Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Iqraq
- Not talking about the budget
- Allow me to respond
- So, teach me the 'jalan yang betul' then!
- The chicken and the egg
- What we are not and why we can never be
- As John Lennon said: IMAGINE
- See the difference?
- Just wanted to say sorry
- Logic is illogical
| Posted: 08 Oct 2011 05:38 PM PDT
The Muslims believe that the first word ever revealed to Prophet Muhammad was IQRAQ (read). I am sure this was done for a reason. So READ, and understand what we are talking about. To scream and shout, "You know nothing about Islam. You are not learned. Go learn from an ustaz," is not good enough. Even those ustaz you are talking about do not read those three books I mentioned above. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
There are some who say that those who know nothing about a subject matter should not be talking about it. I can agree with that. But then it all depends on what you mean by 'know nothing'. Maybe there are some who don't know how the Islamic Shariah laws should be applied or interpreted. This is because they are not judges or lawyers. But then, they could be historians and they know their history very well. And because of that, they know the HISTORY of the Shariah. Which means they are certainly qualified to talk about the Shariah from the historical aspect of those laws. Therefore, to tell a historian to stop talking about the Shariah because he or she is not trained in Islamic laws is not quite correct. If this historian not only knows the history of the Shariah but is also lecturing about it in one of the universities, this makes him or her more than qualified to talk about it. For Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I would like to recommend you to buy and read just three of the many books I have in my library. These books are: ISLAM AND THE SECULAR STATE (NEGOTIATING THE FUTURE OF SHARI'A) by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im (Harvard University Press)
THE MANY FACES OF POLITICAL ISLAM (RELIGION AND POLITICS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD) by Mohammed Ayoob (National University of Singapore)
A HISTORY OF ISLAMIC LAW by N. J. Coulson (Edinburgh University Press)
These three books will suffice for now to be able to make you an 'expert' on the Shariah. I can recommend another dozen more books if you are still 'hungry' for more knowledge. The Muslims believe that the first word ever revealed to Prophet Muhammad was IQRAQ (read). I am sure this was done for a reason. So READ, and understand what we are talking about. To scream and shout, "You know nothing about Islam. You are not learned. Go learn from an ustaz," is not good enough. Even those ustaz you are talking about do not read those three books I mentioned above.
|
| Posted: 07 Oct 2011 05:20 PM PDT
So, we will eventually lose these people when Malaysia is no longer lucrative. And we have already lost many Malaysian citizens who have sent their money overseas to invest in other countries. And this is not only of late but has been happening over the last 20 to 30 years, but has become more critical over the last five years or so. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
No, I am not going to talk about the budget. So many others have analysed the budget in detail so you can read what they have to say. What I do want to talk about is: how is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak (or even Anwar Ibrahim for that matter, if he happens to become the next Prime Minister) going to stop Malaysia from continuing down the slippery slope? First we had the brain drain. More than one million Malaysians, the majority of them non-Bumiputeras, of course, live and work overseas. These are people with education, qualifications, and/or skills/abilities (and in many cases, money as well). I met many waiters/waitresses and restaurant workers all over the UK (all Chinese, of course) who were from Ipoh, Penang, Sungai Siput, Bukit Bintang, Jalan Ipoh, and so on. And now they work all over London and in Nottingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc. And you know what? The minute I walk into the restaurant they start whispering. Then, one by one, they come over to our table to talk to me. They recognised me the minute I walked into the restaurant -- and this is because they read Malaysia Today. Yes, they may be merely waiters/waitresses or restaurant workers, but they are internet-savvy and loyal Malaysia Today readers -- even though you may think they are merely 'labourers'. And they are not here in the UK working in restaurants because they are stupid, unqualified, uneducated, etc. It is because they have lost confidence in Malaysia -- plus they get more money working in the UK than in Malaysia. You may think that the cost of living in the UK is higher. Maybe it is higher in some areas but not in everything. You can buy a house for 100,000 pounds (which will cost RM1 million or more in Malaysia for the same type of house) and a car for 8,000 pounds (which will cost more than RM150,000 in Malaysia for the same car). You earn ten times or more in the UK than what you earn in Malaysia for the same job but the cost of living is not ten times higher, especially outside London. Anyway, we have more than one million talented Malaysians serving foreign countries when they could be serving their mother country instead. And they spend their money here. They don't send it home to Malaysia. How are we going to convince them to come home to Malaysia and serve Malaysia? Then we replace these one million Malaysians with four million 'imported' workers. For every one 'quality' Malaysian we have lost we replace him or her with four 'lower quality' foreign workers. Is this a good exchange, quality for quantity? Then these four million foreign workers (many now given citizenship so that they can vote for Barisan Nasional) send more than half their earnings home. They don't spend their money in Malaysia. So Malaysians don't get to see any trickle-down affect. They send their money home. So billions of Ringgit leaves the country every month. Go check with Bank Negara if you want the details (which is what the opposition should be doing instead of arguing about hudud). Okay, that is about the brain drain. Now what about capital flight? Do you know that for the last 20 to 30 years, Malaysian tycoons have been quietly investing overseas? Some have even wound down their businesses or sold off their investments in Malaysia