Sabtu, 5 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


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.

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.  

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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.

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)  

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) 

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Seeing things from the right perspective

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 07:42 PM PST

 

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last few days I have read a few comments calling Rafizi Ramli a liar and accusing him of politicising the Deepak Jaikishan issue. First of all, so what if Rafizi is politicising issues? Is that not what politicians are supposed to do? You mean all those others in Pakatan Rakyat are not also politicising issues? You mean all those Umno and Barisan Nasional people are not also politicising issues?

Accusing Rafizi of politicising issues is so stupid. It is like accusing a fox that is hanging around the chicken run of trying to whack the chickens. That is why God made foxes, to whack chickens. Whacking chickens is in the job specification of foxes. Why else do you think God made foxes? Do you think God made foxes so that sugar daddies can buy a fox fur coat for their mistresses?

Foxes were created so that they can whack chickens. And politicians were created so that they can politicise issues. And all this talk that politicians are the result of anal sex is utter bullshit and very unfair because you cannot get pregnant from anal sex and for sure no one can get born through the arsehole.

Politicians are born just like you and me, the normal way, and politics is a career just like any other career.

In fact, politics allows postmen and railway crossing guards attain career heights that postmen and railway crossing guards could never attain if they did not become politicians. It is like going to America, the land of opportunity. Where else can simple farmers or descendants of slaves become 'big people' if not in America? And if you can't migrate to America to become a 'big person' then you become a politician and get called Yang Berhormat or The Respected One.

We must remember that everything in Malaysia is politicised. Even the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, etc., God is politicised. Even with all that power that God possesses He cannot prevent his name from being politicised. And if the all-powerful God cannot stop his name from being politicised do you think Deepak Jaikishan can prevent his name from being politicised even if he imagines himself as a Sex God?

Now, why do you say that Rafizi Ramli lied? What did he say that makes you come to a conclusion that he lied? Did Rafizi say he was there, say, when Deepak Jaikishan was alleged to have bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for First Lady Rosmah Mansor? Did Rafizi say he personally saw the jewellery and/or held them in his hand?

He never said that. What he said was he has seen the documents and the documents were handed to him by someone he personally knows. He apparently trusts this person and probably has a relationship of sorts with this person. And this person handed him some documents that were supposed to be evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah. So, based on this, he held a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and that these documents are evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah.

And the purpose Rafizi held that press conference to reveal the existence of these documents is so that the MACC or PDRM can investigate the matter and find out whether all this is true or false. It could be true or it could be false. But Rafizi would not know whether it is true or false. He can only hold a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and leave it to the authorities to authenticate the documents and tell us whether the allegations are true or not.

Some of you ask: why hold a press conference? Why not make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration instead? If you are really sincere about seeing justice done then you should make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration. Holding a press conference makes it appear like all you want to do is to politicise the issue.

True, a police report or Statutory Declaration would be better than a press conference. A police report or Statutory Declaration looks less political than a press conference. But maybe you have forgotten that back in 1998 Anwar Ibrahim made a police report and he ended up getting arrested and was sent to jail for a long time. Ten years later, in 2008, I signed a Statutory Declaration and I too was arrested and charged for that. I was also detained without trial.

So, do you really think a police report or Statutory Declaration is wise? So far no one has been arrested and sent to jail for holding a press conference. At worse you may be subjected to a civil suit. However, since the press conference is a party press conference, then when you get sued the party will come out with the money to pay for a lawyer to represent you in court.

Can you remember that I was sued by many people -- UUM V.C. Nordin Kardi, Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Lt Col Abdul Aziz Buyong and Lt Col Norhayati Hassan, etc. And I was sued because I made allegations against them.

Now I have been declared bankrupt and yet still more civil suits are piling up against me. Has any Malaysian from 28 million Malaysians offered to help me out financially?

When you write bad things about the government or about those who walk in the corridors of power everyone will clap and cheer you on. But when you get sued you have to carry that problem all by yourself. No one from all those people who clapped and cheered you on is going to come forward to volunteer to help you out financially.

I am fortunate that I have some friends who are lawyers who volunteered to help represent me free of charge. In the Nordin Kardi case, however, no one came forward to help me out. So the court awarded him an uncontested win and I now have to pay Nordin Kardi RM2.5 million. But I do not have RM2.5 million and can't pay that amount. So I have to be declared a bankrupt, as I was in the earlier case involving an Umno Minister where the court asked me to pay RM1.3 million.

Actually, it is now no longer worth anything to help me out unless you can afford to pay RM60 million, which is what I have hanging over my head -- and which is increasing every time I lose a case.

Do you know I recently had to pay the government RM215,000 to get my house released? In the end, with tax and legal fees included, I had to pay about RM250,000 or else I would lose my house.

And none of those people who clapped and cheered when I whacked the government came forward to help me settle that RM250,000. So my daughter had to go to the bank to borrow the money to help me out. Luckily I have a daughter who can qualify for a bank loan of RM250,000 or else my house would be gone.

So you face a great risk when you whack the government. No doubt people will clap and cheer when you whack the government. But that is all you receive -- claps and cheers. If you make a police report, sign a Statutory Declaration, or write an article in your Blog, you will get arrested and will get sent to jail. And you not only get arrested but will get sued as well and then will be hit with millions in damages. Hence the safest thing to do would be to do what Rafizi Ramli did -- hold a press conference in the party's name.

So I think you have to be a bit fair with Rafizi. He has no choice but to politicise the issues so that he can get the protection of the party when people sue him. If not Rafizi would end up like me if he does things outside the party. And he did not lie. He never said he was there or that he saw everything. What he said was that he was reliably informed, like what I said on my Statutory Declaration.

And I know it appears like Rafizi has done a U-turn. Yesterday he never said that the information or documents he received came from a third party. But now that Deepak has denied meeting him and/or denied giving him any documents, Rafizi turns around and says that the evidence came from a third party.

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

Maybe Rafizi is worried that if he declares that he was not actually a witness but that the evidence was given to him by a third party then people will accuse him of doing a U-turn. Rafizi knows that that happened to me when I explained during my TV3 interview that I was not a witness but was informed about the matter by a third party. Everyone accused me of doing a U-turn even though I did not. Hence, understandably, Rafizi needs to be very careful here or else he will suffer the same fate that befell me.

Rafizi is not only a product of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK). He is also a product of a UK university education. That makes him very clever. Most MCKK cum UK educated people are very clever. And, being very clever, he would most certainly be aware that most Malaysians are not very bright. In fact, some Malaysians -- those not from MCKK and a UK education -- can sometimes be downright stupid. Hence Rafizi has to be very careful with what he says. People will even accuse him of saying what he never said -- unless you are from MCKK and armed with a UK education (then you will not be stupid enough to accuse people of saying what they did not say).

I am sorry if I sound like I am defending Rafizi. Even if I am defending Rafizi so what? Is it a crime to defend someone from your alma mater? Yes, I am defending Rafizi. I do not deny that and I am not apologetic or embarrassed about it. When someone deserves defending then you must defend that person.

And if you are not happy with that then sue me. It is, after all, a free country. Anyone can sue anyone.

Even the Christians are free to sue the government for not allowing them to use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat comes out with a statement next week also agreeing that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible then the Christians should sue Pakatan Rakyat as well.

But wait first until next week and see what Pakatan Rakyat has to say because they will be meeting only next week to make a decision as to whether Christians can use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat were to agree with the government that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible only then sue them. But I am confident Pakatan Rakyat will not agree with the government.

 

Claiming credit for other people’s work

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 07:18 PM PST

 

Sure, we fight for freedom of speech. And that is one of the reasons why we oppose Umno and Barisan Nasional -- because we want freedom of speech. But freedom of speech means you are free to talk about what we like but should not talk about what we don't like. And PAS talks about Islam, which is something we don't like. Hence we are angry with PAS for talking about what we don't like even if under freedom of speech they have a right to talk about whatever they want to talk about.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

JAIP nabs 13 couples for 'khalwat' in New Year's Eve

(Bernama) - The Enforcement Division of the Pahang Islamic Religious Department (JAIP) caught 13 unmarried couples between 18 and 25 years old in a Syariah crime prevention operation after the 2013 New Year Eve celebrations.

JAIP chief enforcement officer Mohd Raffli Abd Malik said the couples were nabbed for committing khalwat at several budget hotels in town from 9pm Monday to 6.30am Tuesday.

"Most of the couples were between 18 and 25 and were picked up from budget hotels around town where they had checked in after the New Year celebrations."

"They will be charged under the Islamic Religious Administration and Pahang Malay Customs 1982 Enactment," he told reporters after the operation.

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

Last night/early this morning, 13 unmarried couples were arrested in the state of Pahang, a state under Barisan Nasional, the same government that is in power at federal level. These unmarried couples were arrested under Islamic laws, also known as Syariah laws.

Malaysia, however, is not an Islamic State. It is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Westminster system of government. In other words, Malaysia is almost similar to the UK and considering that our system is a legacy of the British Colonial Government that is not too surprising.

Pahang is not only under Barisan Nasional. It is also the state were a Muslim woman was arrested and convicted for drinking beer and was sentenced to a punishment of whipping. Furthermore, Pahang is where a PKR leader who is also an ustaz (religious scholar) was arrested for being alone in a hotel room with a married woman, not his wife obviously.

Looking at the track record of Pahang, it appears like Barisan Nasional is more Islamic than Pakatan Rakyat and is very serious about the implementation of the Islamic Syariah laws.

None of the other states have sentenced a woman who drinks beer to a punishment of whipping. None of the other states arrested unmarried couples celebrating New Year Eve in a hotel room last night or early this morning. Only the Barisan Nasional run state of Pahang did this.

Note that these unmarried couples were arrested under the Islamic Religious Administration and Pahang Malay Customs 1982 Enactment. Yes, it was under a 30-year old law that was passed back in 1982.

1982 was the year I did my first Haj. 1982 was also the year that Anwar Ibrahim left ABIM to join Umno so that, as he himself claimed, he can change Umno from the inside and make it more Islamic.

Also very important, 1982 was when the Sixth General Election was held and Barisan Nasional won 132 of the 155 Parliament seats (or 86% of the seats in Parliament) on 61% of the popular votes while DAP won only 9 seats and PAS won 5 seats (with 8 seats going to independent candidates).

And that was the law used to arrested these 13 unmarried couples in Pahang last night/early this morning, a law that was passed by the Barisan Nasional government in 1982 soon after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister and Anwar Ibrahim left ABIM to join Umno so that he can make Umno more Islamic.

Many of us are very angry with PAS. We are very angry with PAS because they are trying to make Malaysia more Islamic. We are very angry with PAS because they are trying to remove Malaysia's secular system (or partial secular system) and turn Malaysia into a fully-fledged Islamic State (from the partial Islamic system that we have now).

The weird thing is, while PAS talks about making Malaysia more Islamic (and which is the reason of our anger, because they talk about it) none of the PAS run states like Kedah or Kelantan arrested anyone last night or early this morning (and not because no one in Kedah and Kelantan were engaged in 'illicit' sex to usher in the new year, mind you).  It is a Barisan Nasional state like Pahang that arrested unmarried Muslims for checking into a hotel room.

What is of special interest to me is that this law that they used to arrest these unmarried couples is a 1982 law. And in 1982 Dr Mahathir had just become the Prime Minister and Anwar joined Umno to make it more Islamic. And in 1982 the Malaysian voters gave Barisan Nasional a resounding win in the Sixth General Election while the Islamic party, PAS, won only five seats.

I think PAS is a fake. They talk about Islam. However, in states under their control, such as in Kedah and Kelantan, no one was arrested for illicit sex. Those who were arrested were arrested in a Barisan Nasional state like Pahang. And what I find even weirder is that the Menteri Besar of Pahang in 1982 was current Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

I wonder whether we should continue being angry with PAS. It looks like the culprits who 'Islamised' Malaysia were Dr Mahathir, Anwar and Najib. And these laws were enacted in 1982 when Dr Mahathir first became Prime Minister, Anwar left ABIM to join Umno, and Najib was the Menteri Besar of Pahang.

Maybe we should just let PAS keep talking about Islam. After all, it is the Barisan Nasional government and not the PAS government that appears to be overzealous about implementing Islam. It is those who do not talk about Islam who appear to be the dangerous ones.

In 1982, PAS was not in power in any of the states (not even in Kelantan). In fact, in 1982 PAS won only five Parliament seats. The people in power then were Dr Mahathir and Anwar at federal level and Najib in the State of Pahang. And the 13 unmarried couples arrested last night/early this morning were arrested under a 1982 law that was the product of Dr Mahathir, Anwar and Najib.

Well, did I not say that politics is all about perception? And reality and perception are two different animals. We are angry with PAS because they talk too much about Islam. But it is not PAS that arrested these people last night/early this morning.

Sure, we fight for freedom of speech. And that is one of the reasons why we oppose Umno and Barisan Nasional -- because we want freedom of speech. But freedom of speech means you are free to talk about what we like but should not talk about what we don't like. And PAS talks about Islam, which is something we don't like. Hence we are angry with PAS for talking about what we don't like even if under freedom of speech they have a right to talk about whatever they want to talk about.

Or maybe PAS should stop talking about Islam. After all, last night/early this morning it was not the PAS run states but a Barisan Nasional run state that arrested 13 unmarried couples for celebrating New Year's Eve in a hotel room. And this law that they used to arrest these people was a law that was enacted in 1982 when Dr Mahathir first became Prime Minister and Anwar left ABIM to join Umno and Najib was the Menteri Besar of Pahang.

Hence how can PAS claim credit for something that other people did back in 1982 when PAS was not running even a single state in Malaysia and won only five seats in Parliament?

 

Why is the court trying to block Rosli from giving his statement?

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 04:16 PM PST

 

What is it that the court is trying to block Rosli from revealing? How will Rosli's testimony hurt those who walk in the corridors of power? We should be concerned about what they are trying to deny us from knowing, not about exploiting issues for political gain.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Someone asked me why I no longer bother to expose the wrongdoings of those who walk in the corridors of power, in particular those wrongdoings by the Barisan Nasional government.

Well, first of all, in the past, I was the only one doing this. For eight years since August 2004 and for five years before that since 1999 I have been fighting a lone battle revealing the excesses and transgressions of those who walk in the corridors of power. And the police have raided my house and confiscated documents and computers from my house no less than half a dozen times. I have also been detained without trial twice and arrested and charged a couple more times because of my 'crimes'.

Today, we have many prominent people doing that job. So do you still need me to do that? We have Rafizi Ramli, P. Balasubramanian, Deepak Jaikishan, ex-IGP Musa Hassan, ex-Kuala Lumpur CID Chief Mat Zain, Ex-CCID Chief Ramli Yussuf, ex-Health Minister Chua Jui Meng, ex-Umno activists such as Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri who joined DAP, ex-Umno Sabah leaders such as Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Dr Ibrahim Menudin and Yahya Lampong, and many, many more.

In short, there are scores of people now doing the job I used to do. And most of these people are whistleblowers. They used to be part of the corrupt system and now they are revealing insider information. Who better to expose these shenanigans than people who were once part of that corrupt system? Certainly they would have first-hand information that I do not have.

Secondly, for more than 13 years since 1999 (eight of those years with Malaysia Today) I have been revealing scandal after scandal but nothing was done about the matter. More importantly, I did not reveal these scandals AFTER they had happened like all the others. I revealed them BEFORE they happened so that something could be done about them, a sort of pre-emption strike. But nothing was done about the matter and what I warned would happen really happened in the end.

What is the point with screaming after the horse has bolted? You need to close the barn door before the horse bolts. Closing it after the horse has bolted is no bloody good. And this is what most of you do. You scream after it happens. When we reveal it before it happens you do nothing. And then you ask me why I do not talk about it.

What is the point of talking about something after it happens when you do nothing about the matter when I talk about if before it happens? What a bunch of idiots I have as readers. Waste of bloody time trying to educate you. Better I just sit back and watch Pakatan Rakyat get whacked in the coming general election and then write my "I told you so" article.

Malaysia Today revealed that George Kent was going to get the Ampang LRT project ONE YEAR before it was awarded to them. What was done about it? Now that it has already been awarded to George Kent you make so much noise and Rafizi Ramli holds press conference after press conference.

For what? For syok sendiri is it? I even revealed who Tan Kay Hock is plus his links to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak two years before the announcement of the project. And what did you do? Nothing!

Malaysia Today revealed that a company linked to the ex-Chief Justice and Umno lawyer was going to get the RM2.2 billion Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (Kidex) project BEFORE it was awarded to them.

And what was done about it? You waited until the project was awarded to them and then you make so much noise. For what? For syok sendiri is it?

Years ago Malaysia Today exposed the RM8 billion MAS fiasco and also revealed how this matter is linked to the RM30 billion Forex disaster of 20 years ago. Malaysia Today also revealed the contents of Tajudin Ramli's Affidavit where he admitted that his takeover of MAS is linked to the Forex issue and was a move to camouflage this scandal.

And what was done about it? Now the matter has been settled out of court so that the truth stays hidden. And now you scream. For what? For syok sendiri is it?

Remember back in 2006-2007 Malaysia Today revealed the links between the police and the underworld? Remember my article 'All Roads lead to Putrajaya'? Today, everyone is singing the song about how the police are linked to the underworld. And the lead singer in this chorus is the ex-IGP himself, the head of the underworld in the police force. And you all scream what a great guy he is and that he should be a Pakatan Rakyat candidate in the coming general election.

What bullshit! What a bunch of losers you all are! I really hope that Barisan Nasional wins the general election so that I can have the pleasure of seeing your faces when I write my "I told you so" article.

A month ago I wrote a report called 'No, it is not over yet'. (READ HERE). And what did you do about it? Now read the Malaysiakini news report below called 'Jan 3 decision on AG's objection to Rosli's revelation'.

Yes, lawyer Rosli Dahlan is being fixed up by Malaysia's legal system. And I wrote about it a month ago and nothing was done about the matter. On Thursday this week, 3rd January 2013, Rosli is going to become yet another of the many victims of Malaysia's corrupt legal system.

Do you care? Will anyone do something about it? Will Rosli suffer the same fate as the many who came before Malaysia's legal system and were denied justice? Or will you just wait until it happens so that you can exploit this whole thing for political gain?

I suspect you want it to happen. I suspect you want Rosli to suffer injustice. And then when it happens you can use this episode as an election issue. You do not care about justice. You just want to use injustice as a political issue and to win votes. You want people to suffer so that you can win the election.

What is it that the court is trying to block Rosli from revealing? How will Rosli's testimony hurt those who walk in the corridors of power? We should be concerned about what they are trying to deny us from knowing, not about exploiting issues for political gain.

We should come out and warn the judge that on 3rd January 2013 if they deny Rosli justice then expect our wrath. We should make sure that Rosli receives justice and not hope that he suffers injustice so that we can use that as an election issue.

Okay, read (below) what are the secrets that they are trying to keep a secret. They want to block Rosli from testifying and also want to expunge his Affidavit so that Malaysians will never discover the truth. But Malaysia Today is going to reveal the truth anyway whether they block it or not.

And that is the job of Malaysia Today. We reveal the untold story. We engage in pre-emption strikes. Our job is not to exploit issues for political gain and to win elections.

And that is what makes Malaysia Today far better than all the others. We reveal secrets to educate you. Others do so to win votes. And idiots do not know the difference. Are you one of those idiots? Chances are you are.

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

Jan 3 decision on AG's objection to Rosli's revelation

Hafiz Yatim, Malaysiakini

In a wicked twist, the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday refused to grant Rosli Dahlan time to file an affidavit in reply to the Attorney-General's application to remove certain paragraphs in the lawyer's witness statement regarding the 'Copgate' affair.

The senior federal counsel in the case had only affirmed an affidavit submitted on Thursday to oppose Rosli's witness statement and open testimony in court.

What was peculiar in the senior federal counsel Azizan Md Arshad's application was that he had deposed it himself, whereas it is usual practice for the affirmation to be done by another senior officer.

In the affidavit, the AG's Chambers reproduced all of Rosli's statements, which it opposed, making them public.

Despite this, Justice Hue Siew Kheng refused to grant Rosli time to submit his affidavit-in-reply to Azizan's application, ordering the parties to submit yesterday afternoon in her chambers.

Justice Hue then fixed Wednesday for a decision on the AG's Chamber's objection to expunge certain paragraphs.

On Nov 28 it was reported that the AG's Chambers, representing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency and the government, had opposed Rosli's application to read out his witness statement and also wanted expunged certain portions of it related to Copgate and other matters.

The Copgate affair involved former inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan and attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail alleged to be the hidden hands in providing protection to an underworld figure named Goh Cheng Poh, also known as Tengku Goh.

At the previous session, Justice Hue had allowed Rosli to read out his witness statement in open court, which had been fixed for Jan 25 during the hearing of the RM50 million suit.

'Goh's arrest viewed as disloyal act'

Rosli, in his writ filed in 2009, had described the acrimonious relationship between former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuff and Musa, and how the IGP had used the ACA and the AG's Chambers to implicate him and Ramli in the wake of Goh's arrest.

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

The lawyer claimed that Musa saw Goh's arrest as an act of disloyalty on Ramli's part, resulting in the IGP initiating further ACA investigations against him, thus straining the Musa, Ramli and Johari relationship.

Rosli also claimed that he earned Musa's wrath and that of the attorney-general's when he drew up the affidavits for Ramli and Johari, triggering the ACA probe against him and his subsequent arrest.

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

He gave his statement at the ACA headquarters, but was held overnight and taken to court and charged on the eve of Hari Raya, on Oct 27, 2007.

These were malicious actions out to tarnish his image, he added in his writ.

However, the KL Sessions Court had acquitted Rosli without calling his defence, on the charge of not complying with the agency's procedures to declare his assets.

The prosecution had withdrawn its appeal against the acquittal earlier this year.

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

WHAT THEY DON'T WANT US TO KNOW

 

The division of the Muslims

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 05:36 PM PST

 

I do not know from where Syed Ali Alhabshee learned his history. Nevertheless, the Muslims split more than 1,200 years before PAS was formed. Hence how can PAS be accused of splitting the Muslims? Furthermore, PAS was effectively formed seven years before Umno was formed, as the timeline above shows. Hence should it not be Umno rather than PAS that split the Malays-Muslims?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Umno leader accuses PAS of disuniting Malays, Muslims

(Bernama) - An Umno leader has accused PAS of having deviated from its original struggle and causing disunity among the Malays and Muslims in the country.

Cheras Umno Division chief Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee said the role of the 'ulama' (scholars) in the party was being eroded because they were unable to withstand the pressure from the DAP.

PAS, DAP and PKR make up the opposition pact called Pakatan Rakyat.

"PAS is forced to drop its platform for the struggle of Islam because it has been realised that the party cannot survive without the support of the DAP and PKR," Syed Ali said in the latest entry in his blog, http://umnobahagiancheras.blogspot.com.

He also said that no PAS leader, including the party's spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, was bold enough to stand up to DAP chairman Karpal Singh who had objected to PAS proposals for an Islamic state and the implementation of 'hudud' (Islamic penal) law.

Syed Ali said PAS leaders politicised religious sentiments to garner the support of Malay voters. He also said that Nik Aziz insisted on not withdrawing the 'Amanat Haji Hadi' (Haji Hadi's Message) delivered by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang in 1981, which branded Umno members and supporters as infidels.

"At a time when all quarters, including former PAS leaders, want the Amanat Haji Hadi to be withdrawn, Nik Aziz wants it to be retained, indicating that he has an implicit agenda," he said.

Syed Ali said the Malays and Muslims should realise that PAS' struggle all along had been for the political interests of certain quarters and was not based on the struggle for Islam.

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

The First Islamic Civil War, also called The First Fitna, was fought from 656 to 661 soon after the assassination of Usman, the Third Caliph after the death of Prophet Muhammad. A few battles were fought during this civil war that included the Battle of the Camel, the Battle of Siffin, the Battle of Nahrwan, etc.

The 'Mother of all Battles' was probably the Battle of Karbala on 10th October 680 that sealed the split between the Muslims for good when Hussein, Prophet Muhammad's grandson, (plus his entire family), was massacre. Until today the followers of Ali and the opponents of Ali have remained split and the tragedy of Karbala is celebrated every year in Iran with bloodletting on the streets.

The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PMIP), today called Parti Islam SeMalaysia or PAS (Pah Alif Sim), was effectively formed on 4th April 1939. Umno was formed seven years later on 10th May 1946. In March 1947, the first Pan-Malayan Islamic conference was held at Madrasah Ma'ahad al-Ehya as-Sharif at Gunung Semanggul, Perak.

As a result of this conference, the Majlis Agama Tertinggi (Supreme Religious Council) or MATA was formed. MATA began organising political events and meetings for Malay-Muslim activists to meet and discuss their plans for the future and the need to mobilise the masses. MATA also organised a conference from 13th-16th March 1948, which discussed local and international issues.

The conference participants felt that Umno was not doing enough to address the important issues and that the conservative-nationalists in Umno were not doing enough to stand up for Malay-Muslim rights. Needless to say, the Umno representatives in MATA were not happy with the tone of the discussion set by the Islamists, which was too revolutionary and militant for their taste.

The Parti Orang Muslimin Malaya (Hizbul Muslimin) was formed on 17th March 1948. Syeikh Abdullah Fahim, the grandfather of former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, played a major role in its formation. After the second conference it declared that MATA should be reorganised as an Islamic political party. With the formation of Hizbul Muslimin, all political activities were transferred to the organisation while MATA served as the party's religious affairs bureau.

When the ulama' faction in Umno broke away from the party, they formed an association called Persatuan Islam Sa-Malaya (Pan-Malayan Islamic Association), abbreviated as PAS (Pah Alif Sim). At that time, the association charter allowed for dual membership in PAS and Umno and thus many PAS members thought of themselves as Umno members and vice-versa.

Eventually, the dual-membership clause in the party charter was revoked and PAS began to emerge as a distinct entity. For the sake of contesting in the first municipal elections in 1955 (two years before Merdeka), the party was re-registered under the name Pan-Malayan Islamic Party or PMIP. The name was later changed to Parti Islam Se-Malaysia during the Asri Muda era in the 1970s.

I do not know from where Syed Ali Alhabshee learned his history. Nevertheless, the Muslims split more than 1,200 years before PAS was formed. Hence how can PAS be accused of splitting the Muslims? Furthermore, PAS was effectively formed seven years before Umno was formed, as the timeline above shows. Hence should it not be Umno rather than PAS that split the Malays-Muslims?

That is the trouble with Malaysians who make statements without knowing history. They need to study history before they make assumptions and come to conclusions. In fact, they should make it a rule that all candidates in the general election should first study history before they are selected to contest the elections. If not we will end up with political leaders making statements that are contradictory to historical facts.

 

So, what’s the solution then?

Posted: 20 Dec 2012 08:08 PM PST

 

And not all these property buyers in the UK are Malays or Malays from Umno. Many are Chinese and many are Chinese who support Pakatan Rakyat (I know because I am acting for some of them as their property agent). So in what way can we blame the government? And will all these people be happy if the Malaysian government demonetises the Ringgit and make it worthless outside Malaysia?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

RM200b outflow Najib's best achievement as Finance minister, says PAS Youth chief

(Harakah) - The high ranking recently given to Malaysia among developing countries suffering illicit funds outflow means the country's Finance minister Najib Razak has broken a records of sorts, according to PAS Youth leader Nasrudin Hassan.

"It is something which has surprised many. What is not surprising is the fact that mainstream media do not report it," he said, adding that the public would eventually come to know details of the damning report issued by Washington-based Global Financial Integrity.

Nasrudin reminded that Najib himself had admitted during UMNO's recent congress that young Malaysians were now more equipped with information due to information technology.

In its latest report on illicit funds outflow released on Tuesday, GFI ranked Malaysia second only to China among other Asian economies in terms illicit funds outflow, while it is placed third globally.

Noting that some 80 percent of illicit financial flows were due to trade mispricing and 20 per cent due to corruption, GFI said that between 2001 and 2010, a total of US$285 billion was transferred out of Malaysia illegally.

Nasrudin compared the figure for illicit funds outflow provided by Najib last year - RM135.4 billion between 2000 to 2009 - with GFI's figure of RM662.6 billion for the same period.

He added that one should not be surprised if the government denies the figure by GFI.

He also said the revelation reflected badly on giant government-linked companies such as Khazanah Nasional and Petronas.

"It proves the existence of illegal acts to avoid taxes and siphoning out the country's revenue through property investment, foreign bank accounts and others to shore up personal wealth," said Nasrudin, who cited the recent revelation of unusual wealth owned by the family of Sarawak chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, when some RM100 million was demanded for a divorce settlement involving the latter's son.

Nasrudin also reiterated the urgency for public office bearers to declare their assets.

Earlier today, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said he would write to Bank Negara Malaysia governor Zeti Akhtar to participate in a discussion on how to weed out illicit funds outflow.

"Urgent steps must be taken to finalise an action plan, not by avoiding the issue as the case has been so far with Najib Razak," said Anwar.

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

While it is good that we reveal the transgressions and excesses of the government, plus the mistakes it makes, we should also be prepared to offer a solution to the problems. If we just point out that the government is no good and that we must change the government without mentioning in what way it is no good and what we need to do to make it a better government it is no bloody good.

I mean most Malaysians know that the government is no good but they do not really understand in what way it is no good. Then they think that the solution to this is to just change the government without a second thought on whether by changing the government we shall be a getting a new government or the same type of government, sort of like old wine in a new bottle.

That is why I sometimes shy away from writing these types of articles. As much as I try to take the middle road and not be seen as propagating one side or the other, because I do not scream ABU that is interpreted as I am pro-government. If I do not support the 'death to Israel' war cry does that mean I am a Zionist? Not all Muslims believe that the Middle East solution is to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel.

Do you know that many Muslims danced on the streets in November 2001 when the New York Twin Towers was brought down? They openly celebrated the destruction of the Twin Towers, a symbol of American capitalism. But how many Muslims died in that tragedy? And how many Zionists died?

It was like the discussion on the social problems amongst Malaysian youths (I think it was two years or so ago). Invariably, how strict Islam may be, the biggest social problem is amongst the Muslims. So who has failed here? Has Islam failed? Or have the parents failed?

If Islam has failed then in what way has Islam failed? Islam is strict enough as it is so it must be the implementation that is the problem then.

Okay, just for the sake of this discussion, let us say that the implementation or the enforcement of Islam has failed. And that is why we have a big social problem amongst Muslim youths. Can we then solve the social problem amongst Muslim youths by tightening the rules? And let us look at some examples from other Muslim countries.

To start of with, no female can leave her home un-chaperoned. When a girl or woman leaves her home she must be chaperoned by a male member of her family. If she leaves her home alone she will be arrested and jailed. She also cannot drive or work.

It is easy to scream about the social problems amongst youths and then blame Islam, Umno, the government, or their parents. But what is the solution to this problem? That, no one is talking about. And most times the solution may be worse than the problem.

Let us not blame Islam. Let us blame the government. Why is the government not doing anything about the problem? Let's therefore change the government. So a new government takes over. But what is the new government going to now do?

Can the new government impose a curfew on kids? All those below 18 must be at home by 7.00pm. If after 7.00pm they are still outside their home they will be rounded up and then their parents will be arrested and will be jailed up to a maximum of three years.

Is this too draconian? If that is not done then how to solve the problem? And if the problem is not solved you will blame the government, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.

Hence screaming about the problem and blaming the government is not going to solve anything. Are you prepared to suffer the consequences of the solution?

Take the bad driving habits of Malaysians and the extremely high death rate on Malaysian roads as one more example. How do we solve that problem other than blame the government for it?

Can we ban those under 21 from driving? Then can we install number plate recognition cameras all over Malaysia and on every street and every street corner of Malaysia like in the UK? And when drivers commit a traffic offence their driving licence is endorsed and they get banned from driving for two years the first time, five years the second time, and for life for the third time?

All this would be done by computer (the number plate recognition cameras all over Malaysia are computerised), which means we can eliminate the human element (no policemen involved). This means we will also eliminate corruption since the entire process is fully computerised like in the UK.

Probably more than half Malaysian drivers will lose their right to drive.

That will for sure reduce the problem. It will also reduce the number of drivers and the number of car owners. It will also mean half of Malaysians will need to hop onto a bus to move around.

No doubt this will make life very difficult for most Malaysians but at least the government can no longer be blamed for the problem.

Okay, now what about the problem of funds outflow? Who is to blame for that and how would the government solve that problem? Anwar Ibrahim wants to meet the Bank Negara Governor to suggest a solution. That is good but maybe Anwar can give us an insight into what his solution is going to be.

Pakatan Rakyat makes it sound like the entire problem should be blamed on the government and that the opposition has a solution to this. Okay, say Pakatan Rakyat was the government and Anwar was the Prime Minister, how would he solve the problem?

Trust me, never mind who forms the government and who becomes the Prime Minister the solution is not as easy as they try to make it sound. So what are they going to do? Are they going to demonetise the Ringgit? That would mean the Ringgit cannot be exchanged for any other currency and will only be worth in Malaysia. Outside Malaysia the Ringgit would be worthless.

How would Malaysia trade? We can't exchange Ringgit for any other currency. Zambia did this by delinking its currency. In turn inflation increased like crazy and the country's economy collapsed. But at least their money stayed in the country.

One of the strongest economies in the world is the US. And there are more US Dollars floating outside America than in America.

Do you know that property prices in Australia are higher than in the UK? And that is because the Chinese are buying up property there, mostly in cash. The Australian property market is benefiting from the huge outflow of funds from China. But local Australians are suffering because property prices are beyond their reach.

Malaysians are the second largest buyers of property in London. Because of that I live in Manchester. London property prices are too expensive for my taste. I can buy three or more houses in Manchester for the price of one in London.

And not all these property buyers in the UK are Malays or Malays from Umno. Many are Chinese and many are Chinese who support Pakatan Rakyat (I know because I am acting for some of them as their property agent). So in what way can we blame the government? And will all these people be happy if the Malaysian government demonetises the Ringgit and make it worthless outside Malaysia?

Janganlah semua salahkan kerajaan! In some of those things we are talking about we are actually the culprits. And if they government was to act against us we will get angry. But when the government does not act we also scream.

Susahlah rakyat Malaysia! Ini pun salah. Itu pun salah.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved