Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Let’s try again
Why Islam has become the New Communism
So, the conclusion is….
What’s the beef?
So, who calls the shots then?
Now write your election manifesto
What is ethics?
What are you looking for?
Iqraq
Not talking about the budget

Posted: 18 Oct 2011 06:30 AM PDT

It looks like yesterday's article got reduced to another debate on religion -- basically whose religion is better; mine or yours? The non-Muslims are quite prepared to accept the fact that Theological States can no longer work while Muslims stubbornly stick to the concept of a Theological State. Maybe this extract from Abdelwahab El-Affendi's book, "Who needs an Islamic State?" can help clear the air.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(Page 72-74): It is important to note that traditional Muslim political theory was first developed by the Shi'i movement during its pre-sectarian phase. This is because all authoritative leaders of Muslim opinion tended to join the idealist camp led by Ali, or else to adopt a neutral posture while not hiding their sympathy with Ali. After Muawiya's victory, leading Muslim thinkers continued to support the rebels who defied despotic political authority in the name of Islamic ideals.

If the two main Shi'i Schools challenged the existing authority on principle, the four main Sunni Schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali) were equally critical.

Abu Hanifa (died 767), founder of the Hanifa School, was persecuted by the Abbasid Caliphs for suspected sympathy with Zaidi rebels and for his refusal to take office within the Abbasid regime.

Malik ibn Anas (died 795) was also harassed by the Abbasids for allegedly assuring rebels that their pledge of allegiance to the Caliph was invalid because it was taken under coercion.

Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (died 819) narrowly escaped execution for his alleged involvement in a rebellion.

The resistance of Ahmad Hanbal (died 855) to the attempts by al-Mamoun to impose a particular doctrine regarding the nature of the Quran caused him much suffering, but finally led to the triumph of his point of view.

The actual experience of the Muslim community, however, forced these thinkers and their successors to adopt a more realistic attitude. In the end, a broad agreement evolved among classical Muslim writers about several issues. They accepted that all regimes since Muawiya did not reflect the ideals of Islam and thus could not be accepted as a model. Such regimes were tolerable only because the alternative was anarchy and civil war.

If a way could be found to replace these regimes without too much bloodshed, then their removal would be a religious duty. Although this could be construed as a vindication of the attitude of the khawarij and other rebels, it is ironic that the futile exploits of the khawarij only reinforced the belief that rebellion was inadvisable, and was not considered as a realistic option.

As a result of this attitude, a schism developed in the Muslim psyche. While Muslims rejected Secularism in principle, they adopted it in practice. A central aspect of the unitary Muslim vision of the State was that the State interacted with the rest of Muslim life. Not only did the State submit to Sharia as interpreted by the community, but it also enriched and redefined Sharia and the spiritual life of the community.

The acts of the Prophet as a statesman and a warrior, as well as those of his lieutenants, appointees and "righteous' successors were regarded as examples and an indication of what is lawful.

However, with the rejection of the legitimacy of the State in later periods, the community stubbornly refused to accept state interference in 'spiritual' matters, or to accord it moral authority in Muslim matters. People submitted their bodies to it, so to speak, but never their souls.

The ulema gave counsel that was not much difference from that ascribed to Jesus: "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". So Muslims were instructed to obey the rulers, but only where their orders did not lead to sin. However, sin was here narrowly defined, with the usurpation of power and the unlawful disposition of the wealth of the Muslim community seen as no grave sin.

What is this if not Secularism?

Note:
1.    The Abbasid period began after the rule of the four 'rightly guided' caliphs (Abu Bakar, Omar, Osman and Ali) who succeeded Prophet Muhammad upon his death.
2.    Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i and Hanbal were the founders of the four Sunni Schools of Islam (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali).
3.    Shi'i is short for Shiatul Ali, which means Party of Ali (a political movement set up to oppose the Abbasids).

