Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The issue is: Chin Peng is Chinese and not Malay
- 4,700 in 43 years versus 100,000 in 3 years
- A history lesson in the year 3000
- Are we still on track?
- The Malay cock syndrome
- The spin by The Unspinners
- Easier to talk than to do
- Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO
- Rule of law or rule by law?
- Was the Pope in Rome a traitor?
| The issue is: Chin Peng is Chinese and not Malay Posted: 09 Sep 2011 07:05 PM PDT
What's all this brouhaha about? It's about the fact that Chin Peng is Chinese and not Malay. If he is Malay like Datuk Maharajalela, Mat Kilau, Datuk Bahaman, Tok Janggut, etc., then he would be a national hero, not only if he opposed the government or police but even if he opposed the Sultan. Invariably, its all about race and yet the Cina bodoh in BN can't see this. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Perkasa Asks Mat Sabu to Retract Statement (Bernama) - The Malay right-wing group Perkasa has asked PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu to retract his alleged statement glorifying communist terrorists and running down the security forces. Its president, Datuk Ibrahim Ali, said the speech delivered by Mohamad Sabu, popularly known as Mat Sabu, in Tasek Gelugor, Penang, on Aug 21 was confusing and seen as an attempt to change the country's history. "Mohamad Sabu need not be afraid or feel ashamed to retract his speech as that would not jeopardise his image as a leader," he said after the opening of the annual general meeting of Perkasa Terengganu, here today. Mohamad Sabu had allegedly praised the communist terrorists who attacked the Bukit Kepong police station in 1950 and killed the 25 policemen and their families. He had also allegedly belittled the struggles of freedom fighters Datuk Onn Jaafar and Tunku Abdul Rahman.  Chin Peng in London after WWII receiving the Burma Star award for supporting the British against the Japanese The late Raja Aziz Addruse, one-time Malaysian Bar Council President, meets Chin Peng in Thailand
The all-Malay UTM visits Communist China, the country that backed Chin Peng and the CPM Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak visits Communist China, the country that backed Chin Peng and the CPM
The Second Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Razak Hussein, visits Communist China in 1974, the country that backed Chin Peng and the CPM (the Peace Treaty between the CPM and the Malaysian Government was not signed until December 1989)
|
| 4,700 in 43 years versus 100,000 in 3 years Posted: 08 Sep 2011 07:57 PM PDT
4,700 people, Malaysians as well as foreigners, died in 43 years of The Malayan Emergency. What the government calls the CTs (Communist Terrorists) who started the war would of course be considered evil although the CPM (Communist Part of Malaya) would argue that it was not a war of aggression but a war of independence from Britain. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
IGP: many died at the hands of Communist Terrorists A total of 1,437 police personnel died while another 1,883 were injured during the 43 years the communists terrorised the country, said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar. In addition, 639 soldiers died and another 1,697 were injured while 2,558 members of the public were killed and 1,490 others were injured, raising the total number of those killed to 4,688 and while those injured were 5,070. "They had died while defending the sovereignty of the country from communist threat during that time," he told reporters at Bukit Aman, here today. He said this when criticising the statement by PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu who claimed that the communist terrorists who attacked and killed police personnel during the Bukit Kepong tragedy were the real heroes in the struggle for the country's independence. ************************************* It is good that we remember those who died for their country. Many, in fact, are dying for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan even as you read this. And many of those dying are innocent non-combatants like women, children and old folks. To the 'Allied Forces', of course, these are traitors and terrorists and their family members who also died are, unfortunately, 'collateral damage' -- but 'necessary' deaths in wars such as these. However, to those who died and their family members who now need to mourn their deaths, they are patriots who were martyred in the defense of their homeland. Nevertheless, whether the US is the defender of freedom or the invader of a sovereign nation is a matter of interpretation. The butcher and the slaughtered cow would never come to an agreement on the matter either. So how can we expect the slaughtered citizens and the slaughterer of the citizens to also agree? Ultimately, the winner decides what to call it. And the now united Vietnam of what was once North and South Vietnam would write their history books accordingly. And you can bet that the American and Vietnamese versions of history would not agree on what to call the Vietnam War -- a war of aggression or a war of independence. 