Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

How far is MCA prepared to go?
The selfish, ugly Chinaman (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
We need another ‘May 13’ (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
Been chilling out
Marry for love, not hate (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
Why Umno is now going cyber (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
The helicopter view approach (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
You first have to know the meaning of the word
Making sense of nonsense
What else is unconstitutional in Malaysia?

Posted: 07 Dec 2011 10:39 AM PST

It is time that MCA learned you can't play the race and religion card without something happening. Then, when the MCA headquarters building in Jalan Ampang is burned to the ground and the MCA leaders are killed in their homes, just like what happened in Indonesia, maybe the MCA people will shut the fuck up and not continue to play the race and religion card.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(Bernama) - The Kelantan Pas government has admitted having built only one mosque in the state, the Sultan Ismail Petra Golden Jubilee Mosque, from its own funds during its 21-year rule in Kelantan.

State Economic Planning, Finance and Welfare Committee deputy chairman, Abdul Fatah Harun said all the other mosques in Kelantan had been built by the federal government.

"The Golden Jubilee Mosque, better known as the Chinese Mosque, was built with state government funding, without a single sen coming from the federal government," he told Bernama, here, today.

As for mosques in the other mukim (sub-districts), he said the state government was only responsible for giving allocations to carry out repairs and renovations.

Abdul Fatah was responding to the state opposition's (Barisan Nasional) claim that the Pas government had not built even one mosque since ruling Kelantan for over 20 years.

They had been built by the federal government or the BN government that ruled Kelantan from 1978 to 1990.

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

(The Star) - MCA has continued with its call that PAS must include its intention to implement its own brand of hudud law in its manifesto for the next general election.

The Islamic party must be fair to voters so they could be fully informed about their choices before making their decision, said MCA Young Professionals Bureau chairman Datuk Seri Chua Tee Yong.

"Voters deserve the right to know what kind of Government they are voting in," he told reporters.

"Previously, Pakatan Rakyat also declared that the implementation of hudud law was not possible. How are PAS and PKR going to explain this?"

"They choose not to respond to these type of issues to keep their marriage of convenience alive," he said.

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

Aren't you tired of hearing all this talk about Islam and Hudud? I don't know about you but I am. And that's because that is all it is, all talk. And this seems to be the problem with the Muslim world. It is all talk and no action.

Corruption, abuse of power, no respect for fundamental liberties and human rights, and much more, appears to be a predicament for mostly so-called Muslim countries. They talk and talk but they do the opposite of what they talk.

Now MCA has joined the bandwagon. They want Pakatan Rakyat to state its stand on the Islamic law of Hudud. Why is MCA so kaypoh? What business is it to these bloody kafirs? Islam has nothing to do with these bloody kafirs.

Why don't the 15 MCA Members of Parliament raise this matter in Parliament? If Malaysia is as democratic as they say it is then raise this matter in Parliament. After all, MCA has 15 members represented in Parliament. Raise this matter in Parliament and ask the Barisan Nasional-controlled government to pass a bill in Parliament to amend the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to remove Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Article 3(1) of the Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation. MCA should ask Parliament to repeal this and remove Article 3(1) of the Constitution that says that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Once Islam is no longer the religion of the Federation then no longer can anyone talk about implementing Islamic laws in Malaysia.

It's no use for MCA to shout like mad dogs outside Parliament. Go to Parliament and shout. Shout loud and clear. Tell the government that Islam should no longer be the religion of the Federation and that Article 3(1) of the Constitution should be repealed.

Malaysia, since it is a Secular State, should not have Islam as the religion of the Federation. This is a contradiction. And once Article 3(1) has been repealed there will be no more talk about Hudud or any other Islamic laws being implemented.

What is most interesting to note is that the PAS-led Kelantan State Government built only ONE mosque in the state over 21 years since 1990. Even then it was a 'Chinese' mosque. No 'Malay' mosques were built. All the mosques that were built were built either by the Federal Government or by the State Government during the time that Barisan Nasional was in power from 1978 to 1990.

Does this not sound odd? PAS, which is being accused of trying to Islamise the country, built only ONE mosque over 54 years since 1957 -- one mosque in more than half a century.

Hello MCA! MCA is part of Barisan Nasional. And the Barisan Nasional government, which MCA is a member of, built all the mosques in Kelantan over 54 years since 1957. The Pakatan Rakyat government built only one mosque, and even that it was a 'Chinese' mosque.

MCA is very devious. They are trying to raise anti-Islam sentiments. They are trying to use Islam to turn the voters against Pakatan Rakyat. But the truth is MCA does not want to ask Parliament to repeal Article 3(1) of the Constitution whereby Islam is the religion of the Federation. And all the mosques in Kelantan, save one 'Chinese' mosque, were built by the Barisan Nasional government, which MCA has been a member of since Merdeka in 1957.

It is time that MCA learned you can't play the race and religion card without something happening. Then, when the MCA headquarters building in Jalan Ampang is burned to the ground and the MCA leaders are killed in their homes, just like what happened in Indonesia, maybe the MCA people will shut the fuck up and not continue to play the race and religion card.

Yes, I know, this is not MCA's fault. MCA is just playing the role of Umno's running dog in raising anti-Islam sentiments because Umno themselves can't do it since they claim to be the largest Islamic party in the world.

Well, then MCA has to pay the price for being Umno's running dog. And the price will be a very heavy price to pay indeed when blood flows on the streets. And I have no problems with this because you can't fry the egg unless you first break the shell. So, many shells need to be broken to fry the eggs.

The bottom line is: there is no such thing as a peaceful or bloodless revolution. And we need a revolution to see changes in Malaysia. And if MCA continues with this Islam hate-campaign we may yet see the revolution that we need to be able to see changes in Malaysia.

So carry on, MCA! What you are doing may just be what we need for the good of the country. We need a catalyst. And the MCA Islam hate-campaign may be that catalyst.

Bodoh punya MCA! Don't you know that fire burns and that when you play with fire it may burn you as well?

The selfish, ugly Chinaman (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 05 Dec 2011 04:58 PM PST

The Malays have to wake up and wise up to one hard fact. To the Chinese it is all about money. And as long as money flows like water in Bangkok that is all that matters. Should the Malays sacrifice so much, fighting for the Chinese and Indians, when what they are fighting for is not appreciated and instead the Malays are mocked for their efforts?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

One of our Chinese readers, lakian, posted the comment below. I have not edited it and you can see that he probably obtained his education in a Chinese school because you have to read his comment many times to understand even a little bit of what he is trying to say.

Anyway, the gist of what he is saying is that politics should be left for the Malays to sort out amongst themselves and the Chinese and Indians do not care a damn who runs Malaysia, and in what way it is run, as long as the Chinese are left alone to make money. The Malays can go kill each other as long as he is concerned and this is no business of the Chinese or Indians.

Now read this: 'We won't surrender an inch'. Clearly this has been targeted at the Chinese and Indians.

It makes we wonder why the hell do we even bother about the political situation in Malaysia. If the Chinese and Indians do not care then why should the Malays bother? After all, it is the Chinese and Indians and not the Malays who are facing discrimination and persecution.

I have noticed many similar comments in the past. The Chinese have made it very clear that their only concern is money. And as long as they can make money then nothing else matters.

Some Chinese have even commented that they are not concerned about corruption because it is easier to do deals when there is corruption. The Chinese can make money even easier when they can bribe their way through life.

If this is the way the Chinese and Indians think, and if politics have nothing to do with the non-Malays, then the Malays should reconsider their stand. Is it worth for the Malays to go out of their way to fight for equality and an end to racial discrimination if the Chinese and Indians do not really care about such matters?

The Malays have to wake up and wise up to one hard fact. To the Chinese it is all about money. And as long as money flows like water in Bangkok that is all that matters. Should the Malays sacrifice so much, fighting for the Chinese and Indians, when what they are fighting for is not appreciated and instead the Malays are mocked for their efforts?

If there is one thing I can't stand is to be mocked. And if this is the reward we get from the Chinese and Indians then they can fight their own fight. I would gladly step back and not get involved and will persuade the other Malays to do the same. And don't blame me if I decide to call it a day and save myself further trouble.

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

another may 13 is needed without or no racial it is solely between the malays themself.the fight or the cut slaughter and whatever are only for the sake of called malays supremacy,the umno said malays right and pkr called rakyat right.they are afterall are malays.for the chinese as said long time ago,they don't care no bother and no concern who the hell is the government and also what the fcuk the umno or pkr fighting for.chinese are opportunistic beneficiarier.they are only interested in what they can take fron the corner.the project not matter whether 2nd handed or even fourth handed.they can still make money what to say just that merely slim profit.chinese are always the group of hard working but envied hatred enthnic in all over the world.usa,canada,australia......even in the carnivalised africa,middle east.indian are the pathetic sandwiched group due to their own character,atitude or simply they are beggar style.they are conspirative minded wanting to use their tactic to control to use the malays killing malays.dominant example mr mamakutty.
all in all may 13 is needed for the future of these malays own community.they should make this very vital disolution whether they want power or they need food!they want rhetoric VIP but starving in their kitchen or otherwise.for chinese,indian and others,there will be no different cos they are infact struggling to starve to hunger inorder to live under this already oppressive and suppressive areana.
so malays friend,believe umno is giving the pride or snapping you ass is your own concern.do not use your own parang to snap your own anus. -- lakian

READ THE CHINESE TRANSLATION HERE

We need another ‘May 13’ (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 04 Dec 2011 07:09 AM PST

The Barisan Nasional government is built on a house of cards. And houses of cards tend to not last and will fall when least expected. The general elections give this appearance of legitimacy. It gives us the illusion that we have a democratically elected government in power. But that is all it is, an illusion.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There may be no doubt that Barisan Nasional will win the next general election and will get to form the federal government yet again. The question remains, however, as to whether Barisan Nasional can win on a level playing field and will they win because they really do have the peoples' support or for entirely different reasons.

This is what is troubling the Barisan Nasional leadership. They are not too concerned about the winning part. They are confident enough that they can win by hook or by crook. And they know they will need to do so by hook and by crook. What is of concern to them is that unless it is by hook and by crook they have a slim chance of winning.

I suppose anyone who wins through fraud and knows that he or she can only win through fraud would not rest easy. They would get very little satisfaction from that type of win. Even though they would be consoled by the fact that they won, they would nevertheless be quite restless about the win.

The Barisan Nasional leaders know that if it were on a level playing field they would be out of power. If they gave the opposition equal airtime on radio and television and did not impose such stringent rules and procedures for ceramahs, the government would have been changed long ago. If Malaysian elections were based on one-man-one-vote and within 15% or 20% variance between constituencies and the postal voting system was abolished plus overseas Malaysians were allowed to vote, that would be the end of Barisan Nasional.

We know that Barisan Nasional lost the election. Barisan Nasional knows that it lost the election. The United States government knows that Barisan Nasional lost the election -- if you had been reading the Wikileaks reports that Malaysia Today has been publishing this last half-year or so. There is no one who does not know that Barisan Nasional lost the election. And everyone knows that the official results showing that Barisan Nasional won the election is a sham and not a reflection of the real situation.

And that is why the Umno leaders have been making all sorts of statements over the last weekend during the Umno general assembly. They know that the reality of the situation is they are out of power. They know that the only reason they are still in power is because they had to use by hook and by crook methods to win. And they know that, to continue to stay in power, they have to continue applying by hook and crook methods in the coming election.

The Barisan Nasional government is built on a house of cards. And houses of cards tend to not last and will fall when least expected. The general elections give this appearance of legitimacy. It gives us the illusion that we have a democratically elected government in power. But that is all it is, an illusion.

So we need to break this illusion. We need to smash it to pieces. And the only way to do that is to not allow elections to be held until and unless we see electoral reforms and a level playing field.

Over the next few months we need to galvanise support from the rakyat to block, by hook or by crook (the methods being employed by Barisan Nasional), elections from being held. If a 'Malaysian Spring' needs to be triggered then a Malaysian Spring it will have to be.

The time for idle talk and empty rhetoric is over. I have heard and read a lot of things. So many comments by readers were posted in Malaysia Today. But now we have to walk the talk. Now we have to brace ourselves and prepare for hard times.

We need another 'May 13'. But this 'May 13' is not a race war. It is not Malays versus non-Malays. It is the rakyat versus the establishment. It is the ruled versus the ruler. It is the bourgeois masses versus the ruling elite.

Are you ready for this? Or are you all talk and hot air? Yes, many things have been said. But this is all being said anonymously and hidden behind the computer keyboard. Talk is easy. Talk is cheap. How far are you prepared to walk that talk?

Unless we are prepared to bite the bullet then we might as well stop talking. Just let Barisan Nasional continue to rule Malaysia. If we really want a change of government then we must be prepared to face all consequences. And the consequences must be the elections must be blocked until and unless electoral reforms are in place even if that has to result in bloodshed.

Now let us see if Malaysia Today's readers are mere empty talk and bullshit!

Anyway, stayed tuned for further announcements.

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

We want a strong government, says Najib

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said Barisan Nasional (BN) and Umno want to form a strong government in the next general election.

"Whatever constitutes the definiton of a strong government, this is what we want. A two-thirds (majority) is something which is ideal but what is important is a strong government," he said at a news conference at the end of the 2011 Umno General Assembly, here.

He was responding to a question whether he would be happy with a two-thirds majority or a simple majority for the BN in the election.

He added that a strong government could be formed from a working majority or a two-thirds majority.

Najib, who is Umno president, also said that the BN was capable of winning the four opposition-ruled states in the coming election but said that he would not want to underrate the opposition. -- Bernama

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

Muhyiddin outlines seven winning ingredients

Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today outlined seven ingredients that would ensure Umno and the Barisan Nasional's (BN) victory at the polls.

"I think there is no magic ingredients to ensure Umno and Barisan National's victory in the general election other than implementing our focus over the next few years.

"We have to work hard to ensure the party's victory, then God willing, our party will succeed," he said when winding up the debate at the Umno General Assembly 2011 here today.

The ingredients are unity, loyalty, service, sacrifice, hard work, acceptance and submission, he added.

The deputy prime minister said the most important ingredient was unity in line with Umno's slogan.

"To win, unity is important as I have mentioned at the Wanita, Youth and Puteri assemblies. It is important that we have unity of hearts, minds and objective, and all these translated into unity in our resolve," he said.

He also reminded party members not to cause new problems, including resorting to back-stabbing and sabotage.

The deputy prime minister said secondly, Umno members must be loyal and should not take action that could be deemed not toeing the line.

"Do not do anything against the party's ethics and damage the party during this important and challenging time," he said.

Muhyiddin said thirdly, Umno members must serve wholeheartedly to the party and should not be calculative in performing their tasks.

"We are in a critical moment. We need to double our efforts as the president had said 'business is not as usual'. Do not take the same approach without taking into account the changing times and environment," he said.

Fourthly, he said all Umno members must be willing to sacrifice for the party regardless of time, energy and thinking without expecting any reward.

For the fifth ingredient, he said everyone in the party must strive for victory in the election as hard work would guarantee success.

"Umno members must be good team players just like in a football team. A good striker should play upfront, a goalkeeper should play as a goalkeeper and not becoming a striker or vice-versa.

"And what is most important is not to score own goals. This is a taboo in football as well as in the election, do not score own goals," he added. -- Bernama

CHINESE TRANSLATION

Been chilling out

Posted: 02 Dec 2011 08:24 PM PST

Sorry I haven't been writing much the last couple of days. I've been chilling out and catching up with friends in sunny Bangkok. Furthermore, I am working on my final paper for my course, which ends this month. The last few months I've been busy with my essays on Philosophy of Religion, a course run by Oxford. Will then take a short break before my new course on European History starts on 1st February 2012.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Marry for love, not hate (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 27 Nov 2011 08:12 PM PST

Let us take a hypothetical situation. Let's, say, Najib Tun Razak resigns as Prime Minister and, say, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah takes over. Also, say, many ministers, politicians, police officers, senior government officials, etc., are arrested and charged for corruption. Also, say, the new Prime Minister, Ku Li, reforms the police, judiciary, election commission, etc. Do you think all those who voted Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 would still do so now?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar takes some of the blame for defections in PKR after 2008 polls

(The Star) - Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has accepted some of the blame for the defections that have plagued the party after the 2008 election.

"I admit that I am partly to be blamed because I endorsed their candidacies," he said.

"But, at that time we lacked candidates and some even declined to become one.

"Those who aspire to be our candidates, but have only the intention of becoming rich can forget about receiving the authorisation letters from the president," he said at the closing of PKR's Eighth National Congress here yesterday.

Anwar predicted that the coming general election would be a "defining battle" for the country's political landscape.

"We are better organised now compared with the last time," he said.

"Traitors have left and the cooperation with the DAP and PAS is improving, which is a good sign for us in our effort to capture Putrajaya."

Anwar claimed that he had been handed a booklet purportedly issued by Umno, containing instruction to spread lies and slanders about him and the PKR.

He said this only confirmed his suspicions that Umno was fearful of him and was using everything it had to destroy the PKR.

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

PKR party leader Anwar Ibrahim and party president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail have promised us quality candidates in the coming general election.

By the way, my party, the Liberal Democrats of UK, also have the same structure. Nick Clegg is the party leader (and Deputy Prime Minister) while Tim Farron is party president (and MP). The only thing is both positions need to be contested, unlike PKR where Anwar does not need to contest his post.

Not a very good reflection of democracy at work. Anyway, even if there is a contest, I suppose no one would dare go against Anwar (or even Wan Azizah) lest they suffer the fate of Zaid Ibrahim.

But I am digressing (as usual). Let us get back to the issue of quality candidates.

A year ago, we launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in London and one of our objectives (in response to Anwar's statement regarding his dilemma in finding quality candidates) was to help find quality candidates and offer them to Pakatan Rakyat. PKR, DAP and PAS can, of course, choose not to accept these candidates and, if they do, they can decide where they would like to field them.

In the 1999, 2004 and 2008 general elections, the opposition did field independent or non-party candidates. So there is a history of the opposition being receptive to this practice. PAS, in fact, even fielded one non-Muslim/non-Malay female candidate in Johor (the first for the Islamic party).

This time around, however, which caught us quite by surprise, the opposition demonstrated hostility towards the idea. There were even allegations that we are agents of Barisan Nasional and that our agenda is to trigger three-corner fights to ensure that the opposition fails to form the next federal government.

In previous general elections there were quite a number of three-corner fights when PKR, DAP and PAS could not come to an agreement in some constituencies. So three-corner fights is quite normal. It even happened in the recent Sarawak state election and we can certainly expect it in the coming general election as well.

Anyway, because of the controversy that we attracted, I told Haris Ibrahim to drop the whole idea and let's just sit back and let Pakatan Rakyat sort out the seat distribution and candidates issues on their own. If our gesture is not welcome it is no use pushing the issue.

What is important is that the message has sunk in. And the message is: we are not happy with the choice of candidates in the previous general election. And our unhappiness is not just regarding the crossovers but regarding the performance of some of these candidates as well. It appears that either they are not interested in serving the rakyat or they have no idea what the role and function of a wakil rakyat is.

Granted, some want to become a wakil rakyat just for the glamour of being called Yang Berhormat. I suppose this is why some people pay RM250,000 just to get titles and awards. They get an orgasm when the rakyat address them as Yang Berbahagia. I suppose they are very bahagia with all these titles and awards. Nowadays, you can get titles and awards from the back of a cornflakes box. That's how cheap they have become.

Another thing we told Anwar, which he agreed, was that, in 2008, most people who voted Barisan Nasional in earlier elections and who for the first time voted opposition, did so because they were angry, disgusted, etc., with Barisan Nasional. These were mainly protest votes and they wanted to send Barisan Nasional a message that they were unhappy. So they were prepared to vote even for monkeys or donkeys as long as they are not Barisan Nasional candidates.

This time around, these same people are not going to vote opposition for that same reason. They are going to gauge the quality of the opposition candidates compared to Barisan Nasional candidates and only if the opposition candidates prove better would they vote opposition.

I have been saying this for more than ten years since 1999. The opposition can't build a relationship with the voters based on hate -- hate for Barisan Nasional. It has to be built on a relationship of love -- love for the opposition.

In 1999, the opposition did quite well. Many people hated Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. So they voted opposition. Then, when Dr Mahathir handed over power to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the voters went back to Barisan Nasional. And that is why Barisan Nasional did so well in 2004, the best in the history of Malaysian elections.

An enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend is not a lasting relationship.

The analogy I used in my argument was the Afghan Mujahideens. For generations they had been fighting each other. Then, when the Russians came, they united. And because they were united they managed to defeat the Russians (with some US help of course). However, once the Russians went home to Moscow, the Afghans turned on each other again.

A marriage of convenience is not always the best type of relationship. Even marriages founded on love face the risk of break-ups and divorce. What more marriages of convenience.

And we face two problems here. One is regarding the Pakatan Rakyat parties themselves, which the Malays would say: tidur satu bantal, mimpi lain-lain (share one pillow but have different dreams: READ MORE HERE). And the other is between Pakatan Rakyat and the voters (united by their hate for Barisan Nasional but not really in love with each other -- at least as far as the voters are concerned: who do not really like Pakatan Rakyat but hate Barisan Nasional even more).

So, Pakatan Rakyat still has a lot of work to do.

Let us take a hypothetical situation. Let's, say, Najib Tun Razak resigns as Prime Minister and, say, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah takes over. Also, say, many ministers, politicians, police officers, senior government officials, etc., are arrested and charged for corruption. Also, say, the new Prime Minister, Ku Li, reforms the police, judiciary, election commission, etc.

Do you think all those who voted Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 would still do so now?

Okay, before you fly off the handle, I said 'hypothetically-speaking'. You can argue that this can never happen. In theory it can, although we can argue that in reality it may not happen. It is extremely difficult to happen, of course, but not impossible. And since it is not impossible then in theory it can happen.

Let me argue it another way. It is extremely difficult for a plane to crash and only one passenger survives the crash while everyone else dies. But this has happened before, although very rare. And the fact that it did happen means it can happen. So, the possibility of a change of leadership in Barisan Nasional, which in turn triggers reforms, is not really a pipedream.

The question would be: would everyone who voted Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 still do so or would they go back to Barisan Nasional if this hypothetical situation arises?

I think most of you know the answer to this question. We all hate Barisan Nasional for a reason and if this reason no longer exists then there is also no longer any reason to continue hating Barisan Nasional. Nevertheless, there would be no change for those of you who love Pakatan Rakyat. You will still support Pakatan Rakyat come hell or high water. But is this the majority or the minority?

Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_28.html

Why Umno is now going cyber (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 26 Nov 2011 06:14 PM PST

That is the same in politics. The battle needs to be fought on many fronts. And the Internet is one front. Barisan Nasional, of course, wins the electronic media war (since they own the TV stations and TV coverage is 97-98%) while the opposition wins the ceramah/rally war (no one attends Umno or BN ceramahs).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

First take a look at the statistics below:

a) 44% of Internet users are in Asia and 56% the rest of the world.
b) The Internet penetration in Asia is 23.8% compared to 30.2% for the world average.
c) Malaysia ranks number 10 in Asia in terms of Internet users.
d) Malaysia's Internet penetration is 16,902,600 or 58.8% of the population from only 3,700,000 ten years ago.

If I know all this do you think Umno and Barisan Nasional do not? And do you think that Umno and Barisan Nasional do not know that the walloping they got in March 2008 was partly due to the Internet? And why do you think one of the considerations for deciding on candidates in the next general election will be how active that person is on the Internet (in particular those contesting urban seats) and whether they have Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc., accounts?

I know that some sceptics pooh-pooh the Internet and say that the Internet alone is not enough to decide the next general election. This is typical narrow-minded and one-track mind Malaysian thinking.

Who said the Internet alone is enough to decide the next general election? We are saying that the Internet is going to contribute to the next general election, and a significant contributor at that too. Of course the Internet alone is not enough. Newspapers alone are also not enough. Ceramahs and rallies alone are also not enough.

It has to be a combination of the Internet, newspapers, TV, ceramahs and rallies. This is because there are many 'markets', not just one 'market', and all have to play their role in covering the many 'markets'.

In the old days, wars were simple. Everyone just charges each other and the last man standing wins the battle. Then it began to get more sophisticated. They introduced bowmen (archers), horsemen (cavalry), seamen (navy) and on on.

And because England had the best archers (the longbow men), they dominated France and ruled quite bit of French territory. Later, England developed its navy and that allowed them to rule the world (even Spain got walloped when they 'singed, meaning burned, the King of Spain's beard').

Wars today are even more complicated. We need the army, navy, air force, etc., and it is divided into logistics, infantry, artillery, cavalry, reconnaissance, intelligence, and so on. No longer is it about one group of people charging another group of people.

That is the same in politics. The battle needs to be fought on many fronts. And the Internet is one front. Barisan Nasional, of course, wins the electronic media war (since they own the TV stations and TV coverage is 97-98%) while the opposition wins the ceramah/rally war (no one attends Umno or BN ceramahs).

So now it is left to the Internet to tip the scales. The Internet is going to give that last push and help decide the victor. In a way you can say that the Internet is going to be the kingmaker in a situation where it is a neck-to-neck between TV and ceramah.

We must not forget that the Internet triggered the 'Arab Spring' uprising and President Obama won because of the Internet. And the Internet too is going to impact Malaysian general elections.

Presidential Elections in the Internet Era http://articles.technology.findlaw.com/2008/Sep/02/11203.html

How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008 http://www.people-press.org/2008/01/11/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008/

The Internet and the 2008 Election http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internet-and-the-2008-Election.aspx

The Role of the Internet in Presidential Campaigns http://www.jameswchesebro.com/2009/11/the-role-of-the-internet-in-presidential-campaigns/

The role of internet and social networking in the Arab spring http://www.syrianaaa.com/2011/05/role-of-internet-and-social-networking.html

Arab spring = Facebook revolution #1? http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/Social_Medias/Arab_Spring/EN/index.htm

CHINESE TRANSLATION: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_5042.html

The helicopter view approach (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 24 Nov 2011 05:37 PM PST

Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali whacked me to kingdom come and made all sorts of snide remarks against me during PKR's annual general assembly in Penang. Azmin had venom is his tone when, during his speech, he looked at me and said that all those who collaborate with Dr Mahathir can take a hike. I detected the smirk on Anwar's face when Azmin took that swipe at me.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

All warfare is based on deception.

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

The above are just some of Sun Tzu's quotes. Nevertheless, these few are enough to give us an idea of what both Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim are doing right, and wrong.

Incidentally, my wife sent me a book on Sun Tzu's quotes back in September 2008 when I was under detention in Kamunting and it took me only a day to read it from cover to cover. I must admit I found it most enlightening. It was the only book I ever re-read three days in a row.

I too have my own panduan peperangan (guide to warfare), which I once wrote about, probably ten years or so ago, long before I had read Sun Tzu. These go as follows:

Those who fight and run away live to fight another day.

Never fight your enemy in his terrain, which he knows best. Draw him into your terrain, which he is unfamiliar with.

The best form of defence is to attack.

When an enemy chases you, run away. When he is resting, launch a sneak counterattack.

A dead hero is of no use to his country other than for declaring national holidays.

Never face a more powerful enemy head-on. Ambushes always work better.

Your task is not to die for your country. Your task is to make your enemy die for his country.

When faced with defeat, surrender and sue for peace. Once you have gained the advantage, wipe out your enemy through treachery.

Take a smaller enemy of your larger enemy as your friend. Once you have defeated your larger enemy then you can turn on your smaller enemy.

Never allow principles to stand in the way of your strategy. Victory is still victory even if gained in unethical ways.

Okay, I admit, not all my quotes are originals. Some are stolen but they still make good sense. The objective of war is to win and it is not how you play the game that counts.

I know, you would probably surmise that, judging by my quotes, I would clearly not hesitate to do a Datuk Maharaja Lela on JWW Birch, the British Resident of Perak who was stabbed in the back while taking a shit in the Perak River. But who the hell ever said that war is about playing fair? War is about winning, at whatever cost, even at the cost of collateral damage, if it has to come to that.

Let me give you one example. The opposition is hell-bent on bringing down Shahrizat Jalil regarding the cowgate fiasco. No doubt RM250 million of the taxpayers' money has gone bust so she should be made to pay for it.

Or should she?

Now, there is currently a tussle over the Lembah Pantai parliament seat, currently held by Nurul Izzah Anwar who wrested it from Shahrizat in March 2008. Shahrizat wants to contest that seat again, as does Raja Nong Chik.

If Shahrizat were to contest that seat then there is a strong possibility that Nurul Izzah would, again, win. However, if Shahrizat is brought down, and chances are she might since the cowgate fiasco is hurting the government bad, then Raja Nong Chik would most likely get that seat. And if it were Raja Nong Chik versus Nurul Izzah, then Nurul's chances of winning would be reduced.

It would have been better to spare Shahrizat so that she is chosen as Barisan Nasional's candidate for Lembah Pantai. Then, once the nomination papers are filed, you can go to town and bring her down by using the cowgate issue.

Raja Nong Chik is a stronger candidate than Nurul Izzah and allowing him to contest the Lembah Pantai seat is not a wise move. But with Shahrizat out of the picture, that can now most likely happen.

Raja Nong Chik is certainly a smart cookie. His people leaked the information on Shahrizat's cowgate fiasco and the opposition gleefully grabbed at it. They are now doing Raja Nong Chik a favour by bringing down Shahrizat. And because of that Nurul Izzah may be brought down as well.

Anyway, that is one example and there are many more. Another can be: why attack Najib too much? I would be 'gentle' with Najib, which actually I am (although this has attracted allegations that Najib has bought me off).

If you want me to attack Najib I can do that as well. But why the hell do I want to bring down Najib just so that the opposition supporters would stop alleging that I have been bought off? I do not need the opposition supporters to sing my praises. They can condemn if that makes them happy. After all, small things please small minds.

If Najib is brought down and Muhyiddin Yassin takes over as Prime Minister, the chances of the opposition forming the next federal government is slim. With Najib leading the charge in the next general election, the disgust most people have with First Lady Rosmah Mansor is going to cost Barisan Nasional a lot of votes.

Rosmah is to Najib what Khairy Jamaluddin was to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, an albatross around his neck. I would rather have Najib as Prime Minister when we face the next general election than Muhyiddin. Najib has a lot of internal enemies within Umno, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad included. And I would rather have Dr Mahathir on our side, like in the 2008 general election.

What, you do not think that Dr Mahathir is still relevant and a factor? Hey, if not for Dr Mahathir, do you think Pakatan Rakyat could have done so well in the March 2008 general election? Why do you think I supported Dr Mahathir back in 2006 and 2007?

I know what I was doing. Sure, that attracted a lot of snide remarks about how Dr Mahathir had bought me off and was financing Malaysia Today and whatnot. But then these are remarks from people devoid of a brain that can think clearly. They are guided by emotions and not by logic. And the way they are trying to bring down Najib and Shahrizat is evidence of this.

Anyway, enough said. You play the game according to your strategy and I will do so according to mine. At the end of the day the test of the pudding is in the eating, as President Bush said.

READ ALSO: All eyes will be on Shahrizat

Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_25.html

You first have to know the meaning of the word

Posted: 22 Nov 2011 07:39 PM PST

Give me atheist leaders any time. As Karl Marx said, "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." And as Lenin said, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Unbridled civil rights 'recipe for disaster', say BN MPs

(The Malaysian Insider) - Barisan Nasional MPs today defended the new laws regulating public assembly, saying that it showed progress and guaranteed more freedom compared to previous legislation.

BN leaders argued that the Peaceful Assembly Bill was favourable to "all parties", and said the restrictions were necessary to keep society in check.

"Civil rights groups have to understand, unbridled rights is a recipe for disaster," Umno MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan told The Malaysian Insider.

"Dissenting views must be heard, and it is included in the spirit of the law. The government has shifted its approach from a position of absolute power to advisory," the Kota Belud MP said.

Citing the Police Act as an example, Abdul Rahman said new regulations were an improvement of the old Act.

He said the new laws did not require anyone to apply for a permit from the police, only a formal notification.

"You have to compare the new law to Section 27 of the Police Act. Some people are now complaining about the need to notify the police.

"That is needed for their protection, if you don't inform the police how can they protect you if anything happens?" asked the BN backbencher.

Datuk Wan Junaidi Wan Jaafar said the new assembly law showed progress and that the government had satisfied the needs of all Malaysians.

"You want to have your right to a demonstration at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, but people who live there also have their rights.

"The law is more relaxed, and gives more work to the police," said the Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker. (READ MORE HERE)

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

The small-minded Barisan Nasional leaders are foaming at the mouth screaming about how more freedom, democracy and civil rights are being allowed Malaysians.

Yes, these are people who are leaders, Members of Parliament, Malaysia's lawmakers, many who are even beneficiaries of a tertiary education, and supposedly very religious people. But I personally know uneducated fishermen and farmers who can think and talk better than these people.

And trust me on this because for 20 years I lived amongst fisherman and farmers and was the Chairman of the residents' committee and of the local mosque, 70-80% who were fishermen and farmers. So I DO know how they think and talk.

To these Barisan Nasional people, civil rights is just about freedom to hold demonstrations (subject to the police allowing it to be held) and more freedom to speak your mind (as long as you do not criticise the Rulers, the religious department, the Malays, Islam, the Prime Minister's wife, government leaders, or touch on whatever the government may consider 'sensitive issues' -- and the government will determine what constitutes 'sensitive issues').

See how narrow the concept of civil liberties and freedom is to these people? And they will determine what can and cannot be done and said. This, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew said, is called 'guided democracy'. And this is what Malaysia and Singapore practices.

Actually, civil liberties or civil rights extend to more than just 'controlled demonstrations' and 'limited freedom of speech'. There are many things under the ambit of civil liberties. And this is something these so-called educated government leaders from both the government and opposition do not understand. And that is why we need to line them all up against the wall and shoot them dead, figure of speech of course, although literally would not be such a bad idea as well.

When we talk about civil rights we must look beyond just demonstrations and freedom of speech (although that would be a good start). For example, the right to clean and interrupted water supply is also your civil right. And are Malaysians being given this?

I wrote about this back in 2000 (see the ADDENDUM below) so I do not need to repeat what I have already said. Denying the people of Kelantan clean water (and this has been prevalent since long before Merdeka) is a violation of their civil rights.

Of course, if the Kelantanese were to kick out PAS and vote Umno into power then the state will be given the water it needs. This is blackmail. In the meantime how many Kelantanese need to die of Cholera and other water-borne diseases? Umno is prepared to allow Kelantanese to die just to punish them and blackmail them into voting for Umno.

Yes, Umno, is the largest Islamic party in the world, so claims Umno. And 97-98% of the Kelantanese people are Muslims. But it is okay for Muslims to kill Muslims for political considerations. And Umno has the gall to laugh at the state government for not being able to provide the Kelantanese with clean water.

1. Incumbent upon PAS government to provide quality water in Kelantan: Mustapa (READ HERE)

2. BN can resolve Kelantan water problem in five years (READ HERE)

3. Kelantan hospital faces dire water shortage (READ HERE)

4. Water problem in Kelantan getting worse (READ HERE)

5. 30 schools and 30,000 students hit by water woes (READ HERE)

As I have always said, we must be very careful with people who foam at the mouth and scream about Islam. These would normally be the biggest hypocrites. The more they talk about Islam the more we need to guard against them.

I never trust anyone who always talks about religion, whether they are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. Since time immemorial, people have been killed in the name or religion by people who claim to be doing God's work.

Show me all those war criminals and mass murderers and I will show you people who have a religion. Okay, maybe some will now say that Stalin was an atheist. Actually, he was not an atheist. He did have faith. It is just that he was not a religionist. And there is a big difference between a religionist and those who believe that there is a God (theist). You can believe in God without being a religionist, which was what Stalin was.

Anyway, that is not the issue. The issue is many so-called religionists who foam at the mouth when they talk about their religion do not understand what civil rights means and have no respect for civil liberties. And this violates the so-called religion that they profess and try to preach to us.

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

ADDENDUM

Killing the Kelantanese with no water

When the Anwar Ibrahim poisoning crisis erupted late last year, Mahathir pooh-poohed the whole matter by saying that Malays do not murder for political ends.

Not quite true!

Samad Goal was murdered in Kota Bharu - head split open with an axe. The "old timers" tell me, while he was giving a speech during a political rally. Dato Tahar was murdered - I was told, shot all over his body. Some people tell me Dr Burhanuddin Hilmi was poisoned. And those are only the ones I know about. And they were all murdered for political reasons.

Yes, Malays DO murder for political ends.

Is Mahathir now killing off the Kelantanese, his political rivals, by denying them water?

This is what Mahathir said recently, "However, the Kelantan government could not even ensure clean water for its people. When you turn on the tap, you get coffee instead''.

To Mahathir it is all a big joke - something to laugh about. The Kelantan opposition government cannot even provide clean water for its people. Mahathir thinks it is so funny.

Mahathir added that the Kelantan State government was seeking help from the Federal Government to overcome its water woes. "They are asking for 600 million Ringgit from us. If we have that kind of money, we will put it to good use".

Yes, that's right. If the Federal Government had 600 million Ringgit they would put it to good use. They would not give it to the Kelantan State government to provide water to its 1,500,000 people. That is not good use for the money.

600 million Ringgit can build an F1 racetrack. Foreigners can use the track to enjoy themselves. 600 million Ringgit can also build a beautiful tower in the middle of Kuala Lumpur. That is better use for the money. Water for 1,500,000 people in Kelantan is definitely NOT good use.

Kelantan has been facing a water shortage problem for the last 20 or 30 years - long before the opposition took over the State. In 1990, the state fell to the opposition. The Federal Government then suddenly decided to cancel the plan to spend 600 million Ringgit to improve the water supply in the State.

The members of the Kelantan Branch of the Housing Developers Association met the Minister-in-Charge of the State, Anwar Musa, to discuss the water problem with him. These developers could not hand over their houses to their buyers as there was no water supply and they were losing money because of it.

Anwar Musa told the developers, if they wanted water, they would have to vote in the Barisan Nasional the next general election. As long as the State was under the opposition they would get no water.

Then the Federal Government announced they were giving Kelantan State the 600 million Ringgit they required. There was much rejoicing. Kelantan, at last, would be getting water.

Then, when everyone's hopes were high, the Federal Government announced they would not, after all, give the State the money. All hopes were dashed.

Then it was announced the State would be given the money, but the Federal government would control it and decide how it is used. Then they said the State would not get the money.

This is a cruel game to play on 1,500,000 people who have not seen clean water for two generations. You build up their hopes, then you dash it again, just to see the smiles on their faces get wiped off.

Today, Kelantan is suffering from a Cholera outbreak. Mahathir is a medical man. He knows how and why Cholera is spread.

Does Mahathir announce the water embargo on Kelantan is off? Does Mahathir now give them the 600 million Ringgit promised and un-promised so many times?

No! Instead, TV3 parades people before their cameras to show them condemning the Kelantan Government for not being able to overcome the State water woes.

The water woes were there long before the opposition took over the State. It is not the opposition government's fault. They inherited the problem when they took over a State that already had no water.

This is a cruel game to play on the people of Kelantan. It is not funny, and Mahathir should wipe that smirk of his face. People are dying in Kelantan. And it's all because they have no water. And they have no water because the Federal Government is trying to bring the State to its knees.

Was it not Mahathir who condemned the US for its embargo on Iraq? Was it not Mahathir who said the embargo is causing the deaths of thousands of innocent children? Was it not Mahathir who called the Americans murderers for doing this?

Does Mahathir not see he is now killing innocent Kelantanese by denying them water? Is Mahathir so sure those dead from Cholera voted for the opposition? What if they did not? What if they did not vote at all? What if they are children and babies who are not even voters yet?

Mahathir, are you not a Malay? Are not the Kelantanese Malays? Did you not say Malays do not murder for political ends?

Mahathir, stop killing off innocent children and babies! Stop the Cholera epidemic in Kelantan! Give Kelantan the water they need! Give them the water they have been waiting generations for.

Most importantly of all, Mahathir, stop gloating. Wipe that smirk off your face. It is not as funny as you think. Denying the Kelantan people water does not prove how incapable the opposition is in running the State. It just proves you would gladly resort to murdering innocent babies just to defeat a political rival.

May God have mercy on you, Mahathir, for all those deaths in Kelantan!

Raja Petra Kamarudin (28 September 2000)

Making sense of nonsense

Posted: 21 Nov 2011 08:01 PM PST

So, YB, are you going to now issue a statement saying that you made an error and that only anal and oral sex are crimes whereas gay relationships are not a crime according to Malaysian law? And if people live together as gay couples and only kiss, hug, touch, rub against each other, masturbate each other, but as long as there is no anal or oral sex, then the government can't do anything about it?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia Today: First of all, Yang Berhormat, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview.

Yang Berhormat: I am always happy to talk to the media, even opposition media like Malaysia Today, which never reports the truth and always twists and distorts what we say.

MT: Well, YB, we are here today so that you can clarify what you actually said and which you claim has been misreported. You can also take this opportunity to clarify government policy and clear whatever misconceptions or wrong perceptions the public may have. And I promise you, YB, Malaysia Today will report exactly what you said without any editing.

YB: Thank you. That is very comforting to hear. First of all, I want the readers to know that I never said that homosexuality is against the Federal Constitution. I said it is against the law.

MT: Yes, that is now very clear. In fact, earlier today, Malaysia Today published your clarification and rebuttal. So we are not really as unfair as some allege, YB.

YB: Good. And thank you. At least Malaysia Today allows both sides of the story, not like some other opposition newspapers that only report bad things about the government.

MT: Actually Malaysia Today is not a newspaper and neither is it opposition owned. Malaysia Today is a sounding board for Malaysians to express their unhappiness with both the government and the opposition. Anyway, that is not the point, YB. What we want to talk about today is your statement regarding homosexuality being against the law. You quoted the section of the law regarding sodomy. It talks about sodomy, not about homosexuality. That section of the law does not say that homosexuality is a crime. It only says that sodomy is a crime.

YB: It is automatic. If it involves homosexuality then automatically it involves sodomy.

MT: But, YB, that section of the law also makes it a crime for a husband and wife to have anal sex. So heterosexual anal sex also attracts a 20-year jail sentence, even if it is between legally married couples. Why did YB not also stress on this fact: that husbands and wives can also get sent to jail, not just homosexuals?

YB: We are not concerned about married couples and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. We are only concerned about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

MT: But that is beside the point, YB. It is still the law that married couples who indulge in anal sex can be sent to jail for 20 years, until such a time that this law is amended and stipulates that anal sex is a crime only for those who indulge in same-sex relationships.

YB: How can we control what married people do in their bedrooms? It is impossible to monitor what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

MT: Yet the government wants to monitor what non-married people or gay couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms. How are you going to do this?

YB: Well…I….I….

MT: Never mind, YB. Let's move on. The law says that anal sex is a crime. It does not say that homosexuality is a crime. What happens if two people of the same sex live as husband and wife but they do not indulge in anal sex? How can you arrest and charge them?

YB: How can they live together but not have sex?

MT: They can always indulge in oral sex, YB.

YB: You mean they live together as a married couple and just talk about sex? I don't believe that.

MT: No, YB, I don't mean oral sex as in talking about sex. I mean….well, you know YB…..lick, lick, suck, suck.

YB: Oh, that oral sex! Oral sex is also a crime. It is also punishable by 20 years jail, even if between husbands and wives.

MT: Okay, YB, you may be thinking of homosexual relationships as just being between two men. What if the homosexual relationship is between two women? Are you still going to say that it is a crime since there is no sodomy or anal sex involved? And take note, YB, that section of the law you are talking about makes it a crime to indulge in anal sex, not to be a homosexual.

YB: Well, if it is two women, then they probably have oral sex. So that means it is also a crime.

MT: So, it is the sex act that is the crime then. Being homosexual or living as a gay couple is not a crime. Is that right, YB?

YB: Well….yes, that is right.

MT: So, YB, are you going to now issue a statement saying that you made an error and that only anal and oral sex are crimes whereas gay relationships are not a crime according to Malaysian law? And if people live together as gay couples and only kiss, hug, touch, rub against each other, masturbate each other, but as long as there is no anal or oral sex, then the government can't do anything about it?

YB: Well…I…..I….

MT: Never mind, YB, let's move on. Let us now talk about non-Muslims, in particular Evangelists, preaching or propagating Christianity to Muslims, which has been an issue of late.

YB: Yes, according the Constitution that is wrong. So the government can take action.

MT: Okay, agreed. According to Article 11(4) of the constitution, it says: "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." But what about if that person may have been born a Muslim but he later leaves Islam. That means you are technically no longer propagating to Muslims but to ex-Muslims.

YB: There is no such thing as ex-Muslims. Once you are born a Muslim or you convert to Islam then you are a Muslim forever until the day you die.

MT: But what are the criteria to be a Muslim?

YB: I don't understand.

MT: Is it not compulsory that you believe in one God, Allah, and accept Muhammad as the last Prophet, the Quran as God's word, and the belief in the Afterlife, and so on? And if you reject this doctrine then your akidah would be demolished and you would cease to be a Muslim?

YB: Yes, your akidah is important in Islam. If your akidah is defective then you are no longer a Muslim.

MT: So, if a Muslim says he does not believe that Muhammad is the last Prophet or he says he doubts that the Quran is from God but was in fact written by Muhammad's people then he ceases to be a Muslim since he no longer has akidah.

YB: Yes.

MT: So where is the crime then if the Evangelists preach or propagate Christianity to these people since technically they are not Muslims any longer?

YB: Well….I….I….but still we can't allow it. They may be ex-Muslims according to Islam but we still regard them as Muslims and will arrest them and send them for religious rehabilitation to try to bring them back to the right path.

MT: So the government regards them as non-Muslims or ex-Muslims but will not allow them to be non-Muslims or ex-Muslims and will arrest them and rehabilitate them and that is why Christians can't preach to them or propagate Christianity to them?

YB: Yes, that is correct.

MT: Thank you, YB. We hope with this clarification Malaysians can now better understand how the mind of the Malaysian government works.

What else is unconstitutional in Malaysia?

Posted: 20 Nov 2011 04:45 PM PST

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said it is unconstitutional for a person to be homosexual in Malaysia. "In reality, in the country's constitution it is not allowed, including sections 377(a), (b), (c) and (d) which prohibit sexual relations between two men," said Jamil, who is in charge of Islamic affairs and head of the Malaysian Department of Islamic Development (Jakim).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Actually, if the minister really wants to follow the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, there are many more things that are unconstitutional, and being a homosexual is certainly not one of them although he can argue that it is against the law.

But then, being against the law (meaning: it constitutes a crime) does not make it unconstitutional. For example, raping your own mother or sodomising your own father is also a crime. But that does not make them unconstitutional. So is robbing a bank, murdering your wife, cheating on your income tax, taking bribes, misusing public funds to pay for your wife's lavish shopping, etc. They are all crimes but can't quite be called unconstitutional.

The minister, being not that intelligent and downright ignorant, as most Malaysian ministers are, does not appear to know the difference between what is unconstitutional and what is a crime.

Anyway, if you refer to some of the Articles in the Constitution below, you can see that there are many practices and policies in Malaysia that are unconstitutional (and at times opposed to Islam as well). Maybe my learned minister would like to talk about these as well.

Detaining someone without due process of the law is unconstitutional as per Article 5. And to use 'emergency laws' that waive the need for due process is unconstitutional when Malaysia is not facing any emergency and whatever emergency it did face in the past (such as The Emergency, May 13, Konfrontasi, etc.) have now ended (which means the emergency laws no longer apply). This is like still using WW1 or WW2 emergency laws when WW1 and WW2 have ended a long time ago.

Discrimination, quotas, preferences, etc., based on race or religion is unconstitutional as per Article 8. You can argue that the New Economic Policy (NEP) overrides the Constitution but Article 4 does not allow this. Anyway, the NEP was not a law passed by Parliament and that is why it is called 'the aspirations (hasrat) of the NEP'. It is merely an aspiration and not a law. Hence, to force Malaysians to comply with the NEP violates the Constitution.

Asking for the citizenship of any Malaysian to be withdrawn is unconstitutional as per Article 9. So Umno should stop asking for the citizenship of Ambiga and others to be withdrawn.

Malaysians have the liberty to express their opinion as per Article 10 even if they wish to opine that religion is bullshit, God does not exist, or that the monarchy is outdated and corrupt and should be abolished in favour of a Republic of Malaysia. Opinions are allowed and expressing them is not a crime.

Malaysians have the liberty to believe in any religion they want to or to reject religion totally under Article 11. Even if they wish to reject all forms of religion and become atheists, that is their constitutional right. The only thing the Constitution forbids is to propagate these beliefs to Muslims. However, if that person has declared that he/she no longer believes in God, then that would make him/her an apostate and, technically, that person would no longer be a Muslim. Therefore, propagating to ex-Muslims would not constitute a crime since they have on their own freewill become apostates.

Setting up institutions of learning exclusive to any one race is unconstitutional according to Article 12. Therefore, UiTM, according to the constitution, must open its doors to all races (but whether they would want to enter UiTM is another matter altogether).

Yes, if you want to talk about what is unconstitutional then let us talk about what is unconstitutional. And being gay is not one of them. The above, however, are. But does the minister understand this? Most likely not! Or else he would not have been made a minister. Instead, he would have become a Blogger like me.

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

PART II - FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES

Article number: 4

• (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

• (2) The validity of any law shall not be questioned on the ground that -

• (a) it imposes restrictions on the right mentioned in Article 9 (2) but does not relate to the matters mentioned therein; or

• (b) it imposes such restrictions as are mentioned in Article 10 (2) but those restrictions were not deemed necessary or expedient by Parliament for the purposes mentioned in that Article.

• (3) The validity of any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of any State shall not be questioned on the ground that it makes provision with respect to any matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws, except in proceedings for a declaration that the law is invalid on that ground or -

• (a) if the law was made by Parliament, in proceedings between the Federation and one or more States;

• (b) if the law was made by Legislature of a State, in proceedings between the Federation and that State.

• (4) Proceedings for a declaration that a law is invalid on the ground mentioned in Clause (3) (not being proceedings falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of the Clause) shall not be commenced without the leave of a judge of the Supreme Court; and the Federation shall be entitled to be a party to any such proceedings, and so shall any State that would or might be a party to proceedings brought for the same purpose under paragraph (a) or (b) of the Clause.

Article number: 5

• (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

• (2) Where complaint is made to a High court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him.

• (3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

• (4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority:

Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day.

• (5) Clauses (3) and (4) do not apply to an enemy alien.

Article number: 8

• (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

• (2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

• (3) There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of the State.

• (4) No public authority shall discriminate against any person on the ground that he is resident or carrying on business in any part of the Federation outside the jurisdiction of the authority.

• (5) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit -

• (a) any provision regulating personal law;

• (b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion;

• (c) any provision for the protection, wellbeing or advancement of the aboriginal peoples of the Malay Peninsula (including the reservation of land) or the reservation to aborigines of a reasonable proportion of suitable positions in the public service;

• (d) any provision prescribing residence in a State or part of a State as a qualification for election or appointment to any authority having jurisdiction only in that State or part, or for voting in such an election;

• (e) any provision of a Constitution of a State, being or corresponding to a provision in force immediately before Merdeka Day;

• (f) any provision restricting enlistment in the Malay Regiment to Malays.

Article number: 9

• (1) No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation.

• (2) Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.

• (3) So long as under this Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of Malaya, Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other States, on the rights conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence.

Article number: 10

• (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) -

• (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

• (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

• (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

• (2) Parliament may by law impose -

• (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1),such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;

• (b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order;

• (c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.

• (3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

• (4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Article number: 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

• (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

• (4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, 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.

Article number: 12

• (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth -

• (a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or

• (b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation).

• (2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of any such law; but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

• (3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.

• (4) For the purposes of Clause (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 9 Disember 2011