to transfer their operations and investments to other countries. The government screams about how great Malaysia's FDI is. It is like screaming about how much money I earn every month. Yay, I earn RM5,000 a month! But I do not tell you that I spend RM10,000 a month. So what's so great about my RM5,000 earnings a month? Sure, we have FDIs. But the foreign investors are only here because they can make money. Many foreign companies even have a policy of not buying property in Malaysia. They would rather rent, even if they have to pay more for rental compared to if they bought this property. This is so that they can wind up their operation and go home super-fast if they need to. If they own property, it takes longer to get out of Malaysia because they need to sell of their assets first. So rent, don't buy. So you see, they do not intend to become Malaysian 'corporate citizens'. They just want to make money and then go home when they can't make money any longer. They are not loyal to the country. They are just loyal to money. So, we will eventually lose these people when Malaysia is no longer lucrative. And we have already lost many Malaysian citizens who have sent their money overseas to invest in other countries. And this is not only of late but has been happening over the last 20 to 30 years, but has become more critical over the last five years or so. As I said, I do not want to talk about the budget. That's because I am not impressed. I want to know how the government (and the opposition if it becomes the government) is going to stop Malaysia from continuing down this slippery slope of brain drain and capital flight. Please also read this: After brain drain, now capital flight? |
| Posted: 06 Oct 2011 06:26 PM PDT
Below are just some of the many comments in my article 'So, teach me the 'jalan yang betul' then!' I would like to respond to them as I feel further debate or clarification is required so that we can 'clear the air' on this matter that appears to be dividing us and threatens to break up the opposition like it did once before about a decade ago. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dear RPK Recently your posts have become more convoluted with everything ending up in a paradox. Bear in mind I believe the majority of Malaysia Today readers are reasonably educated and have broader mindset, If they weren't they won't even bother visiting. I'm afraid if this continues, such tedious yet complex arguments may deter the growing viewership might plummet to the depth of the ocean. Malaysia Today is the instrument of the third force as you claim so cater to the third force. Stop this nonsensical bashing and continue to direct people to the right path. I feel that Malaysia Today has entered another stage of in its struggle for freedom. I'm pretty much aware that most of the people that visit have realized the Injustice that they are living in yet we are still confused on what to do. Yes, we know the system is corrupt, so what do we do? Do we just quit our jobs and protest everyday on the street or just keep on and increasing our political bashing on the net. Therefore I hope you could focus your efforts on the next step, which is showing the people what to do next. written by Almassy, October 07, 2011 05:39:22
MY RESPONSE: The fight for reforms or change is not a 'single-focus' job. It is 'multi-prong' job. We have to do, as what in the IT world they would say, multitasking. So we do not talk about just one issue. We take about many issues because there are so many things that ail Malaysia. We continue to reveal the transgressions of those in the corridors of power -- although due to the 'selective prosecution' policy that is being practiced in Malaysia (where those close to the powers-that-be are 'immune' from the long arm of the law) very little is going to come out of this effort other than merely 'educating' the Malaysian public so that at least they get to know their government better. To you, getting to the bottom of the hudud matter may be nonsense. As you said: 'Bear in mind I believe the majority of Malaysia Today readers are reasonably educated and have broader mindset….' I suppose this also means you. However, judging by the quality of the comments that you read in Malaysia Today, does this give you the impression that 'the majority of Malaysia Today readers are reasonably educated and have broader mindset'? The impression I get is that the reverse is true. Anyway, we should not just focus on the comments to form our opinion. Can 100 readers who comment give you a good yardstick when more than a million others who read Malaysia Today do so quietly without commenting? What about the private e-mails and phone calls I receive from readers who express their opinion and their opinion is they are not sure yet whether they are going to vote for Pakatan Rakyat come the next election? So we need to respond to what people say. This is because other people may get influenced by what is being said. For example, some are of the view that if hudud is implemented, pork, gambling, liquor, etc., will be banned. So we have to counter that. Some are of the view that if they vote Pakatan Rakyat then for sure hudud is going to be implemented. Again, we have to counter that. So we need to constantly rebut and reply to negative comments because, if we don't, then people might believe these comments to be true and Pakatan Rakyat is going to suffer a serious erosion of support come the next election. We are not talking religion here. We are talking about politics and reforms. But when religion is being dragged into politics, then we have no choice but to face it head on and address the issue. And that is what I am doing: engaging the religionists who want to treat this matter as if it were a religious issue when in fact it is a political issue. ****************************************** Pete, You are learned man and I sense that as you are getting old and perhaps been 'exile' for such a long time you are getting 'religious' in your posting. Also most of the posting are for argument. When one gets older he tends to be closer to his God or his beliefs. But Pete, MT is getting too 'religious'. Its time you go to Malaysian politics and as our election is looming you may have to use your MT to drive in some message of changes so that readers will be more updated about what is going on with our political parties. You have deep throat around and of course you always get the wind first. written by neilahmad, October 07, 2011 08:10:55
MY RESPONSE: I think I have covered most of the points in your comment in my response above. I just want to add one more point. Malaysia Today is not getting more religious. Religion is being used more now than before to gain political mileage. And this hudud issue has set the opposition back a wee bit and has given Umno a slight upper hand (which can escalate if we are not careful). So we avoid addressing this matter at our own peril. ****************************************** RPK, I would like to say that even you are not in the position to comment about Hudud unless you know more than the others. Why not we let people know what hudud is all about. Its not merely chopping off people hands... written by monty, October 07, 2011 09:29:10
MY RESPONSE: Hudud is not about religion. It is about the law and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. And people well versed in the law and the constitution ARE addressing this matter. (See here: 'Right to question hudud law' and 'At variance with the Constitution') But then the religionists (in this case the Islamists) are shouting them down and telling them that they should not talk about hudud and that only religionists should talk about it. This is where we have to 'out-shout' them. Is hudud a religious issue or a legal cum constitutional issue? I say it is a legal/constitutional issue and it not only affects the constitution but democracy as well (if the minority pushes it down the throat of the majority). ****************************************** RPK, I think you should stop wasting time in changing or bashing the Malay Muslim. They are not going to change since they are brought up in such narrow minded. Don't talk about ordinary people even the educated Malays also sometimes act very funny when comes to religion. You should continue write about Islam because I believe more non-Muslim are starting to understand the beautiful of Islam and how open is Islam is. written by DR Politics, October 07, 2011 09:35:13
MY RESPONSE: Ah, this is my favourite topic. The non-Malays and non-Muslims lament that the 'noisy minority' is screaming their heads off while the 'silent majority' is keeping quiet. "Where is the silent majority Malays-Muslims?" they ask. "Why are they keeping quiet? They should speak up!" Well, I am one of those in the 'silent majority' that you are talking about -- only that I am not silent but I speak up. Do you want me to keep quiet and just let the noisy minority go on screaming? I can, if you wish. At least the Malays would not become so angry with me, like now. ****************************************** Most of the Malays can't even understand Arab language, what more to say understanding Hudud? They are depended to Ustaz, Imam and etc. Ask that particular Malay, does he fully understand Islamic law or the Quran? written by Meh, October 07, 2011 10:49:02
MY RESPONSE: There is nothing complicated here. Hudud laws, as the name implies, are about the law. The question is: which laws do we want for Malaysia? My answer is: parliament makes the laws. That is why we call them lawmakers. So, can we let parliament do its job? Now, if you are not happy with parliament, then vote the parliamentarians out of office. Install a new parliament. Just hope that the new parliament is better than the old parliament. And that is our job as voters. ****************************************** Conclusion : All Muslims are taught to think that way, but some like Azmi dare to risk his life and question the religious teachers and the Quran. That is the argument about. If no one question Islam, then the nation will be like Somalia and the Islamic nations. Saudi and Brunei had the money and their countries are built by infidels or kafirs or using kafir's technologies. What is there to be proud of? And for the information, today a Nobel peace prize may be awarded to a Muslim, but a woman, for questioning the Islamic authorities. Are you going to say that the Nobel committee had intended to insult Islam? In a democracy, we question all things and are free to think and follows our faith or believe in anything we want to believe. Sadly Malaysia is a false democracy - a semi theocratic and racist nation. How much longer are we going to lie to the world? written by earthman, October 07, 2011 11:09:43
MY RESPONSE: And this is the crux to the whole matter. In a democracy, we have a right to question and to express our views. However, when it comes to hudud, suddenly we have lost that right. Why is that so? Because, according to the Islamists, hudud is God's law so we cannot question it. So, are you saying that we need to suspend democracy? PAS introduced the slogan 'PAS for all'. 'All' would mean non-Muslims as well, right? Or is PAS going to change its slogan to 'PAS for all-Muslims only'? Malaysians have a right to defend their democratic right to question and to disagree. PAS should be the first to recognise this since it is accusing Barisan Nasional and Umno of being undemocratic. ****************************************** There are highly intellectual Muslims who support Hudud. Not just narrow minded ones. Why we support? We have digested in our mind that Islam is the correct religion. Then it follows the Quran is the word of God. And since the Quran says Hudud is just as wajib as solat and fasting we support Hudud. A lot of people do not even understand Islam how do we expect them to understand Hudud. The least they could do is to follow Dr Tan the Catholic Archbishop and study the Quran. Dr Tan after studying the Quran supports Hudud. But these people think they are cleverer than Dr Tan, the Catholic Archbishop. He is a well read intellectual with a PhD! I rest my case. written by johann, October 07, 2011 11:33:48
MY RESPONSE: I have already responded to this above. Hudud is about the law and the constitution, not about religion. You don't need to understand Islam to understand that. ****************************************** Generally it is true that an expert of any subject or skill is more knowledgeable than the non-expert. That is true for a Hudud expert when compared to the layman. However, in this case and the main point of Azmi Haron's contention is not about the contents of Hudud but rather 'In a democracy, EVERYTHING can be questioned'. If Hudud and its limits cannot be questioned because it is divine and God's law, then it should not be proposed for implementation in a democratic nation like Malaysia. Even if it is not democracy, normal human rights should grant permission to any human to question everything as a critical thinker. To demand that one should not question Hudud because one is not a Hudud expert is beside the point, irrelevant and a 'strawman' to the point debated in that article. As normal human beings with basic human rights, we need not be an expert on Hudud to question its effectiveness and impact on society. One need not be a professional engineer, theologian, drug scientist or gambler to raise questions when there are negative impacts arising from their activities. One can apply out-of-the-box critical thinking techniques besides employing other experts to handle the in-the-box questions. It is very easy to tackle the Hudud question. If one must insist on God-commanded-Hudud, prove God exists first. If one cannot prove God exists, then one should keep God & Hudud private for psychological/emotional reasons and not bring it into public where it can effect (in grey cases) non-believers negatively. No immutable laws carved in stone tablets for 2011 onward pls written by TMT, October 07, 2011 14:57:09
MY RESPONSE: I doubt I need to add anything more to the above. He/she took the words right out of my mouth. |
| So, teach me the 'jalan yang betul' then! Posted: 06 Oct 2011 03:31 AM PDT
Next, he or she assumes that the writer of the article, in this case Azmi Sharom, is not knowledgeable about the subject matter that he wrote about. And he or she made this assumption merely because the writer of the article, in this case Azmi Sharom, has a different view. Therefore, if you have a different view, then this means you are not knowledgeable about the subject. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Saudara azmi anda kena jelas betul2. Anda Muslim Dan org yg berpelajaran tinggi Dan ramai pengikut....jgn samapi kita bawa mereka ke Jln yg sesat.....sy tk kata u sesat....tp rujuklah dulu pd mereka yg lebih mahir dlm bab Hudud. Yg u baca bukan maknanya u faham...u faham cara u...maybe betul maybe tak betul!!!! Innalillah...... ******************************** The above comment was posted by Eshmaelajenoor in the news item 'Right to question hudud law' by Azmi Sharom, originally published in The Star. |
| Posted: 05 Oct 2011 07:38 PM PDT
I believe we are moving towards better system like UK. We are in the move to balance up two-party system. But first, we have to win the election and PR to enforce MCLM as third force and act as referee for two-party system. Since both parties are not as mature as UK, they might use dirty tricks to kill each other. MCLM will be used to monitor both parties come clean and fair (written by jacko2012, October 06, 2011 13:44:29). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
I want to write just a short piece today. I am busy with my studies so that means I can afford little time with cheong hei articles. (Someone asked me what cheong hei means. It means long-winded). The comment above by jacko2012 is just one example of many such comments (and I mean MANY). I thought I would pick that one up (not that that one is special or above the rest) to demonstrate what many -- and I mean MANY -- readers like to comment. It is always: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. But that is just it. We are looking at the chicken and the egg syndrome. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? While you may argue: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. I would like to argue: we must first do all that BEFORE we have any chance of seeing the government change. For example, I am saying that we need electoral reforms. You then say: forget it. This will not happen under Barisan Nasional. Wait till we change the government. Then we can talk about electoral reforms. But then that is just it. Without electoral reforms we shall have no chance in hell of changing the government. Barisan Nasional, which has been in power for almost 54 years (earlier as the Alliance Party), will continue to be in power for another 54 years. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do we push for electoral reforms NOW or wait until after Barisan Nasional is kicked out and Pakatan Rakyat comes into power? Can Pakatan Rakyat win the election without electoral reforms? If we can change the government without electoral reforms, then why do we need to embark upon electoral reforms after successfully changing the government? Do you get my point? And the same applies for all the other issues as well. We can't wait until Barisan Nasional is kicked out before talking about it because ONE of the criteria to see a change in government is to talk about this NOW. For example, how many voters (who are not happy about Hudud) are prepared to vote for PAS first, and then later, after Pakatan Rakyat becomes the federal government, we will argue and fight about Hudud? They will want the Hudud matter resolved BEFORE they decide whether to vote for PAS or not. So you might say: yes, I agree. That is what we must do. That is not what we are currently seeing in Malaysia. But first we need to change the government. First we need to kick out Barisan Nasional. First we need to vote Pakatan Rakyat into government. And then we can talk about all that. However, one million other voters will say 'no way!' and will either vote for Barisan Nasional or will boycott the election and not come out to vote at all. And this applies not only to the Hudud issue but to many other issues as well. So don't be shiok sendiri. Just because you place ABU (anything but Umno/asal bukan Umno) above all else, and are prepared to 'talk only after PR comes to power', does not mean that 10 million other voters also share your view. They would rather tread carefully. And if they are not sure, they would rather not vote for you. So that is my very short article for today. And yes, I know, 80% of the comments will be about whether it is the chicken first or the egg first while they ignore the more important message in my article. I have grown accustomed to readers who argue about the colour of the rope rather than whether so-and-so committed suicide by hanging or was murdered. |
| What we are not and why we can never be Posted: 05 Oct 2011 04:47 AM PDT
Yes, so why bother? If we know that it is futile, we might as well save all our time, energy and money and just let Barisan Nasional walk in uncontested. Well, in that case, do we even need to hold any elections? Maybe we should consider the Saudi Arabian model instead then. At least there is no cheating and bribing of voters there since there are no voters and no elections. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Come now, RPK, you do know that in Malaysia appointments to the Cabinet are a bit more complicated, what with the PM having to satisfy the demands of the 14 parties that make up the BN. No one likes to have 3 football teams in the Cabinet, but that is the political reality in Malaysia. The urgency for Pakatan to have a Shadow Cabinet is not there, as compared to the UK. This is because, in the UK, the Opposition Leader is recognised as a legal position, and he/she must be invited to all official functions, especially functions involving the Queen, and the Palace. Otherwise, the British PM has to answer to the Queen. Indeed, the Opposition Leader in the UK has to be provided with a staff of his own, and that is the law. There are legal provisions, traditions, and conventions, that the Opposition Leader is given equal respect and recognition, equivalent to the PM. The Opposition Leader is sometimes just as powerful as the PM, as his position is ruled by law. In the UK, the Opposition Leader is an integral part of the tradition and process, when the opening of Parliament is performed. When the Opposition Leader writes to any Govt. Dept., it must be, by law treated as an important correspondence that requires the absolute truth be revealed. Etc, etc, etc. In the UK, Opposition Leaders are knighted by the Queen, and honoured with MBE's, CBE's and the likes, and are even appointed to the House of Lords. Please watch the PM's Question Time in Parliament, every Wednesday. Do you think that it's ever possible to have that in Malaysia? Will Najib ever will want to face Anwar Ibrahim in Parliament, the way the way the PM and the Opposition Leader do in the UK? After all, we do practice the Westminster Model in Malaysia too, don't we? I think not. What do you think RPK? In Malaysia however, the Opposition and the Leader is a non-entity, is given no respect, no recognition, not invited to ANY functions, and he can even be framed up with sodomy. Surely you know these things, RPK, seeing that you are a British Citizen now. The political reality and situation in the UK is completely different from Malaysia. Please say it as it is, Sir. ******************************* The above was what Ernest commented in my article called 'The point we are making'. I decided to pick it up and reply to it because it is both a good as well as negative comment. It is good because what Ernest said is a fact when it comes to the Malaysian situation. It is negative because he (I assume Ernest is a he) is focusing on what we are not and is accepting that without challenge rather than choose to discuss and explore that: since this is what we are not, and since this is what we should be, how we do strive towards having a mature parliament just like in Britain? The post of Opposition Leader in Parliament is an official post, one that allows for an office in Parliament House together with staff and whatnot. This means the taxpayers are paying for this job of Opposition Leader plus what other costs involved in maintaining this position. In other words, Parliament recognises the post of Opposition Leader although, as Ernest says, the government may not quite give it the respect due to it. Okay, Ernest has already told us what we are not. He has also, in his own way (probably inevitably), told us what it should be when he explained how it is in the UK and how in Malaysia this is not followed. Now, what do we do to make sure that what we see in the UK we also see in Malaysia? I take it that Ernest is trying to tell us that the UK example is a good example. And he is also telling us that the Malaysian example is a bad example. I assume this is what he is saying. So, the next logically step would be to ask ourselves how we can make Malaysia (which is the bad example) follow the UK (which is the good example). Rather than lament that Malaysia is no good and in Malaysia this is not being done and Malaysians are not mature enough, and conclude that, therefore let us just forget about the whole matter, is not only a negative approach but a defeatist attitude as well. I am now 61. Say the doctor diagnoses me with cancer and I tell him I am going to die one day anyway so why bother to try to cure me? That is a negative stand and a defeatist attitude. I might as well tell him that God has already decided when and how I will die before I was born. So no doctor can help me live another ten years if it has been decided that I am to die within two years. Old age will catch up on me anyway and never mind how healthy I may be, even without cancer I am going to die of old age. So let's just sit back and count the days till I die. In that same spirit, Malaysian politicians are not mature. They don't respect the opposition and opposition leaders. Malaysia is not as advanced as Britain. So let us forget about trying to reform or change the system and accept this very primitive system and narrow-minded attitude as the Malaysian way and learn how to live with it. I suppose, in that same spirit, we can say that Malaysian elections are never fair. They will cheat and bribe the voters and Barisan Nasional is still going to win, never mind how much effort we put into trying to win the elections. So why bother? Yes, so why bother? If we know that it is futile, we might as well save all our time, energy and money and just let Barisan Nasional walk in uncontested. Well, in that case, do we even need to hold any elections? Maybe we should consider the Saudi Arabian model instead then. At least there is no cheating and bribing of voters there since there are no voters and no elections. End of problem! |
| Posted: 03 Oct 2011 08:12 PM PDT
Let us imagine that the debate between Gan Ping Sieu of MCA and Lim Guan Eng of DAP is held. Let us also imagine that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) helped organise this debate and that both leaders accepted the invitation to the debate. Let us then imagine what transpires in this debate. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
MCA vice president challenges Guan Eng to hudud debate (The Star) -- MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu has issued a challenge to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to a public debate on hudud. He told reporters in Parliament lobby Tuesday that the debate would be on how DAP was going to stop PAS from implementing hudud law in the country. Gan said the debate was necessary because during campaigning at various by-elections, DAP had been portraying PAS as a moderate, liberal and professional party. However, he said PAS' recent statement on implementing hudud law showed that it was "ignoring DAP", its partner in Pakatan Rakyat. "I wanted to hand him an official letter on my challenge to him on Monday and today. But he was not around in Parliament. So, I will send my letter via registered mail," he said. Gan said for courtesy sake, he would let Guan Eng choose the venue, time and mediator for the debate. ***************************** Gan Ping Sieu: DAP says that PAS is a moderate, liberal and professional party. However, as the evidence shows, PAS just goes and does what it wants. It does not care about DAP. DAP can say one thing but PAS goes and does the opposite. This shows that PAS does not respect DAP. In fact, it shows that PAS does not respect the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, as well. Even the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, does not respect DAP when he said that, in principle, he agrees with PAS, in that the Islamic laws of Hudud should be implemented, although he admitted that this is his personal view and not the consensus of Pakatan Rakyat. DAP has certainly lost face. PAS and Anwar are sending a message to DAP that it is not relevant and that its views are not important. The message that they are sending to DAP is that DAP can take it or leave it. And if DAP is not happy about this matter, then it can leave Pakatan Rakyat, just like it did once before when the same controversy erupted during the time of Barisan Alternatif. Pakatan Rakyat talks about consensus. DAP talks about consensus. What consensus? When PAS announced that it is still committed to its aspiration of implementing Hudud, was that based on consensus or based on just what PAS wants? If PAS implements Hudud, how will the Chinese in Malaysia fare? Will the rights of the Chinese be protected? Will prostitution, nightclubs, karaoke joints, pork, gambling and liquor be banned? Will the wishes of the Chinese no longer matter? DAP is selling out the Chinese just because it seeks power. DAP will do anything just to get into power, even sell out the Chinese. DAP is a traitor to the Chinese community. DAP talks about defending the rights of the Chinese and yet it works with PAS, which is a party that is dangerous to the Chinese. Maybe Guan Eng can explain what is going to happen to the Chinese community if Hudud is implemented in Malaysia. And if Guan Eng says that Hudud will never be implemented, then maybe he can explain how DAP can prevent that from happening since PAS has not relented in its mission to implement Hudud and still treats this as the priority of the party.
Lim Guan Eng: First of all, MCA must note that while Pakatan Rakyat does things on the basis of consensus, this does not mean we deny each party the right to express its views. Unlike in Barisan Nasional, where no party can make any statement that Umno will not allow and whatever they say is just echoing whatever Umno says, in Pakatan Rakyat we do not stifle the freedom of anyone to express their opinion. That is why PAS is allowed to say what it wants to say, even if the rest of the parties in Pakatan Rakyat may not share this view. Democracy is not about allowing you to say something that I agree with. That is not democracy. Democracy is about allowing you to say something that I disagree with. No doubt DAP does not agree with Hudud. PAS, however, supports Hudud. So we allow PAS to talk about Hudud and to state its aspirations regarding Hudud. If we stop PAS from saying all this, then DAP would be violating the principles of democracy. You cannot view this as PAS not respecting DAP by saying something that DAP does not agree with. You have to view it as DAP respecting the right of PAS to say something that DAP does not agree with. To agree is easy. Anyone can do that. But to agree to disagree is the hard thing to do. And that is what Pakatan Rakyat is able to do and which Barisan Nasional is not able to. I know this is a very difficult concept for MCA to understand because this is not practiced in Barisan Nasional. In Barisan Nasional, MCA can't say something that Umno is opposed to. MCA can only say something that Umno likes to hear. If MCA says something that Umno is unhappy with, then there will be screams for MCA to get out of Barisan Nasional or that MCA should be sacked from Barisan Nasional or that the Chinese should go back to China and so on. This is not how we do things in Pakatan Rakyat. This talk about Chinese rights is outdated. In Pakatan Rakyat, we do not talk about Chinese rights or Indian rights or Malay rights like you do in Barisan Nasional. In Pakatan Rakyat, we talk about the rights of all Malaysians irrespective or ethnicity. Even when we talk about Hudud we talk about how it will be accepted by all Malaysians and not how it is accepted or reject by any one ethnicity. What MCA does not seem to understand is that Islamic Sharia laws have been around since before Merdeka. This law used to be the secondary laws in Malaysia and only touches on Islamic matters, and even then only in cases where the common laws do not address, in particular matters concerning marriage, divorce, death, inheritance, and so on. It does not cover crimes, traffic offenses, and whatnot. For that we have the common laws, which override the Sharia laws. In the past, the common law courts took precedence over the Sharia courts. However, Barisan Nasional, which MCA is a member of, changed this when it made the Sharia courts at par with the common law courts. This confusion was something that Barisan Nasional created and MCA is part of Barisan Nasional. Why did MCA support this move to upgrade the status of the Sharia courts and now we have ambiguity between which court has more power to decide on matters concerning the Sharia? Can you see that Barisan Nasional, meaning also MCA, is the culprit that started all this confusion? Now you blame us for what you did. The Sharia laws of Hudud are very specific. It covers only certain violent and serious crimes like robbery, murder, rebellion, apostasy, consuming of intoxicating substances, illicit sex, and slander. Now, we already have laws governing robbery, murder and rebellion. So these laws will take precedence over Hudud. In fact, the common law punishment for rebellion is even worse. Can you remember we hanged the Al Maunah people who were charged for rebellion a few years ago? Under Hudud, they would not have been hanged. They would have been given a chance to repent and if they repented then they would be pardoned and allowed back into society. But instead we hanged them for rebellion. Under Hudud, even Chin Peng would have been allowed home since he has already signed a peace treaty with Malaysia back in 1989. Would not Hudud have been better in cases such as these? On the consumption of intoxicating substances, we already have laws for that as well. If you were to be arrested with drugs above a certain limit, even if you do not consume it but only possessed it, you would be hanged. Under Hudud, possession is not a crime. Only consumption is. And you would not be hanged. However, with or without Hudud, intoxication and illicit sex are already crimes under the Sharia. Muslims would be punished for this, even now. Non-Muslims are not covered under these laws just like they would not be under Hudud as well. We must remember, pork, liquor, gambling, illicit sex, and any activities that Islam considers immoral, are only forbidden for Muslims. Non-Muslims can continue being as immoral as they would like to be. Chua Soi Lek admitted publicly that he was the man in the porn video. Since he is not a Muslim, nothing happened to him. If he is a Muslim, then he would have been brought before the Sharia court since he had confessed to being the man in the video. According to the Constitution, Islam is the religion of the Federation. According to the Constitution, the Rulers are the head of Islam. According to the Constitution, each state has power over Islam, and this means Islamic Sharia laws as well. So it is up to the states how it would like Islam to be implemented. If MCA finds this unacceptable, and since MCA is part of the government, then MCA can always get Parliament to amend the Constitution to rectify this. Why does MCA not do this? Why keep quiet? DAP and PAS are not part of the government. MCA and Umno are. So go amend the Constitution to remove the powers of the states as well as the Rulers and bring Islam under the federal government. MCA and Umno have the power to do this. Why is this not being done? Then, once this is done, PAS can no longer talk about Hudud because Islam will no longer come under the states but will be under the Prime Minister and Parliament. Anyway, PAS normally contests only one-third the seats in Parliament and it never wins all the seats it contests. It is, therefore, impossible for PAS to amend the Constitution that will allow Hudud to be implemented. PAS will need Umno and the other Muslim MPS from Pakatan Rakyat to combine their votes to get a majority in Parliament. And we all know this will never happen. So what is the issue here? Is this a real issue or a red herring? MCA is just trying to distract the people from the fact that it is irrelevant and is going to get wiped out in the coming general election. MCA is trying to treat this Hudud issue as its 'talian hayat'. Let's see whether the voters buy this ploy. |
| Posted: 03 Oct 2011 05:56 PM PDT
Who says I am always cheong hei? Sometimes, when a picture is worth a thousand words, I can be very brief. Anyway, maybe the five photos below can tell the story that I want to tell today. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dato Onn Jaafar, the founder of UMNO, visiting the rakyat in the kampong
What it costs today
David Cameron, the then British Opposition Leader and now the Prime Minister, going to office
David Cameron, the then British Opposition Leader and now the Prime Minister, going to Parliament
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London |
| Posted: 03 Oct 2011 04:53 PM PDT
Lim Guan Eng has apologised to H.H. the Sultan of Johor for what he was alleged to have said, which apparently upset (murka) His Highness. Kompas too has apologised to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak regarding the Russian Mafia link story. Now it is my turn to apologise to 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
US$24m ring returned after 'a few days', minister tells Parliament (The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told Parliament today no payment had been made on a US$24 million (RM77 million) ring linked to the prime minister's wife. In a written reply to Lim Lip Eng (DAP-Segambut), the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department said the Royal Malaysian Customs confirmed that the ring was "returned" after "a few days" to the company that owns it. Datuk Seri Najib Razak denied on August 21 that his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor bought the diamond ring or that his Kazakhstan in-laws are linked to the "Russian mafia" as reported by Indonesia's top-selling daily, Kompas. Kompas has since apologised to the prime minister for its August 4 report but the mystery remains as to why the ring from New York jeweller Jacob & Co. was addressed to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, according to pictures widely circulated on the Internet. Questions had arisen as to whether Rosmah's name had been used without her knowledge by criminal elements as part of their illegal activities. To date, the government has yet to identify who brought the ring into Malaysia. Jacob & Co. founder Jacob Arabo, whose custom diamond-encrusted wristwatches and chunky jewellery once adorned Hollywood A-listers like Leonardo DiCaprio and hip-hop stars Kanye West and Jay-Z, is no stranger to such allegations. The Bukharian-American jeweller, described by the New York Times as the "Harry Winston of the hip-hop world", has twice tangled with US federal law enforcement agencies. In a column on August 4, Kompas described Rosmah's ties with soon-to-be in-law Maira Nazarbayev as close although it provided no evidence to support its claims and added, "Maira Nazarbayev, who lives a lifestyle a la Imelda Marcos, supposedly has links to the Russian mafia". Maira is the former wife of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev's brother, Bolat Nazarbayev. Nooryana Najwa, the 22-year-old daughter of Rosmah and Najib, was recently betrothed to Maira's son, Daniyar, who was her college sweetheart. Rosmah has faced repeated allegations that she has a penchant for a lavish lifestyle ever since it became apparent that Najib would succeed Tun Abdullah Badawi as prime minister. ************************************** The Umno Bloggers and Cyber-troopers allege that I do not have the gumption to say sorry whenever I am wrong. That is not true. When I am wrong I will say sorry. And it appears like I was wrong with regards to the story regarding Rosmah Mansor's RM77 million diamond ring. Lim Guan Eng has apologised to H.H. the Sultan of Johor for what he was alleged to have said, which apparently upset (murka) His Highness. Kompas too has apologised to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak regarding the Russian Mafia link story. Now it is my turn to apologise to 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor. I can see that I was wrong when I said that Rosmah bought that RM77 million ring. So, for that, I must apologise. It is now clear that it was not Rosmah who bought that ring. I don't know who actually bought it. But to accuse Rosmah of buying it when it was not she who bought it was wrong. And I was also wrong to say that Rosmah imported that ring into Malaysia. Rosmah did not import it. Someone sent it to her. Of course, we can only suspect who that was. However, since we do not have any evidence that it was this particular person it would be wrong for me to mention his name. I mean, just because I suspect that it may have been a certain young Malaysian tycoon of Chinese ethnicity who has received a lot of favours from the government does not make this a fact. It remains merely that, a suspicion. And if I mention his name and I am proven wrong later, then again I may have to apologise. So let that name remain unnamed. Anyway, the ring has since been returned to sender. So that ends the matter once and for all. Maybe we can now allow this matter to rest. Z54-QHEZN6E SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54-QHEZN6E |
| Posted: 02 Oct 2011 08:19 PM PDT
The doubters (or atheists) are also trying to be smarty-pants. They argue using logic. Hey, religion is about faith, not about logic. That is why we call it faith. Faith is the word that explains the absence of evidence. Logic requires evidence. Faith does not. So when you use logic to argue with those who argue with faith, it is like a duck and a chicken trying to communicate. Can you see how futile that is? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
While we are seriously trying to resolve the differences amongst the opposition parties, in particular with regards to the issue of Hudud -- which is threatening to break up the opposition coalition like it once did about a decade ago -- we have some smarty-pants trying to impress us on their knowledge of the existence of God (or nonexistence, depending on your point of view) and on what God in His heart wants from us. Can I make one thing very clear? We are NOT discussing theology. We are discussing politics. We are not debating whether God does, or does not, exist -- and if He does, what He wants from us. We are discussing how to kick out Barisan Nasional and replace it with a better government (and hopefully it WILL be a better government) and not whether God will be happy or angry with us if we do or do not do what some people tell us He wants done. Aiya! How some people do go off tangent and talk about the price of beef when we are discussing how to fish with better results. What irritates me most - especially when we are trying to discuss how to win the election -- is theists challenging doubters to prove that God does not exist. Okay, so God exists. Will that help us win the next election? God existed even back in 1955 but still Umno and its cohorts won every election since then. Anyway, if you are trying to 'sell' your ideology to the doubters, then you shouldn't be challenging doubters to prove that you are wrong. You should instead prove that you are right. Let me put it another way. You are trying to sell your car and you are saying that your car is better than the other brands. Should it not be you, then, who proves that your car is better? How can you ask the customer to prove that your car is not better than the other brands? You are doing the selling. So you should do the proving. If you fail to do that then the customer will just walk away and buy the other brand, which in his/her mind is better. The doubters (or atheists) are also trying to be smarty-pants. They argue using logic. Hey, religion is about faith, not about logic. That is why we call it faith. Faith is the word that explains the absence of evidence. Logic requires evidence. Faith does not. So when you use logic to argue with those who argue with faith, it is like a duck and a chicken trying to communicate. Can you see how futile that is? Anyhow, do you think logic always works? You may think it does but in reality it does not. Let me give you some examples. Ducks swim. You swim. So, logically speaking, you are a duck. 1% of traffic accident fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. That means 99% of the fatalities are caused by drivers who do not drink. Logically speaking, if we ban people who do not drink from driving, many lives would be saved. Okay, what about this one? Vodka and ice will ruin your kidneys. Rum and ice will ruin your liver. Whiskey and ice will ruin your heart. Gin and ice will ruin your brain. Martini and ice softens your desire. Pepsi and ice will ruin your teeth. What is the common denominator here? That's right, ice. So, logically speaking, all you need to do it to lay off the ice and you are safe. So, to those smarty-pants who try to win an argument with theists using what they perceive as logic, let me assure you that that is not a logical thing to do. Logic is sometimes illogical. Okay, back to the issue of the day: how to win the elections. We win elections by getting the people to vote for us. And to get the people to vote for us we need to make them happy with us. And to get them to be happy with us we need to say the right things and make all sorts of promises. So that should be the focus. We need to talk sweetly to them. We need to promise them the moon and the stars. And we also need to prepare ourselves with convincing excuses as to why we can't keep those promises in preparation for when we win the election and we can't deliver our promises. If not then the voters will kick us out again come the next election. So that should be what we do. Arguing about whether there is a God or not and what it is that God wants from us will not bring in the votes. And without the votes we will not be in power. And this is what politics is all about, power. So let's get back on track and focus on what we should do. |
| 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 | |