Why Islam has become the New Communism

Posted: 17 Oct 2011 06:00 AM PDT

This article is targeted at the Muslim audience. I realise most Muslims would not receive it in the spirit it was written but will probably take it in a negative vein. So be it because the truth can at times be a bitter pill to swallow. Non-Muslims are, of course, most welcome to comment as long as it is also done in the spirit of seeking for the truth.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Muslims are probably perplexed as to why non-Muslims view any discussion and discourse on Islam, or anything at all related to Islam, with suspicion and distrust. The hostility demonstrated by non-Muslims is probably unsettling for most Muslims who interpret it as an attack on Islam.

This has always been the stance of religionists: either you are with me or else you are my enemy. There is no middle ground. It must always be one extreme or the other. And this is not just the problem with Muslims. Jews and Christians too take this very uncompromising stand. It appears like the Abrahamic faiths are founded on militancy and aggression.

And can you blame people for thinking this way when the Abrahamic faiths have been propagated at the point of the sword and based on the principle of convert or die? You may say that this was in the past. But do you expect the past to be so easily forgotten and forgiven when the wounds might have already healed but the scars still remain? And is what is happening in many parts of the Middle East and other Muslim countries reflective of the past or an indication that we are still living in the past?

Religionists, whether they are Jews, Christians or Muslims, speak with arrogance and in a very condescending attitude. Humility and humbleness appear to be virtues that religionists do not possess. It is always I know better than you and I speak on behalf of God. Where is that so-called religion of peace and love and forgiveness that they talk so much about? What people see is mere rhetoric and insincerity. How can they be trusted when they are unable to demonstrate good faith?

Religionists, in particular Islamists, espouse the virtues of an Islamic State and try to convince their audience on how much better life would be under an Islamic State as opposed to a Secular State.

The opposite of a Secular State is a Theocracy. But when we refer to an Islamic State as a Theocracy it is met with resistance. Islamists insist that an Islamic State is not a Theocracy. If it is not a Theocracy then what is it? Can we call it a Democracy? Yes, that is what they would like us to call it, a Democracy.

But that is just it. A Theocracy is not a Democracy. Which Islamic State since the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 was founded on free and fair elections? It has always been founded on the basis of totalitarian governments. Free and fair elections can never work in a Theocracy because free and fair elections are about the wishes of the majority while Theocracies are about the will of God. The wishes of the majority do not count. The will of God overrides the wishes of the majority.

I have always argued that if Prophet Muhammad had to stand for elections he would have been defeated and ousted as the leader of his community. Let us not forget that the Muslim community, then, was in the minority and they were surrounded by Jews, Christians and Pagans who constantly plotted against the Muslims.

There has never been a single example of a successful Theocracy, whether Islamic State, Christian State, or whatever, since time immemorial. All have been totalitarian regimes where the wishes of the majority are not supreme. Human rights are not respected. In fact, the concept of human rights does not even exist. Even the so-called 'Golden Age of Islam' was founded on a totalitarian system where the rights of the people did not matter.

How can right-thinking Malaysians agree to turn back the clock and take a journey back into the past to live in the Middle Ages? And when we argue this point it is interpreted as that we are Islam-haters or defiant of Allah's command -- the characteristics of Satan and the reason why God has condemned Satan to an eternity in hell.

Islamists fail to realise that the problem is not the laws itself but the application of the laws. Under the present judicial system and form of government, where dissent and opposition is not tolerated, even good laws can become bad. The word 'justice' is non-existent in Malaysia. How can Malaysians trust any amendments to the present system when the present system itself has failed and no reprieve appears over the horizon?

Malaysia needs to move forward. And the way forward has to be based on more democracy, tolerance, and respect for civil liberties. No Islamic State over 1,500 years has proven to possess these qualities. Quality of life improved not when these countries embraced an Islamic State but when they removed the shroud of totalitarian regimes and abolished the Caliphate.

Few citizens of the world would want to consider a Theological State -- whether it is a Hindu State, Buddhist State, Jewish State, Christian State, or Islamic State. The experiment with Theocracies has ended and all ended in failure and disaster. It is time to move forward and the way forward is by majority rule.

Nevertheless, if the majority opts for a Theocracy then so be it. That is how democracies work. But for the minority to impose their values on the majority is not on. So expect the majority to resist. And opposition by the majority against the minority should not be interpreted as a war against God. It is merely the majority upholding their democratic right of freedom of choice, a right, in the first place, given to us by God Himself.

So, the conclusion is….

Posted: 16 Oct 2011 02:26 AM PDT

In fact, I have always tried to preach the same values regarding Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I was always of the opinion that we must do the Christian thing and not hate him for what we perceive he has done to Malaysia but instead love and forgive him, as what the Christians have said Jesus Christ taught us.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We have had a good debate in 'What's the beef?'. However, as they say, all good things must eventually come to an end.

With more than 400 comments, which chances are many would not be bothered to read, it may be prudent to summarise the conclusion of these so many opinions.

The first, and probably most important point that was made very clear, is that non-Christians have no business talking about Christianity or the Bible because they know very little about 'other people's religion'. That, in my opinion, is a very sound and valid point because I too have been saying the same to non-Muslims who pass comments and give opinions on Islam.

So I would agree with this first conclusion.

The next point is that non-Muslims can never agree to the implementation of Hudud in Malaysia even if an irrevocable guarantee is given that non-Muslims would not be affected by this, or any Islamic laws, in any way. The fact that no one can be assured of what may happen in the future and whether these guarantees would be revoked later does not give the non-Muslims any comfort.

I can sympathise with the non-Muslims and understand their apprehension. Would the implementation of Hudud be the opening of a Pandora's box that once opened could never be closed again? Who can tell? It is best, therefore, that we take no risks.

Considering that PAS is committed to Islam and that Hudud is one of their aspirations, it would be safer, therefore, that Pakatan Rakyat is not allowed to come into power.

Umno has made it very clear that it will never allow Hudud to be implemented, even in the states, let alone at national level. Umno has demonstrated its good faith by blocking the implementation of Hudud twice, once in Kelantan and again in Terengganu. It would, therefore, be safer that Barisan Nasional is allowed to form the federal government rather than Pakatan Rakyat where the uncertainties of Hudud would hang over our heads.

Of course, if you were to look at Hudud from the legal and constitutional aspect rather than from the angle of religion, it would be logically impossible for Pakatan Rakyat to implement Hudud. And the fact that PAS would be contesting merely one-third the seats, and even if they combined these seats with other Muslim MPs from PKR they would still not be able to get the two-thirds required to amend the Constitution, there would still be an element of risk even if that risk is merely 1%.

I suppose we can do worse than vote in a corrupt, manipulate, racist, repressive and evil government. And a corrupt, manipulate, racist, repressive and evil government is certainly more desired than a clean government that may one day impose Islamic laws on the Muslim population with no water-tight guarantee that the non-Muslim population would not also be subjected to the same, even if some may want to argue that such a possibility is zero to 1%.

One point I would like to add -- which most people focused on although it was not really the issue we wanted to address -- was the matter of the Old and New Testaments.

I admit that most Muslims are confused about this, and I suppose that would include me. The fact it is called Old and New gave non-Muslims the impression that both form part of the Bible -- just like how Muslims treat the Koran and Hadith as two parts of the same thing.

It is good that this matter was clarified and now Muslims and other non-Christians would get a better grasp of Christianity. Most, if not all, non-Christians were under the impression that both Bibles are Christian Bibles based on what the Christians did for almost 2,000 years until 1850.

What was of particular interest to me was the fact that the Old Testament is a Jewish Bible and not a Christian Bible. This makes one wonder why the Jews and Muslims fight so much when both their Holy Books teach the same thing and the fact that Islamic laws are actually Jewish laws.

I was especially attracted to the argument that the Christian Bible, the New Testament, preaches non-violence, non-hatred, love, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, and so on. In fact, I have always tried to preach the same values regarding Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I was always of the opinion that we must do the Christian thing and not hate him for what we perceive he has done to Malaysia but instead love and forgive him, as what the Christians have said Jesus Christ taught us.

I trust in spite of the heated debate we saw in the last posting, this matter has come to an amicable ending and we can now all rest easy with the knowledge that we are united in our views and share the same opinion on how we should proceed from hereon.

What’s the beef?

Posted: 13 Oct 2011 06:32 PM PDT

Now, the Christians condemn Islam for being barbaric (in particular reference to Hudud). But these are the same laws in the Bible. And the fact that Christians and Christian countries no longer follow these laws does not mean that the Bible has abolished these laws. These laws are still in the Bible. In fact, it says very clearly in the Bible that you are to kill your own children if they become apostates.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I remember back in the 1980s (if I'm not mistaken) when Malaysia introduced the RM1,000 fine for littering. We joked that if you smoke a cigarette during the fasting month of Ramadhan and you see a policeman, keep smoking. If you were to throw the cigarette onto the road you would get fined RM1,000 for littering. If you keep smoking you would get arrested for smoking in public when you are supposed to be fasting. The fine is only RM300 -- so it is cheaper.

What has that joke got to do with what I am going to say today? Nothing, really, I just wanted to get your attention. Well, actually it is linked in some small way. I wanted to demonstrate that Islamic laws or Shariah laws have existed for a long time in Malaysia. It is not something new or something that is just about to be implemented. And there are many laws under the Shariah, the only one that is yet to be implemented would, of course, be that very controversial law called Hudud, which deals with 'serious crimes' (at least from the Islamic perspective).

However, Shariah laws have always been imposed only on Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims or suspected to have converted to Islam: hence the body snatching cases). Non-Muslims are exempted or immune from these laws.

We once discussed a hypothetical situation. What if a man (or woman) was arrested for khalwat (close proximity: which means being in a secluded place with someone you are not married to) and he (or she) was dragged before the Shariah court to face charges? The charges are read to him/her and he/she responds by asking the court to prove that he/she is a Muslim.

You see; close proximity is only a crime if you (or both of you) are a Muslim. If you are not a Muslim then no crime has been committed. So this man (or woman) asks the court, "How do you know that I am a Muslim?"

That is a valid question. He/she may have been born from Muslim parents and may even have a Muslim name on his/her birth certificate and identity card. So, 'constitutional speaking', he/she is a Muslim.

But what are the criteria for one to be regarded as a Muslim? Aren't there certain doctrines you have to believe in (beyond any shadow of doubt) to be a Muslim? And aren't there certain fundamentals you have to believe in plus certain rituals you have to perform to be a Muslim?

What if you doubted that Prophet Muhammad was really a Prophet? What if you suspected (but are quite not sure) that he learned 'Islam' from Khadijah's cousin Warakah Nawfal, who was a Christian Ebionite priest -- considering that there is a lot of overlapping between Islam and the Old and New Testaments? (Khadijah was Prophet Muhammad's first wife). What if you suspected (but are quite not sure) that the Koran may not have come from God but was actually drafted by Prophet Muhammad from what he had learned from Warakah?

If you start thinking like this then never mind if you were born from Muslim parents and have a Muslim name in your birth certificate and identity card. You are NOT a Muslim. You doubt the prophethood of Muhammad and you doubt that the Koran is God's word. That means you are not a Muslim.

So, if you were to tell the Shariah court this -- about your doubts and that you do not think what Islam says about Prophet Muhammad and the Koran are correct and maybe are just myths -- then the court cannot try you as a Muslim. And since the Shariah court can only try Muslims, then it would have to stand down.

Of course, then the religious department can arrange to send you for 'religious rehabilitation'. But that is another matter. The point is, they can't try you for khalwat since you have professed to not believing in the doctrine of Islam and that you doubt its veracity and suspect that these stories are mere myths and old wives' tales.

Say, after many months in the detention camp and they still can't 'rehabilitate' you. You still insist that you do not believe in what you consider myths. Well, they can't put you to death because Hudud laws have not been implemented yet in Malaysia. So they will eventually have to let you go (which is what happened to one of my friends after two years of detention).

Now, if they had implemented Hudud, and if the Hudud law for apostasy is death, then they can cut off your head.

Actually, if you were to analyse the Hudud laws carefully, you can see that they are actually similar to the old Judeo-Christian laws. So one would not be faulted if one were to say that Islam was 'hijacked' from earlier religions (although Muslims would get very upset with you for saying this).

This is still in the Bible and has never been amended. And the fact that Christians and Christian countries today no longer implement these laws is for no other reason other than that Christians are bad Christians. The Christians have defied God and have rejected the Bible. There are very few Christians who still listen to God and follow God's word as laid out in the Bible. If they were true Christians, they too would kill apostates -- people who leave Christianity to become Muslims.

Anyway, some Muslims want Islamic laws to be implemented. I am of the opinion that we let the Muslims work this out amongst themselves. Today, hardly any Christian would agree to be subjected to 'barbaric' Bible laws although this would mean they are violating the Bible. I suspect that the majority of Muslims would also decide to do the same. But it is up to the Muslims to decide this matter, not for non-Muslims to decide on behalf of the Muslims.

The only thing the non-Muslims should be concerned about is that these Islamic laws would only be imposed on Muslims and not on non-Muslims, like what has been the case thus far. How these guarantees would be put in place is a matter that can be discussed and agreed upon. And once the non-Muslims are satisfied that they would be immune or exempted from ALL forms of Islamic laws, then let the Muslims do what they want. After all, in a democracy, everyone has a right to his/her religious beliefs and practices as long as it does not affect other people.

So, who calls the shots then?

Posted: 12 Oct 2011 03:38 PM PDT

Two days ago, it was announced that Gadang Holdings has been awarded the Shah Alam hospital contract for a price of RM410.87 million. This is RM60 million above the approved price of RM352 million. The Ministry of Finance actually rejected Gadang Holdings as well as the price increase but the Ministry of Works went ahead and awarded the contract to Gadang Holdings and at a higher price as well.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Gadang subsidiary gets RM410.87m Shah Alam hospital job

(The Edge, 11 Oct 2011) -- GADANG HOLDINGS BHD has accepted a RM410.87 million contract from the Public Works Department to undertake the completion of the abandoned works at the Shah Alam Hospital.

It said on Tuesday, Oct 11 that its wholly owned subsidiary Gadang Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd had accepted the letter of acceptance for the project at the 300-bed hospital.

Gadang said the contract was to be completed within a period of 24 months from the date for possession of site and was expected to contribute positively to its future earnings.

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

Now read the exchanges of letters below between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health. It appears that the contract was awarded to Gadang Holdings at this higher price even though the Ministry of Finance rejected BOTH Gadang Holdings and the application for a price increase.

Now write your election manifesto

Posted: 11 Oct 2011 02:45 AM PDT

We have discussed what we want to see in a government and what we want to see implemented in Malaysia. We have also discussed about our understanding of ethics. Assuming a political party appointed you to be in charge of drafting its election manifesto, what will this election manifesto look like? Now let's see you write your election manifesto.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

POST YOUR COMMENTS HERE

Just write ONE of the articles of the election manifesto. Choose any one but note what others have already written and unless you can draft it better than that then try to address a different article.

Start with a heading, then the objective(s), and then how you propose to meet this objective.

Remember, just one, any one.

What is ethics?

Posted: 10 Oct 2011 01:00 AM PDT

Okay, in the posting yesterday (What are you looking for?), many comments have been posted as to what Malaysians would like to see in their government and what they would like to see implemented in Malaysia. But would not all this be possible and realised if we had a government (and politicians) that put ethics above politics, economic growth, development, etc? Would not what we want be automatically achieved through an ethical government? What, in your opinion, is ethics (from your understanding of the concept)?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW

As a guide, maybe you would want to address the issue of RELATIVISM -- where what is ethical within one society may not be in another. Also consider what is 'morally acceptable' against the backdrop of Malaysian society and norms. Also note that 'morals' is subjective and depends on your upbringing and the community you live in plus your religious persuasion. Therefore, when you talk about ethics, you may want to qualify it as ethical relativism and not ethical absolutes.

This discussion may help you understand how far you are prepared to go and whether you have set limitations and boundaries into achieving what you aspire to see and also how much compromises you are prepared to make on ethics as long as it achieves the end.

What are you looking for?

Posted: 09 Oct 2011 03:52 PM PDT

Over the last month or so, since Malaysia Today opened up the comments section to all and sundry and allowed readers to post 'no-holds-barred' comments -- even when they were stupid, bigoted, out of topic, bad language, etc. -- we have read many views, some of them warped as well. But we are yet to read about THE most important view of all, and that is what it is that you are looking for. Today, we shall discuss that.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

POST YOUR VIEWS BELOW

As a guide (but not necessarily you MUST touch on all these issues), you may want to take into consideration the present state of affairs in Malaysia, what in your opinion is wrong with the country, and what you would like to see as the NEW DEAL (New Deal meaning changes, reforms, better system, etc., and could be about the health, education, economic, judicial, etc., system(s)).

You may also want to touch on what you view as the limitations or obstacles (such as cultural, religious, economic, historical, legal, etc.) that the government would face if it wanted to implement some of these proposals and therefore what kind of compromises and how far these compromises would have to go to at least meet these aspirations part of the way.

I have used the word 'government' not in the context of the present Barisan Nasional government or the 'future' Pakatan Rakyat government but as government in general (meaning that we should not concern ourselves about who forms that government but that whosoever does form the government would have to do all this -- a hypothetical government of sorts).

A short 500-word essay would be good rather than one-liners, but it is crucial that your essay is not out of topic or flies off tangent.

Iqraq

Posted: 08 Oct 2011 05:38 PM PDT

The Muslims believe that the first word ever revealed to Prophet Muhammad was IQRAQ (read). I am sure this was done for a reason. So READ, and understand what we are talking about. To scream and shout, "You know nothing about Islam. You are not learned. Go learn from an ustaz," is not good enough. Even those ustaz you are talking about do not read those three books I mentioned above.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some who say that those who know nothing about a subject matter should not be talking about it. I can agree with that. But then it all depends on what you mean by 'know nothing'.

Maybe there are some who don't know how the Islamic Shariah laws should be applied or interpreted. This is because they are not judges or lawyers. But then, they could be historians and they know their history very well. And because of that, they know the HISTORY of the Shariah. Which means they are certainly qualified to talk about the Shariah from the historical aspect of those laws.

Therefore, to tell a historian to stop talking about the Shariah because he or she is not trained in Islamic laws is not quite correct. If this historian not only knows the history of the Shariah but is also lecturing about it in one of the universities, this makes him or her more than qualified to talk about it.

For Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I would like to recommend you to buy and read just three of the many books I have in my library. These books are:

ISLAM AND THE SECULAR STATE (NEGOTIATING THE FUTURE OF SHARI'A) by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im (Harvard University Press)

THE MANY FACES OF POLITICAL ISLAM (RELIGION AND POLITICS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD) by Mohammed Ayoob (National University of Singapore)

A HISTORY OF ISLAMIC LAW by N. J. Coulson (Edinburgh University Press)

These three books will suffice for now to be able to make you an 'expert' on the Shariah. I can recommend another dozen more books if you are still 'hungry' for more knowledge.

Not talking about the budget

Posted: 07 Oct 2011 05:20 PM PDT

So, we will eventually lose these people when Malaysia is no longer lucrative. And we have already lost many Malaysian citizens who have sent their money overseas to invest in other countries. And this is not only of late but has been happening over the last 20 to 30 years, but has become more critical over the last five years or so.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

No, I am not going to talk about the budget. So many others have analysed the budget in detail so you can read what they have to say.

What I do want to talk about is: how is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak (or even Anwar Ibrahim for that matter, if he happens to become the next Prime Minister) going to stop Malaysia from continuing down the slippery slope?

First we had the brain drain. More than one million Malaysians, the majority of them non-Bumiputeras, of course, live and work overseas. These are people with education, qualifications, and/or skills/abilities (and in many cases, money as well).

I met many waiters/waitresses and restaurant workers all over the UK (all Chinese, of course) who were from Ipoh, Penang, Sungai Siput, Bukit Bintang, Jalan Ipoh, and so on. And now they work all over London and in Nottingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc.

And you know what? The minute I walk into the restaurant they start whispering. Then, one by one, they come over to our table to talk to me. They recognised me the minute I walked into the restaurant -- and this is because they read Malaysia Today.

Yes, they may be merely waiters/waitresses or restaurant workers, but they are internet-savvy and loyal Malaysia Today readers -- even though you may think they are merely 'labourers'.

And they are not here in the UK working in restaurants because they are stupid, unqualified, uneducated, etc. It is because they have lost confidence in Malaysia -- plus they get more money working in the UK than in Malaysia.

You may think that the cost of living in the UK is higher. Maybe it is higher in some areas but not in everything. You can buy a house for 100,000 pounds (which will cost RM1 million or more in Malaysia for the same type of house) and a car for 8,000 pounds (which will cost more than RM150,000 in Malaysia for the same car).

You earn ten times or more in the UK than what you earn in Malaysia for the same job but the cost of living is not ten times higher, especially outside London.

Anyway, we have more than one million talented Malaysians serving foreign countries when they could be serving their mother country instead. And they spend their money here. They don't send it home to Malaysia. How are we going to convince them to come home to Malaysia and serve Malaysia?

Then we replace these one million Malaysians with four million 'imported' workers. For every one 'quality' Malaysian we have lost we replace him or her with four 'lower quality' foreign workers.

Is this a good exchange, quality for quantity?

Then these four million foreign workers (many now given citizenship so that they can vote for Barisan Nasional) send more than half their earnings home. They don't spend their money in Malaysia. So Malaysians don't get to see any trickle-down affect. They send their money home. So billions of Ringgit leaves the country every month.

Go check with Bank Negara if you want the details (which is what the opposition should be doing instead of arguing about hudud).

Okay, that is about the brain drain. Now what about capital flight?

Do you know that for the last 20 to 30 years, Malaysian tycoons have been quietly investing overseas? Some have even wound down their businesses or sold off their investments in Malaysia to transfer their operations and investments to other countries.

The government screams about how great Malaysia's FDI is. It is like screaming about how much money I earn every month. Yay, I earn RM5,000 a month! But I do not tell you that I spend RM10,000 a month. So what's so great about my RM5,000 earnings a month?

Sure, we have FDIs. But the foreign investors are only here because they can make money. Many foreign companies even have a policy of not buying property in Malaysia. They would rather rent, even if they have to pay more for rental compared to if they bought this property.

This is so that they can wind up their operation and go home super-fast if they need to. If they own property, it takes longer to get out of Malaysia because they need to sell of their assets first. So rent, don't buy.

So you see, they do not intend to become Malaysian 'corporate citizens'. They just want to make money and then go home when they can't make money any longer. They are not loyal to the country. They are just loyal to money.

As I said, I do not want to talk about the budget. That's because I am not impressed. I want to know how the government (and the opposition if it becomes the government) is going to stop Malaysia from continuing down this slippery slope of brain drain and capital flight.

Please also read this: After brain drain, now capital flight?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 18 Oktober 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan