is the usage of the word 'Allah 'in Bahasa Malaysia Bibles. From my humble opinion, this so-called controversy is supposedly a non-issue provided you have fairness, justice, rationality, and reasonableness in mind. Despite the clear provision of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, there are still individuals and bodies acting against it, showing how childish and foolish can some be. Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS), alongside with the Selangor Sultan's decree, prohibited the usage of the word 'Allah' by all Christians. There are also certain individuals who claim 'Allah' to be a term exclusive to Muslims only. The Perak Mufti stated, "Do not continue challenging, insulting Islam". It is submitted that Christians should not be prohibited from using the word 'Allah' in their Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible because to do so would be limiting and restricting the right of Christians to manage and practise their own religion. Just imagine if Muslims were a minority in Malaysia – where they would be prohibited from calling the Adhan using a loudspeaker, prohibited from performing Friday prayers as it causes traffic congestion – would these prohibitions not be frustrating to Muslims, if they were to exist? Freedom of religion, in my opinion, is not just about allowing any religion to be in existence. It also includes, but is not limited to, how religions are to be managed and practised by their respective followers. My argument is premised on two notions – the Constitutional point of view and the Islamic point of view.  Source: http://saesm.deviantart.com/art/Allah-90141016 From the Constitutional point of view, it is absolutely clear that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guarantees and protects freedom of religion. Article 11(1) states:
Furthermore, Article 11(3) stipulates that every religious group has the right, inter alia, (a) to manage its own religious affairs. Of course, it is admittedly true that this freedom is not absolute. The only restrictions are public order, public health and morality, as stated in Article 11(5). It would be an exaggeration to suggest that usage of the word 'Allah' in Bahasa Malaysia Bibles falls under any of these restrictions because I believe it is still within the scope of Articles 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution. Apart from Article 11, Article 3(4) is also a relevant provision in the context of this apparent controversy. This is because certain individuals purporting that the word 'Allah' be exclusive to Muslims had relied on Article 3(1) which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This was the basis of their argument that to allow Christians to use the word 'Allah' would be to make all religions equal. It is unfortunate to note that one of these individuals is our former Chief Justice. These individuals also claim that Islam is far more superior to any other religion in the Federation by virtue of Article 3(1). It is submitted that Article 3(1) cannot be read alone, but must be read together with Article 3(4) which states that nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of the Constitution. In other words, the constitutional right of freedom of religion in Article 11 is not extinguished notwithstanding the adoption of Islam as the religion of the Federation. It is also pertinent to note that the term 'Islam' in Article 3(1) only refers to the ritualistic and ceremonial role of Islam, as stated by Tun Salleh LP in Che Omar Che Soh v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55. Thus, Article 3(1) does not bring any significant impact towards the other provisions of the Constitution, including the provisions on Fundamental Rights.  Source: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sC9zTCX5fZI/TiGkM8YO9pI/AAAAAAAAALA/Ps6RQObGLzk/s1600/islam_christianity.jpg Now, looking from the Islamic point of view, I am certain that – although neither a religiously-trained ulama nor an al-Azhar graduate myself – Islam does not prohibit usage of the term 'Allah' by Christians, in spite of the differences between Islam and Christianity in terms ofAqidah (Faith). Islam believes in the concept that 'Allah is Esa (One)', while Christianity believes in the concept of the 'Trinity'. Despite this fact, it is submitted that Christians should not be prohibited in using the term 'Allah'. Read more at: http://www.loyarburok.com/2013/02/24/freedom-religion-stake-1malaysia/
| ||||
| Bernama’s spin on EIU report on Malaysian polls Posted: 24 Feb 2013 09:15 AM PST This is the EIU report:
And this is Bernama's spin on the report:
So you can see that the EIU report is a bit more nuanced than the way Bernama has reported on it. Why didn't Bernama report this: "But support for the BN was much weaker, with just 47% of those surveyed saying that they were satisfied with the government." And this? "At some point this year, when all of the voter-related fiscal incentives are added up, the 13th general election will be shown to have been the most expensive poll in Malaysia's history. Expect more of this kind of spin as the general election draws closer. The EIU report seems to suggest that widening the tax base would be a good way of reducing the fiscal deficit, such as through the BN's plan to introduce a goods and services tax. But GST is really not necessary and will hurt the lower income group. Both the BN and Pakatan need to move away from blanket cash handouts (that do not differentiate between the rich and the poor) and target their precious financial resources in a more meaningful way at groups that need them the most. Otherwise, there will be no end to this competition to see who can provide more cash handouts. It defeats the concept of having a progressive taxation system under which those who earn more are taxed more to finance social services for the more vulnerable and poorer segments of the population as well to improve the quality of, for instance, public education and public health care. Read more at: http://anilnetto.com/economy/energy-resources/bernamas-spin-on-eiu-report-on-malaysian-polls/
| ||||
| Posted: 23 Feb 2013 10:35 PM PST Do not be misled as this current unfolding of events is the beginning of a much sinister ploy. Sabah is ground zero in a conspiracy perpetrated by very powerful entities and the Filipino Muslims rebels currently at standoff with Malaysian authorities are merely pawns in a game where lives are 'meant' to be lost for a deceptive cause. Claims that Sulu warriors landed in Sabah because the Sulu Sultanate was left out of the recent peace process brokered by Malaysia between Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Philippines Government is NOT REALLY THE FACT! The following are some facts and evidence that reveal why Sabah is Ground Zero: 1. The SMOKESCREEN? This ship – USS GUARDIAN – ran aground in Tubbataha Reefs in Philippines on Jan 17, 2013.  This ship was 'deliberately' made to sail off-course. Imagine with the latest equipment on board and having sailed through the same route many times, this minesweeper ship was unable to differentiate the reefs from the waters. Despite being warned repeatedly by Tubbataha Reef Marine Rangers, the USS Guardian commander refused to listen and stop. He even ordered his crew to get into 'battle position' when the rangers tried to get on board to make a routine inspection on the ship after it ran aground. "Until today, it remains a mystery: Why were they even near Tubbataha? The Sulu Sea is so vast, and it takes hours from Puerto Princesa to reach it. Why couldn't they see it when they had all the state-of-the-art maps and navigation systems?" asked Jose Ma. Lorenzo, World Wildlife Fund-Philippines chief executive officer. THIS is what Philippines Department of Transportation and Communication SecretaryJoseph Emilio Abaya said of the US Sailors on board USS Guardian: "Some say they probably enjoyed too much of an RnR in Subic, some said error in digital charts, some say they were doing a different thing there on their own….."In other words, the Secretary was trying to imply that USS Guardian was running its own 'clandestine' operation. (For further read on the USS GUARDIAN issue, please go to:http://globalnation.inquirer.net) Could it be that this incident created a smokescreen for some other activities to take place in the Sulu Sea and adjoining Celebs Sea? * The date of the incident was Jan 17, 2013. * Members of the self-styled Royal Army of Sulu invaded Sabah on Feb 11, 2013, which is 24 days later. There was a flurry of activities involving US ships as well as rescue and salvage ships in the Sulu Sea since the Jan 17 incident at Tubbahata Reef region. As a matter of fact, the crew on board USS Guardian were quickly rescued and whisked away to a Japan safe zone. Why were they not brought to Philippines which is the most logical thing to do? Could it be that all this activities that ensued in the Sulu Sea could have provided an opening for hundreds of speed boats with Sulu warriors to sail into Sabah undetected? Something is just not right with the USS Guardian. 2. The BACK CHANNEL MAN aka DOUBLE AGENT  Philippines Senator Antonio 'Sonny' Fuentes Trillanes IV, a former Navy Lieutenant is the man who knows exactly what is going on Sabah. Trillanes IV (born 6 August 1971 in Manila, Philippines) is a Philippine military and political figure. (You can find his details in Wikipedia). He is best known for his role in the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny when he and a group of 321 armed soldiers took over the Oakwood apartment towers in Makati City, lined them with bombs and threatened to demolish them because they were tired of corruption in the army and called for the ousting of then-President Gloria Aroyo. He is an incumbent Senator of the Philippines, the first Philippine Senator to be elected while in jail. Now, he has called on President Aquino's administration to make known its policy on the country's claim to Sabah and on the standoff between Malaysian security forces and a group of armed warriors loyal to Sultan of Sulu in the eastern Malaysian territory. Read more at: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/64989/trillanes-calls-on-aquino-govt-to-reveal-stand-on-sabah-claim Trillanes was President Aquino's backchannel link to Beijing at the height of tensions between the Philippines and China over a territorial dispute in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) last year. Trillanes, as told to reporters in Manila recently, is the person responsible for directly briefing President Aquino on the Sabah situation. But some in Philippines claim he is a double agent. He is known to get things done by playing to Washington's tune. When he was advising Aquino during the tensions with China, he did his job fairly well by getting sound advice from the Americans while sweet talking to the Chinese at the same time. Leaked diplomatic cables reveal that one or two American special agents will always be trailing Trillanes each time he met with top Chinese Government officials, be it in China or Manila, during the crisis negotiations. And the Chinese probably knew it too, but they were busy playing their own games with the Americans and the Filipinos. Regarding the standoff issue in Sabah, Trillanes was quoted as saying: "It was high time the Department of Foreign Affairs articulated the government's policy on Sabah. Until then we'll have to withhold further comment because this is a very sensitive issue and it involves the lives of our countrymen in Sabah". It appears that Trillanes knows that some lives could be lost in the Sabah standoff. 3. Toothless Tiger Grows FANGS  Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has been a toothless tiger for a very long time as he is plagued by a lot of problems, from family infightings, health issues, financial difficulty and rivals claiming his throne, more than a dozen to speak. One just has to read www.fakesulusultans.com to catch a glimpse of how many 'sultans' are claiming the one throne in Sulu. Jamalul Kiram knows his kingdom is not safe in his hands, and he suffers from liver ailment as well as other illnesses, and lives in constant fear that someone will poison him to claim his throne. But then, suddenly, the toothless tiger Jamalul Kiram grows fangs and claws. He orders his troops, helmed by his crown prince, to invade Sabah knowing very well that the full might of the Malaysian army will be upon his men. How did this happen? Any by the way, Jamalul Kiram is still undergoing treatment at a Manila hospital for liver ailment. This begs the question, who is behind Jamalul Kiram's renewed vigour in claiming Sabah? Read more at: http://sabahgroundzero.blogspot.com/
| ||||
| SYA : 10 Reasons Why Ong Tee Keat is Not A Winnable Candidate Posted: 23 Feb 2013 10:26 PM PST 1. Ong Tee Keat once pledge to QUIT if he lost the no-confidence vote in his MCA Presidency - He is the first political party incumbent who lost in his party Presidency ever in Malaysia political history - He gain the lowest vote ever in MCA Party internal Presidential election with only 500 over votes (a votes that even way lower than Chua Jui Meng back then) - If a person who cannot even convince 2000 MCA delegates to win in the party election then how on earth can he Convince the total amount number of voters that is easily 30 times larger than the number of MCA 2000 delegates? - Is just like a football player who is trying to be the main player against another team but if that player cannot even get through to be chosen to represent his own squad then how on earth can he say that he is a winnable player against another team? 2. Ong Tee Keat do not respect the true meaning of DEMOCRACY - When he was the President of MCA , he abused his power to sack MCA Deputy President that is voted in by the MCA democratic, voice, support, voters and delegate. Later on he even went and sacked MCA Youth and Wanita Chief. He do not know how to respect the democratic support from the MCA voters and delegates. - Now Ong Tee Keat again failed to understand MCA democratic system to be a candidate where previously he was a President before and he should know MCA internal system very well that to be a candidate an individual must get the recommendation from the Division (Pandan) and State (Selangor – Selangor Chief Donald Lim) and finally only the elected MCA President will made his choice based on the recommendation by the division and state. - Although the final decision is still in the hand of Prime Minister but as a PM and BN Chief in a democratic coalition, he must also look into the recommendations suggested by MCA. - How can Ong Tee Keat claim that he wanted to be a candidate in a MCA seat without going through the democratic division, state and national MCA level and straight asking PM to pick him as a candidate? - Unless Ong Tee Keat wanted to contest in a UMNO seat then for sure PM do have the right to pick him as a candidate without need to refer to MCA recommendation - How can Ong Tee Keat be a Winnable candidate if he do not respect what it mean by democracy? (Even if he is being removed by MCA President (CSL), it is being done in a democratic way compare to what he have done to previous MCA Deputy, Wanita and Youth Chief without following the democratic way) 3. Is Ong Tee Keat A Winnable Candidate or Barisan National a Winnable Coalition? - If Ong Tee Keat is a Winnable candidate then he should contest Pandan seat under his personal capacity - If he still want to contest under Barisan Nasional ticket , then that just shows that he still have faith in Barisan Nasional as a Winnable Coalition and he can never win without contesting under Barisan Nasional banner - In this situation , it clearly show an example that Ong Tee Keat can never win without BN banner but BN can still win even without Ong Tee Keat 4. How can he contest in a MCA seat where he earlier claimed that MCA is in irrelevant (2011)? - If MCA is really irrelevant then why on earth Ong Tee Keat still want to contest in MCA seat? - If Ong Tee Keat claim that he do not have faith in current MCA leadership then why he still want to contest in a seat that lead by the leadership that he do not have faith in? - After Ong Tee Keat loses his Presidency, he continue attacking MCA and now he wanted to contest in a seat which is a MCA seat? Where is the logic in this issue? 