4,700 people, Malaysians as well as foreigners, died in 43 years of The Malayan Emergency. What the government calls the CTs (Communist Terrorists) who started the war would of course be considered evil although the CPM (Communist Part of Malaya) would argue that it was not a war of aggression but a war of independence from Britain. But that is for historians to decide and since the CPM lost then the victors would decide what to call it. If the CPM had won, it would have been called something else altogether, of course. While we remember and mourn the 4,700 who died over 43 years during The Malayan Emergency, what do we want to do about the 100,000 who died over three years during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya? Japan too, just like the CPM, claims that they did not embark on a war of aggression but were trying to free Malaya from British colonial rule. But Japan, just like the CPM, also lost the war. And they killed many more people in three years compared to the Communists in 43 years. It is good we condemn the CPM and the militant arm of the CPM, the CTs. After all, 4,700 died because of them over a period of 43 years. But why do we not also condemn the Japanese when because of them 100,000 people died in just three years? Japan is now our friend. Why? Is it because they surrendered and signed a peace treaty so the 100,000 deaths can now be forgiven? The CPM also surrendered and signed a peace treaty. But they are not forgiven. The British too killed many people when they colonised Malaya for almost 200 years. Many of these people killed were freedom fighters who opposed British colonial rule. And many were innocent non-combatants like women, children, old folks and villagers. Somehow, the British and Japanese have been forgiven even though they killed more people than the CTs did. But the CPM is not forgiven. We have buried the hatchet when it comes to Britain and Japan. We refuse to do the same when to comes to the CPM. This is what I fail to comprehend. And why is the US and their allies still our friend when they invade sovereign nations and kill its citizens in numbers that far exceeds what the CPM did? This, I also can't seem to understand. |
| A history lesson in the year 3000 Posted: 07 Sep 2011 07:02 PM PDT
Nevertheless, since Malaysia no longer exists and is now a small province of a bigger country called Indonesia, the Indonesian Government has classified Mat Indera as a national hero who was unjustly executed by the evil British Colonial Government for opposing Colonialism, in particular the British who illegally occupied North Borneo and gave the two states of Sabah and Sarawak to Malaysia instead of giving them back to Indonesia like they should have and as argued by Indonesia's Father of Independence, President Sukarno. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Once upon a time, 1,000 years ago, in a country that used to be called Malaysia but no longer exists and is now a province of a bigger country called Indonesia, there raged a hot debate. Malaysia, 1,000 years ago, was suffering from a serious problem of an influx of immigrants from its neighbouring countries that threatened to swamp the local population. If they allowed this indiscriminate and uncontrolled immigration policy to go on, the local population would soon be outnumbered and the foreign population, which was being given citizenship and was being issued with identity cards so that they could vote in the elections, would soon enough take over the country. The British Colonial Government, 100 years before that, had already realised the dangers of an indiscriminate and uncontrolled immigration policy and the migration of foreign workers that started in 1850 was ended in 1920. A hundred years later, the independent Government of Malaysia re-launched the immigration policy that the British had earlier ended. Nevertheless, the hot debate that was raging throughout the country was not about this in spite of the fact that the East Malaysian state of Sabah was already showing signs of a serious social problem of an increase in crime, drug addiction, homeless children, prostitution and whatnot because of this indiscriminate and uncontrolled immigration policy where the foreign population was given citizenship and issued with identity cards to enable them to vote in the elections. But this was not what the hot debate was all about. Once upon a time, 1,000 years ago, in a country that used to be called Malaysia but no longer exists and is now a province of a bigger country called Indonesia, there raged a hot debate. Malaysia, 1,000 years ago, was suffering from a serious problem of corruption and abuse of the power and the country was being run into the ground, which would in no time at all reduce the country to the status of a failed state. Those who fought against corruption and abuse of power were arrested and jailed while those who propagated corruption and abuse of power were revered and appointed as leaders of the country. Those who threatened the establishment were murdered and all these murders went unsolved and the deaths were classified as 'sudden death' or death due to the stopping of breathing. The country's resources were being plundered by all and sundry who walked in the corridors of power and these people were not shunned or treated as the pariahs of society but instead were honoured with titles such as Yang Berhormat, Yang Berbahagia, Datuk, Tan Sri, Tun, etc., and who would carry these titles in their names: for example, 'Yang Mulia Tun Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Raja Petra al Haj Bin Raja Kamarudin al Haj Almarhum', which for short would be 'Pete'. But this was not what the hot debate was all about. Once upon a time, 1,000 years ago, in a country that used to be called Malaysia but no longer exists and is now a province of a bigger country called Indonesia, there raged a hot debate. Malaysia, 1,000 years ago, was suffering from a serious problem of racism and of religion being used for political purposes. It came to a stage where Nazi Germany of WWII or England of the time of Henry VIII began to look tame by comparison and the official religion of that country, Islam, started to appear like a joke when Muslims did and said things allegedly in the name of Islam that gave an impression that these people were utterly brainless. The racism and ridiculous deeds and statements in the name of religion frightened and disgusted many Malaysians and those with a good education and strong finances left the country to seek citizenship in other countries that were not so silly. Malaysia eventually suffered from this brain drain and capital flight and every Malaysian with brains and/or money who left the country was replaced with foreigners who had no education and/or no money and this further sapped the resources of the country until it soon got reduced to a country with a population that had very little education and almost no money. But this was not what the hot debate was all about. The hot debate that tore the country into two was about a man named Mat Indera who died in 1950 and the two sides that debated this person who had died more than 60 years before that argued about whether he was a Communist or Islamist, whether he was a traitor or patriot, whether he was a terrorist or freedom fighter, whether he fought against the government or fought to free the country, whether he was a bad man or a good man. And while the hot debate about a man whom 99% of Malaysians had never heard of before that, did not know about till then, and did not care about anyway, the country was brought to a standstill. No one bothered any longer about the future of the country and where the country was heading for and where it would be 60 years hence. They only cared about what happened 60 years before that and about a man who had died 60 years earlier and who was of no significance to the future of the country anyway. That was what the hot debate was all about and which tore the country into two. And because of that the country once known as Malaysia no longer exists and is now a small province of a country called Indonesia when all Malaysians with brains and money left the country and the immigrants with no education and no money were given citizenship and after some time outnumbered the local population and voted in favour of that country being given back to its true owners, Indonesia, like what the Japanese proposed back in WWII when they kicked out the British and took over the administration of that country. Nevertheless, since Malaysia no longer exists and is now a small province of a bigger country called Indonesia, the Indonesian Government has classified Mat Indera as a national hero who was unjustly executed by the evil British Colonial Government for opposing Colonialism, in particular the British who illegally occupied North Borneo and gave the two states of Sabah and Sarawak to Malaysia instead of giving them back to Indonesia like they should have and as argued by Indonesia's Father of Independence, President Sukarno.
|
| Posted: 06 Sep 2011 05:00 PM PDT
The leader of the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) also initially called for ISA to be abolished, and on December 1 said PPP would withdraw from BN unless if the ISA were not amended before the next election. In response, Prime Minister Abdullah called PPP's bluff and said the small party, which holds no seats in Parliament, could leave BN if it wished. -- US Embassy, KL NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Ali Rustam: PPP can leave BN - now (Malaysiakini, 20 Oct 2007) -- People's Progressive Party (PPP) members are left reeling after receiving a political blow from Umno's third most powerful leader during the Malacca PPP annual general assembly early this week. At the assembly on Monday, Umno vice-president Mohd Ali Rustam delivered a scathing speech which chided the PPP for "threatening" Barisan Nasional for more seats to contest in the coming general election He also repeatedly stressed that PPP could leave the BN fold if it was unhappy. This left many party members in a daze at how Mohd Ali - who was the guest of honour as Malacca chief minister - could utter such remarks. "He came to our house, seemingly with the intention to humiliate us," said a PPP source who attended the event. Eyewitnesses said a handful of party members stormed out of the venue in protest, but that did not deter Mohd Ali. "PPP can leave BN," said Mohd Ali. He then pointed at the stunned delegates and added: "All of you can leave. Either today or tomorrow. Why wait until the general election? What's there to wait for?" Show of hands Mohd Ali also claimed that the Umno supreme council was unhappy with PPP for accepting former Umno members as their members. He even asked if any of the delegates formerly with Umno, MCA, Gerakan and MIC to put up their hands. Mohd Ali also took a dig at Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob for suggesting that PPP should ask every state for a seat to contest in. "That's his business. As far as I am concerned - no seat in Malacca (for PPP)," he added. When Mohd Ali wrapped up his tirade and declared the assembly open, PPP delegates refused to applaud. Eyewitnesses reported that PPP president M Kayveas maintained his composure throughout the hour-long speech and was seen vigorously taking down notes. Funeral-like atmosphere When contacted, Kayveas said delegates were "disappointed and dejected" by the "unwarranted and undiplomatic" remarks uttered by Mohd Ali. Kayveas said delegates were expecting inspiring speeches from Mohd Ali in order to prepare the party for the upcoming general election. "(Instead) the chief minister's speech made the entire assembly feel like a funeral. As the third highest ranking in Umno, the consequences of his speech worries me," he said. He added that some remarks which Mohd Ali made regarding other BN component parties and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi were also uncalled for. According to media sources, Mohd Ali had asked journalists to exclude the hard-hitting part of his speech in their reports. He claimed these were only meant for the delegates. It is uncertain if Mohd Ali's speech would lead to souring ties between PPP and Umno. However, there is already talks within PPP rank-and-file that the party may silently boycott Umno programmes and functions. ************************************* PPP says it will leave BN if ISA is not amended (The Malaysian Insider, 1 Dec 2008) -- The PPP, a minor party in the Barisan Nasional (BN), has threatened to pull out of the ruling coalition if the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not amended before the next general election. It is the latest party to join the bandwagon calling for reforms to prevent the abuse of the legislature which allows detention without trial. Party president Datuk M Kayveas said today: "I ask for amendments to the law so that it does not become a draconian law imposed on innocent citizens." While Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties PKR, DAP and Pas have always adopted an anti-ISA position, BN parties have always staunchly defended the law as necessary until recently. Datuk Zaid Ibrahim resigned from the Cabinet recently in protest against the use of the ISA on a journalist, blogger and a senior Selangor PR government official. There has even been growing calls from the MCA, the second biggest party in BN after Umno, urging for either reform or repeal of the ISA. Speaking at his party's youth and women's wing congress today, Kayveas said BN should amend the ISA if it was serious about rebranding itself. "BN has to make changes before the next general elections. It is suicidal if we do not plan. "The problem with BN is its success. Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they cannot lose," he said. Kayveas added the March election results have shown that multi-racialism and good governance is what the voters are looking for. "The solution has always been multi-racialism but we are caught in our own political racial configuration," he said. ****************************************** PM to PPP: Go if you want to (The Star, 10 Dec 2008) -- PPP is free to quit the Barisan Nasional coalition if it wants to, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said. The government has no plans to amend the Internal Security Act (ISA), said Abdullah, also the coalition chairman, after a Barisan supreme council meeting here on Tuesday. Recently, party president Datuk M. Kayveas said the PPP would pull out of Barisan Nasional if the ISA was not amended before the next general election. He said PPP's Youth and Wanita divisions wanted the ISA abolished, and he had to follow their proposals. He also said Barisan had to make changes before the next general election, adding that "it would be suicidal if we did not." When asked whether this meant that PPP was free to leave the Barisan, Abdullah said: "If that is their choice, what can we do?" Kayveas' statement was slammed by many Barisan leaders, largely members of the largest component party Umno, who said it reflected badly on the coalition's unity. However, MCA central committee member Wong Nai Chee said his party supported PPP's call to amend the ISA. ************************************** Don't push us, Gerakan Youth tells BN leaders (Malaysiakini, 7 Sep 2011) -- Telling BN leaders not to "push Gerakan to the edge", Ang said the party "will fight back with dignity". "We will not be a punching bag of Umno and we will no longer keep quiet when you shout. Gerakan is now 43 years old and we are old enough and experienced enough to decide our own destiny and direction that we do not need Umno or any other party to tell us where we should contest. "We will decide where we should contest and we will let them know when (the) time is right," said Ang in his tersely-worded statement. Ang was responding to remarks by Umno supreme council member Mohd Ali Rustam that the state BN would field a "winnable candidate" from either Umno or MCA - instead of Gerakan - for the Bachang state constituency in the next general election. |
| Posted: 04 Sep 2011 08:55 PM PDT
The trouble is these Malays measure the size of your balls according to the size of the cock's balls. And to qualify as a man you must have balls the size of a cock's balls. They are not concerned whether you have brains bigger than a cock's brains. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin You may have noticed that the 'hot' news these past few weeks is all about so-and-so challenging so-and-so to do this, that or the other. Mat Sabu challenges so-and-so, Khairy Jamaluddin challenges so-and-so, so-and-so challenges Anwar Ibrahim, so-and-so challenges Najib Tun Razak, and whatnot. |
| Posted: 03 Sep 2011 07:12 PM PDT
The Unspinners say that Rosmah could not have been at the scene of Altantuya's murder because she was at a dinner event at the Tabung Haji building in front of the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. But the dinner was at 8.00pm. Altantuya was murdered between midnight and dawn. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "Konspirasi mekanik bodoh dari RPK si penipu," said The Unspinners, a pro-Umno Blog, on Friday. In English, that would roughly translate to 'Conspiracy by the stupid mechanic, RPK, the liar'. |
| Posted: 01 Sep 2011 07:26 PM PDT
As far as you are concerned, Mat Sabu can have an opinion and he is allowed to state what his opinion is. But he has to make sure that his opinion does not differ from yours. If he says the same thing as what you say, then well and fine. But if he states the opposite of what you believe, then this is not acceptable. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
It is easy to talk. Walking the talk is another thing altogether. Malaysian politicians can talk. They can talk till the cows come home. But they don't mean what they say. Bikin tak serupa cakap, cakap tak serupa bikin. On Merdeka Day, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was trying to impress Malaysians by saying that the country is very democratic. What is the basis of this hypothesis? Is it just because we hold elections? As I said in an earlier article, even Adolf Hitler held elections in Germany. This does not mean Germany was a democracy. Elections are no yardstick for classifying a country as a democracy. Many other dictators hold elections as well. But whether they are fair, free and clean elections (like what we have in Malaysia…sic) or whether they are rigged elections is another thing. But they do hold elections. Does this mean they are democracies? The opposition too claims it is fighting for democracy. Is that so? Or is this bullshit? Okay, let us give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is truly fighting for democracy. Let us also assume, as Najib said, that Malaysia is a true democracy. Now, let us put this to a test. If the PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, makes a statement on the Bukit Kepong incident based on his belief and his understanding of the events, can both the opposition as well as the government allow this and accept it? Currently, it appears like some in the opposition -- and many in the government -- will not allow Mat Sabu to have an opinion and to state his opinion. Why not? Why must his opinion and his statement be the same as yours? Why can't it be different from yours? Both the opposition as well as the government are the same. Both don't allow and don't tolerate different views. If you express a different view from them, then you are a pariah bastard. Okay, forget about Bukit Kepong. Let's instead go to the murder of JWW Birch on 2 November 1875 as he was having a berak (shit) along the Berak River…sorry, I meant Perak River. Now, was his murderer, Dato' Maharajalela, a criminal or a patriot? Incidentally, just to digress a bit, when a person acts above the law and pushes his weight around with absolute disregard for everyone else, the Malays would say: dia bermaharajalela. So the name Maharajalela is synonymous with acting like the Mafia or like a gangster. Anyway, back to the subject of the murder of JWW Birch. First of all, was he justly executed or was he martyred? Did you know that they exiled Dato' Maharajalela and his gang of conspirators to the Seychelles? So JWW Birch's murderers must have been criminals. And they named many roads in Kuala Lumpur, Taping, Seremban, Penang, Ipoh, and Singapore after JWW Birch. So JWW Birch must have been a hero to have so many roads named after him. But hold on, later they changed the name Jalan Birch in Taiping and Kuala Lumpur to Jalan Maharajalela. The excuse they gave was the Jalan Birch in Taiping and Kuala Lumpur were named after a different Birch, not the JWW Birch. Whatever it is, there are a couple of roads named Jalan Maharajalela. So Dato' Maharajalela must have been a hero then, not a criminal. Would they name roads after criminals like Botak Chin, Bentong Kali or Mona Fendi? Would Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman be renamed Jalan Chin Peng? But JWW Birch was also a hero and there are many roads also named after him. That means both JWW Birch and Dato' Maharajalela were heroes. But how can that be? They can't have BOTH been heroes. Only one can be the hero. The other must be the criminal. Now this is most interesting indeed. Was Dato' Maharajalela a criminal or a hero? And was JWW Birch a martyr or someone biadap (insolent) towards the Sultan of Perak (as his murderers alleged) who deserved what happened to him? Can I say that JWW Birch was a hero and that he was murdered because he was opposed to slavery and he tried to wipe out slavery in Perak? Will they allow me to have that opinion and to express this opinion? But many would argue that the hero in this whole incident was Dato' Maharajalela, not JWW Birch. But then, if you support what Dato' Maharajalela did to JWW Birch, would that not make you a terrorist? If you support the murder of JWW Birch because he was biadap towards the Sultan of Perak, then can I not also support the murder of many other people because they are also biadap towards the Sultan of Perak? Nizar Jamaluddin, the ex-Menteri Besar of Perak, is also said to be biadap towards the Sultan of Perak (according to Umno, at least). Should we not also do to Nizar what they did to JWW Birch? Is it right for me to suggest the murder of Nizar (like what Umno would like to see)? Hey, it is within my democratic right to have my own opinion and to openly state what my opinion is. If you can say that the murder of JWW Birch was right and that Dato' Maharajalela was a hero, then I can also say that the murder of Nizar is right because he is just like JWW Birch -- as far as Umno's opinion goes. So you see, you don't really care what my opinion is. You only want to make sure that my opinion is the same as yours. As far as you are concerned, Mat Sabu can have an opinion and he is allowed to state what his opinion is. But he has to make sure that his opinion does not differ from yours. If he says the same thing as what you say, then well and fine. But if he states the opposite of what you believe, then this is not acceptable. And the Bukit Kepong issue is a good example. Even Karpal Singh said that Mat Sabu should retract his statement and apologise. Why should Mat Sabu apologise? If I say that Dato' Maharajalela was a murderer and that JWW Birch was a hero who opposed slavery and was murdered for his righteousness, and if the Malays start foaming at the mouth and go berserk (like they always do), is Karpal going to ask me to retract my statement and apologise? Are they going to make a police report against me and are the police going to call me up for my statement to be recorded? Democracy podah! I am allowed the freedom to believe what I want to believe and the freedom to express my opinion only as long as this does not run contra to your own beliefs and opinion. And both the opposition and the government are the same. They both do not respect these freedoms although they shout and scream about democracy. In fact, the opposition is worse. If I were to say that Najib should resign because he is not qualified to remain as the Prime Minister, the opposition supporters would clap, cheer, applaud and would call me a true son of Malaysia and a patriot. But if I were to say that Anwar Ibrahim should resign because he is not qualified to remain as the Opposition Leader, the opposition supporters would curse me and call me a turncoat who has been bought off by the government. But then Khir Toyo also resigned as the Opposition Leader for Selangor after he was charged in court. That, you would say, is the correct thing to do. But if I say that Anwar should follow Khir Toyo's example, you cannot agree to this. Ah, that is because Anwar was unjustly charged, you will argue. Was Khir Toyo justly charged? If Khir Toyo was charged because he committed an act of corruption, then why only charge him? Thousands of others should also be charged -- the Prime Minister, IGP, AG, etc., included. Khir Toyo was charged because his enemies within Umno wanted to get rid of him, not because he is corrupt (although I do admit he is corrupt). If it is because he is corrupt, then he should not be the only one facing trial. That is the reality of the situation. The opposition does not understand the meaning of democracy, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., just like the government. The opposition does not respect democracy, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., just like the government. Same same lah! |
| Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO Posted: 31 Aug 2011 04:36 PM PDT
"I cried along with them as memories of my bitter and gruelling experiences came flooding back," he recalls. "Involved in World War II as a Malay Fifth Columnist leader; detained in several Police lock-ups and prisons; taunted and jeered by Malays who saw me hawking food on the roadside; humiliated by people who slammed their doors in my face; asked to leave my rented cubicle in the middle of the night and even labelled as the Malay who 'brought' the Japanese into Malaya." NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957 This abridged and edited translation of Mustapha Hussain's memoirs will appear two decades after his passing. This would not have been possible if not for the initial translation effort by his devoted daughter, Insun Sony.
|
| Posted: 30 Aug 2011 06:01 PM PDT
Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as 'ex-Muslims', then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word 'murtad' would no longer be in the Muslim vocabulary. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia has tens of thousands of lawyers. But how many lawyers actually 'practise law' or are most in this only for the money? Seldom do we hear lawyers speak out on what is right and what is wrong. It should be the job of lawyers to educate Malaysians as to what the law is all about. Only then can it be said that they are true to their profession. Laws are man-made. Sometimes we say that these are God's laws or this is what God ordained. Invariably, all laws are made by man but blamed on God. Why are the lawyers not telling us this? Just because it is law does not make it right. Are we talking about rule of law or rule by law? "What's the difference?" you may ask. A lot of difference! And it is the duty of lawyers to educate us on the difference between the rule of law and rule by law. Queen Elizabeth I ordered Parliament to appoint her as Governor of the Church. Since she was a woman, she could not be appointed as a proper head of the church like her father and brother before her -- which would tantamount to the position of the English Pope. So they made her the governor instead. Then Elizabeth banned the practise and belief of the wafer as the body of Christ and wine as the blood of Christ. All the Catholic Bishops opposed this and they instigated the citizens to defy this new 'heretic' law. The Bishops were all rounded up and imprisoned and replaced with Protestant Bishops. The Catholics were forced to go underground and to practise their faith in secret and behind closed doors. There were pockets of rebellion all over the Kingdom, even as far as Scotland where they deposed their Catholic Queen (later they chopped off her head as well). Of course, this conflict between the Church and the Throne was not new. Even back in the days of Henry II, 400 years earlier, there was already a conflict and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, was assassinated because of his conflict with the King over the rights and privileges of the Church. So, was Elizabeth right? Of course, she had the power. But just because she had power and just because a law had been passed does this make it right? Who was Elizabeth to decide that this is what God ordained? Did God speak to her? Or was this merely a political move? You see: England, then, was only South England. From York onwards, this was Catholic country. So, by getting rid of the Catholic faith, this meant England could unite and Scotland, if it turned Protestant, would become part of English territory. Scotland was also aligned to France. And France was Catholic and the age-old enemy of England. So, by 'occupying' Protestant Scotland, this meant that the danger of a French invasion (through Scotland) would be eliminated. So there you have it. It was not about what God wanted. It was about what Elizabeth wanted. And Elizabeth wanted Scotland under her control. And she wanted the French Catholic Queen kicked out of Scotland. And she wanted the French army kicked out of Scotland. If not, her throne would be in jeopardy of a 'Catholic' invasion with a new Catholic Queen from Scotland installed onto the throne. In short, Elizabeth had to control and dictate what is and is not acceptable religious beliefs and practises to be able to control England and get rid of the Scottish-French threat to her throne. Elizabeth used religion to hold on to power. Today, we celebrate Merdeka. But how are we celebrating Merdeka? By raising the flag? By sleeping at home? Merdeka should be celebrated by respecting the 'Merdeka Agreement', which is basically the Federal Constitution. How can we say we are remembering or honouring Merdeka when we do not respect the Constitution? The Constitution was the foundation of Merdeka. Without the Constitution there is no foundation and therefore no Merdeka. This, the lawyers should tell the people far and wide, the length and breadth of Malaysia. The basis of our laws is the Constitution. However, many of our laws violate the Constitution. Many things ail Malaysia. But I want to talk about only one ailment today. And this ailment, the latest in a series of ailments, is the conflict between Church and State brought on by the DUMC raid and the allegations made against the Church. The DUMC raid was not the only conflict between Church and State. Earlier, we had the Allah issue, the Bahasa Malaysia Bible issue, and so on. It appears that all along the way the Church is in conflict with the State. But has this not been so for more than 1,000 years? The Church has always had its differences with the State (or more like the State resented the power the Church had over the people and thus started the 'turf war' between the State and the Church). Anyway, Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution are very clear (by right, lawyers ought to be talking to you about this, not me). Let us consider what it says. Islam is the religion of the Federation. No dispute. Other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. No dispute. The Ruler is the Head of the religion of Islam in his State. No dispute. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. No dispute. Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. No Dispute. There should be no propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. No dispute. So, where is the dispute then? Let's look at "Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs". What does this mean? If the Christians want to publish a Bahasa Malaysia Bible, would this be under the clause of "manage its own religious affairs"? Can the government then dictate what language the Bible can and cannot be published? Let's look at "Christianity cannot be propagated to persons professing the religion of Islam". But what if that person has announced that he or she has left Islam? Now, you may say that once a person is born to Muslim parents then he or she is automatically a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim for life and cannot leave Islam. But that is between the Muslim and his 'Church'. Once a Muslim renounces Islam (murtad), he or she is an apostate. Technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim. The State may say that he or she is still a Muslim. That's according to the government. But in the 'eyes' of God, he or she is no longer a Muslim. He or she has become a murtad. So, where is the crime here? Actually, the issue is not that complicated. It is just that the lawyers would rather not get involved in this issue because it is very sensitive and Malays are a very emotional people who would run amok if they think that they cannot win by words and need to resort to violence to win an argument. A true lawyer would educate us. Most lawyers, however, would remain silent and allow the ignorance to continue. And this ignorance has caused a lot of confusion. In short: Christians cannot preach to Muslims. That is the law. But if that person has left Islam, technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim but an ex-Muslim. So, it is not against the law to preach Christianity to these people (who are technically not Muslims any more). Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as 'ex-Muslims', then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word 'murtad' would no longer exist in the Muslim vocabulary. However, as it stands now, the word 'murtad' does exist. And this means Islam recognises the existence of 'ex-Muslims'. So, where do we go from here? And why are the lawyers not speaking up? *************************************** Article 3 1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. 2. In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observance or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-pertuan Agong to represent him. 3. The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be Head of the religion of Islam in that State. 4. Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution. 5. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam. Article 11 1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. 2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own. 3. Every religious group has the right - (a) to manage its own religious affairs; (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and (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 Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. 5. This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. |
| Was the Pope in Rome a traitor? Posted: 29 Aug 2011 01:00 AM PDT
Now that the police are investigating Mat Sabu and will probably be interrogating him soon (meaning: recording his statement) because of his so-called treasonous act, let us in the meantime read the following excerpt and decide whether the Pope in Rome was also treasonous. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Master Secretary, His Holiness is considering a ruling that will say that heretical monarchs can be justly defied by their subjects, and that such a defiance, even to armed rebellion, is no sin. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
