Selasa, 5 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 11:41 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Preaching to the preacher
God, as opposed to religion
Why are Malays so otak sempit?
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
About hand gestures and signals

Preaching to the preacher

Posted: 23 Feb 2013 05:40 PM PST

Let me put it this way. Say for 35 years a Christian Evangelist knocks on your door every weekend to talk to you about Christ. And every weekend you curse that Christian and tell him to fuck off and then slam the door in his face. Sometimes you even let loose your dog on him and a couple of times he was actually bitten by your dog.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Amid mounting criticisms against Pas spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat for describing recipients of 1Malaysia People's Aid (BR1M) as 'chickens and cattle', the party's information chief said the remarks were merely metaphors.

Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Mat said Nik Aziz's remarks should not be taken literally as they were merely a kiasan (metaphor).

"I hope readers should not take the remarks literally. He (Nik Aziz) was only trying to convey that giving out knowledge is more important than giving money as an aid," he said.

Using the Malay proverb 'umpama melepaskan anjing tersepit' (literally translated "to release a trapped dog" which means to help someone who is bound to be ungrateful), as an example, Tuan Ibrahim said the phrase did not equate a person to a dog.

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

This is certainly a breath of fresh air. I was of the opinion that opposition people do not understand idioms, metaphors, similes, expressions, sayings, proverbs, maxims, axioms, adages, etc. This was when Tun Dr Mahathir talked about the devil you know and then everyone jumped and clapped with glee and said that Dr Mahathir admitted that Umno is a devil.

Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted, crying over spilt milk, a stitch in time saves nine, look before you leap, and so on, are not about horses, milk, sewing and jumping over hedges. These proverbs mean it is no use taking action after the event, regretting an action after the damage is done, taking action early can prevent more damage, and you need to contemplate your actions beforehand, respectively.

Anyway, it is good that opposition people are not bodoh-sombong but merely bodoh-sepat. Bodoh-sombong means bodoh tak boleh diajar while bodoh-sepat means pura-pura bodoh tapi sebenarynya cerdik.

We need cerdik Malaysians, especially Malaysians cerdik enough to fool you into thinking that they are stupid because if I can make you think I am stupid that means I am cleverer than you.

One reader commented that I am sometimes very brutal or abrasive in my comments-in-reply to comments posted by Malaysia Today readers. That is certainly true. I get very abrasive when readers post comments or questions to an issue that I have already replied to so many times before.

It is apparent that their comment is not sincere. After explaining a certain issue in a very cheong hei manner, sometimes running into three or four pages, they still post comments or questions about the same thing that has already been addressed in the past, not once but many times.

I mean, how many times do you want me to address that same issue? When I, yet again, reply to what you say, you will say that my article is boring and that I am repeating the same thing over and over again and that I do not have modal baru. But it is you who are raising a matter that has already been settled. So what do you expect me to do? Just delete your comment and then have you scream "Hypocrite! No freedom of speech! Why delete my comment?"

Anyway, one comment that I usually reply to in a very brutal manner is the '55 years of BN is enough! It is time for change! Vote ABU! Kick BN out!' rhetoric. I just can't stand those who post such comments. First of all it is because it is empty rhetoric. Secondly it is because so many people have already posted that comment so you are merely parroting the same thing countless times. But most important of all, thirdly, it is because you are attempting to preach to the preacher. And that is most sickening of all.

Nevertheless, this Evangelist still very patiently keeps visiting you to try to convince you that your salvation is through Christ and you, as usual, curse him and tell him to go fuck his Christ. Finally, however, after 35 years, you convert to Christianity and the Evangelist praises the Lord that finally you have seen the light and have accepted Christ as your saviour.

Not long after you become a Christian, you suddenly turn into a fanatic. You scream that it is time for a new Christian crusade to be launched so that the infidel non-Christians can be exterminated and erased from the face of this earth. You say that Hitler who was a Christian was right in trying to exterminate the Jews who had killed Christ. Your only regret is that only 6 million Jews were killed. You only wished Hitler had succeeded in ridding the world of all the Jews.

Then you go to the Evangelist's house and knock on his door and start preaching Christianity to him. You shout and scream and call the Evangelist a coward for not taking up arms against the infidel non-Christians. The Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on, should be bombed, you argue. No non-Christians should be left alive.

The Evangelist does not agree and you accuse him of selling out. You allege that he has been bought. You vilify him and disparage him and call him a friend of Satan.

After months of haranguing and cursing, one day the Evangelist can take it no more he slaps your face and says that you are a disgrace to Christianity.

I feel just like that Evangelist. For 35 years I tried preaching to you. And each time you cursed me and chased me away and even set your dog on me. I was in fact bitten quite badly a few times. You called me all sorts of nasty names. You laughed at me. You even declared me a lunatic.

Then, one day, after 35 years since the 1970s, you suddenly saw the light. In 2008 you converted. And after you converted you started cursing me and said that I am a traitor to the cause.

Now you try to preach to me. You tell me what is good and what is bad. You forgot that for 35 years you acted like a bastard. Suddenly you are the chosen one and Christ came to you in your dream. You tell me about all the bad things that are going on. You refuse to admit that things are so bad mainly because you allowed them to become bad.

I remember, back in the mid-1990s, what the DAP Chinese supporters said to me in the late MGG Pillai's online forum, Sang Kancil. I remember how they ganged up on me and cursed me. I remember the nasty things they said to me. I remember being chased out of that forum and eventually I felt so hurt I did leave. I remember what happened in 1999 when I launched Kini (in Bahasa Malaysia) and The Malaysian (in English).

And today these are the same people who are claiming the moral high ground and with self-righteousness are trying to teach me what for 35 years I had tried to teach them and which they rejected.

Isn't life strange?

God, as opposed to religion

Posted: 22 Feb 2013 05:42 PM PST

Okay, back to the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was said to be just 6 years old or 9 years old or whatever. Of the many stories in Islam this appears to be the single most-favourite story that non-Muslims will raise to mock the Prophet and call him a paedophile, child rapist, pervert, criminal who would be sent to jail if he did that today, and so on.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Agnostic (noun)

1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause and that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. A person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

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

One or two readers posted comments today saying that my articles are boring or have become quite stale of late. That may be true. Education can sometimes be boring when you do not want to get educated or you feel you already know enough and do not need further education.

I do not think that I already know everything. I admit that there is still much I need to learn. And that was the reason why I signed up at Oxford University's Department of Continuing Education in 2011 plus I attended a few lectures in Oxford last year. I am currently on my third module and will be submitting my essay at the end of March.

Anyway, let me bore you, yet again, with another stale article. This article is not about God or about religion but I have titled it 'God, as opposed to religion' and I am going to make many references to God and religion.

Most simple-minded people -- and that would probably be more than half the readers of Malaysia Today -- think that the world is divided into those who believe in God (theists) and those who do not believe in God (atheists). They do not realise that there is a third group -- neither theist nor atheist -- who sit in between those two. And this group is called agnostics.

You can read the definition of agnostic at the top.

Before I go into the main thrust of my article, allow me, as usual, to digress -- in my normal cheong hei manner -- and address some of the comments posted in Malaysia Today over the last few weeks. This is merely a digression to make a short story long and is still not what I really want to talk about today.

One reader raised the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha and said that this was what is reported in the Hadith.

Now, let's say I make certain references to the life of Jesus. And, let's also say, Christians disagree with my view and argue that my statement contradicts Christian beliefs. Then, say, I 'prove' to you that I am correct while you are wrong with quotes from the Gospel. You then ask me from which Gospel I am making this reference and I quote the Gospel of Barnabas.

You then argue that the Gospel of Barnabas may contain some remnants of earlier apocryphal works but it has never been canonised although it is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together. I then counter by saying that the 'Gospel according to Barnabas' is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the 6th-century Latin Decretum Gelasianumas well as the 7th-century Greek List of the Sixty Books. Hence it is authentic.

Okay, so what is my point here? Simple, my point is that I am telling you what a Christian should believe. You are a Christian while I am not. Yet I am telling you what is the correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Should not you, a Christian, know better what you want to believe and do not want to believe? Who am I, a non-Christian, to teach you what is correct Christianity?

I would never presume to know Christianity better than you, a practicing Christian. And I would never attempt to teach you what is correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Non-Muslims, however, presume they know Islam better than Muslims themselves and then will preach what is right Islam and what is wrong Islam.

Allow me to digress, yet again. Back in those days, and even up to 'modern' times, 'political marriages' were very common, even in the more 'civilised' Europe. Most political marriages would be between leaders or rulers to unite the different political factions or powers. Leaders or rulers did not marry for love. They married to strengthen their position and to gain political allies or to prevent other powers from turning enemy (once you are related by marriage you become friends).

Even in England and France the sons and daughters of Kings were married off to each other when they were still children. However, they would not be allowed to live as husband and wife until they reach the age of puberty, which could be 10 or 11. Hence they would have to live apart for a few years until then. And 'adulthood' would be when you reach puberty. In fact, at 13 you went to war and died for your country and at 19, if you were still single, you would be considered too old to get married. At 30 you would be an old man or woman.

Anyway, that was a mere digression. I am not trying to play the role of Muslim apologist here. I am bringing to your attention that the value system and traditions/customs in those days were different from today. Christians killed Jews in those days. Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics in those days.

Hell, the English Parliament even banned Christmas and ordered shops to stay open on 25th December, less than 400 years ago, because Christmas was considered a pagan festival and not the day to mark the birth of Christ. And, 1,000 years before that banning of Christmas, Prophet Muhammad was said to have entered into a political alliance with the most powerful warlord of Mekah by marrying his underage daughter.

But that is not really what I want to argue today. What I do want to argue is: where did this story come from? Is it in the Qur'an? No! It is from the Hadith. So, you argue, since it is from the Hadith, then it must be true and hence Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.

Okay, let us rewind a bit. You are quoting from the Hadith and you are telling me that this is what my Hadith says and since I am a Muslim I must believe in this Hadith.

Now hold on a minute. Are all Christians Catholics? Aren't there many denominations of Christianity? Hence why do you assume that all Muslims believe in the same thing? You do not even bother to ask me what denomination Muslim I am and you shove down my throat your interpretation of Islam as if there is only one denomination of Islam. Can I insist that you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas and then pass judgment on you because you have 'deviated' from the teachings of Barnabas?

Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. These people are normally unfairly called the anti-Hadith group. Actually they are not anti-Hadith as much as they hold to the Qur'an as God's true word and believe that all other 'holy books' other than the Qur'an are superfluous.

Then there are those who believe in some of the Hadith but not all of them. Further to that, there are those who believe in a different set of Hadith. Hence, on the issue of Hadith alone, there are so many different denominations of Muslims. So, when you quote the Hadith to a Muslim without knowing his of her position on Hadith, it is like quoting Barnabas to a Christian and assume that since he or she is a Christian then she or she must believe in Barnabas.

So far we are talking about Muslims and Christians. For sure Muslims and Christians are theists. And they believe not only in God but also in the religion of God (which means they are religionists as well). But what happens if you believe in God (or at least in some higher power that created us) but not in the religion of God? Then you would be an agnostic. You are neither Muslim nor Christian.

The arguments are normally between Muslims and Christians (even here in Malaysia Today). But you fail to see that there is a third group, a Third Force if you wish and if that can help you better understand the issue. And this third group thinks that both the Muslims and Christians are equally wrong.

Yes, there is a God. But there is no religion. God is the destination you wish to arrive at. Religion is merely one of those vehicles you use to arrive at that destination called God.

Okay, enough with all that religion bullshit. After three pages of talking cock let me get to the punch line. And the punch line is: there are two 'religions' called Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat quarrelling over whose 'God' is the true God, whose 'Prophet' is the genuine Prophet, and whose 'Holy Book' is the authentic Holy Book.

I then declare that I am not a religionist but an agnostic. And while I acknowledge the existence of God, I do not accept that religions came from God. I think that religions are manmade.

And then both sides of the religious divide call me a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot. They tell me that the only way to reach God is through their religion. And both sides claim that their religion is true while the other is false.

Nevertheless, while I still want God, I do not want corrupt religions where their followers do the opposite of what they say. Hence if you think that I am a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot; so be it.

Lakum dinakum waliyadin (to you be your religion and to me my religion): Qur'an, Surah Al-Kafirun, 109:6

(Now, I bet most of you will be debating religion instead of the last five paragraphs of this article, which is the point I am really driving at).

Why are Malays so otak sempit?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 04:12 PM PST

The film's 52-year-old writer, Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer, period," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Do you remember last year the brouhaha the Malays (meaning also Muslims) made about the movie that Jew produced insulting Prophet Muhammad? And earlier we had the brouhaha about the threat by the pastor to burn the Qur'an.

There were many comments posted in Malaysia Today regarding the stupidity and backwardness of the Malays in protesting such a non-event -- and quite rightly so. The Malays give the impression that they are so otak sempit (small-minded).

In this day and age of globalisation, the borderless Internet, and the information revolution, you really can't stop people from exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. And we have to learn to live with this without screaming and foaming at the mouth every time someone says something we do not like.

If, for example, a Malay were to produce a movie that the non-Malays do not like, do you think the non-Malays will scream and foam at the mouth? Or, say, a Malay threatens to burn the Bible? Do you think the non-Malays would take any notice of that threat?

The Malays have to learn to be like the non-Malay Malaysians and not rant and rave every time you do not like what someone says. And this was what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad lamented about when he said that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and should be more pragmatic like the Chinese. And Dr Mahathir is right. The Malays are too emotional, unlike the Chinese and Indians.

Will you ever find non-Malays cursing and screaming about a movie? If they don't like the movie they will just not watch it. Simple! Why get so upset? This, the Malays have to learn to do if they do not want to be accused of being small-minded.

And if you threaten to, say, burn the Bible, the non-Malays would not get upset. After all, it is just a book, like the Qur'an. Ignorant people have been burning books for thousands of years and life still goes on.

And if the Bible, just like the Qur'an, is God's book, then surely God can take care of His own book. Does he need us mere mortals to help protect His book?

When we say that the Malays are otak sempit they get angry. But how not to call the Malays otak sempit when they get so emotional and upset about a mere movie and a book?

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

Israeli Citizen Living in California Behind Film Insulting Islam

An Israeli filmmaker, Sam Bacile, based in California went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam's Prophet Muhammad sparked violent demonstrations in many Muslim cities around the world including Egypt and Libya where the US ambassador to and three American members of his staff were killed.

The release of the film coincided with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington during which he leveled what The Wall Street Journal said the "sharpest attacks in years by an Israeli leader against Washington, over differences on how to address Iran's nuclear program,"

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "tensions had so escalated that President Barack Obama spent an hour on the phone with the Israeli leader in a hastily arranged call hours after both governments said the White House wouldn't agree to an Israeli request for a meeting between the two leaders at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York this month."

Protesters angered over Bacile's film opened fire on and burned down the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed Tuesday night including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California.

The film has been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots around the world. He said he was planning to show the trailer for Mr. Bacile's movie to his congregation.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

Posted: 16 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST

And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time."

While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."

Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible.

For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today's article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today's readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically.

For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices.

And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to 'reach' God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form.

However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other's views.

I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious?

If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will.

In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called 'Christians' but 'followers of the Jesus Movement')? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about.

For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows:

1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew).

2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater".

3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James).

4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter).

5. Philip of Bethsaida.

6. Thomas (Didymus).

7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel).

8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser".

10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite).

11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

12. Judas Iscariot.

The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18).

In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 11 but Paul.

Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen's cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement.

One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul 'saw' Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This 'miracle' prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement.

However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak.

Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul's reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork.

Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul's movement expanded faster than Peter's. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts.

And because Paul's version of Christianity, so to speak, was more 'liberal' (for want of a better word) compared to Peter's (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter.

The 'headquarters' of the Church of England is St Paul's Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The 'headquarters' of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine.

Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)?

This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me).

Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity.

That is how democracy works, unfortunately.

So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat 'delicious pork'.

About hand gestures and signals

Posted: 14 Feb 2013 07:45 PM PST

The Malay response to this would be: awak jual, saya beli, which means if you are selling then I will buy. Therefore, if you show Malays your middle finger, they would find it extremely shameful if they did not respond to the cabaran (challenge). It is in the Malay psyche to not walk away from a challenge unless you want to go down in history as a disgrace to your race.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

To certain communities, hand gestures and signals are a big deal. People have lost their lives just because they were perceived to have shown the 'wrong' hand gesture or signal. Do you remember reading last month about that chap who was killed by a triad member because the triad member thought this chap had shown the 'wrong' signal? Actually it was a case of 'mistaken identity'. That chap who was killed was actually an OKU.

Anwar Ibrahim is facing a criminal charge for giving the wrong hand gesture/signal during the Bersih rally. Hence hand gestures or signals can get you in trouble with the law if you are not careful. And in the wrong place and to the wrong person it can cost you your life.

The latest brouhaha is regarding that science graduate from Scotland who showed the Raja Permaisuri Agong and a senior police officer his middle finger. There is currently a hue and cry going on, both by his supporters who think this Chinese chap is a hero as well as by those who feel he is downright biadap (insolent).

I was told this showing of your middle finger first started during the 100 Years War between England and France back in the 1300s-1400s. The English had their archers who were most feared by the French (remember Robin Hood?). Hence whenever the French captured these English archers they would cut off the middle finger of these Englishmen so that they can never again shoot arrows at the French (this was, of course, before the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 that stipulated how prisoners of war should be treated).

So whenever the English archers met up with the French on the battlefield they would goad the French by showing the French their middle finger, to demonstrate that they had not lost their middle finger and therefore were going to whack the French good and proper.

I really do not know whether this story is true or not but it certainly is a nice story, don't you think so?

Anyway, since that day, showing someone your middle finger was meant as an insult or aimed at antagonising that person and inviting that person to a fight.

The Malay response to this would be: awak jual, saya beli, which means if you are selling then I will buy. Therefore, if you show Malays your middle finger, they would find it extremely shameful if they did not respond to the cabaran (challenge). It is in the Malay psyche to not walk away from a challenge unless you want to go down in history as a disgrace to your race.

In a way, the Chinese and Indians are the same. They hate to be challenged and not respond to that challenge.

A few years ago I was covering a press conference at a hotel and arrived about an hour early so that I can set up my video camera at a most strategic location. This was during the days of the Reformasi movement and Ishak, another reformist, set up his video camera beside me. He too had arrived early.

About five minutes after the press conference had started a Chinese reporter rushed in and started snapping photographs. He then stood in front of my video camera and all I got were shots of the back of his head.

I tapped this Chinese chap lightly on the shoulder (and I made sure I smiled) and told him that he was blocking my video camera. He suddenly turned and started screaming and cursing at me. Halfway through the press conference he left, but as he was leaving he continued shouting and cursing at me and gestured at me to follow him outside -- clearly meaning for a fight.

Ishak looked at me with a puzzled look on his face and I just shrugged my shoulders.

In another incident in front of Parliament House, we were covering the handing over of a Memorandum to the opposition Members of Parliament. The security officers locked the gate of Parliament House and refused us entry so the MPs had to walk outside to accept the Memorandum.

As the Memorandum was being handed over we all rushed to take photographs and there was a lot of pushing and shoving. One Chinese reporter and I accidentally bumped into each other. I did not bump into him or him into me. It was more like we bumped into each other, but not that serious, though -- none of us lost our balance or anything of that sort.

This reporter then turned and was about to punch me when a DAP chap grabbed him and said something to him in Chinese. I don't know what the DAP chap said but this Chinese reporter continued glaring at me. Understandably, I moved as far away from him as possible.

I suppose that tap on the shoulder and bumping into that reporter was interpreted as a cabaran. And these two Chinese reporters were not about to let me get away with it. I dread what would have happened if I had shown them my middle finger. Can you guess what the outcome of that would have been?

Malays do not normally take things as a cabaran unless you really demonstrate that it is a cabaran -- like showing them your middle finger. Tapping someone lightly on the shoulder with a smile on your face or accidentally bumping into someone does not come under that category of cabaran.

What is perturbing to read, though, are the comments by some readers that say the chap who showed the Raja Permaisuri Agong his middle finger did no wrong because the institution of the monarchy is outdated anyway and should be abolished and Malaysia turned into a Republic.

Now, that, the Malays would take as a cabaran.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 9:33 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Umno Incorporated (part 3)
Umno Incorporated (part 2)
Umno Incorporated (part 1)
Do you get it now?
So, what do you think now?
Jaw, jaw rather than war, war
History, not theology
Deepak Jaikishan, the opposition’s secret weapon

Umno Incorporated (part 3)

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

On 3rd August 1999, a 'Settlement Agreement' was signed between Nazri Abdullah and Mohd Noor Mutalib, the majority shareholders of Realmild at the time, and the company, Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd. The purpose of the Agreement was to 'write-off' the RM148 million 'shareholders' advances' -- which was shown as RM182 million in the 1997 Annual Report but got reduced a year later. Hence RM34 million had somehow 'disappeared' over that one-year or so.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When Munir Majid (picture above) approved the injection of Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd into MRCB it was based on projected profits of RM70 million expected from projects in-hand and RM42 million from projects yet to be secured. It was the first time ever that the watchdog Securities Commission gave an approval based on the mere speculation that MRCB would most likely secure projects in the future. More importantly, the 'injection' actually ended up as a reverse takeover.

The whole exercise was touted as a management buyout (MBO) and the four people involved -- known Umno cum Anwar Ibrahim cronies (just like Munir Majid himself) -- were Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad (picture below).

This was clearly not just a simple 'Ali Baba' exercise but a case of Ali Baba and his forty thieves. After the RM800 million Realmild MBO (see part 2 of this series), they injected the whole thing into MRCB and ended up getting a company worth more than a billion for nothing. That is the beauty of selling a bigger company with large liabilities to a smaller company. You clear your liabilities (the buyer takes over your liabilities) and you end up getting shares in the enlarged group free-of-charge.

One year after Anwar Ibrahim fell out of favour and ended up behind the walls of the Sungai Buloh prison, Realmild changed hands. Anwar was now out so his nominees -- Dato' Ahmad Nazri Bin Abdullah and Mohd Noor Bin Mutalib -- were forced to sell off their interests in the company to another Umno nominee.

And this is where it begins to get even more interesting.

The former head of the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce, Abdul Rahman Maidin (picture above), alleged that he lost RM40 million on the 7.101 million Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd shares he purchased, which were said to actually belong to Umno and not to the people he bought the shares from.

What happened thereafter appears to be very hazy.

But where did this RM182 million (or RM148 million) come from and whose money is it? And where did this RM182 million (or RM148 million: less the RM34 million 'discount') go after that? Furthermore, what do they mean by 'shareholders' advances'?

Apparently, this money was siphoned out to pay off Rahman Maidin's debts of RM84 million. Hence did he really lose RM40 million as he claims or did he, in fact, make RM148 million (or RM182 million according to the 1997 accounts) as what the accounts and the Settlement Agreement show?

In return for this write-off, the outgoing shareholders of Realmild would receive 49% equity in Radicare Sdn Bhd, a company that was given the government concession to equip and commission hospitals and provide hospital support services that included clinical waste management, cleansing services, linen and laundry services, facilities engineering maintenance, and biomedical engineering maintenance.

Now, in the hearing more than two years ago, this Settlement Agreement was not declared. And it was not declared mainly because this was a cover-up for a fraudulent exercise to siphon out money. It was meant to camouflage an illegal transfer of funds. And you can read below the details of the Agreement, which definitely requires further explanation.

More puzzling is the statement in Realmild's June 1999-2000 accounts where it states in Note 27: "Subsequent to year end the company disposed its entire equity interest in an associated company Radicare (M) Sdn Bhd, for a consideration sum of RM2."

This means Realmild's interest in Radicare was sold for only RM2. But the Settlement Agreement states a figure of RM147,970,621.40. So, is it RM2 or RM147,970,621.40?

This can only mean that RM147,970,621.40 was paid but only RM2 went to the company. The balance must have gone into someone's pocket -- in this case that would be Rahman Maidin since he denies that he was Umno's nominee or that the interest he held in the company actually belongs to Umno.

Something is terribly not kosher here and it looks like everything has not been fully declared in the court hearing of 2010. Rahman says one thing but the accounts show something else. And there are too many unexplained issues that have remained unexplained.

Was the Settlement Agreement, therefore, kept from public knowledge because it was a cover-up for some missing money and hence leading to something illegal?

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Umno Incorporated (part 2)

Posted: 04 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

In January 1993, Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd, a private company controlled by the management of NSTP and TV3, acquired 48 per cent of NSTP and 43 per cent of TV3 in a deal worth a whopping RM800 million -- it might still be the largest management buyout in Malaysia to date. Realmild was then controlled by four individuals closely linked to Deputy Premier then Anwar Ibrahim -- namely Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad. The four were executives in the NSTP group, two of them -- Kadir and Nazri -- headed the English and Bahasa Malaysia sections respectively of the newspaper group.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 1992, Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's Finance Minister, approved the management buy-out (MBO) of New Straits Times Press Holdings Bhd (NSTP), the largest media group in the country, and also public-listed TV3. Anwar directed Munir Majid of the Securities Commission to approve the injection of Realmild into MRCB, which led to Realmild Sdn Bhd controlling four listed companies -- MRCB, Malakoff, TV3 and New Straits Times Press Bhd.

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

MRCB's chequered past colours its future

(KinBiz, 21 February 2013) -- MRCB started out as Perak Carbide Sdn Bhd in 1969. In the early days, Teh Hong Piow, the Public Bank founder was among the shareholders of Perak Carbide.

Perak Carbide was renamed MRCB in 1981 after a change in its core business from the production of carbide to property development and investment.

In the 90's MRCB morphed into a political animal, controlling New Straits Times Press Holdings Bhd (NSTP), then a giant publishing company, the largest media group in the country, and also publicly traded TV3.

The MRCB story is often used to exhibit how corporate Malaysia works.

Realmild was then controlled by four individuals closely linked to Deputy Premier then Anwar Ibrahim -- namely Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad. The four were executives in the NSTP group, two of them -- Kadir and Nazri -- headed the English and Bahasa Malaysia sections respectively of the newspaper group.

The four flipped Realmild's assets into MRCB in a reverse takeover.

Some say the corporate moves were an attempt by Anwar, manoeuvring to control the media before the impending Umno vice presidential elections in 1993.

With its political clout, MRCB grew to own such choice assets such as 20.2 per cent in Commerce Asset Holdings Bhd which owned Bank of Commerce Bhd (now CIMB)—via NSTP, a chunk of power generation companies like Malakoff Bhd, Sepang Power and Port Dickson Power among a whole host of other large assets.

In 1996, MRCB and Keretapi Tanah Melayu formed a joint venture to develop 77 acres of prime land in Brickfields which is MRCB's flagship KL Sentral, and two years later the government even forked out a support loan of RM336 million to build the station.

However things took a turn for the worse in 1998, when Anwar fell from grace and when the Asian financial crisis started to bite. Lacking in political clout, MRCB's downward spiral was a painful one exacerbated by the financial crisis of 1997-1998.

For its financial year ended August 1999, the company suffered losses of about RM1.45 billion from RM235.39 million in revenue.

As at August 1999, MRCB was saddled with short-term borrowings of RM923 million while the company long term debt commitments were RM473 million. On the other side of the balance sheet MRCB had cash and bank balances amounting to RM38 million.

For the year ended August 1999, MRCB's interest payments on borrowings was RM118 million, about three times the company's net profit.

After Anwar's fall from grace in Sept 1998 when he was removed as finance minister and deputy prime minister and charged with sodomy, Abdul Rahman Maidin, a close associate of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin, was brought in to run MRCB in July 1999.

Daim had been collared in by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to help deal with the financial crisis. Daim headed the powerful National Economic Action Council then.

But the slide continued. Daim himself appeared to have a rift with Mahathir and some of those who were close to him were removed from their position after their stakes in key companies were taken over by the governments. This included Halim Saad of Renong, Tajudin Ramli of Malaysia Airlines and Celcom (then under TRI) and Rahman Maidin at MRCB.

MRCB management went into professional hands with Abdul Rahman Ahmad and Shahril Ridza Ridzuan becoming managing director and executive director respectively in 2001.

Eventually MRCB was acquired by EPF in an apparent rescue of the group.

The EPF ended up with a chunk of MRCB's stock in a debt for equity swap, after Realmild was unable to service borrowings from EPF. A large portion of EPF's shareholding was obtained in January 2005, when the pension fund acquired a 20 per cent block of shares increasing its shareholding to 30.35 per cent then. Realmild ceased to be a major shareholder after that.

Shahril eventually became CEO of MRCB and left end-2009 after eight years. Following that Mohamed Razeek Md Hussain Maricar took over but left in August last year. Since then, MRCB has been without a CEO. Shahril himself became chief investment officer at EPF in 2010.

Under professional management, much was achieved at MRCB and the KL Sentral development has attracted much interest and has seen property prices climb. But it looks like now EPF has embarked on a path to inject entrepreneurship into MRCB.

This has happened through the proposed injection of Nusa Gapurna which has about 33 acres of prime land located in Petaling Jaya, Old Klang Road and Subang pegged with a gross development value of RM5.7 billion. Part of the plan is for Salim to eventually become managing director of MRCB.

EPF in a statement to KinBiz said: "The model is similar to that of SP Setia or Mah Sing, where an entrepreneur holds a significant stake and works on behalf of all the institutional and minority shareholders.

"The ultimate combination for the EPF is economically neutral as it had a 40 per cent stake in both businesses and will continue to have approximately the same stake in the combined entity going forward."

EPF as a related party cannot vote on this deal, meaning it will be left to the minorities to decide.

Analysts and observers however question the move to bring in Salim and ask whether Salim has the right credentials to run MRCB. After all it can be rightly argued that MRCB has far more expertise developing properties than Salim himself. So why opt for him at this juncture?

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

Rahman said he then purchased all the stakes in Realmild from Khalid, former Berita Harian Sdn Bhd group editor Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, former New Straits Times Sdn Bhd group editor Abdul Kadir Jasin and former NSTP director Mohd Noor Mutalib. The four were at that time aligned with then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, before Anwar fell out of favour with Mahathir in 1998, at the height of allegations of sodomy against him.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The problem with public hearings, court cases and trials is that not everything is fully revealed in an open court, in particular the goings-on behind the scenes and the shenanigans in the corridors of power.

Some of you may have read the three news reports below back in 2010. For those who have not, first read these reports and then in part two of this series we will reveal what has not been reported. After all, Malaysia Today dabbles in the untold story or the story that those in the corridors of power would rather remain hidden.

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

Abdul Rahman Maidin

'Shocked to learn Realmild shares belonged to Umno'

(Malaysiakini, 2 September 2010) -- Former Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce chairperson Abdul Rahman Maidin told the commercial division of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that he had to bear losses of RM40 million for the 7.101 million shares he purchased in Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd, which were said to belong to Umno.

Realmild owns majority shares in conglomerate Malaysia Resources Corporation Bhd (MRCB), which once owned the gold mine media giant New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP) and Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Bhd (which operates TV3, among others).

Rahman, who was a director of Realmild when he purchased the stake in the company, is being sued for RM10 million by a former company stakeholder, Khalid Ahmad.

Also a former chairman of MRCB and former executive vice-chairman of NSTP, Rahman said sometime at the end of 2001, he was instructed by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to transfer all the Realmild shares in his name to Syed Anwar Jamalullail, without any consideration, and that he resigned from the two companies on Jan 8, 2002.

"I was told that the Realmild shares belonged to Umno. I was extremely shocked as I never at any time knew that Umno was the true owner of the shares."

"I undertook the acquisition of Realmild shares purely from a corporate and commercial standpoint. I raised funds for this exercise through my personal financial means, without any assistance from any political entity," Rahman said in reply to questions from his lawyer Alex de Silva. Eugene Jayaraj Williams is also acting for Rahman.

Told that the shares belonged to Umno

Rahman said he informed Mahathir that he had paid RM40 million for the purchase of the Realmild shares.

"He (Mahathir) told me there was no reason why I had to pay the money when the shares never belonged to the individuals concerned as they belonged to Umno. Therefore, he said, no payment will be made to me because the shares always belonged to Umno."

"I also met Nor Mohamad Yaakob, (then economic adviser to Mahathir), and he subsequently confirmed that the shares were to be transferred out by me, without me receiving any consideration as the shares belonged to Umno," he said.

Asked by Khalid's counsel Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus why he did not institute action against his client and three other Realmild directors, from whom he had purchased the stake, Rahman said he obviously had to believe the (then) prime minister.

"Furthermore, I did not want to do anything that would implicate the premier. That is why I did not want to proceed with any further action. I would rather take a loss," he said.

Tun Daim Zainuddin

Daim offered stake in Realmild

Recalling how he came to own the Realmild shares, Rahman said he was approached by the then Finance Minister, Daim Zainuddin, sometime in 1999.

Daim had asked him whether he was interested in taking charge of MRCB by undertaking and completing a management takeover.

"Daim knew me as chairman of the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce. I expressed keen interest in taking up this challenge, and Daim told me he would leave the mechanics of taking control of MRCB to me.

"I readily accepted this opportunity as this was a major career advance. It was my understanding that this was a pure corporate exercise," he said.

The four were at that time aligned with then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, before Anwar fell out of favour with Mahathir in 1998, at the height of allegations of sodomy against him.

Rahman said he took steps for the takeover of MRCB by raising funds through personal financial means.

He had paid RM30 million for Ahmad Nazri's stake, and another RM5 million each to Khalid and Mohd Noor.

Ahmad Nazri, a former director of Realmild, told an earlier hearing that he owned an 80 percent stake in Realmild, with 70 percent of it held in trust.

"I was holding (the stake) in trust for Dr Mahathir. The trust was prepared by legal firm Amin & Co. A copy of the trust was given to Dr Mahathir, another to Anwar and I kept a copy."

A. Kadir Jasin

Rahman: I did not pay the remainder

Rahman, also testified before Justice Mary Lim that he did not pay the remaining amount to Khalid as he had been told by Mahathir not to make any payment.

"I met the plaintiff (Khalid) and informed him of my discovery about Umno's ownership of the Realmild shares. The plaintiff admitted to me that he was aware of Umno's ownership of the Realmild shares, but he said the Umno ownership did not apply to his five percent stake, or 355,050 shares."

Saying Khalid was not entitled to the claim, Rahman said the Khalid had misrepresented to him the ownership of the 355,050 shares as these shares never belonged to Khalid.

"I verily believe that he (Khalid) knew all along that Umno was the real owner of the shares and that these shares could be directed to be transferred to any third party at any time based on the instructions of Umno leaders. This also demonstrated the wrongful actions of Khalid in suppressing material information and proceeding in this action against me," he said.

"I am also seeking recovery of the RM5 million I had paid Khalid, based on his misrepresentation as to the ownership of the shares," he said.

To another question from Khalid's lawyer, Rahman said he was unable to pay the balance (the remaining RM10 million) because he was concentrating on reviving MRCB, which was facing billions of ringgit in debt.

"MRCB owed (money) to over 30 banks and it was in a bad shape. That was the reason I did not have money to pay him (Khalid).

"I also do not agree that I owe Khalid RM10 million, as stated in the statement of claim, and do not agree that the purchase price of his portion of the shares was RM15 million," he said.

Khalid Ahmad

Khalid's suit

Khalid, a former director of Realmild and former managing director of NSTP, who was present in court today, had claimed that he owns five per cent of the Realmild shares and he had accepted Rahman's offer to buy his shares.

He said Rahman had paid RM5 million, and that both sides had agreed to the total selling price of the shares at RM15 million, which had been reduced from an initial value of RM30 million.

Khalid claimed that the price of RM15 million was agreed upon after the part-payment of RM5 million was made by Rahman, and that the remaining sum was to be paid within a year.

He said he had asked Rahman many times to pay up the remaining RM10 million, but Rahman had failed to do so.

He is seeking the RM10 million , interest at eight per cent, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

Rahman in his statement of defence claimed the shares were owned in trust Umno and that he was asked to relinquish all his stake in Realmild to Syed Anwar.

Hence, he said, the amount owed was void or a mistake of fact, and was therefore seeking back the RM5 million he had paid to Khalid, as he had suffered a loss.

Earlier, Syed Anwar testified for Rahman and said got to know from Nor (Mohamad Yaakob), who was then second finance minister, that Rahman's shares in Realmild were held in proxy by Umno.

"My major task when taking over Realmild and MRCB was to turn them around," he said.

Justice Lim fixed Oct 4 for submissions.

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

Nazri Abdullah

Realmild-Umno links judgment on Dec 10

(The Malaysian Insider, 29 October 2010) -- When the High Court here hands down its judgment on the disputed sale price of Realmild Sdn Bhd's shares on December 10, all eyes will be trained on the grounds — whether Umno, the senior party in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), has been ruled to be the shadowy company's real owner.

In taking their quarrel over the sale price of Realmild's shares from a decade ago, former company directors Datuk Khalid Ahmad and Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin have showed how the political giant has fed and sustained its tight grip on power through control of several conglomerates starting from the early 1990s.

The suit was mooted by Khalid in March 2005 against his successor, Abdul Rahman, to claim RM10 million in payment for a block of the company's shares.

But Abdul Rahman made a counter-claim to be refunded the RM5 million he already paid, after being told by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Umno owned all Realmild's shares and the appointed directors were only nominees acting in the party's trust.

The nexus between Umno and certain conglomerates has been revealed in the court hearing that started in August this year involving the past shareholders of Realmild, the shadowy company that took over media giant The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd in 1993, and Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB).

A number of high-flying corporate figures have entered the witness stand, most notably Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, younger brother to the Raja of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail who also held the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of the contentious takeover.

Khalid is suing Abdul Rahman for RM10 million over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999, which took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sacking from government.

Abdul Rahman had paid RM5 million but later reneged on the remainder.

The silver-haired industry captain testified in court that Dr Mahathir, who was prime minister at the time of the buy-out, told him that the shares actually belonged to Umno.

Abdul Rahman, a former Malay Chamber of Commerce Penang president, also claimed to have received instructions from Tun Daim Zainuddin and Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop had previously instructed him to undertake a management buy-out of MRCB by purchasing the 7,101,001 ordinary shares in Realmild.

But Khalid maintained the five per cent stake was his own although he acknowledged that the majority stake was part of an "Umno trust".

The other directors in Realmild then were former Berita Harian group editor Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, New Straits Times group editor Datuk Abdul Kadir Jasin, and Mohd Noor Mutalib, who replaced Khalid as NSTP managing director in February 1993.

Realmild, originally a RM2 company, was then already the majority shareholder of MRCB, which is now developing the KL Sentral commercial and transport hub in Brickfields.

Representing Khalid is lawyer Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus.

Alex De Silva and Eugene Jeyaraj Williams acted for Abdul Rahman.

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

Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail

Realmild formed to protect Umno's interests, court told

(The Malaysian Insider, 30 October 2010) -- Realmild Sdn Bhd was a brainchild of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when he was in government as a means for Umno to protect its business interests, a lawyer told the High Court here today.

The former deputy prime minister had also hand-picked four media people — Datuk Khalid Ahmad, Datuk Kadir Jasin, Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Mohd Noor Mutalib — to be its first shareholders and act as nominees for the ruling party, said Alex De Silva.

"In 1992, Realmild was formed in Malaysia. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim created it as a new Bumiputera vehicle to take care of Umno's interests.

"This is the genesis of Realmild," De Silva said in making the case for his client Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin.

Khalid, a former TV3 boss, is suing Abdul Rahman to pay up the remaining RM10 million of RM15 million the former claims was the agreed sale price for the block of shares.

But Abdul Rahman disputes the amount — he told the court the agreed price was RM10 million and he had paid half before finding out from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Umno president, that he did not have to pay.

Now Abdul Rahman wants his money back.

De Silva argued today that Khalid, as the seller, was not in a position to demand payment for the sale of a block of Realmild Sdn Bhd's shares wholly held in trust for Umno.

"My submission is that none of them were actually running MRCB. They were just put there by the powers-that-be...to take care of MRCB, NST and etc.

"It's completely illogical for Umno or anyone to own only 70 per cent [of the shares] and for 30 per cent to be shared out among the others," he added, noting previous testimony from another successive Realmild director, Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, showed that Umno owned all the shares.

Syed Anwar is the younger brother to the Raja of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail who also held the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of the contentious takeover at the turn of the millennium.

Anwar who happened to be in court today for his Sodomy II trial, was evasive when asked to comment on his role in the Realmild-Umno deal.

"Seventy per cent was held by Dr Mahathir. It has nothing to do with me," said the 63-year-old politician, now PKR's advisor.

Khalid's RM10 million suit against Abdul Rahman, over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999 took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Anwar's sacking from government.

"Yes, I was supportive of it back then but 30 per cent of the shares was owned by Khalid, Kadir, and Nazri, Mohd Noor," Anwar said.

"It was only when I exposed them in court, Dr Mahathir called for Realmild surrender 70 percent," he added.

Asked if he saw the controversial 100-storey Menara Warisan announced by Prime Minister Najib Razak reflected in Umno's continuing bid to protect the party's interests, the Opposition Leader remarked: "All mega deals protect the interests of the Umno elite".

"Realmild is a classic example, proven, it was led by Dr Mahathir. I'm convinced there are cronies involved," he said.

Back in court, De Silva stressed that Realmild was a "sendirian berhad" (private limited company) with four ex-NST journalists and accountant who became stakeholders of MRCB, a public-listed company, supposedly bought from Renong Berhad for RM800 million.

"It's clear as daylight none of the shareholders had the means or capacity to do so," De Silva said.

"Yes, they testified they raised the money on their own. [But] nobody wakes up one morning and says, 'Yes! I'm going to take over NST and TV3. Can you do this on your own? Impossible!

"My Lady, from the start of the scene, government hands or Umno hands were involved...to keep the media under control of Umno.

"It was not for personal benefit but for the benefit of the party. That's why Realmild took control from Renong. That's the genesis of Realmild," Abdul Rahman's lawyer repeated for emphasis.

De Silva also pointed out that none of the four had exercised their rights as owners after the buy-over from Renong and instead continued their daily duties as news men, which was typical of nominees.

Trial judge Datuk Mary Lim asked if they were nominees, whether it meant they can't transfer the title deeds to the shares; and whether it would not then require the defendant to show he had a title to pass on.

"Not necessary. What we are looking at is the concept of real ownership," De Silva replied, before adding, "Who were the real owners?"

He moved to back his argument by pointing to the large number of lucrative projects given to Realmild's construction subsidiary, MRCB, including building a power plant.

"MRCB was bestowed and granted huge government contracts and loans, subsequently...in 1997, the government awarded MRCB the KL Sentral project...two years later, they got a support loan of RM336 million," De Silva cited.

"All these point effectively to the fact they were formed by the government because MRCB was effectively owned by Umno," he argued further.

"Yes, the shares were held in their names, but when instructed to transfer, they transferred.

"And they all transferred all, together," he said slowly, lending emphasis to his submission.

But lawyer Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus, in pushing the case to be ruled in the plaintiff Khalid's favour, submitted that Abdul Rahman had failed to show documentary evidence that proved an Umno "trust" existed, adding the defendant's entire argument was pulled from oral testimony by parties not brought to court, including the former prime minister.

Ahmad even suggested that Abdul Rahman should have taken legal action against Dr Mahathir to recover his money instead of claiming it from Khalid.

"Why the defendant chose not to take action when he found out about the trust?

"His line, his basis is what was told to him by the PM [then, Dr Mahathir] that he would not get his money back and that the shares belonged to Umno," Ahmad said, referring to Abdul Rahman's testimony in court.

"It's not for the defendant to say the plaintiff held it in trust, held it as a nominee...that he was not accountable to pay...

"The transfer was valid. He was the registered owner, legally, and [it was] common for nominees to transfer shares to [their] principals; it's not for defendant to say no.

"If such a case, defendant still liable to pay for the purchase price as agreed upon for the transfer of shares at the material time," Ahmad concluded.

A total of five witnesses were called.

Verdict is fixed for December 10 at 9am.

Do you get it now?

Posted: 23 Feb 2013 03:38 PM PST

MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Subject: Nur Misuari Back On Jolo, Amid New Fighting

Origin: US Embassy Manila (Philippines)

Cable time: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:38 UTC

Classified By: Pol/C Scott Bellard for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

1. (C) Summary: The Makati Regional Trial Court temporarily permitted detained Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) Chairman Nur Misuari to campaign for Sulu Governor in Jolo City May 11-14. Followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik clashed again May 8 with government security forces in Kalingang Caluang on Jolo Island. Pressure may be building on some MNLF commanders to support Malik, who remains on the run. Misuari apparently still harbors aspirations to "re-gain" Sabah from Malaysia. The Philippine government clearly hopes Misuari will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term -- but probably not as Sulu governor. End Summary.

Court OKs Misuari to Jolo

2. (U) On May 9, Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Winlove Dumuyag issued written approval for detained MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari to return to Jolo City May 11-14 to campaign for Sulu Governor and to cast his votes. He intends to hold at least one political rally in Jolo City. The judge denied requests for him also to visit Luuk, Siasi, and Pangaturan May 10-20. The Court is also unlikely to approve a motion to allow Misuari to accept an invitation to the May 15-17 Organization of Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Islamabad, Pakistan. However, Judge Dumuyag scheduled Misuari's bail hearing for June 21. Exceptionally, the hearing will took place in the house where Misuari is serving his detention.

3. (C) Armed Forces of the Philippines National Capital Region Commander Major General Ben Dolorfino -- the most senior AFP Muslim and the chief of the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group with the Moro Islamic National Liberation Front -- told poloff that he had personally encouraged Misuari to run for governor and had advised him to attack incumbent Sulu Governor Benjamin Loong for engaging in "un-Islamic practices," including embezzlement of Internal Revenue Allotment funds, corruption, alcohol consumption, gambling, and absenteeism from official duties. MG Dolorfino said that he had also advised Misuari to criticize the other gubernatorial candidate -- former Sulu Governor Sakur Tan -- for engaging in many of the same "un-Islamic practices," in addition to drug trafficking.

Fresh Fighting

4. (U) Renewed fighting erupted in Jolo on May 8 between AFP troops and followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik (reftels). AFP Western Mindanao Command Information Officer Eugenio Batara told the press that the fighting began during the early morning in Barangay Kambing of Kalinggalang Kaluang.

5. (C) MG Dolorfino, whom Malik briefly held captive in February (ref f), described the current political and security situation on Jolo as "very delicate." Dolorfino commented that, while Malik remains isolated and on the run, pressure is building among some MNLF commanders to support Malik in the face of mounting MNLF casualties. He commented that if Malik is "pushed to the wall," the potential exists that other MNLF elements on Jolo, Basilan, the Zamboanga Peninsula, and/or in central Mindanao will enter the fray. Dolorfino instead welcomed efforts by the Philippine National Police to bring Malik to justice based on a new arrest warrant for Malik. Attorney Jainal separately predicted that Malik would never allow himself to be captured alive by government security forces and that Malik's death would likely embolden other MNLF members to fight.

Dreaming of Sabah...?

6. (C) MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. Misuari once commented to MG Dolorfino that when the timing was right, "the MNLF could invade Sabah at 5 a.m. and control it by 7 a.m." Misuari has also reportedly claimed that he personally was a legitimate claimant to Sabah by virtue of his "royal blood," and has blamed "Malaysia's agents" for stirring up trouble in Sulu.

7. (C) Self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Fuad Kiram granted Misuari the hereditary rank of "Datu" (Royal Prince) of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo (Sabah) at Misuari's detention house on March 14. Kiram attended the March 18 MNLF Freedom Day Anniversary Celebration at Malik's then-camp in Bitanag as guest of honor, where Malik called him the only "true and legitimate" Sultan of Sulu and Sabah, according to Kiram's chief advisor, Omar Kiram.

8. (C) MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's. Over the past several months, Malaysian officials have held at least three meetings with Misuari and/or Misuari's wives, according to Jainal and Dolorfino. During an April 10 meeting, a special envoy from Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told Misuari not to meddle in Malaysia's domestic politics, Dolorfino said. According to Jainal, Misuari promised Badawi's representative that he had no intention of getting involved in Malaysia's internal affairs.

9. (C) Dolorfino opined that Malaysia would likely seek stronger assurances that Misuari would not pursue the Sabah claim. He added that Malaysia had promised to facilitate an eventual power sharing agreement between the MNLF and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) after the GRP-MILF Peace Panels reached an ancestral domain agreement.

Comment

10. (C) Despite his checked past, Nur Misuari retains considerable respect among the MNLF as its founder and long-time leader, despite his rather ignominious term as governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and his ongoing trial for sedition. The Philippine government clearly hopes he will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term, but probably not as Sulu governor, unlikely as that now seems. His two competitors, Loong and Tan, have even stronger ties to different elements in the Arroyo Administration, which must ultimately find a path to peace with the MILF without treading on too many MNLF toes.

SOURCE: WIKILEAKS

So, what do you think now?

Posted: 21 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST

Nevertheless, the next general election will soon be upon us. Barisan Nasional claims it will win at least 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Pakatan Rakyat is going to win only 72-79 seats. Pakatan Rakyat, in turn, says it is going to win 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Barisan Nasional is going to win only 72-79 seats.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Russians, in response to the KAL 007 tragedy, said that the world has a memory of only 100 days. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad, in turn, said that 'Melayu mudah lupa'. And I have written a few times that actually most Malaysians, and not just Melayu, mudah lupa.

You may first want to read what Haris Ibrahim (Sam) wrote in his Blog more than two years ago on 27th October 2010 (below). Basically, this refers to our plans -- and 'our' here meaning the Bloggers cum political activists -- for initiating a Third Force.

This was what Sam said in his Blog posting of 27th October 2010:

Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included.

The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE.

Maybe the very name, 'Third Force', conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case.

Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM.

However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force.

Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR.

The reason Sam felt he should clarify what is meant by the Third Force is because I had written about this matter earlier -- not long after the 2008 general election -- (as I also did regarding the Unity Government) and I got whacked good and proper by many people, Pakatan Rakyat leaders included. And because of that I backed off from talking about the Unity Government and the Third Force. Sam, therefore, knew he had to tread very careful when talking about this and hence he wanted to explain very clearly what we had in mind before everyone flies of the handle and goes off tangent.

Anyway, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the launching of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in October 2010. Sam has since left, as have many others, and MCLM has been transferred into the hands of a new team, all Pakatan Rakyat supporters, may I add. I felt it is only right that this new team should take over since a vote of no confidence has been passed against me, so to speak. The only setback with this, though, is that MCLM will no longer be viewed as an independent movement or a Third Force since it is allied to Pakatan Rakyat.

But I suppose this is unavoidable since it looks like most Malaysians do not want an independent Third Force but would rather you be aligned either to Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. Malaysia is not yet ready for a Third Force. In Thailand you are either red shirt of yellow shirt. In Malaysia it is blue shirt (BN) or yellow shirt (Bersih).

In short, either black or white, no shades of grey.

Okay, when the idea of a Third Force was mooted, which subsequently saw the creation of MCLM, there must have been certain concerns at the back of our minds to prompt us to make this move. Yes, there were. And I had, in fact, already detailed my 'Vision and Mission Statement'.

And Sam agreed with this Vision and Mission Statement although he said he would rather called it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' to avoid any misunderstanding of what we had in mind. However, since Malaysians muda lupa, maybe I can take you for a walk down memory lane and we can explore whether these concerns that were driving us then were misplaced or warranted.

One concern (but not in order of priority) was regarding absorbing politicians from Barisan Nasional into Pakatan Rakyat who were 'damaged goods' or 'expired goods'. These people join the opposition because their 'shelf-life' has expired and their political career in Barisan Nasional is going downhill. Hence they join the opposition not because they are committed to reforms or because they have repented but because they are trying to reinvent themselves and attempt a second bite of the cherry.

One more concern was regarding the racial and religious politics being played by both sides of the divide, which is threatening to rip the country apart and send Malaysia back to the era of 1960s -- and which is regarded as the blackest period of Malaysia's post-war history. We felt that unless race and religion are kept out of politics then Malaysia can never progress and it may even one day trigger a second ethnic clash like what happened in 1969.

Another issue was regarding the inter-party and intra-party quarrelling and squabbling. The members of Pakatan Rakyat are fighting with one another and even within the individual parties there is infighting. One reason for this is because there is no clear common platform, although all the parties in Pakatan Rakyat claim that there is.

Each party still has its own individual objective and aspiration, which overrides the objective and aspiration of the coalition. And unless this was resolved, this may trigger a serious crisis closer to the next general election and more so after the general election in the event that Pakatan Rakyat wins the election.

Furthermore, the fighting over seats and candidates threatens to add to this crisis if not resolved. Barisan Nasional did badly in 2008 partly because of internal sabotage due to unhappiness over seats and candidates. Pakatan Rakyat is in danger of suffering that same fate, which will jeopardise the opposition's chances of winning the election.

Then there was the issue of election promises. In the past, voters would forget what you promised in the last general election. Hence you can make the same promises in every election and no one is going to remember that these were the old promises you made in the last election but never delivered.

Today, because of the Internet and the information revolution, people can remember what was said even ten or 20 years ago. Hence delivering on your promises is crucial. And one promise that I raised was regarding The People's Declaration and which Anwar Ibrahim rejected back in 2010 after endorsing it in February 2008.

Further to that, last year, the Selangor Menteri Besar made a statement saying that it is not mandatory to deliver promises made in Election Manifestos. If so then why even present an Election Manifesto if you do not intend to fulfil it and you feel that you are not compelled to make good your promises?

Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat is going to present its new Election Manifesto this Monday. Let us see how much of that was from the last election's Manifesto and how much of it was fulfilled. We can also compare it with The People's Declaration and see how much of it has been adopted into Pakatan Rakyat's new Election Manifesto.

I also raised the matter of good governance, transparency and accountability and how, after two-and-a-half years (as at end 2010), there are still incidences of mismanagement, abuse of power and corruption in the Pakatan Rakyat run states. The response to this was Barisan Nasional is worse. Pakatan Rakyat -- although it still happens in the opposition states -- is not that bad.

But then you are comparing states like Selangor to the federal government. Of course Barisan Nasional is worse. Barisan Nasional is the federal government. You should compare Selangor to Barisan Nasional run states like Pahang, Johor, etc. Pick on someone your own size. It is like comparing Malaysia to Singapore when Singapore should be compared to Kuala Lumpur or Penang.

Anyway, the Pakatan Rakyat leaders denied that there were 'problems' in their states and they challenged me to reveal the evidence to back up my allegation that there are incidences of corruption in Pakatan Rakyat run states. One issue, for example, was regarding sand mining in Selangor. Another was regarding the cronyism system in awarding legal work.

Prove it, they said. Show us the evidence, they screamed. And I did, as what they wanted. I published the evidence. However, instead of admitting the problem, they still disputed my allegation and called it a lie. They even challenged me to return to Malaysia with all the evidence. The state was even prepared to pay my expenses to return to Malaysia.

Well, those are but some of the issues I raised since late 2010. And because of that I was condemned, called a liar, accused of being bought, and much, much more.

Let us see who is right. In the meantime, more than 80% of the voters have already decided whom they will be voting for, with less than 20% undecided or on the fence. And this less than 20% are non-partisan. They do not belong to or support any political party. They just want a good government. And it is this less than 20% who will be deciding who is going to run Malaysia over the next five years. And many of this less than 20% are readers of Malaysia Today.

And that is the Third Force I am talking about -- and have been talking about for more than three years now. And now do you understand what Malaysia Today is all about and has been doing since 2010?

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

Can the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement give life to the much talked about 'Third Force'?

Haris Ibrahim, 27 October 2010

Last Monday, RPK wrote in M-Today that he had, in 2004, "attended the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS)…That was six years ago and after six years nothing further has happened. This is because the MCLS is still awaiting the approval of its registration".

I, too, was at that inaugural meeting and to this day I remain a protem committee of the MCLS that awaits registration.

I have given up waiting on the registrar of societies.

I was therefore excited to read in RPK's posting that this coming Saturday, 30th October, he will cause to be registered in the UK the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement.

It's objectives, as disclosed by RPK in his post, are :

1. to promote and propagate the People's Voice & the People's Declaration to all political parties contesting the coming general election.

2. to 'offer' non-political party candidates from amongst the Malaysian professionals/lawyers and the civil society movements to ALL the political parties contesting the general election that may either be short of candidates or are not able to find 'quality' candidates to field in the elections

In a post entitled 'Why the mad scramble' yesterday (READ HERE), RPK disclosed that the immediate focus of the MCLM is to engage the 3 Pakatan Rakyat parties in dialogues to try to convince them to change their system of candidate selection in the general and by-elections. This, RPK elaborates today in his 'When you don't trust your own people' post (READ HERE), spotlighting two issues: first, which party gets to contest which seat and, second, the practice by political parties of naming candidates at the eleventh hour.

In three posts, RPK has summed up the concerns of so many of us about what is believed to be an imminent 13th GE that offers an opportunity displace BN from federal governance, and an opposition that does not look quite so ready to go to war and despatch BN to the Indian Ocean.

I received an e-mail last Monday inquiring if I would be willing to serve as the interim spokesperson for MCLM until this Saturday when they will officially appoint office bearers.

I replied in the affirmative, subject to getting clarification on one point. The first objective talks about making available civil society candidates to ALL parties. Did that include BN?

The reply I got was reassuring.

All non-BN parties.

I agreed to that request, for one reason only.

If you compare the objects of MCLM as disclosed by RPK with the much-discussed Third Force, I think you will find little difference between the two.

Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included.

The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE.

Maybe the very name, 'Third Force' conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case.

Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM.

However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force.

Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR.

Or any other name that any of you would care to suggest.

I agreed to serve as interim spokesperson in the hope that, in that capacity, I could try to get MCLM to serve as the platform by which we push forth IR or whatever name you want to call it, to make ready for the 13th GE.

Should we try?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/can-the-malaysian-civil-liberties-movement-give-life-to-the-much-talked-about-third-force/

Jaw, jaw rather than war, war

Posted: 20 Feb 2013 04:44 PM PST

Has the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, in very clear terms, made a statement asking the government to shoot them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia in the next 24 hours? Is Anwar Ibrahim prepared to declare that he will support any drastic action taken by the Malaysian government, including shooting them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many people are screaming about the 'terrorist invasion' of Lahat Datu, Sabah, and they are upset that the Malaysian government has not taken drastic action against these infiltrators. What drastic action are you talking about? Do you want the army to shoot them all dead?

The Muslim Bangsamoro come from the Philippines and they make up about 5% of the 95 million or so population of that Roman Catholic country. This means there are millions more from where these people came from. And many of the Moro are not only armed but are battle-seasoned as well after going through two generations of civil war since 1969.

Shooting these infiltrators dead is not a problem. In fact, that is the easiest thing to do. The problem would be what then? Are we prepared to risk retaliation after that? We must remember that shooting a few hundred 'illegals' dead is not that difficult. All it takes is guns and bullets, and Malaysia has plenty of that. It is what comes next that we have to worry about.

Sabah has always been a dicey issue in the Malaysia-Philippines relationship. It is also an issue for the Malaysian-Indonesian relationship as well for those like me who are old enough to remember the Konfrontasi of the early 1960s.

Sure, in the early 1960s the Indonesians invaded parts of Malaysia such as Johor and North Borneo and, sure, we whacked them good and proper. But the 'we' at that time included soldiers from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many more -- the British Ghurkhas and British Special Forces included. Almost 30,000 military personnel were involved -- plus 80 ships from the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Malayan Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy.

In North Borneo there was a secret and undeclared war going on along the Kalimantan border that the world did not know about. And it was more serious than many Malaysians are aware of. More than 1,100 people were killed and wounded (almost 100 of them civilians). But we were not told this because the government did not want the people to panic.

I know many Malaysian are blaming Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian government, Barisan Nasional, Umno, and so on for what is happening. They say that this is the government's fault for not taking drastic action in shooting them all dead.

What is the opposition view on this? Does the opposition, too, want the government to shoot these people dead? Is the opposition prepared to set aside politics and stand united with the government in asking the government to take drastic action?

When push comes to shove, are Malaysians prepared to face the risk of retaliation in the event the action the government has to take triggers an armed conflict with our neighbours?

There are about 350 million Indonesians and Filipinos in total as opposed to less than 30 million Malaysians. And about 3 million of these Indonesians and Filipinos live in Malaysia, all over the country, and some even possess Malaysian 'papers'.

As a responsible Malaysian I would first like the government to explore a peaceful solution to this standoff. Only if that is not possible and only if they start shooting first should we fire our guns. And even then the guns should be fired as an act of defence and not as an act of aggression.

Sure, infiltration itself is an act of aggression. Hence shooting them can be interpreted as an act of defence and not an act of aggression. But was that not also what they said in Lebanon, Bosnia, Rwanda, and many other places all over the world that saw bloodshed?

The United Nations was formed so that we can avoid wars. And the United Nations is where we go to settle disputes. As what the late Tun Ghazali Shafie once said: as long as can continue to jaw, jaw we can avoid war, war.

In other words, keep talking (jaw, jaw) until it is no longer possible to talk before we go to war. Starting a war is easy. Ending it is difficult. Nevertheless, a long-term solution needs to be found to settle this matter, which is a decades old problem.

Now, assuming Pakatan Rakyat wins the coming general election in the next month or two and it gets to form the new federal government. And, say, this standoff has still not been settled by then (meaning the infiltrators are still in Sabah). How does Pakatan Rakyat propose to solve this issue? Will Anwar get sworn in as the new Prime Minister and then the very next day he sends in the army to shoot everyone dead?

I doubt Anwar will do that. Anwar, too, will try to negotiate a peaceful end to this standoff. There is one thing we must remember. The creation of Malaysia was not exactly 'kosher', if you know what I mean. There is a lot of 'history' behind the creation of Malaysia. And some of that 'history' has now surfaced to bite us in the butt.

According to the Americans, the South China Sea region is the most likely region for the outbreak of the Third World War in the event a Third World War does break out. So let us ponder on that before we ask the government to do a John Wayne and go in with our guns blazing.

And now read that statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) below.

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

Statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

MILF to Sulu sultan's heirs: We consulted you on peace talks

(luwaran.com) -- "We have reached out to you as we did to other groups in Mindanao on the subject of resolving the conflict in Mindanao. We did this on several occasions particularly when the MILF peace panel had a sortie in Zamboanga City more than a year ago."

This was the explanation of Khaled Musa, deputy chairman of the MILF Committee on Information, in response to allegation purportedly coming from one of the spokesmen of the Sultan of Sulu that they were not consulted on issues surrounding the GPH-MILF peace negotiation.

Currently, followers of the Sulu sultan are reportedly involved in the standoff in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Malaysia.

In the Zamboanga forum, one of the relatives of the Sulu sultan asked the policy of the MILF regarding the sultanate especially the Sulu sultanate and the answer was: "We want to preserve it but we will not revive it."

"The sultanate is part of Moro history and heritage and it is one of the basis of the present Moro's assertion of its right to self-determination," Musa stressed.

He, however, clarified that the MILF will not stand on the way if the various sultanates would want to revive themselves.

"We respect their decisions," he added.

In 1935, Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon abolished the sultanates and the datu system. In one of his meeting with them, he had this blunt message:

"… The sultans have no more rights than the humblest Moro and that under my administration the humblest Moro will be given as much protection as any datu under the law, and that his rights will be recognized exactly as the rights of a datu will be, and that every datu will have to comply with his duties as citizen to same extent and in the same manner that the humblest Moro is obligated."

In the sultanate or datu system, the people are generally divided into three categories: the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves. Some say correctly or wrongly this system has roots in the caste system in India. The only difference is that amongst Moros, slaves were at times given the chance to buy his or her freedom or were freed by benevolent nobles.

Asked to comment on the Sabah standoff, Musa declined to make any statement, saying it is highly sensitive issue that the MILF Central Committee has not yet made the necessary guidelines.

"It is better to remain silent," he confessed.

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

Sabah a sanctuary for the people of Bangsamoro

(The Star) -- The Malaysian Government has done more for the displaced people in the former conflict zone of Southern Philippines than just brokering a peace agreement.

Moro Islamic Liberation Front chairman Murad Ebrahim said the Malaysian Government as well as its people contributed much by opening their doors to the Bangsamoro people in Sabah when they had to flee from their homes because of the conflict since the 1970s.

"At that time, there was no peace and order, and the economy was in tatters."

"Sabah was near and I suppose the Bangsamoro found it better to seek opportunities there."

"We are thankful for that because at the time there was no way for us to help our own people," he said.

At the same time, he said he was appreciative of the Government for allowing qualified Bangsamoro people to apply for citizenship and identity cards after having stayed in the country for decades.

The ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry heard a testimony by a former Moro National Liberation Front leader who slipped into Sandakan in 1975 and has since become a permanent resident.

However, Murad said since the restoration of peace in the region, the doors were now open for the Bangsamoro people to return and rebuild their homeland.

"Now many of them are well-off. If they choose to come back to the Bangsamoro area, they can help with development and investment in the Bangsamoro, like how we also welcome Malaysian investors."

"But we give them a choice. If they choose to stay in Malaysia, we won't have objections," he said.

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

The term Bangsamoro refers to a people who are natives of the Sulu archipelago, parts of Mindanao, parts of Palawan in the Philippines, and parts of Sabah in neighbouring Malaysia at the time of conquest or colonisation. It comes from the Malay word bangsa, meaning nation or people, and the Spanish word Moro, from the Spanish word for Moor, the Reconquista-period term used for Muslims.

Bangsamoro covers the provinces of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sarangani, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga Sibugay; and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga.

Other interpretations may include territories that used to form North Borneo including Sabah, Labuan and the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. These areas are currently under the Sabah dispute. Historically, the island of Mactan plus the provinces of Manila and Cavite also formed part of Bangsamoro, as they were under Muslim rule.

The Moro ethnic group comprises the following population located in the southern islands of the Philippines.

Bajau

Banguingui

Illanun

Kalagan

Kalibugan

Maranao people

Maguindanao

Tausug

Samal people

Sama

Sangir

Yakan

History, not theology

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 06:14 PM PST

The Puritans wanted England cleansed of Catholics, who they regarded as deviant heretics who should be put to death. Amongst others they also wanted Christmas banned and shops ordered by law to stay open on 25th December. Parliament was also not happy that Mass was being said in the Royal Court since Mass or Eucharist is the central act of worship for the Roman Catholic Church.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is interesting to note that my article titled 'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter' attracted 167 comments at the time I am writing this. And it would have been more than 200 had I not deleted all those copy-and-paste comments of verses from the Bible.

And do you know why it attracted so many comments? Well, because most readers took it as an article regarding religion and whenever we talk about religion all the loonies and weirdoes would crawl out of the woodwork to argue and defend their God.

It never fails each and every time. However, what they fail to see is that I am talking about history, not theology. But these people just cannot grasp the spirit of my article.

And these are the same people who try to interpret what I say and do and usually would misinterpret it and take the opposite of what I said (remember the TV3 interview in Perth that I did?) And these are the 'thinkers' of the Malaysian public who will be voting for the 'right' government come the next general election in the next month or two.

Heaven help Malaysia when we put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

I have noticed that most Malaysian Christians (at least those who post comments in Malaysia Today) normally argue that there is a distinction between the Old and New Testaments and that Christians follow the New and not the Old Testament.

In other words, the New Testament has abrogated the Old Testament. But this is not what I find in England, strangely enough.

Anyway, let me emphasis, yet again, that today I am talking about history, not theology. And I will try to equate the history of Christianity in England (mainly the 1500-1600 period: which was a period of religious turmoil) with that of Islam so that you can better understand how both religions went down the same historical path.

You see, in Islam, there are those who interpret the Qur'an literally and there are those who take it as allegorical. Then there are those who accept the 'Scriptures' (in this case the Hadith) as authentic and those who reject them completely. Then there are those who accept some Hadith but not all while others accept different versions of Hadith.

Then, the most puzzling part of all (to those not schooled in the Qur'an, that is) would be the history of the Qur'an verses and which verse abrogates which verse. Then again, there are those who reject the 'science' of abrogation and argue that all verses still stand and none have been abrogated.

And that is why when non-Muslims copy-and-paste verses of the Qur'an and then try to interpret it the way they see it (meaning literally) they are terribly off the mark. Which verses, if any, are taken as literal and which ones as allegorical? Even Muslims are divided and sometimes confused on the matter so what more the non-Muslims who think they know what they are reading but actually do not know a thing.

Now, Christianity, too, suffers from this same ailment (such as literal versus allegorical). And that was what happened over more than 150 years from the early 1500s to the late 1600s in England. And because of this, England erupted into a Civil War from 1642 to 1651 and which resulted in the first time in English history that a monarch lost his head.

To study the history of the English Civil War you need to also understand the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I, a prelude to the reign of Charles I.

We all know that Henry broke from Rome and declared himself the head of the church, the Church of England. Soon after that he purged England of Catholics. Cathedrals and churches were burned to the ground, Catholics and their priests were executed, and all symbols of Catholicism (even the crucifix) were destroyed.

When Henry and then Edward died, Mary took the throne and, being a Catholic, she reversed what her father did. This time, Protestant cathedrals and churches were burned plus Protestants and their priests were killed (even burned alive). In fact, she did worse than what her father did and for that she earned the title of Bloody Mary.

Then Elizabeth took the throne and she, in turn, reversed what Mary did. This time Catholics were put to death and their houses of worship and symbols destroyed. They also passed a new law that prohibited Catholics from sitting on the throne of England.

Now, we come to the reign of Charles I.

Charles was not a Roman Catholic but he believed that the Church of England was more Catholic than the Church of Rome itself. And there were many Catholics within Charles' own family -- such as his mother, Anne of Denmark; his wife, Henrietta Maria; etc. In fact, later on, his eldest son Charles became a Roman Catholic on his deathbed while James II, who also became a Roman Catholic, lost his throne because of that.

Hence England takes this 'No Catholic' rule very seriously.

The problem with Charles was that he was surrounded by those suspected of being 'closet' Catholics plus known Catholics. Hence Parliament wanted Charles to remove his advisers whom many Members of Parliament suspected were misleading Charles and giving him the wrong advice in favour of Catholicism.

Parliament, in fact, even forced Charles to sign death warrants for some of his close friends and although at first Charles resisted, he later had no choice but to sign these documents while crying as he did so.

The quarrel between Charles and Parliament was about two issues. One was regarding money (Charles bypassed Parliament when he imposed new taxes: in fact, Charles suspended Parliament five times during his rule) and the other was regarding religion.

Parliament suspected that there was a secret agenda to turn England into a Catholic state. Hence the Catholics needed to be destroyed and England retained as a Secular State with separation of State and Church. Charles, however, refused because he wanted to retain Episcopacy.

And with that the Civil War broke out with the Puritans on one side and the Royalists on the other. Later, after Charles was defeated, a bloody war broke out between Parliament and the Catholics in Ireland, so bloody and brutal that until today the Irish have never forgotten or forgiven the English.

Charles was eventually pronounced a traitor and executed. The English Catholic Church, however, has canonised Charles as a martyr, more or less confirming that Charles was Catholic 'at heart'.

So you see, not all Christians regard Catholics as real Christians (just like not all Muslims regard Wahhabis and Shias as real Muslims). The Catholics even up to these modern times are viewed as deviant heretics who bring affront to the religion of Christ.

No, I am not talking about theology here. I am talking about the history of England (at least of 500 years ago) and how many in England view the Catholics as sesat (misguided) Christians.

TIMELINE

Henry VIII: 21 April 1509 to 28 January 1547

Edward VI: 28 January 1547 to 6 July 1553

Mary I: 19 Jul 1553 to 17 November 1558 (a.k.a. Bloody Mary)

Elizabeth I: 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603 (a.k.a. the Virgin Queen)

James I: to 24 March 1603 to 27 March 1625

Charles I: 27 March 1625 to 30 January 1649

England then temporarily became a Republic upon the death (execution) of Charles I until Charles II took the throne on 29 May 1660.

Deepak Jaikishan, the opposition’s secret weapon

Posted: 18 Feb 2013 06:31 PM PST

Of late, Deepak has, again, been doing a series of interviews and has been issuing press release after press release contradicting everything he said two years ago. The only thing he did not say was, "Raja Petra Kamarudin did not lie two years ago, as I had alleged. Instead, I was the one who lied. Raja Petra, in fact, told the truth."

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Two years ago, Deepak Jaikishan did a series of interviews and issued a few press releases calling me a liar and alleging that he had nothing to do with private investigator Perumal Balasubramaniam and/or the First Family. Deepak then challenged me to return to Malaysia to repeat those allegations that I made against him, if I dare.

So now Deepak is saying the same thing as what I had said two years ago. But two years ago the pro-opposition alternative media carried Deepak's interviews and press releases denying what I had said and calling me a liar. Today, Deepak has done a U-turn and has contradicted everything he said two years ago while more or less confirming what I had said.

But what does the opposition do? Instead of chiding Deepak for slandering me, they adopt Deepak as their poster boy. Deepak is now the opposition's new mascot to help them march into Putrajaya.

No doubt the opposition seeks only one thing: to grab power. All politicians want to grab power -- that is the only thing they are interested in. And they will do anything just to get into power -- even sell their own mother if necessary.

But we are fighting for change. We are talking about reforms. We are propagating politik baru (new politics). Hence should we not then adopt certain codes of ethics in our pursuit of power?

Barisan Nasional is not fighting for change. Umno is not talking about reforms or propagating politik baru. They just want to retain 'old values'. Hence I do not really care what those in government say and do. I expect them to say and do the wrong thing. That is the nature of the beast.

But the opposition is supposed to be different. The opposition says it is offering us something different and something new. In that case why is the opposition playing the same game as Barisan Nasional?

The opposition and the pro-opposition alternative media are very quick to jump onto the bandwagon and repeat, again and again, all the negative things they have so say about people who criticise the opposition. But when those allegations are later proven false, they maintain a deafening silence and pretend all this did not happen.

There are two types of lies. One type of lie is to tell an untruth. The other type of lie is to hide the truth.

The government uses one method while the opposition uses the other. At the end of the day, it is merely a difference between the glass being half-full and the glass being half-empty. The Malays call this dua kali lima.

I do not expect anything from those who walk in the corridors of power. In fact, I expect the worst from them. But for the same to come from the opposition is intolerable because the opposition is talking about raising the bar. Hence let us see the opposition raise that bar.

Barisan Nasional, understandably, is not capable of doing the right thing. That is to be expected. Pakatan Rakyat, however, should be aiming to uphold the truth. However, if Pakatan Rakyat also plays the same lying game as Barisan Nasional, is this not what the English call old wine in a new bottle?

I expect when the US financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight Iran and created the Taliban to fight Russia, and while Malaysia armed and trained the Muslim Moro to fight the Christians, it is also kosher for Pakatan Rakyat to work with slime-balls and scumbags just to win the election.

And what else would you label a person like Deepak Jaikishan who admits that he is up in arms against the First Family because he is not going to make the hundreds of millions after all that he had expected to make -- money that, in the first place, belongs to the taxpayers?

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

Is Deepak's quest real, or political?

Jimmy Chia, The Malaysian Insider

Businessman Deepak Jaikishan seems to have a major grudge against the government, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

Apart from his revelations and an e-book, the carpet dealer is now suing the prime minister's wife for RM 3 billion. That is an astronomical sum, to say the least.

But if his cause is real and he is an aggrieved party in a business tiff, why consort with the opposition in his case against the government?

If this is a business dispute, why bring in the politicians? Why write an open letter to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and say he is a nationalist like the former prime minister?

That appears to be a political move. That appears to be part of a move to unseat the prime minister by creating stories about him and his family, rather than a straight-forward business partnership gone sour.

Deepak has already admitted he has done business deals for eight years and profited from it. Now that they have fallen out, he wants to sue them, and work with the opposition to bring Najib down.

Can he please make up his mind? Is this about business or about politics? One can't pretend to have an attack of the conscience after working together for so long.

If the partnership was still good, would he have come out and said what he has revealed these past few months? Or is this just another case of a disgruntled businessman who is no longer in the circle of power?

Deepak has shown an insight into a different world but his actions now reveal a bitter man who is seeking to bring down the people he used to do business with, one way or another. To the extent of using whatever means, legal or political, to get his way.

You're no saint, Deepak. You would do your cause better if you crusade alone rather than get in bed with politicians again.

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

"May I suggest that you (Najib) as our 'sitting PM' to explain the truth on SD2 to the Malaysian public and not just sit on the PM's chair like a 'sitting duck'," Deepak said today.

"What is most important is that both you and your wife come forward now to specifically reveal the truth to the entire Malaysian public on why she (Rosmah) instructed me (to get Balasubramaniam) to reverse the SD2," he added.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/01/18/deepak-come-clean-on-altantuya-najib/

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

Deepak, who once said he was close enough to Rosmah to call her his "big sister," has continued to cause embarrassment to the prime minister and his wife, who so far have maintained an awkward silence in the face of his charges.

He has vowed to detail - or re-detail, since he has already made the information public to a flock of internet sites over recent weeks - RM3 million in payments to a private investigator, Perumal Balasubramaniam, in 2008 in an effort to shut up the investigator.

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5079&Itemid=178

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

In the video he allegedly links PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and his fellow counterparts such as lawyer R Sivarasa, PKR vice president N Surendran and Anwar's daughter Nurul Izzah to his decision to 'tell the truth'.

In the video, he allegedly mentions that Anwar was the one who offered legal help to him but 'obviously' expected a favour in return. Anwar has however denied all links to Deepak while Sivarasa and Surendran are now Deepak's lawyers.

Sivarasa claims he warned Anwar of the risks before taking up Deepak's case. Anwar it appears saw no adverse political implications.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/09/who-is-deepak-jaikishan/

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

Deepak and his allies are expected to inject an oil and gas project worth as much as US$500 million (RM1.51 billion) into Envair. The project is believed to be located in Eastern Europe, and the Envair board expected to announce a name change for the company to Raya Energy Bhd soon.

Famous for his denial of being Rosmah's 'toy boy', Deepak first made the headlines when he was accused of having bribed private investigator P Balasubramaniam into reneging on an explosive statutory declaration implicating both Najib and Rosmah in the 2006 Altantuya Shaaribuu murder case.

Against such a controversial background, Deepak will have to work extra hard to prove his business integrity and reliability to established and serious investors. To the retail crowd, who see him as Rosmah's proxy, his larger-than-life persona, due to the Altantuya connection, actually makes him Pied Piper of sorts. But win or lose, at the end of the day, Envair's profitability will hinge on the oil contracts it receives, most of which can reasonably be expected to come from Petronas.

It must be stated that Deepak has previously refuted that his Envair dealings were connected to the Najibs. "I want to make it clear. I stand on my own two feet. Please keep me out from your vicious cycle," Deepak told Malaysia Chronicle in December.

http://www.bonology.com/2012/03/business-is-now-where-action-is-rosmah.html

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

Controversial carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan failed to turn up at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) here for the fourth time today despite confirming that he would attend the scheduled meeting earlier.

MACC Investigation Division director, Datuk Mustafar Ali, said Deepak had agreed to appear at the MACC headquarters to give his statement regarding the second Statutory Declaration (SD) by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam about the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu but he seems to be "making empty promises".

http://news.abnxcess.com/2013/01/macc-stood-up-by-deepak-for-fourth-time/

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

Deepak had recently admitted that he helped to get Balasubramaniam, a private investigator, to repudiate his earlier statutory declaration on the matter, including finding two lawyers to draft the new statement.

The Bar Council is investigating the identity of lawyers and possible misconduct in the drafting of Balasubramaniam's second sworn statement about the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

A cloud of mystery has hung over the identity of the lawyer who drew up Balasubramaniam's second SD, dated a day after his first on July 3, 2008, regarding Altantuya's 2006 murder, for which two elite police commandos have been convicted and are facing death sentences.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/deepak-says-will-reveal-all-on-balas-second-sd-to-macc-today

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

PKR today alleged that businessman Deepak Jaikishan spent about RM13 million in 2009 to purchase jewellery for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's wife, Rosmah Mansor.

Speaking at a press conference at the party headquarters here, PKR director of strategy Rafizi Ramli said that the purchases involved 19 different types of jewellery from Hong Kong, ranging from necklaces to rings and bracelets.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/01/02/deepak-purchased-gems-worth-millions-for-rosmah/

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

Carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan today claimed that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's wife Rosmah Mansor told him to look for private investigator P Balasubramaniam on the day the latter's statutory declaration (SD) was made public.

Revealing the identity of "the female friend" whom he mentioned at his recent press conferences, Deepak claimed that Rosmah called up many people for favours on the day Balasubramaniam disclosed his first SD, which linked Najib to the murder of Mongolian national Altantuyaa Shaariibuu.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/12/rosmah-told-me-to-look-for-bala/

NOW WATCH THESE VIDEOS

xBTN7eHhLos

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBTN7eHhLos

Sc5Yzc50Nnc

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc5Yzc50Nnc

YzoLOmQ8whU

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzoLOmQ8whU

Q2o7lIVH1Dg

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o7lIVH1Dg

mIlZmm4JdjQ

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIlZmm4JdjQ