5. His Barisan Nasional Banner as His Defense Is An Example that He Is Not Fit To Be A BN Leader - Ong Tee Keat claimed that he have never contest under MCA banner all this while and he only uses BN Flags in the election - Ong Tee Keat must know that since whenever UMNO, MCA, PPP, MIC, GERAKAN and other BN component party uses their own party flag during the General Election? It is already a common election understanding that whichever component party also must unite and use Barisan Nasional flag during the General Election - This is the type of unity in Barisan Nasional that Pakatan Rakyat do not have. In BN, all the component party unite under 1 flags while in PR they ally under 3 different flags during the General Election. - Entire Malaysia all the BN component party will be using BN Flags but PANDAN is a MCA seat that Ong Tee Keat can never deny the facts and reality of it. Read more at: http://1sya.com/?p=4809
| ||||
| Quran Was Already Written Down Posted: 23 Feb 2013 03:10 PM PST I did receive three comments to the Blog which I did not let through. Two were false and had no basis while the third was as usual rude and just trying to score points without paying attention to proper methods of discussing things intelligently. I will however discuss the Quran verses referred as well as some other points that were raised. One person said : "An-Naasikh and Al-Mansookh, are two terms among the terms of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Naskh means abrogating a religious ruling with a new and recent text.. bla bla" Thanks but no thanks for such a long winded comment. We need proof brother. Please remember this word inside your religious mind : 'PROOF'. The Quran says "Haatu burhanukum inkuntum sadiqeen" - bring your proofs if you are truthful. So please bring proofs for all your mumbo jumbo. You can resort to the usual habit of shouting, cursing, using bad language etc - but that is not an answer. At the end of the day - please bring your proof. Another person quoted the Surah 2:106 to justify abrogation. It simply means that this person does not believe in the Quran. He wants to quote another verse from the Quran to say that the Quran is incomplete, it could be changed (by human beings and by goats). So stop for a minute and imagine inviting the non-Muslims to Islam by saying, 'Come to Islam, read the Quran, the Quran was revealed by Allah, the verses of the Quran were once abrogated by a goat." Is this how you invite people to Islam? People will laugh at you. The commenter quoted Surah 2:106 as follows : "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? 2:106. First off all this translation is not fully correct. There is no communications in this verse. The arabic word there is 'ayaat'. Ayaat does not mean communications. Ayaat means signs. But even with an incorrect translation like this, there is a built in factor inside this translation which still nullifies the theory of abrogation. Look at the words 'or like it'. If the verse says "We bring one... like it" it means there is no abrogation. "Like it" means "the same thing", "benda yang serupa dengannya". This means going back to square one. Nothing new is being introduced. So mana ada abrogation? Here is a better translation of Surah 2:106 : When we abrogate any sign (ayaat), or cause it to be forgotten, we produce a better sign (ayaat), or at least an equal one. Do you not recognize the fact that Allah is Omnipotent? What are these signs or ayaat referred to in Surah 2:106? We can easily understand this by reading a few verses before 2:106 to see the context. Here are Surah 2:100 - 106 2:100 Is it not a fact that when they make a covenant and pledge to keep it, some of them always disregard it? In fact, most of them do not believe. 2:101 Now that a messenger from Allah has come to them,* and even though he proves and confirms their own scripture, some followers of the scripture (ootul kitaab) disregard Allah's scripture behind their backs, as if they never had any scripture. 2:102 They pursued what the devils taught concerning Solomon's kingdom. Solomon, however, was not a disbeliever, but the devils were disbelievers. They taught the people sorcery, and that which was sent down through Haroot and Maroot. These two did not divulge such knowledge without pointing out: "This is a test. You shall not abuse such knowledge." But the people used it in such evil schemes as the breaking up of marriages. They can never harm anyone against the will of Allah. They thus learn what hurts them, not what benefits them, and they know full well that whoever practices witchcraft will have no share in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed is what they sell their souls for, if they only knew. 2:103 If they believe and lead a righteous life, the reward from Allah is far better, if they only knew. 2:104 O you who believe, do not say, "Raa`ena"* (be our shepherd). Instead, you should say, "Unzurna" (watch over us), and listen. The disbelievers have incurred a painful retribution. 2:105 Neither the disbelievers among the followers of the scripture, nor the idol worshipers, wish to see any blessings come down to you from your Lord. However, Allah showers His blessings upon whomever He chooses. Allah possesses infinite grace. 2:106 When we abrogate any sign (ayaat), or cause it to be forgotten, we produce a better sign (ayaat), or an equal one. Do you not recognize the fact that Allah is Omnipotent? The ayaat referred to in 2:106 refers the Quran that was alreday revealed. The previous verses 2:100-105 refer to the scriptures that had been revealed before the Quran. The phrase 'ootul kitab' in 2:101 refers the earlier people who were given the kitab much earlier. So when a new kitab or book like the Quran was revealed it brought the same ayaat (signs) or something better. There have been many kitabs or books revealed before the Quran. Among them are the Injeel (Evanglos), Tawraat (Torah), the book given to Moses and the book given to Abraham. All these books are mentioned in the Quran. So a new book can be revealed which is full of ayaat or signs. But once a new book is revealed there is absolutely no changing the words or kalimah that are found inside the new book. This is the meaning of Surah 6:115 which I quoted earlier: Surah 6:115 "The Word (kalimaatu) of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His Words (kalimaatihi). He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." Laa mubaddila li kalimaatihi - Nothing shall abrogate or change His Words. Predictably those religious people who have no faith in the Quran (and are therefore not Muslims - because that is exactly what they accuse others) have nothing to say about this verse. They remain absolutely silent about Surah 6:115. They actually reject Surah 6:115. And they force themselves to misunderstand Surah 2:106 because they deliberately ignore these three words "or like it" that are found in Surah 2:106. Why would people who claim to be Muslims who believe the Quran want to do a thing like that? There were other references to Surah 58:12-13 and such but they do not make sense so I dont want to dwell on those verses. The Proponents of Abrogation also dwell a lot on their theory that the Quran was not compiled into a book form until much later in history. Among their beliefs is that the Quran - a book which they like to remind everyone was revealed by Allah - was first written down on pieces of parchment, pieces of leather, pieces of dry bones and left around here and there. They say that the Quran was finally compiled on paper and into one volume much later. This is their belief. This is what they say. But what does the Quran say? Didnt these people bother to check what the Quran itself says about how it was written or recorded? Lets see what the Quran has to say about this.
| ||||
| Megatrends Malaysia #1: "Crossroads" Posted: 22 Feb 2013 10:46 AM PST in our society lies italy's mussolini and germany's hitler and japan's tojo .. all these laced with the one-dimensionality of malaysiana and that sloganism of "truly asia" ... the show goes on ... who will win will be determined by the complexity of the game of deceit, the closer we are to the finishing line the more complex the nature of deceit to even be displayed and rationalized ... we will arrive at Fahrenheit 451 (that Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel of book burning and the end of reason) in which everything will be heating up, in flames, and explode ... because our politics is a politics of plunder, pornography, and parasites behind a facade of rhetoric of morality and multiculturalism .. our politics is a politics of revenge, rape, and ravages run by despots that have designed dynasties amongst themselves in order to fed their desire to dominate, dictate, and dumb down the people ruled ... we could have been a greater nation had our years in-between elections we utilize to work on improving education and the soul of the nation as bi-partisans, in an evolving and meaningful way we teach about democracy, equality, equity, and personal and political integrity even if we still engage in a system of economy that prides itself in the triumph of the free-enterprise ideology ... - will we be doomed? - how difficult will it be for power to be transferred, should the time comes for the conclusion leading to a different political reality? - or will there be an emergency rule and the installation of a "caretaker government" of military men who will later shed their uniforms and the generals in their labyrinth once again put on their civilian clothes and hand over heaven's mandate on a golden plate? READ MORE HERE: http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/2013/02/megatrends-malaysia-1-crossroads.html
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan