Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Are we still on track?
The Malay cock syndrome
The spin by The Unspinners
Easier to talk than to do
Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO
Rule of law or rule by law?
Was the Pope in Rome a traitor?
Are you ready yet for a liberal society?
One man’s traitor is another man’s patriot
Do you want to go to heaven?

Posted: 06 Sep 2011 05:00 PM PDT

The leader of the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) also initially called for ISA to be abolished, and on December 1 said PPP would withdraw from BN unless if the ISA were not amended before the next election. In response, Prime Minister Abdullah called PPP's bluff and said the small party, which holds no seats in Parliament, could leave BN if it wished. -- US Embassy, KL

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Ali Rustam: PPP can leave BN - now

(Malaysiakini, 20 Oct 2007) -- People's Progressive Party (PPP) members are left reeling after receiving a political blow from Umno's third most powerful leader during the Malacca PPP annual general assembly early this week.

At the assembly on Monday, Umno vice-president Mohd Ali Rustam delivered a scathing speech which chided the PPP for "threatening" Barisan Nasional for more seats to contest in the coming general election

He also repeatedly stressed that PPP could leave the BN fold if it was unhappy.

This left many party members in a daze at how Mohd Ali - who was the guest of honour as Malacca chief minister - could utter such remarks.

"He came to our house, seemingly with the intention to humiliate us," said a PPP source who attended the event.

Eyewitnesses said a handful of party members stormed out of the venue in protest, but that did not deter Mohd Ali.

"PPP can leave BN," said Mohd Ali.

He then pointed at the stunned delegates and added: "All of you can leave. Either today or tomorrow. Why wait until the general election? What's there to wait for?"

Show of hands

Mohd Ali also claimed that the Umno supreme council was unhappy with PPP for accepting former Umno members as their members.

He even asked if any of the delegates formerly with Umno, MCA, Gerakan and MIC to put up their hands.

Mohd Ali also took a dig at Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob for suggesting that PPP should ask every state for a seat to contest in.

"That's his business. As far as I am concerned - no seat in Malacca (for PPP)," he added.

When Mohd Ali wrapped up his tirade and declared the assembly open, PPP delegates refused to applaud.

Eyewitnesses reported that PPP president M Kayveas maintained his composure throughout the hour-long speech and was seen vigorously taking down notes.

Funeral-like atmosphere

When contacted, Kayveas said delegates were "disappointed and dejected" by the "unwarranted and undiplomatic" remarks uttered by Mohd Ali.

Kayveas said delegates were expecting inspiring speeches from Mohd Ali in order to prepare the party for the upcoming general election.

"(Instead) the chief minister's speech made the entire assembly feel like a funeral. As the third highest ranking in Umno, the consequences of his speech worries me," he said.

He added that some remarks which Mohd Ali made regarding other BN component parties and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi were also uncalled for.

According to media sources, Mohd Ali had asked journalists to exclude the hard-hitting part of his speech in their reports. He claimed these were only meant for the delegates.

It is uncertain if Mohd Ali's speech would lead to souring ties between PPP and Umno.

However, there is already talks within PPP rank-and-file that the party may silently boycott Umno programmes and functions.

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

PPP says it will leave BN if ISA is not amended

(The Malaysian Insider, 1 Dec 2008) -- The PPP, a minor party in the Barisan Nasional (BN), has threatened to pull out of the ruling coalition if the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not amended before the next general election.

It is the latest party to join the bandwagon calling for reforms to prevent the abuse of the legislature which allows detention without trial.

Party president Datuk M Kayveas said today: "I ask for amendments to the law so that it does not become a draconian law imposed on innocent citizens."

While Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties PKR, DAP and Pas have always adopted an anti-ISA position, BN parties have always staunchly defended the law as necessary until recently.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim resigned from the Cabinet recently in protest against the use of the ISA on a journalist, blogger and a senior Selangor PR government official.

There has even been growing calls from the MCA, the second biggest party in BN after Umno, urging for either reform or repeal of the ISA.

Speaking at his party's youth and women's wing congress today, Kayveas said BN should amend the ISA if it was serious about rebranding itself.

"BN has to make changes before the next general elections. It is suicidal if we do not plan.

"The problem with BN is its success. Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they cannot lose," he said.

Kayveas added the March election results have shown that multi-racialism and good governance is what the voters are looking for.

"The solution has always been multi-racialism but we are caught in our own political racial configuration," he said.

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

PM to PPP: Go if you want to

(The Star, 10 Dec 2008) -- PPP is free to quit the Barisan Nasional coalition if it wants to, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.

The government has no plans to amend the Internal Security Act (ISA), said Abdullah, also the coalition chairman, after a Barisan supreme council meeting here on Tuesday.

Recently, party president Datuk M. Kayveas said the PPP would pull out of Barisan Nasional if the ISA was not amended before the next general election.

He said PPP's Youth and Wanita divisions wanted the ISA abolished, and he had to follow their proposals.

He also said Barisan had to make changes before the next general election, adding that "it would be suicidal if we did not."

When asked whether this meant that PPP was free to leave the Barisan, Abdullah said: "If that is their choice, what can we do?"

Kayveas' statement was slammed by many Barisan leaders, largely members of the largest component party Umno, who said it reflected badly on the coalition's unity.

However, MCA central committee member Wong Nai Chee said his party supported PPP's call to amend the ISA.

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

Don't push us, Gerakan Youth tells BN leaders

(Malaysiakini, 7 Sep 2011) -- Telling BN leaders not to "push Gerakan to the edge", Ang said the party "will fight back with dignity".

"We will not be a punching bag of Umno and we will no longer keep quiet when you shout. Gerakan is now 43 years old and we are old enough and experienced enough to decide our own destiny and direction that we do not need Umno or any other party to tell us where we should contest.

"We will decide where we should contest and we will let them know when (the) time is right," said Ang in his tersely-worded statement.

Ang was responding to remarks by Umno supreme council member Mohd Ali Rustam that the state BN would field a "winnable candidate" from either Umno or MCA - instead of Gerakan - for the Bachang state constituency in the next general election.

The Malay cock syndrome

Posted: 04 Sep 2011 08:55 PM PDT

The trouble is these Malays measure the size of your balls according to the size of the cock's balls. And to qualify as a man you must have balls the size of a cock's balls. They are not concerned whether you have brains bigger than a cock's brains.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You may have noticed that the 'hot' news these past few weeks is all about so-and-so challenging so-and-so to do this, that or the other. Mat Sabu challenges so-and-so, Khairy Jamaluddin challenges so-and-so, so-and-so challenges Anwar Ibrahim, so-and-so challenges Najib Tun Razak, and whatnot.

And these challenges are followed by allegations of takde telur, takde batu, takde pelir (which all means no balls or, as the Chinese would say, boh chuntoi), pondan (transvestite), eunuch, and so on.

This is very revealing of the Malay cock syndrome. And this is also revealing of the Malay penchant for cock fighting, which is still a favourite pastime in the Malay heartland such as the East Coast -- where many macho Malay males love their cocks more than their wives.

Woe to any wife who cuts off the head of her husband's cock and serves it for dinner. Wives have suffered divorce for less than that. A man's cock is a sacred cow, and just like any sacred cow, one does not slaughter it and serve it for dinner.

A fierce cock that has never lost a fight is a man's prized possession. He would proudly parade his champion cock all over the kampong for all and sundry to admire. A champion cock would be worth its weight in gold. It would be worth more than four wives combined in terms of commercial value. You could marry four wives for less than the cost of a champion cock.

A fierce fighting cock is a cock with balls. Although I have never yet seen where the balls are, I assume they must be hidden there somewhere. If not they would not be such fierce fighters.

To these Malays, a man is judged by how close he resembles a fighting cock. And a man who does not rise to the challenge is a man who takde telur, takde batu, takde pelir, boh chuntoi, or is a pondan, eunuch, and so on.

It is that simple. I challenge you, you accept. You don't accept, then you takde telur, takde batu, takde pelir, boh chuntoi, or are a pondan, eunuch, and so on.

That is why Malays love Hindi movies. Hindi movies always start with the baddie terrorising the entire village. Then along comes the hero who gets beaten up to the point of death as he stands up for the democratic rights and civil liberties of the entire community. He then recovers from his injuries and singlehandedly defeats the baddie and his army of 65 toughies, plus in the end he gets to marry the most beautiful girl in the village. These are movies made for the Malay mind.

I too have received my share of challenges and my share of allegations of takde telur, takde batu, takde pelir, boh chuntoi, pondan, eunuch, and so on. To these Malays, a real man would subject himself to a sham trial based on mala fide charges and fabricated evidence. And if you do not dare face this travesty of justice and manipulation of the judicial process, then you takde telur, takde batu, takde pelir, boh chuntoi, or are a pondan, eunuch, and so on

The trouble is these Malays measure the size of your balls according to the size of the cock's balls. And to qualify as a man you must have balls the size of a cock's balls. They are not concerned whether you have brains bigger than a cock's brains.

I really don't know how big the cock's balls are. But I am more concerned with saving my balls, whatever size they may be. So I use my brains, which are bigger than a cock's brains, and not my balls to make my decisions.

I am not sure what decision I would make if I use my balls to make these decisions. But by using my brains to make decisions I think I am able to make better decisions and in that same process save my balls as well.

I suppose this is because I have a better brain than these types of Malays who may have gone to university but yet still use their balls rather than their brains to make decisions. And since they use their balls rather than their brains to make decisions they do not always make the cleverest of decisions.

This is the problem with Malays who suffer from the cock syndrome. They think like cocks and use their balls in deciding things. I refuse to think like a cock so I use my brains. And that is why these types of Malays can never match me. They can't come even close.

They may have gone to university at the expense of the taxpayers -- 90% of whom are Chinese, according to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But they still refuse to use their brains in making decisions in spite of their education. They still use the cock as the basis of whatever they do.

Sigh…you can take the Malay out of the kampong, but how do we take the cock out of the Malay? They still think like cocks and use their balls rather than their brains in making decisions.

This is what caused Dr Mahathir to cry during the Umno General Assembly. And during the interview he gave soon after he retired in 2003, he lamented about how he had failed to change the Malays.

Basically, Dr Mahathir realised that the Malays still use their balls instead of their brains and they go through life like prized cocks and because of this the Malays are going to be a lost race in time to come.

The spin by The Unspinners

Posted: 03 Sep 2011 07:12 PM PDT

The Unspinners say that Rosmah could not have been at the scene of Altantuya's murder because she was at a dinner event at the Tabung Haji building in front of the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. But the dinner was at 8.00pm. Altantuya was murdered between midnight and dawn.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Konspirasi mekanik bodoh dari RPK si penipu," said The Unspinners, a pro-Umno Blog, on Friday. In English, that would roughly translate to 'Conspiracy by the stupid mechanic, RPK, the liar'.

I suppose I should be honoured that Umno would devote so much time in attacking me. This means I must be hurting them real bad if they need to try to bring me down.

In that article they raised two issues. One was about the allegation against Rosmah being at the scene of Altantuya Shaariibuu's murder and the other about the USD 24 million ring. These are supposed to be the lies that I spun.

To support their argument, they mentioned that I lack a tertiary education, had been kicked out from the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) while in form 2, and worked as a mechanic.

As usual, there is no name to that article. Normally, The Unspinners and the other Umno Blogs never reveal the writers of their articles or they may use pen (false) names. They never reveal the real identity of their writers. I always put my name to my articles. Yet The Unspinners have the gall to call me gutless.

Actually, what The Unspinners said is true. I did leave the MCKK, but in form 3, not form 2. I then went to the Victoria Institution (VI). You see, I could not stand an entirely Malay environment and I was more comfortable in the multi-racial VI environment. The fact that most of my friends in the VI were Chinese and Indians rather than Malays is testimony to this.

In form four, after my LCE, my father bought me a motorcycle, which was what I had longed for since I was in form 1. But I could not get a driving licence until I was 15 (form 3). My father, however, refused to buy me a motorcycle unless I can pass my LCE.

And I did pass my LCE with a grade A. So I got my motorcycle at last, something I would not have been allowed if I had remained in the MCKK.

I spent most of my time modifying and racing that motorcycle. I even raced in the Malaysian Grand Prix in 1968 (I was only 18 then). I crashed, though, and ended up in the University Hospital for a short stint.

My only interest was tinkering with engines and racing motorcycles. I even raced from Kuala Lumpur to Penang and round Penang Island. Those were in the days before we had such things as highways.

I decided that the only career I would love would be as a motor mechanic. Any career other than trying to make bikes and cars go faster would not be my cup of tea. In one trip to England, my father brought back tons of books on how to modify engines and I knew I had met my calling.

England was where the action was. I asked my father to send me to England. My father wanted me to be a Barrister, just like him (he went to Lincolns Inn). I wanted to be a motor engineer.

My father thought that this was a dirty job and he was not sure if I was serious about this career. He wanted me to prove that my heart was really in this so he sent me to Volkswagen to do an apprenticeship. Pak Arshad was the manager then and he laughed when I met him. You are too qualified for an apprenticeship, he told me. Normally, school dropouts choose this route. I should go overseas, he told me.

But my father was adamant that I would first have to dirty my hands to prove I was serious enough.

I spent the first three months in the car wash, where all apprentices have to start. So for three months I was a basuh kereta boy. After that only are we transferred to the workshop and put under one of the mechanics.

By the end of the first year, I could strip a Volkswagen by lunchtime and put it back together again before the end of the day. It was now time to go to England. But my father wanted me to get a diploma first and then go to England for my degree or whatever. So he enrolled me in the FIT for a two-year motor engineering course.

As I was sitting for my final exams, my father died. He was only in his mid-40s and my mother decided that the plan to go to England would have to wait. The family could no longer afford to pay for my overseas education. So I had to abandon the plan for a further education and instead go out to work for a living.

This was in 1972 and my salary then was only RM250 a month. But with the early death of my father and no money in the bank, it was not much of a choice that I had. I had to learn how to get through life from the bottom and work my way up the ladder.

But I did all this without the rakyat's money, unlike those Umno Malays writing for The Unspinners. It was clean money. It was halal money. I did not receive any government grants or scholarships financed by the Chinese taxpayers like those Umno Malays in The Unspinners who are so proud of their higher education and which was denied me.

Of course, The Unspinners mock me about my lowly education. I, however, am proud that I started from the very bottom, way bottom as a car wash boy, and crawled my way up the ladder

Okay, now let's talk about my 'lies'.

First, about Rosmah's ring. The Unspinners just say that I lied about the ring. Actually, that was not even my story. I did not break that story. I don't know why I am the one being accused of this story.

Anyway, The Unspinners say that I lied. But they did not explain in what way I lied.

They did not say that the ring does not exist. So it does. They did not say that the ring does not cost USD 24 million. So it does. They did not say the ring was not sent to Malaysia. So it was. They did not say the ring was not sent to Malaysia addressed to Rosmah Mansor. So it was.

So where is the lie then? The Unspinners did not explain where. Just saying that I lied is not good enough. They need to explain which part is the lie. This, they did not do.

In short, The Unspinners is spinning and they spin by merely denying without explaining.

Okay, on the next issue, about Rosmah being at the scene of Altantuya's murder.

The Unspinners say that Rosmah could not have been at the scene of Altantuya's murder because she was at a dinner event at the Tabung Haji building in front of the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. But the dinner was at 8.00pm. Altantuya was murdered between midnight and dawn.

How long was the dinner? What time did the dinner end? The Unspinners did not say. Would the 8.00pm dinner go on and on until 6.00am the following morning? I would imagine not. I would imagine the dinner would have ended before midnight, say 11.00pm at the latest, considering that the dinner was for young children (orphans). I doubt these young kids would be partying till 6.00am.

So, Altantuya was murdered after midnight while the dinner ended before midnight. Did The Unspinners explain this? Certainly not!

Now, who were the two military officers who entered Najib's house around midnight and exited around dawn? Were Najib and Rosmah home? Why would two military officers need to go to the Deputy Prime Minister's house around midnight and not leave until sunup the following morning?

The Unspinners does not tell us. The Unspinners just says that I lied.

And what about the odometer on Rosmah's car? If the car were used only to drive Rosmah from Jalan Duta to the Tabung Haji bulding near the US Embassy, then it would show a certain mileage. But the mileage was too high. In fact, the mileage would be more appropriate for a journey to Shah Alam than a journey from Jalan Duta to Jalan Pekeliling.

Now, Malaysia Today has previously published the odometer reading for Rosmah's car plus the police logbook showing all movements in and out of Najib's house. So we are talking about documentary evidence here. The Unspinners just makes a denial without offering any explanations and without replying to these points.

And to prove that I lied, instead of rebutting the allegations with facts, The Unspinners raises the issue of my lowly education and my start in life as a mechanic. Actually, even that is a lie. I started life in a car wash.

Tun Ghafar Baba must be turning in his grave. He used to be so proud that he received only a standard six education and yet he went on to become the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Is The Unspinners now going to mock Tun Ghafar because of his even lower education than mine?

Anyway, back to the allegations against Rosmah. Remember what I said earlier? In Malaysia, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. This is how the system works in Malaysia. So The Unpsinners will have to prove Rosmah's innocence. If they fail to do so then we will have to assume that Rosmah is guilty. That is how it works in Malaysia.

Easier to talk than to do

Posted: 01 Sep 2011 07:26 PM PDT

As far as you are concerned, Mat Sabu can have an opinion and he is allowed to state what his opinion is. But he has to make sure that his opinion does not differ from yours. If he says the same thing as what you say, then well and fine. But if he states the opposite of what you believe, then this is not acceptable.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is easy to talk. Walking the talk is another thing altogether. Malaysian politicians can talk. They can talk till the cows come home. But they don't mean what they say. Bikin tak serupa cakap, cakap tak serupa bikin.

On Merdeka Day, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was trying to impress Malaysians by saying that the country is very democratic. What is the basis of this hypothesis? Is it just because we hold elections?

As I said in an earlier article, even Adolf Hitler held elections in Germany. This does not mean Germany was a democracy. Elections are no yardstick for classifying a country as a democracy.

Many other dictators hold elections as well. But whether they are fair, free and clean elections (like what we have in Malaysia…sic) or whether they are rigged elections is another thing. But they do hold elections. Does this mean they are democracies?

The opposition too claims it is fighting for democracy. Is that so? Or is this bullshit?

Okay, let us give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is truly fighting for democracy. Let us also assume, as Najib said, that Malaysia is a true democracy. Now, let us put this to a test.

If the PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, makes a statement on the Bukit Kepong incident based on his belief and his understanding of the events, can both the opposition as well as the government allow this and accept it?

Currently, it appears like some in the opposition -- and many in the government -- will not allow Mat Sabu to have an opinion and to state his opinion. Why not? Why must his opinion and his statement be the same as yours? Why can't it be different from yours?

Both the opposition as well as the government are the same. Both don't allow and don't tolerate different views. If you express a different view from them, then you are a pariah bastard.

Okay, forget about Bukit Kepong. Let's instead go to the murder of JWW Birch on 2 November 1875 as he was having a berak (shit) along the Berak River…sorry, I meant Perak River.

Now, was his murderer, Dato' Maharajalela, a criminal or a patriot?

Incidentally, just to digress a bit, when a person acts above the law and pushes his weight around with absolute disregard for everyone else, the Malays would say: dia bermaharajalela. So the name Maharajalela is synonymous with acting like the Mafia or like a gangster.

Anyway, back to the subject of the murder of JWW Birch. First of all, was he justly executed or was he martyred?

Did you know that they exiled Dato' Maharajalela and his gang of conspirators to the Seychelles? So JWW Birch's murderers must have been criminals. And they named many roads in Kuala Lumpur, Taping, Seremban, Penang, Ipoh, and Singapore after JWW Birch. So JWW Birch must have been a hero to have so many roads named after him.

But hold on, later they changed the name Jalan Birch in Taiping and Kuala Lumpur to Jalan Maharajalela. The excuse they gave was the Jalan Birch in Taiping and Kuala Lumpur were named after a different Birch, not the JWW Birch.

Whatever it is, there are a couple of roads named Jalan Maharajalela. So Dato' Maharajalela must have been a hero then, not a criminal. Would they name roads after criminals like Botak Chin, Bentong Kali or Mona Fendi? Would Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman be renamed Jalan Chin Peng?

But JWW Birch was also a hero and there are many roads also named after him. That means both JWW Birch and Dato' Maharajalela were heroes. But how can that be? They can't have BOTH been heroes. Only one can be the hero. The other must be the criminal.

Now this is most interesting indeed. Was Dato' Maharajalela a criminal or a hero? And was JWW Birch a martyr or someone biadap (insolent) towards the Sultan of Perak (as his murderers alleged) who deserved what happened to him?

Can I say that JWW Birch was a hero and that he was murdered because he was opposed to slavery and he tried to wipe out slavery in Perak? Will they allow me to have that opinion and to express this opinion?

But many would argue that the hero in this whole incident was Dato' Maharajalela, not JWW Birch. But then, if you support what Dato' Maharajalela did to JWW Birch, would that not make you a terrorist?

If you support the murder of JWW Birch because he was biadap towards the Sultan of Perak, then can I not also support the murder of many other people because they are also biadap towards the Sultan of Perak?

Nizar Jamaluddin, the ex-Menteri Besar of Perak, is also said to be biadap towards the Sultan of Perak (according to Umno, at least). Should we not also do to Nizar what they did to JWW Birch? Is it right for me to suggest the murder of Nizar (like what Umno would like to see)?

Hey, it is within my democratic right to have my own opinion and to openly state what my opinion is. If you can say that the murder of JWW Birch was right and that Dato' Maharajalela was a hero, then I can also say that the murder of Nizar is right because he is just like JWW Birch -- as far as Umno's opinion goes.

So you see, you don't really care what my opinion is. You only want to make sure that my opinion is the same as yours.

And the Bukit Kepong issue is a good example. Even Karpal Singh said that Mat Sabu should retract his statement and apologise.

Why should Mat Sabu apologise?

If I say that Dato' Maharajalela was a murderer and that JWW Birch was a hero who opposed slavery and was murdered for his righteousness, and if the Malays start foaming at the mouth and go berserk (like they always do), is Karpal going to ask me to retract my statement and apologise? Are they going to make a police report against me and are the police going to call me up for my statement to be recorded?

Democracy podah! I am allowed the freedom to believe what I want to believe and the freedom to express my opinion only as long as this does not run contra to your own beliefs and opinion.

And both the opposition and the government are the same. They both do not respect these freedoms although they shout and scream about democracy.

In fact, the opposition is worse.

If I were to say that Najib should resign because he is not qualified to remain as the Prime Minister, the opposition supporters would clap, cheer, applaud and would call me a true son of Malaysia and a patriot.

But if I were to say that Anwar Ibrahim should resign because he is not qualified to remain as the Opposition Leader, the opposition supporters would curse me and call me a turncoat who has been bought off by the government.

But then Khir Toyo also resigned as the Opposition Leader for Selangor after he was charged in court. That, you would say, is the correct thing to do. But if I say that Anwar should follow Khir Toyo's example, you cannot agree to this.

Ah, that is because Anwar was unjustly charged, you will argue. Was Khir Toyo justly charged? If Khir Toyo was charged because he committed an act of corruption, then why only charge him? Thousands of others should also be charged -- the Prime Minister, IGP, AG, etc., included.

Khir Toyo was charged because his enemies within Umno wanted to get rid of him, not because he is corrupt (although I do admit he is corrupt). If it is because he is corrupt, then he should not be the only one facing trial.

That is the reality of the situation. The opposition does not understand the meaning of democracy, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., just like the government. The opposition does not respect democracy, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., just like the government.

Same same lah!

Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 04:36 PM PDT

"I cried along with them as memories of my bitter and gruelling experiences came flooding back," he recalls. "Involved in World War II as a Malay Fifth Columnist leader; detained in several Police lock-ups and prisons; taunted and jeered by Malays who saw me hawking food on the roadside; humiliated by people who slammed their doors in my face; asked to leave my rented cubicle in the middle of the night and even labelled as the Malay who 'brought' the Japanese into Malaya."

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957

This abridged and edited translation of Mustapha Hussain's memoirs will appear two decades after his passing. This would not have been possible if not for the initial translation effort by his devoted daughter, Insun Sony.

I have edited this translation very heavily, partly to reduce redundancies, and also to make clearer some historical and cultural references that may not be immediately obvious to many English language readers. Clarissa Koh kindly checked this edited translation. If not for Insun's initiative and Clarissa's voluntary efforts, this translation would not have been prepared for publication.

Jomo K. S.
University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur
October 2003

Foreword

Mustapha Hussain's memoirs present an interesting insight into a sharp, sensitive mind who turned to ethno-nationalism and later struggled for moral integrity, justice and recognition.

Perak-born Mustapha, a cousin of the first President of Singapore, Yusof Ishak, was an armchair, pipe-smoking, leftwing intellectual who taught at the Serdang Agricultural College before the war, but who fell on hard times after the war.

He loved to ride a fast motorcycle. He was an avid reader and a member of the (British) Left Book Club. He might have gone through life as a happy-go-lucky fellow if he had not been discriminated against in the colonial civil service by white Europeans.

Life for him would have remained idyllic, being almost the equal of an Englishman, teaching, reading and doing research, and 'dressing and behaving like a white man' on pay-days. But racial discrimination made him a bitter diehard Malay nationalist. Nationalist anger consumed his soul.

He owed his English education to his father, a land surveyor. His socialism he attributed to a few European teachers and to books by Gandhi, Nehru, Edgar Snow and other leftwing writers.

He married Mariah binti Haji Abdul Hamid (formerly Dorothy Aida Fenner) in 1934. She was only 14, he 25. Once the children came, he was anxious to further his (academic) career, but the lack of job promotions unsettled him.

He joined other young disillusioned Malay College graduates like Ishak Haji Muhammad and Ibrahim Yaacob, all angry young men like him imbued with nationalist ideals, to form the Young Malay Union (Kesatuan Melayu Muda) in 1938. He became its vice-president.

"KMM was founded by a group of radical left nationalists in their twenties. Influenced by world history in general, and political events in Turkey in particular, they desired a political body similar to the Young Turks," he recalls. "One bone of contention was (the) British policy of allowing tens of thousands of 'others' into Malaya."

But he little realized what trouble the KMM would get him into. For, without consulting him or the other KMM leaders, its president Ibrahim Yaacob had contacted the Japanese through their Consul-General in Singapore, Ken Tsurumi. For large sums of money, Ibrahim committed KMM members to serve as espionage agents and guides to assist an invading Japanese army in Malaya.

The Japanese Army attacked Kota Bharu in December 1941. British military intelligence belatedly intercepted a Japanese radio broadcast which announced that a Malay fifth column organization KAME (meaning 'tortoise' in Japanese) would assist the invading Japanese Army.

The name sounded too similar to the KMM. Without wasting any time, the British police rounded up over 100 KMM leaders and members in all parts of the country, including Ibrahim Yaacob and Ishak Haji Muhammad, who were detained and sent to Changi Jail in Singapore.

Mustapha, however, was in the Kuala Lumpur Hospital for treatment of a nervous disorder. Unaware that there was a warrant of arrest for him, he had discharged himself, gone back to the Agricultural College to collect his belongings, and left with his family for his father's village in Matang, Perak, to recuperate. Three days later, the war began.

After the fall of Taiping, Japanese troops, accompanied by KMM members, entered his village looking for him. They asked him to come with them. "I was 'invited' to attend a crucial meeting in Taiping, after which I would be sent back to Matang (but this turned out to be false)," says Mustapha.

"How could I say no. I remember a Malay adage: jika tiada senapang, lebih baik beri jalan lapang, or 'if one has no guns, it is best to give way.' I tried to explain my legs were weak from a nervous disorder but a Japanese officer snapped, 'Never mind! Four Japanese soldiers can carry you on a chair!'"

Thus, Mustapha's forced collaboration with the Japanese began. Once he realized that he had no alternative, he began to cooperate. He used his influence with the Japanese to help family, friends, and any Malay in trouble, including captured Malay soldiers who had fought on the British side. This was what he did all along the way down to Singapore where the Japanese troops took him.

Mustapha's candid memoirs confirm why memory of the war in multi-racial Malaya is so ethnically divisive and sensitive. Recalling Malay wartime roles and experiences tries to play down what he calls 'collaboration', conscious of the Japanese atrocities and massacres of the Chinese community or the role of anti-Japanese Chinese guerrillas.

Even before his death in 1987, his memories had been badly scarred by his deep sense of anguish, disillusionment, shame and betrayal brought on by the nightmare of 'collaboration'.

With no reconciliation between him and Ibrahim Yaacob when the latter returned to Malaysia for a brief visit before his death in Jakarta in 1979, Mustapha did not forget or forgive the 'wrongs' done to him and others.

Mustapha, Ishak Haji Muhammad and others accused Ibrahim of not only abdicating his leadership and abandoning his supporters, but also of betraying their struggle in Indonesia for his own self-interest. In Mustapha's memoirs, he appears as a Machiavellian manipulator, a grasping, corrupt, self-seeking, egocentric personality.

In exile in Indonesia, he became a supporter of President Sukarno, got involved in Indonesian politics, and later amassed a great fortune as a banker. When he died in 1979, he was honoured by Indonesia with burial in the Heroes' Cemetery in Kalibata.

During the period of Indonesia's konfrontasi against Malaysia, the UMNO newspaper Malaya Merdeka, of March 1963, described him as a "Malay coward and traitor who managed to fool many Indonesian leaders."

Unlike Ibrahim who escaped to Indonesia, Mustapha was arrested and detained twice by the British authorities on charges of collaboration with the Japanese. He was only released after petitions were made to the British authorities by former members of the Malay Regiment, whose lives he had saved from the Japanese.

Because of the trauma he went through at the end of the war, Mustapha suffered a nervous breakdown. He endured poverty and ostracism. He was not re-employed into the civil service. To fend for himself and his family, he worked as a farmer, a fruit seller, a noodles hawker, a printer and an insurance agent.

His struggles to defend himself and clear his name engaged much of the rest of his life. Before his death, he was conferred a state award by the Sultan of Perak and received some monetary compensation in lieu of his pension from the Government, due to the intervention of a former Federal Minister.

A heavy tinge of bitterness, therefore, colours much of his memoirs.

Politically isolated as leftwing, Mustapha and his KMM compatriots were initially opposed to UMNO, but when all political channels were closed with the outbreak of the communist insurgency in 1948, many of them joined UMNO.

In what seems like a remarkable political comeback in 1951, his name resurfaced in the crisis-ridden UMNO General Assembly after Datuk Onn Jaafar had resigned as president on the grounds of the party's refusal to open its doors to non-Malays.

Mustapha's standing was so strong that he was nominated to stand against Tunku Abdul Rahman and Datuk (later Tun) Abdul Razak for the posts of UMNO president and deputy president respectively. But he lost to both these rivals by one vote each time.

These were contests he entered to please his old leftwing compatriots who were keen to capture UMNO. His energies were almost spent. Even had he won, Mustapha would not have lasted long in his post, given his state of health.

These memoirs make enthralling reading and were dutifully compiled and completed by his daughter Insun after his death on 15 January 1987. Throughout the memoirs, Mustapha's voice cries out incessantly for justice and for recognition as a Malay nationalist.

In 1974, he had narrated his political struggles to a predominantly student audience at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, then in Kuala Lumpur. The encounter was an emotional experience for both Mustapha and the audience.

"I cried along with them as memories of my bitter and gruelling experiences came flooding back," he recalls. "Involved in World War II as a Malay Fifth Columnist leader; detained in several Police lock-ups and prisons; taunted and jeered by Malays who saw me hawking food on the roadside; humiliated by people who slammed their doors in my face; asked to leave my rented cubicle in the middle of the night and even labelled as the Malay who 'brought' the Japanese into Malaya."

"I left them with a tremendous sense of mental and emotional fulfilment. I had sown in these educated young souls the urge to struggle for justice."

In writing these memoirs, Mustapha was clearly able to release and assuage the cries of his own tormented soul for justice and recognition.

Cheah Boon Kheng

Translated by Insun Mustapha
Edited by Jomo K. S.

Publisher: Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn Bhd
No. 1 & 3, Jalan 3/91A, Taman Shamelin Perkasa, Cheras, 56100 Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03-9285 6577

Foreign Distributor: Singapore University Press Pte Ltd

Rule of law or rule by law?

Posted: 30 Aug 2011 06:01 PM PDT

Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as 'ex-Muslims', then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word 'murtad' would no longer be in the Muslim vocabulary.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia has tens of thousands of lawyers. But how many lawyers actually 'practise law' or are most in this only for the money? Seldom do we hear lawyers speak out on what is right and what is wrong. It should be the job of lawyers to educate Malaysians as to what the law is all about. Only then can it be said that they are true to their profession.

Laws are man-made. Sometimes we say that these are God's laws or this is what God ordained. Invariably, all laws are made by man but blamed on God. Why are the lawyers not telling us this?

Just because it is law does not make it right. Are we talking about rule of law or rule by law? "What's the difference?" you may ask. A lot of difference! And it is the duty of lawyers to educate us on the difference between the rule of law and rule by law.

Queen Elizabeth I ordered Parliament to appoint her as Governor of the Church. Since she was a woman, she could not be appointed as a proper head of the church like her father and brother before her -- which would tantamount to the position of the English Pope. So they made her the governor instead.

Then Elizabeth banned the practise and belief of the wafer as the body of Christ and wine as the blood of Christ. All the Catholic Bishops opposed this and they instigated the citizens to defy this new 'heretic' law.

The Bishops were all rounded up and imprisoned and replaced with Protestant Bishops. The Catholics were forced to go underground and to practise their faith in secret and behind closed doors. There were pockets of rebellion all over the Kingdom, even as far as Scotland where they deposed their Catholic Queen (later they chopped off her head as well).

Of course, this conflict between the Church and the Throne was not new. Even back in the days of Henry II, 400 years earlier, there was already a conflict and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, was assassinated because of his conflict with the King over the rights and privileges of the Church.

So, was Elizabeth right? Of course, she had the power. But just because she had power and just because a law had been passed does this make it right? Who was Elizabeth to decide that this is what God ordained? Did God speak to her? Or was this merely a political move?

You see: England, then, was only South England. From York onwards, this was Catholic country. So, by getting rid of the Catholic faith, this meant England could unite and Scotland, if it turned Protestant, would become part of English territory.

Scotland was also aligned to France. And France was Catholic and the age-old enemy of England. So, by 'occupying' Protestant Scotland, this meant that the danger of a French invasion (through Scotland) would be eliminated.

So there you have it. It was not about what God wanted. It was about what Elizabeth wanted. And Elizabeth wanted Scotland under her control. And she wanted the French Catholic Queen kicked out of Scotland. And she wanted the French army kicked out of Scotland. If not, her throne would be in jeopardy of a 'Catholic' invasion with a new Catholic Queen from Scotland installed onto the throne.

In short, Elizabeth had to control and dictate what is and is not acceptable religious beliefs and practises to be able to control England and get rid of the Scottish-French threat to her throne.

Elizabeth used religion to hold on to power.

Today, we celebrate Merdeka. But how are we celebrating Merdeka? By raising the flag? By sleeping at home? Merdeka should be celebrated by respecting the 'Merdeka Agreement', which is basically the Federal Constitution.

How can we say we are remembering or honouring Merdeka when we do not respect the Constitution? The Constitution was the foundation of Merdeka. Without the Constitution there is no foundation and therefore no Merdeka.

This, the lawyers should tell the people far and wide, the length and breadth of Malaysia. The basis of our laws is the Constitution. However, many of our laws violate the Constitution.

Many things ail Malaysia. But I want to talk about only one ailment today. And this ailment, the latest in a series of ailments, is the conflict between Church and State brought on by the DUMC raid and the allegations made against the Church.

The DUMC raid was not the only conflict between Church and State. Earlier, we had the Allah issue, the Bahasa Malaysia Bible issue, and so on. It appears that all along the way the Church is in conflict with the State.

But has this not been so for more than 1,000 years? The Church has always had its differences with the State (or more like the State resented the power the Church had over the people and thus started the 'turf war' between the State and the Church).

Anyway, Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution are very clear (by right, lawyers ought to be talking to you about this, not me). Let us consider what it says.

Islam is the religion of the Federation. No dispute.

Other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. No dispute.

The Ruler is the Head of the religion of Islam in his State. No dispute.

Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. No dispute.

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. No Dispute.

There should be no propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. No dispute.

So, where is the dispute then?

Let's look at "Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs". What does this mean? If the Christians want to publish a Bahasa Malaysia Bible, would this be under the clause of "manage its own religious affairs"? Can the government then dictate what language the Bible can and cannot be published?

Let's look at "Christianity cannot be propagated to persons professing the religion of Islam". But what if that person has announced that he or she has left Islam?

Now, you may say that once a person is born to Muslim parents then he or she is automatically a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim for life and cannot leave Islam. But that is between the Muslim and his 'Church'. Once a Muslim renounces Islam (murtad), he or she is an apostate. Technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim.

The State may say that he or she is still a Muslim. That's according to the government. But in the 'eyes' of God, he or she is no longer a Muslim. He or she has become a murtad.

So, where is the crime here?

Actually, the issue is not that complicated. It is just that the lawyers would rather not get involved in this issue because it is very sensitive and Malays are a very emotional people who would run amok if they think that they cannot win by words and need to resort to violence to win an argument.

A true lawyer would educate us. Most lawyers, however, would remain silent and allow the ignorance to continue. And this ignorance has caused a lot of confusion.

In short: Christians cannot preach to Muslims. That is the law. But if that person has left Islam, technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim but an ex-Muslim. So, it is not against the law to preach Christianity to these people (who are technically not Muslims any more).

However, as it stands now, the word 'murtad' does exist. And this means Islam recognises the existence of 'ex-Muslims'.

So, where do we go from here? And why are the lawyers not speaking up?

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

Article 3

1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

2. In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observance or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-pertuan Agong to represent him.

3. The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be Head of the religion of Islam in that State.

4. Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.

5. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Article 11

1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

3. Every religious group has the right -

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;

(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

4. State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

5. This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Was the Pope in Rome a traitor?

Posted: 29 Aug 2011 01:00 AM PDT

Now that the police are investigating Mat Sabu and will probably be interrogating him soon (meaning: recording his statement) because of his so-called treasonous act, let us in the meantime read the following excerpt and decide whether the Pope in Rome was also treasonous.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Master Secretary, His Holiness is considering a ruling that will say that heretical monarchs can be justly defied by their subjects, and that such a defiance, even to armed rebellion, is no sin.

Cecil leaned back in his padded chair and reread the letter, making sure that he had made no error in the double translation, out of code and then out of Latin. It was a message of such enormity that he could not believe it, even when it was in plain English before him.

It was a death sentence for the queen. It assured any disgruntled Catholic that they could plot against her with impunity, actually with the blessing of the Holy Father. It was a veritable crusade against the young queen, as potent and unpredictable as a Knights Templar attack on the Moors. It licensed the deranged assassin, the man with a grudge, indeed, it put the dagger into his hands.

It broke the eternal promise that an anointed monarch commanded the obedience of all his subjects, even those who disagreed with him. It broke the harmony of the universe that placed God above the angels, angels above kings, kings above mortal men.

A man could no more attack a king than a king could attack an angel, than an angel could attack God. This madness of the Pope broke the unwritten agreement that one earthly monarch would never encourage the subjects of another earthly monarch to rise up against them.

The assumption has always been that kings should stick together, that nothing was more dangerous than the people with a licence. Now the Pope was to give the people the licence to rise up against Elizabeth and who knew how many might avail themselves of this permission?

Cecil tried to draw a sheet of paper towards him and found that his hands were shaking. For the first time in these anxious months, he truly thought they would be defeated. He thought that he had aligned himself to a doomed cause. He did not think that Elizabeth could survive this.

There were too many who had opposed her from the start; once they knew that their treasonous plotting was no longer a sin, they would multiply like headlice. It was enough that she had to struggle with the church, with her council, with her parliament; none of which were in full support, some of which were in open opposition. If the people themselves were turned against her she could not last long.

He thought for a moment, for only a moment, that he might have done better to have supported Henry Hastings as the best Protestant claimant for the throne, since the Pope would surely not have dared to summon a rebellion against the king. He thought for another moment that perhaps he should have urged Elizabeth to accept the raising of the Host, to have kept the church in England as papist for a year or so, to ease the transition of reform.

He gritted his teeth. What was done had been done, and they would have to live with their mistakes, and some would die for them. He was fairly certain that Elizabeth would die, to name only one.

He clasped his hands together until they were steady again, and then started to plan ways to try to ensure that an assassin did not reach Elizabeth at court, when she was out hunting, when she was on the river, when she was visiting.

It was a nightmare task. Cecil stayed up all night writing lists of men he could trust, preparing plans to see her guarded, and knew at the end that if the Catholics of England obeyed the Pope, as they must do, then Elizabeth was a dead woman, and all Cecil could do for her is to delay her funeral.

Page 80-82, The Virgin's Lover, by Phillipa Gregory

Are you ready yet for a liberal society?

Posted: 28 Aug 2011 05:28 PM PDT

Sodomy is a crime in Malaysia. But then so is oral sex. And if we also arrest and jail all those who indulge in oral sex, then 15 million Malaysians would probably be in jail. Probably all the 222 Members of Parliament will be in jail as well.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS) was first mooted seven years ago, it was not about contesting the general elections. It was not about fielding candidates in the elections. In fact, it was not at all about politics. It was about promoting and propagating a civil society -- which can also mean a liberal society.

However, the MCLS did not take off. So, last year, we reactivated it in the form of MCLM. 'Society' became 'Movement', that is all.

But how prepared and how serious are Malaysians about living in a liberal society? Are we really liberal or do we talk only but still cringe at what we consider the 'immoral' lifestyle of the west?

Today (and yesterday), three events are being held in the UK -- in London, Liverpool and Manchester (see the links below).

I suppose the Notting Hill Carnival in London and the Matthew Street Festival in Liverpool would not raise many eyebrows in Malaysia. But what about the Manchester Pride, a celebration of lesbian, bay, bisexual and transgender life? Are Malaysians liberalised enough to tolerate something like that?

We can choose to be liberal or we can remain conservative. And if we wish to remain conservative then it is maybe still too early for civil society movements like the MCLM.

See below the statements by the British Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. They are not asking the police to arrest and charge these people for sodomy. They openly support the Manchester Gay Pride festival.

Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Ed Miliband are not gay (at least we have not heard any rumours of them being so). But they respect your right to be gay or bisexual. They don't judge you. They don't moralise. They don't ask the police to arrest you and charge you for any 'crime against the order of nature'.

Today, we are seeing Anwar Ibrahim facing trial for what the government says is his immoral act of sodomy. Is Anwar gay or bisexual? There are some who believe he is. There are many who believe he is not.

But does it matter? We have Prime Ministers of other countries who are openly gay (you know which country I am talking about, right?). Do we find the performance of these Prime Ministers lacking just because they are gay?

Someone, somewhere, many, many years ago, decided what is natural sex and what is unnatural sex. And, today, we have to live our lives by these 'norms' set by someone, somewhere, many, many years ago, who thought he or she knows best what we should and should not do.

The world has changed. Standards have changed. What may have been unnatural 100 years ago is very natural today.

You don't have to be gay or bisexual. You don't have to drink. You don't have to do anything at all that you may consider as immoral or a violation of your religious beliefs. But who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?

As long as what I do does not hurt you, then what I do is my problem and not of your concern. And the days of people getting arrested for drinking beer or for having a gay relationship must end. This is what a civil society is all about. And this is what we should be fighting for.

So, is Anwar gay? Who the hell cares! What I do care is: is he a good Opposition Leader? What I do care is: will he make a good Prime Minister?

That is what we should worry about because the future of Malaysia depends on this and not on Anwar's sexual preference.

Even if Anwar is not gay but he is a poor Opposition Leader and will make a bad Prime Minister, then we must reject him for those reasons and not because he does not meet our 'sexual guidelines'.

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

The Notting Hill Carnival http://www.thenottinghillcarnival.com/

Matthew Street Festival: http://www.mathewstreetfestival.org/

Manchester Pride: http://www.manchesterpride.com/

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

Pride and Politics

Manchester Pride backed by the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties:

Message of Support from Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg

It is with great pleasure that I congratulate Manchester Pride on its 21st anniversary.

Over more than two decades, by celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender life, Manchester Pride has supported LGBT individuals and organisations, and promoted equality and diversity. Manchester Pride is to be applauded for its work in raising awareness of the discrimination and difficulties affecting the lives of LGBT people and I would like to sincerely commend all those involved with Manchester Pride on reaching this very special milestone.

Message of Support from Prime Minister, David Cameron:

I would like to wish Manchester Pride a happy 21st birthday, I am sure that this years celebration with its 'Best of British' theme and mix of sports, arts, films and parties will be a great success. I also wanted to congratulate everyone who has been involved in growing Manchester Pride over the years; these events don't organise themselves and require a lot of hard work, but they play an important part in the cultural life of our country and you should be proud of what you've achieved.

Events such as Pride are not just about a fun day-out celebrating, they also send an important message and raise awareness of issues, they are a very visible reminder of the need to fight discrimination and support each other, which is why the vigil at the end of the Big Weekend in Sackville Gardens is such a moving tribute*.

The Pride celebrations here in Manchester have been particularly successful in raising money for LGBT and HIV charities across the region, since 2003 nearly £900,000 has been raised which is a terrific achievement.

So I hope you all have a great and safe time at Manchester Pride and it goes from strength to strength in the years ahead.

Message of Support from Labour Party Leader, Ed Miliband:

I want to convey my best wishes to everyone taking part in Manchester Pride. I enjoyed taking part in the parade last year and showing my support for equality. The popularity of event shows just how far we have come in recent years in the campaign for equality from tackling hate crimes through to civil partnerships.

I am proud of the progress we made towards LGBT equality over the last decade, but there is still more to do. The introduction of civil partnerships was one of the most significant changes that Labour brought in, but now it is right to look at extending marriage equality for those who want it. From the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers through to homophobic bullying, there is still a march of progress ahead and we are with you on it.

One man’s traitor is another man’s patriot

Posted: 28 Aug 2011 05:15 AM PDT

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There appears to be a debate raging around Mat Sabu. I really don't know what it is he said. I was not there and neither have I seen the video recording of what he said. Anyway, while we wait for the jury to come back to rule on whether Mat Sabu was out of line or not, let us deliberate on the definition of patriot and traitor.

George Washington was a traitor. He committed treason. And yet he was also a patriot and they named the capital of the United States of America after him. The only thing is the British were not able to capture him and put him to death. So, fortunate for him, he went on to become the First President of America.

Jose Rizal was a traitor. He committed treason and so they put him to death. And yet he was also a patriot and is now considered the Philippines' national hero. If you were to smear his name while on a visit to Manila, they would probably have to send your body home in a coffin, if there is anything left of you by the time they finish with you.

Tok Janggut was a traitor. He committed treason. So they killed him and hung his body upside down along the banks of the Kelantan River and left it there to rot. And yet he is also a patriot and the Kelantanese revere his name.

Gandhi was a traitor. He committed treason. The British would have loved to kill him if they dared do so. But they did not dare do so because he was so popular. So the British decided to give India independence and take a slow boat back to England with their tail between their legs.

Joan of Arc was a traitor. She committed treason. So they captured her and burned her alive at the stake. And yet she was also a patriot who rallied the French against the English who had illegally occupied French territory.

Mary Queen of Scots was a traitor. She committed treason. So Queen Elizabeth I arrested her and put her to death. And yet she was a patriot who opposed the Queen's inquisition where thousands of Catholics were rounded up and burned alive for what the Church of England considered heresy.

Nelson Mandela was a traitor. He committed treason. So the Apartheid government of South Africa jailed him on an island for 27 years while many of his comrades were either jailed together with him or were assassinated by the police. And yet he was a patriot who fought for South Africa and went on to become the first post-Apartheid President of that country.

Yes, I can go on and on and write pages and pages about traitors who committed treason who were also patriots. But I think my point has been made. And that point is one man's traitor is another man's patriot.

So, whether you may think that so and so is a traitor or a patriot, that is your point of view. It all depends on what point of time in history you are looking at the event and which side of history you are looking at it.

So, whether Mat Sabu is a traitor or a patriot, that is left to be seen. It depends on who you are and where you stand on the matter. It also depends on at what point in time you are making this judgement.

Moses, Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad were also traitors who committed treason as well as Prophets who guided mankind. Again, it depends on who you are and at what point of time you are judging Moses, Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad.

I take it now you get my point.

Do you want to go to heaven?

Posted: 27 Aug 2011 09:55 PM PDT

Muslims believe in the Resurrection and the Afterlife, just like Christians do. Christians believe that those who follow Jesus Christ would go to heaven and all others would go to hell. Muslims believe that those who follow Prophet Muhammad would go to heaven and all others would go to hell.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Terengganu checks attempts to spread Shiite teachings

Attempts to propagate the teachings of the Shiite sect among Malaysia's Sunni Muslims have been detected in Terengganu, according to the State Religious and Information Committee chairman Khazan Che Mat.

He said the chairmen of all mosques in the state received reading material pertaining to the sect by registered mail several days ago.

Khazan said he had instructed all recipients of the material to surrender them to the Terengganu Religious Affairs Department.

"We do not want anyone to have the impression that the propagation of Shiite teachings has the blessings of the state government," he told reporters after an event organised by Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) here today to popularise its Terengganufm and Kelantanfm channels. -- Bernama

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

To those who are not Muslims, the impression probably created is that Shiites are not real Muslims or are deviant Muslims. That is why the Malaysian government is blocking the spread of Shiite Islam and those Malaysian Muslims who follow Shiite teachings would suffer arrest.

Actually, Shiites are also Muslims. It is just that they follow a different sect of Islam. However, since they do not follow Sunni Islam, they are considered deviants by the Malaysian government.

Shiites are allowed into Mekah and Medina. If they were not Muslims then they would be banned from the 'Holy Land'. The Saudi Arabian government is very strict on this and non-Muslims are forbidden entry into the two Holy Cities.

But Shiites are not banned from entry into Mekah and Medina. So this means they are still considered Muslims.

If you are born Malay, then you are automatically a Sunni Muslim. This is the law. And if you follow another sect of Islam, or you leave Islam to follow another religion, then you have committed a crime and you will be punished.

To those who are not Muslims, this may sound strange. After all, in other countries such as England, there are many types of Christians and no one is arrested if they don't follow the Church of England.

But England was not always like this. 1,000 years ago, the Crusaders killed more Christians than they did Muslims. If you were a Christian of another sect, then you would be put to death.

In fact, only 500 years ago, 'deviant' Christians were still being put to death in England. Henry VIII was notorious for massacring thousands of his own citizens after he broke away from Rome and formed his own church with him as head of the church.

This break from Rome was partly for religious reasons and partly because of money and power. When England came under Rome, the very rich church sent money to the Vatican. With Rome out of the equation, Henry could confiscate the vast property of the church to become the richest King in Christendom.

You see, in those days, the church was richer than the King -- while England was going bankrupt because of the many wars it embarked upon. So it made sense for Henry to take over as head of the church. Then, everything that the church owned would now be owned by the King. And we are talking about a lot of money here.

When Mary I ascended the throne, she tried to bring back England to Rome and the Protestants who resisted were put to death in great numbers. That was why she was known as Bloody Mary -- blood flowed like rivers when she was Queen. Then Elizabeth I took over and she took revenge on the Catholics. Those who were Catholics were burned alive, just like what her sister Mary did to the non-Catholics.

Only now can you be whatever type of Christian you would like to be without facing the danger of being burned alive. However, until today, Catholics still can't sit on the throne of England or become the British Prime Minister -- a law passed by Parliament during the time of Elizabeth I.

Malaysia is 500 years behind England. No doubt, Malaysia does not burn Shiites alive or cut off their heads with a sword. But you will get arrested and the government will block the spread of Shiite at all cost.

If you are not a Muslim, you probably have the impression that the Prophet Muhammad was a Sunni or that Muslims believe that God is a Sunni Muslim.

Actually, Prophet Muhammad was not a Sunni, Shiite, Salafi, Ahmadiyya, Kharijite, Bahá'í, Ahl-e Haqq, Ismaili, Alawi, Zaidiyyah, Druze, Qadiri, Bektashi, Chishti, Naqshbandi, Oveyssi, Suhrawardiyya, or whatever.

All these different sects and sub-sects are inventions of man -- just like the hundreds of many different Christian sects/sub-sects (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) that at one time were killing one another in the hundreds of thousands or millions.

So, which is the correct version of Islam from the many different sects and sub-sects? The Malaysian government says Sunni Islam, and the Shafiee School in particular.

Is this what God said in the Quran? No! Is this what Prophet Muhammad said? No! This is what the Malaysian government says and the Malaysian government, and not God or Prophet Muhammad, is the final authority on Islam.

The Malaysian government believes that only those who follow the Malaysian government's version of Islam would go to heaven while all others would go to hell.

So, if you want to go to heaven and not to hell, then follow the Malaysian government. And if you vote for Umno and Barisan Nasional, then you will not only be going to heaven but you will also be rewarded with many virgins for your sacrifice and jihad.

Hmm… what makes the government think that I like virgins? Give me a woman with experience any time.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 7 September 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan