Sabtu, 24 Disember 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Change in government, not change of government (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 18 Dec 2011 10:52 AM PST

Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Three days ago I completed my Oxford course, Philosophy of Religion. I will know in two weeks or so whether I passed or not. On 1 February 2012, my new course, Age of Revolution, will commence. This course is about the transformation and reformation (meaning: revolutions) in Europe from the period of the French Revolution to the First World War.

I have two textbooks to read, which I am already halfway through, and even before I start the course I can already see many parallels with what happened more than 200 years ago with what is happening today.

The article below, Talk to us, not talk at us, by Thomas L Friedman, which was published in the New Straits Times, makes interesting reading. This article also summarises some of what I have read thus far.

Basically, (pre-empting what my course is going to reveal), many of these revolutions are bottom-up rather than top-down events. Another 1,000-page book I read a couple of months ago about the French and Russian Revolutions appear to reveal the same thing.

Furthermore, it revealed that revolutions are started by the masses and not by political leaders (and succeeds only when critical mass is reached) but are eventually hijacked by politicians. For example, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, etc., did not mastermind the revolution. They grabbed power once the revolution started. In fact, some of the so-called leaders were actually in exile outside Russia and came home to take over once the revolution succeeded in ousting the government (remember Khomeini as well?).

Another point would be about the transformation or reformation itself. What the people seek is change. And the route they chose is to change the government. But in the end they did not actually see change. Hence the title of my article today: Change in government, not change of government.

And that is what we should seek. We should learn from more than 200 years of history. And the lesson is: we may see a change of government but that does not mean we are going to see a change in government. This is what I normally call old wine in a new bottle.

Can we be assured that by changing the government we will see change? Can a change of government guarantee us a change in government? Can more than 200 years of history be wrong?

Well, just look at the so-called changes of recent times such as in Iran in 1979. Did the US see change with Obama at the helm? Did Britain see a change when they kicked out Labour last year?

Look at Egypt. The people took to the Tahrir Square to force a change of government. But they did not see a change in government. So now they are taking to the Tahrir Square again and the killings are continuing, barely a few months since the last revolution.

And this is the history of the French Revolution as well. We always talk about the French Revolution of 1789. But how many of you know that that is actually the First French Revolution. And that revolution was a disaster. There was more anarchy and chaos after the revolution. They needed a second revolution to address the errors that the first revolution brought. But no one talks about the Second French Revolution of 60 years later (in fact, many are not even aware of this second revolution).

I am not gungho about Pakatan Rakyat. That does not mean I am gungho about Barisan Nasional either. It is just that I am not gungho about all politicians who use the people to change governments and then grab power and perpetuate what the old government did.

Over the next few months I am going to demonstrate why we need to focus on a change in government and not a change of government. I am going to reveal the excesses and transgressions of those who are offering themselves as the saviour of the nation.

My purpose in doing this is not to frustrate a change of government. Certainly, ABU must happen. So we need a change of government for that to happen. But we must not only remove Umno (and its cohorts in Barisan Nasional). We must also ensure that the spirit of Umno is removed as well.

Why would we want a new government that perpetuates the spirit of Umno? Is this not what Britain is currently facing? And why do you think the British voters are going back to voting for Labour in the by-elections barely a year into a new government? My own area in Manchester fell back to Labour in the recent by-election.

I have evidence of some very troubling shenanigans in the states currently under Pakatan Rakyat control. And what I see is basically a continuation of the spirit of Umno. But are you, like me, also concerned about this? Or would you rather we close our eyes (and our minds) to all this and pretend that nothing is wrong?

As I said, more than 200 years of history has taught us how changing the government without focusing on a change in government can bring about disastrous results. We have more than 200 years of history (plus what is currently going on in Egypt) to learn from.

Pakatan Rakyat needs to know that we are not stupid or naïve and we know what is going on. This does not mean we will not support them and will instead support Barisan Nasional. But Pakatan Rakyat will have to earn our support and not take us for granted or assume that we are fools. This is the message we have to send to Pakatan Rakyat.

And if Pakatan Rakyat continues to be just like Barisan Nasional in the states they are running, how can we trust them as the new federal government? Will we need to do a Tahrir Square Version 2.0 later after voting them into Putrajaya?

That is what we wish to avoid. So Pakatan Rakyat has to accept the whacking. It is better we whack them now than the voters whack them at the ballot box.

I know there will be allegations of selling out, turncoat, Trojan horse and whatnot. But that is how they normally respond when we whack the opposition leaders. They regard criticising the opposition leaders as if we are insulting Prophet Muhammad. But then the opposition leaders are not Prophet Muhammad and above criticism. This, they need to learn and we shall teach them this lesson how much it may hurt.

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

Talk to us, not talk at us
By Thomas L Friedman, New Straits Times

THE historian Walter Russell Mead recently noted that after the 1990s revolution that collapsed the Soviet Union, Russians had a saying that seems particularly apt today: "It's easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than to turn fish soup into an aquarium".

Indeed, from Europe to the Middle East, and maybe soon even to Russia and Asia, a lot of aquariums are being turned into fish soup all at once. But turning them back into stable societies and communities will be one of the great challenges of our time.

We are present again at one of those great unravellings -- just like after World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold War. But this time, there was no war. All of these states have been pulled down from within -- without warning. Why?

The main driver, I believe, is the merger of globalisation and the information technology revolution. Both achieved a critical mass in the first decade of the 21st century that has resulted in the democratisation -- all at once -- of so many things that neither weak states nor weak companies can stand up against.

We've seen the democratisation of information, where everyone is now a publisher; the democratisation of war-fighting, where individuals became super-empowered (enough so, in the case of al-Qaeda, to take on a superpower); the democratisation of innovation, wherein start-ups using free open-source software and "the cloud" can challenge global companies.

And, finally, we've seen what Mark Mykleby, a retired Marine colonel and former adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls "the democratisation of expectations" -- the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted.

I've been struck by how similar the remarks by Russians about Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who just basically reappointed himself president, are to those I heard from Egyptians about Hosni Mubarak, who kept reappointing himself president.

The Egyptian writer Alaa al-Aswany said to me that Egyptians resented the idea that Mubarak would just hand power to his son Gamal as if the Egyptian people "were chickens", who could be passed by a leader to his son.

Last Sunday, a New York Times article from Moscow quoted the popular, imprisoned Russian blogger Aleksei Navalny as saying: "We are not cattle or slaves. We have voices and votes and the power to uphold them."

"The days of leading countries or companies via a one-way conversation are over," says Dov Seidman, the chief executive officer of LRN and the author of the book How.

"The old system of 'command and control' -- using carrots and sticks -- to exert power over people is fast being replaced by 'connect and collaborate' -- to generate power through people."

Leaders and managers cannot just impose their will, adds Seidman. "Now you have to have a two-way conversation that connects deeply with your citizens or customers or employees."

Netflix had a one-way conversation about raising prices with its customers, who instantly self-organised; some 800,000 bolted, and the stock plunged.

Bank of America had a one-way conversation about charging a US$5 (RM16) fee on debit cards, and its customers forced the  bank to reverse itself and apologise.

Putin thought he had power over his people and could impose whatever he wanted and is now being forced into a conversation to justify staying in power. Coca-Cola repackaged its flagship soft drink in white cans for the holidays. But an outcry of "blasphemy" from consumers forced Coke to switch back from white cans to red cans in a week. Last year, Gap ditched its new logo after a week of online backlash by customers.

A lot of CEOs will tell you that this shift has taken them by surprise, and they are finding it hard to adjust to the new power relationships with customers and employees.

"As power shifts to individuals," argues Seidman, "leadership itself must shift with it -- from coercive or motivational leadership that uses sticks or carrots to extract performance and allegiance out of people to inspirational leadership that inspires commitment and innovation and hope in people".

The role of the leader now is to get the best of what is coming up from below and then meld it with a vision from above. Are you listening, Mr Putin?

This kind of leadership is especially critical today, adds Seidman, "when people are creating a lot of 'freedom from' things -- freedom from oppression or whatever system is in their way -- but have not yet scaled the values and built the institutional frameworks that enable 'freedom to' -- freedom to build a career, a business or a meaningful life."

One can see this vividly in Egypt, where the bottom-up democracy movement was strong enough to oust Mubarak but now faces the long, arduous process of building new institutions and writing a new social contract from a democracy coalition that encompass Muslim Brothers, Christian liberals, Muslim liberals, the army and ultraconservative Muslim Salafis.

Getting all those fish back and swimming together in one aquarium will be no small task -- one that will take a courageous and special leader. Help wanted.
 

Updated with Chinese Translation at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_21.html

 

Between friends, comrades and acquaintances (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 14 Dec 2011 12:18 PM PST

Opposition supporters demonstrate a very low level of maturity. They allow their thinking to be clouded by emotions. We need to be pragmatic. Support the cause by all means. The cause is what matters. But leaders are dispensable. Leaders come and go. The cause remains.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Back in the days when I used to do business (that would be pre-1995) I had a 'guiding light'. I do not do business with people I socialise with and I do not socialise with people I do business with. I keep my friends and my business acquaintances separate.

I did, however, break that rule a number of times. I did business with some friends and each time I got screwed big time. I lost quite a bit of money and that was when I got so disgusted I decided to call it quits in 1995 and thereafter focused fulltime on my real passion, writing. Well, only friends can screw you because only friends are able to exploit your trust.

I suppose the saying 'the surest way to lose a friend is to lend him money' holds true here. That is why whenever a friend wants to borrow money I just give him a portion of what he asks for and tell him that it is a gift, not a loan. And then I just write off the amount. Better that than you never get the money back and lose a friend in the process.

The same goes for political comrades. I separate the 'rakan seperjuangan' (comrades of the same struggle) from friends. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. For example, Haris Ibrahim, the President of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) is both a comrade and a friend (plus my lawyer as well). But (Sam) Haris, as I said, is the exception.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is my friend. But he is not my rakan seperjuangan though. Dr Mahathir's struggle is to ensure that Umno stays in power while mine is ABU (Anything But Umno).

I know, at this point some of you are going to start foaming at the mouth and scream: how can I regard Dr Mahathir as a friend after what he did to Malaysia? Well, as I said, we differ on ideology but that does not mean I can't take him as a friend, and vice versa.

When I was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in September 2008, Dr Mahathir made a public statement condemning my detention. He was most upset that the government detained me, whom Dr Mahathir said, is just a Blogger and not a threat to national security.

When the court released me in November 2008, Dr Mahathir phoned me. He wanted to know how I was and, understandably, I was pleased that the ex-Prime Minister took the trouble to phone me on the day of my release.

No one else phoned me, not one of the opposition leaders, not even Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Ronnie Liu and Saari Sungib did come to see me though). They could not be bothered about me although I was detained because I was doing the work of the opposition. Dr Mahathir, however, phoned me to ask how I was. Under those circumstances how can I not regard Dr Mahathir as a friend?

Another person who spoke up for me when I was detained was Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. In fact, Zaid not only spoke up for me but he even resigned from his post as Minister in protest of my detention. Name me one Barisan Nasional minister who would resign from his/her post out of protest for detaining his/her friend. Most would rather distant themselves from their friend to ensure their political survival. Zaid, instead, sacrificed his political career for a friend.

Again, just like many can't understand why I regard Dr Mahathir as a friend, they also can't understand why I support Zaid, whom they regard as a traitor to the opposition cause. Nevertheless, while I regard Zaid as my friend, I refused to join his political party (which hurt his feelings, I know).

When I had to leave the country to avoid a third detention under the ISA, Zaid flew to Manchester to meet me. He even took me to a football match at the Old Trafford (Manchester United versus Sunderland). When I flew to Bangkok in January this year, Zaid came over to meet me and to buy me dinner. Last week, he, again, flew to Bangkok to meet up with me and to spend some time with me.

The other friends who went to Manchester (three times over three years) to meet me were Tan Sri Sanusi Junid and Mat Sabu of PAS. Mat Sabu even slept in my house and his purpose for going to Manchester was for no other reason other than to meet me and to spend time with me.

Sanusi Junid even phoned me on Hari Raya day to wish me 'Selamat Hari Hari'. I am not a rakan seperjuang of Sanusi. Just like Dr Mahathir, Sanusi's perjuangan is Umno and mine is ABU. But he calls me on Hari Raya day to wish me 'Selamat Hari Raya' while none of the opposition leaders would do that (or even members of the Selangor Royal Family).

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and quite a number of Umno leaders are my friends. Many Umno Bloggers are my friends. A few of the MCA, Gerakan and PPP leaders are also my friends. All these people meet me when they are in the UK and also phone me from time to time.

Okay, I have talked about Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz and all those others. You are probably by now wondering: what about Anwar Ibrahim? What is Anwar to me?

Well, Anwar is the Opposition Leader. So I support Anwar because I am pro-opposition and Anwar is the Opposition Leader. But he is not my friend. He is not my friend because he has not demonstrated friendship like Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz, etc., have.

But that is all Anwar is to me, my rakan seperjuangan, nothing more. And don't expect me to demonstrate loyalty to Anwar as a friend would because he has not shown me that he is my friend like Dr Mahathir, Zaid, Sanusi, Mat Sabu, Nazri Aziz, etc., have.

Some say I am too critical towards Anwar. Actually, I have been holding back. You have not seen how critical I can be if I really wanted to. I do not want to go all out to criticise Anwar because too many people will take this criticism as a sell out or an act treacherous to the opposition cause.

The trouble is: people expect me to suck Anwar's dick to prove my loyalty to the opposition cause. Why must the opposition cause be tied to Anwar? The opposition cause is the opposition cause and Anwar is Anwar. They are two different issues and should not be packaged as one issue.

This, many can't seem to understand. They think that since you support the opposition then you must also support Anwar. I support PAS as well. Does that mean I must also support Hasan Ali? Can't I oppose Hasan Ali while supporting PAS?

Opposition supporters demonstrate a very low level of maturity. They allow their thinking to be clouded by emotions. We need to be pragmatic. Support the cause by all means. The cause is what matters. But leaders are dispensable. Leaders come and go. The cause remains.

The million-dollar question is: is Anwar the only Malaysian out of 28 million Malaysians who can lead the opposition? I think not. You mean out of 28 million Malaysians we can't find a replacement to Anwar? How come Anwar has been made so indispensable?

Anwar is most likely going to jail. He is most likely going to jail because he may be convicted of sodomy. Never mind if Anwar is or is not guilty or whether Anwar is a victim of a political conspiracy. That no longer matters. What matters is, who is going to lead the opposition once Anwar goes to jail?

Surely we are not serious about storming the Sungai Buloh Prison to break down the walls to free Anwar from jail and make him Prime Minister, like what Azmin Ali said? That's not how Prime Minister's are appointed in a parliamentary democracy.

Let's get real. We need someone to lead the opposition. And once Anwar is sent to jail it will have to be someone new. Personally, if you ask me, I would choose Nurul Izzah. But that is my personal opinion and my opinion may be clouded and not the best choice. Anyway, I am entitled to my personal opinion even if I may be wrong.

In closing, let me just say that I choose my own friends and no one is going to tell me who I can take as my friends. Yes, I know that many in the opposition resent the fact that I take Dr Mahathir, Sanusi, Zaid, Nazri Aziz, etc., as my friends. Well, tough! There is nothing you can do about that.
 

Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_15.html

 

Can Najib walk the talk?

Posted: 12 Dec 2011 12:26 PM PST

Some friends from the mainstream media have met up with me in Bangkok to explore the possibility of doing such an interview. But they are not sure whether their government-controlled newspapers will censor the interview. I told them I will agree to the interview only on condition, and that is it is not one-sided and censored. But they are not sure whether their editors can agree to this.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We are hearing a lot of politically correct sound-bytes coming from Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Of course, not many, not even those in Umno, believe what he is saying. They know it is all a lot of political talk, mere rhetoric. But it sure sounds good nevertheless.

I would like to throw Najib a challenge, to allow him to demonstrate his goodwill, that what he is saying is sincere and that he is genuine in what he is saying. And he can do this by giving me space in the mainstream media. After all, if he can give the hardcore Umno Bloggers space (like visits to the submarine), why can't he also give me space -- if what he is saying is true and not just political talk?

There will of course be one condition. They must not pick and choose from what I say, as what they did in my TV3 interview in February this year (which was aired only in April, close to the Sarawak state elections). They must publish the entire text of my interview.

Secondly, the interview must be in English, not in Bahasa Malaysia. This is to avoid any distortion to what I say (again, like in the TV3 interview). My Bahasa Malaysia is not as good as my English and the way I express myself in Bahasa Malaysia (that is, in the Terengganu East Coast manner) can be misinterpreted if you do not come from Terengganu.

I promise, I will be very critical of the opposition (and with the current developments in the opposition with so many opposition leaders demonstrating their warlord and godfather egos they deserve criticism). However, I shall also be critical of the government and Umno (and this is the part I want published and which should be published if what Najib is saying has any credibility).

Is Najib prepared to allow the mainstream media to do this? Let's see.

Some friends from the mainstream media have met up with me in Bangkok to explore the possibility of doing such an interview. But they are not sure whether their government-controlled newspapers will censor the interview. I told them I will agree to the interview only on condition, and that is it is not one-sided and censored. But they are not sure whether their editors can agree to this.

Some of the issues they wanted to talk about were regarding my perceived fallout with the opposition and Anwar Ibrahim. In fact, they wanted to meet me to ask me whether such a fallout actually exists and if so, why? I told them if they want the answer to that question then it would have to be asked in a formal interview and it must be published. I am not about to satisfy their curiosity by giving them a private, off the record interview.

That's all I want to say today. I am in the final week of my course and I have a lot of papers to complete so this week I have no time for cheong hei (long-winded) articles. Next week, once my course has ended, we can indulge in my normal three-page articles.

Till then I await the response from Najib's boys. Do they have the guts to engage me? If they don't then Najib's so-called openness and reforms is nothing but pure bullshit.

Till later.
 

Mixed signals

Posted: 11 Dec 2011 09:08 AM PST

So what is it that these Muslims want? Do they want Islam or do they want to get rich? Islam is demonised. Muslim leaders like Nik Aziz are demonised. They scream that leaders like Nik Aziz are not compatible to development. Maybe Nik Aziz is a good Muslim but he does not know how to make the people rich. And at the end of the day getting rich is what matters.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The first impression one gets about Islam is that Muslims like to show off. The piety of a Muslim is measured by the public demonstration he or she exudes.

A good Muslim is one who dresses the Islamic way -- a person who wears a tudung or purdah, white skullcap, Arab robe, etc. A person who goes to Mekah every year to perform the umrah or haj is a good Muslim. A person who can utter verses of the Quran or quotes from the Hadith in Arabic from memory is a good Muslim. A person who organises usrahs (religious classes) in his/her home and invites friends over to listen to sermons by renowned or famous preachers/scholars is a good Muslim. A person who not only prays five times a day in the privacy of his/her home but goes to the mosque to participate in congregational prayers is a good Muslim. A person who donates to the local orphanage is a good Muslim.

And the list goes on. It is all about what you demonstrate publicly for all and sundry to witness. And the more public demonstrations you conduct the more you will be considered a pious Muslim.

A good Muslim is also one who does not participate in un-Islamic activities. And this will include not participating in Christmas parties, New Year parties, Valentine's Day events, etc. In fact, wedding anniversaries, birthday parties, National Day celebrations, Labour Day events, etc., are also western or un-Islamic activities, although Muslims somehow do not appear to have any problems with these.

Muslims get extremely upset when Muslims leave Islam to become Christians, Hindus or Buddhists (I do not know of any Muslims who leave Islam to become Jews though). They will threaten bloodshed to those Christians, Hindus or Buddhists who proselytise to Muslims. In fact, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly forbids Christians, Hindus or Buddhists from proselytising to Muslims.

It is not that Muslims can't leave Islam to, say, become atheists. In fact, many do and we actually have a large number of Muslims who are Muslims in name only but not in spirit. It is just that you must leave Islam quietly without making a public demonstration of it.

If you want to leave Islam just don't tell anyone. Leave Islam in your heart. Don't announce it. Then Muslims would not get upset. It is, again, all about public demonstrations. Don't show you have left Islam. Pretend you are still a Muslim. Then Muslims will not get upset although they know that you are actually no longer a Muslim in your heart but are pretending to still be a Muslim.

Of course, if any Christian, Hindu or Buddhist were to convert to Islam, we have to make a big show of it. The whole world must be told. In fact, the world will be told that these people reverted, not converted, to Islam. This is because everyone is considered a Muslim before they came into this world. So, if you become a Muslim, you have reverted and not converted to Islam.

Most Muslims will say they are Muslim first and Malay second (some will also say they are Malay first and Malaysian second). Islam is the number one priority followed by all other things.

But here is where we begin to see the contradiction. And this contradiction is no slip of the tongue but the fault of the mind. It is just the mindset of the Muslims revealing itself. And what is revealed is the insincerity and hypocrisy of the Muslims. It shows the Muslims for what they really are, all talk.

Let me give you one example. I consider Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat a most sincere and devoted Muslim, someone whom I respect immensely. In fact, he is sometimes a bit too sincere for my liking, which makes him a bad politician. Nik Aziz will say what is in his heart, which may not be the politically correct thing to do (in politics you must know how to bluff, pretend, play to the gallery, and say what the people want to hear).

But do the Muslims sing Nik Aziz's praises? Nik Aziz is a perfect Muslim. So why condemn him?

Well, they condemn him because, according to these Muslims, Kelantan has not developed in the 21 years that Nik Aziz was its Menteri Besar. In fact, they shudder at the thought of Nik Aziz becoming Malaysia's Prime Minister (which is very surprising if these people are really as good a Muslim as they pretend to be since Nik Aziz is a perfect Muslim).

So, what is the priority here? Is it Islam or is it development? Do they want a perfect Muslim society or do they want a rich society?

It appears that, at the end of the day, a perfectly run state is one where we all become rich. If getting rich is more important than living in a perfect Islamic society then why worry if Muslims leave Islam? Are not the most advanced and richest societies the non-Muslim societies? In fact, Muslim societies are very backward.

So what is it that these Muslims want? Do they want Islam or do they want to get rich? Islam is demonised. Muslim leaders like Nik Aziz are demonised. They scream that leaders like Nik Aziz are not compatible to development. Maybe Nik Aziz is a good Muslim but he does not know how to make the people rich. And at the end of the day getting rich is what matters.

Muslims are sending mixed signals and it is confusing those who are not Muslims. On the one hand they scream about Islam, and about not allowing Muslims to leave Islam, and about banning rock concerts, and about persecuting and jailing gays, and whatnot. On the other hand they condemn good Muslim leaders because they are not able to make us rich.

If getting rich is what is important then all we need to do is to put aside Islam and let all hell break loose. Malaysia's neighbour, Thailand, is very successful because it does not allow religion to get in the way of business. Thailand is the number one tourist destination because Islam does not dictate what the Thais do. Come join me in Bangkok and I will show you what I mean (in the event you are still blur).

If Nik Aziz were to allow in Kota Bharu what they do just across the border in Golok, Kelantan would be the richest state in Malaysia, in spite of having no oil/gas.

I mean, what else can Kelantan offer? The location of the state puts it in a most disadvantageous situation. There is no way you can develop the state because of where it is located. But if Kota Bharu were to be turned into a twin-city of Golok, the new vice centre of Malaysia, then everyone will get rich. But of course we would have to put Islam aside for that to happen.

Umno ruled the state for 12 years from 1978 to 1990. Are you telling me that the state did any better when under Umno? Even when under Umno it still needed federal government money to develop the state. So what else is new?

It has nothing to do with Nik Aziz. Even if Najib became the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, and without federal government money, the situation would be no different.

The bottom line is, when Muslims scream about Islam it is all a public demonstration. It is just a show of piety. At the end of the day the priority is still money. And that is why these Muslims whack Nik Aziz, because it is about money and not about Islam.
 

Is Najib prepared to go all the way?

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 08:45 AM PST

How can we develop Malaysians with intellectual abilities unless we are prepared to set aside boundaries and religious dogma and allow Malaysians to think and express their thoughts with no holds barred?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Najib: Intellectual capital crucial for Malaysia's development

(Bernama) - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak underlined the importance of developing the country's intellectual capital, saying that even if the country produces one or two geniuses, the impact to the nation would be tremendous.

Speaking at the opening of an exposition organised by Permata on Saturday, Najib said intellectual prowess of individuals should be nurtured from the beginning, particularly when they were at the age of two to five.

The prime minister said the government allocated nearly 25 per cent in each budget to develop education and provide training in the effort to develop the country's human and intellectual capital.

He acknowledged however that there was a gap in this effort, saying that those in the "top most of the intellectual pyramid" -- namely those with genius tendencies averaging about one per cent or less -- had not been given sufficient attention previously.

"We have ensured that those at the bottom and middle of the pyramid are given ample opportunities but those at the peak, children who have extraordinary IQ, have not had any specific programme."

"If we don't nurture this one per cent, then our society will stand to lose these great potentials. If we can produce just several geniuses, the impact to the country will be very big indeed," he said.

He added that if these groups were left without being given any assistance, they might only be "one or two gems" emerging from them.

"However, if we have a holistic programme, such as the Permata programme, there may be hundreds if not thousands of these children will eventually emerge as gems for our country," he said.

Najib said: "We help those who are weak and those with disabilities; we also help those who are capable; let's not forget to help those with extraordinary capabilities."

Stressing a point, Najib who is Permata programme committee chairman, said there were countries with less resources like Japan and South Korea but emerged as major economic powerhouses because of their ability to develop their intellectual capital and high-performance work ethics.

"There are also countries with rich natural resources but becoming a fail state or remain backward because of their failure to develop their intellectual capital," he said.

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

The above is probably the most sensible thing Najib ever said since he became Prime Minister and I absolutely agree with what he said. The issue here is: how far is Najib prepared to go? Is he prepared to go all the way?

To be able to develop the intellectual abilities of Malaysians and to see the emergence of geniuses it would involve removing the shackles from the minds of Malaysians. Malaysians must be allowed to think and to express themselves with no holds barred. There must not be any sacred cows, whether it is religion or whatever.

As it stands now, there are too many limitations and boundaries. Malaysians are not free to think what they want to think and to express what they think. This is particularly so when it comes to matters involving Islam. Muslims are not allowed to have a free mind. They can only think and talk whatever it is that religious dogma allows.

You are not allowed thoughts of your own. Your thoughts must reflect only what is allowed. And you will be punished if you have any other thoughts and if you express these thoughts that may run contra to religious dogma.

Yes, to breed intellectual minds and to give birth to geniuses, you cannot imprison the minds of the people. Even if what they think and say is opposed to what you think, it must be allowed.

Can JAKIM, JAIS, JAWI, etc., tolerate this? They wont even allow Muslims to celebrate Valentine's Day or wear a Santa Clause hat. How do we develop the minds of Malaysians like this?

There are just too many dos and don'ts. And there are more don'ts than dos. This stifles the minds of Malaysians and curtails intellectual growth.

How can we develop Malaysians with intellectual abilities unless we are prepared to set aside boundaries and religious dogma and allow Malaysians to think and express their thoughts with no holds barred?
 

When the mouth moves faster than the brain

Posted: 09 Dec 2011 06:14 PM PST

Ibrahim Ali and those of his ilk need to come into the modern world. They have to extricate themselves from this imaginary world of Hang Tuah and Taming Sari and all that bullshit. The English do not live in the world of King Arthur and Excalibur. It is time the Malays did the same.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

ISA a weapon for Malays like Taming Sari, says Ibrahim Ali

(The Malaysian Insider) -- Datuk Ibrahim Ali has likened the Internal Security Act (ISA) to the legendary keris, Taming Sari, describing the law as a "weapon" to protect Malay special rights from being challenged.

"The Taming Sari keris, a weapon for the Malays, is gone."

"Where is our Taming Sari if we wish to safeguard Malay interests in future?" the Perkasa chief said at the Najib Razak Seminar held at the International Islamic University Malaysia (UIA) here.

The Taming Sari is the legendary keris owned by Malay warrior Hang Tuah, which was said to confer upon its owner the power of invincibility.

Ibrahim stressed that the spirit of the ISA, which allows for detention without trial, must live on in new replacement laws so police have the tools to handle issues that threaten Malaysia's multi-religious society.

He cited the recent rise in challenges to Malay hegemony, including the "Allah" issue, the Bersih rally, and an incident where a pig's head was thrown into a surau, as examples of "sensitive issues" that could lead to racial strife.

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

This is what you get when Malays live in an imaginary world. I wonder whether the English would talk about King Arthur's legendary magical sword, Excalibur, which is supposed to make the owner invincible. 

"The Excalibur sword, a weapon for the English, is gone. Where is our Excalibur if we wish to safeguard English interests in future?" laments England's version of Ibrahim Ali.

"We need detention without trial to safeguard English interests and protect Christianity from the Muslims who are flooding England and are threatening the rights and privileges of the English."

"Muslims currently represent less than 10% of the population and yet they are screaming and foaming at the mouth asking for halal food to be sold in the supermarkets and asking for more Shariah courts."

"Unless we have detention without trial the Muslims will overrun England and once they reach 10% of the population they will act like they own the country. The Muslims are too demanding and the English are being pushed aside as the Muslims dominate British society."

Yes, if an Englishman starts screaming like Ibrahim Ali, people would regard him as a nutcase. Furthermore, he would be arrested and sent to jail for the crime of racism.

Does Ibrahim Ali ever look at himself in the mirror as he practices his speeches? And if he does, what does he see? Can he see his mouth moving faster than his brain?

Of late, Malay-Muslim leaders are uttering a lot of embarrassing statements. How can detention without trial serve Malay interests or protect Malay interests? I just can't see the relevance. When I was in Kamunting the majority of the detainees were Malay-Muslims. They were not enemies of Islam. In fact, they were people who were alleged to be extremist Muslims, people who were detained because of their work for Islam.

In short, Muslims are the victims of detention without trial, not the so-called enemies of Islam.

Ibrahim Ali and those of his ilk need to come into the modern world. They have to extricate themselves from this imaginary world of Hang Tuah and Taming Sari and all that bullshit. The English do not live in the world of King Arthur and Excalibur. It is time the Malays did the same.

Zulkifil Nordin, Ibrahim Ali's gang member, has also made a most interesting confession (see below). I thought there was such a thing as lawyer-client privileges. Apparently, Zul has never heard of such a thing. I wonder where he obtained his law degree from? Can he be disbarred for this?

Anyway, Zul confessed that he used Islam for political gain. So, what else is new? Isn't this what many Muslims seem to be doing? Zul has just come out into the open to admit what most of us already know, and that is Islam is just a political tool and most Muslims talk about Islam when it suits them and will caste aside Islam when it suits them better.

Is it any wonder that many view Muslims as a joke?

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

Member of Parliament for Kulim-Bandar Baru, Datuk Zulkifli Noordin has admitted to have deceived renowned cleric Syeikh Dr Yusuf Qardawi into issuing a fatwa supporting the sodomy II case involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

"We have made a mistake…we admit making the mistake. I was among those who made the mistake, and I must meet up with Syeikh Yusuf Qardawi to make amendments. Because…we wish to inform (that) it was true we had deceived Syeikh Yusuf Qardawi into believing that Anwar had been slandered," he said.

As Anwar's lawyer, Zulkifli had prepared biased questions to elicit the fatwa from Dr Yusuf Al Qardawi in 2009. According to him, he was responsible in preparing the questions, which sided Anwar and hiding the truth about the complainant, Mohd Saiful. 

 

How far is MCA prepared to go?

Posted: 07 Dec 2011 10:39 AM PST

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

State Economic Planning, Finance and Welfare Committee deputy chairman, Abdul Fatah Harun said all the other mosques in Kelantan had been built by the federal government.
 
"The Golden Jubilee Mosque, better known as the Chinese Mosque, was built with state government funding, without a single sen coming from the federal government," he told Bernama, here, today.
 
As for mosques in the other mukim (sub-districts), he said the state government was only responsible for giving allocations to carry out repairs and renovations.
 
Abdul Fatah was responding to the state opposition's (Barisan Nasional) claim that the Pas government had not built even one mosque since ruling Kelantan for over 20 years.
 
They had been built by the federal government or the BN government that ruled Kelantan from 1978 to 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The selfish, ugly Chinaman (UPDATED WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 05 Dec 2011 04:58 PM PST

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ THE CHINESE TRANSLATION HERE

 

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

Posted: 04 Dec 2011 07:09 AM PST

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, stayed tuned for further announcements.

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

We want a strong government, says Najib

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhyiddin outlines seven winning ingredients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHINESE TRANSLATION

 

Been chilling out

Posted: 02 Dec 2011 08:24 PM PST

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

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Disputes will scare off voters, Pakatan warned

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 11:01 AM PST

A Malay NGO tells DAP and PAS to stop the ongoing internal bickerings in their respective parties, or lose the support of the voters.

(Free Malaysia Today) - A non-governmental organisation (NGO) here has slammed the DAP and PAS over their inability to manage their internal disputes.

Penang Malay Congress president Rahmad Isahak said the manner in which these open disputes have spilled onto the glare of the public was raising some concern.

Rahmad said as an NGO, the congress would not take sides but will voice out the sentiments of the society.

"The squabbles in DAP and PAS are injustices to the people. Some feel that since the people voted them in, they should be busy serving the nation instead of squabbling among themselves."

Rahmad added that the squabbles were a form of a political gimmick to distract the attention of the people from the actual problems of both the political organisations.

However, it was a sham to the public that both parties seemed to be quarelling to no end and on top of it, none of their top leadership has the political will to resolve it, he said in an interview.

Rahmad was referring to the spat between DAP chairman Karpal Singh and his deputy secretary-general Prof P Ramasamy.

There is also the lingering rift between former PAS deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa and former Selangor PAS commissioner Dr Hasan Ali with secretary-general Mustafa Ali and vice-president Mahfuz Omar.

He added that the public could not understand why the disputes were happening.

He said it appeared to him that the DAP dispute was over the apparent rift between Ramasamy and the Penang Indian DAP faction which was linked to Karpal.

And in PAS, he added, Nasharuddin and Hasan seemed to be the "poster boys" of the conservative faction (the ulama), which was unsettled by the progressive (Erdogan) faction.

"Is this true? Nobody knows! and if both parties continue their spat unabated and without proper engagement and constructive criticism, people would no longer care. People have better things to do," he said.

Watershed general election

According to Rahmad (centre), the country was presently facing serious issues rather than having to wake up to only political disputes, as there was a looming global economic recession appearing on the horizon.

"This is happening just when the country is likely to participate in a watershed general election where for the first time, two groups of almost equal in strength will be fighting. Barisan Nasional would be pitted against the resurgent Pakatan Rakyat."

READ MORE HERE

 

The protester and civil disobedience

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 10:53 AM PST

What would life be if there is no dissent and no one takes up the causes of the minority, the marginalized or even the masses?

History of the struggle of mankind for freedom and truth (not necessarily for democracy) has shown that civil disobedience is the budding blossom that complements and strengthens the process of democratic governance, and a democratic government has a duty to listen to legitimate dissenting views and issues brought forward by its people.

David Tneh, Free Malaysia Today

Recent events such as Bersih 2.0, the Bar Council's march to protest the Peaceful Assembly Bill (PAB) 2011, and the students demonstrating against the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) amendment, have spawned a debate on whether civil disobedience and the rule of law can co-exist in a democratic system such as ours.

A recent write up by a senior lawyer in an English daily opined that this debate is irreconcilable at its heart and civil disobedience usually constitutes a minority who impose their will on the law abiding majority.

The writer also argued that the act of civil disobedience, if it goes unpunished, would lead to chaos and anarchy in society.

The act of civil disobedience itself is tantamount to one breaking the law; it is a criminal conduct "regardless of how novel is the motive of the civil disobedient."

And with a clear reference to Malaysia, the act of civil disobedience, according to the writer, is only a political tool used by politicians and civil rights movement to justify their violation of laws.

One however can argue that in a democratic society, one has no choice but to follow the laws and regulations that govern the sanctioned society, after all, a duly elected representative or lawmaker has been given the mandate by the people to legislate laws for the good of society and country.

We are therefore assuming, without a benefit of a doubt, that such lawmakers would know what is best for all of us.

Drawbacks of representational democracy

This is indeed very alarming since what is good for a particular ruling government is not necessarily good for the people.

And if a particular law is passed by the legislator who is merely voting according to political party guidelines, then there is a possibility that certain laws could be passed that would oppress and cause injustices to the people who are the foundation of any democratic state.

This is one of the drawbacks of representational democracy as the passing of certain laws are sometimes not done with the interests of the people in mind but done in the interest of consolidating the power of a political party.

If this is so, could the people then show their dissent or dissatisfaction through civil disobedience?

One would most probably use the clichéd solution of showing one's dissatisfaction through the ballot box (elections) which incidentally happens every five years.

Would one then wait once every five years just to show one's displeasure at what is happening to society and country?

Could the act of civil disobedience itself, bolster and propagate a more democratic nation to the powers-that-be?

The answer is a resounding "yes" because gone are the days when laws are passed and citizens of a country have no choice but to obey such laws.

This is more so in the 20th and 21st century where oppressive regimes and dictatorial states that had used the police and military to clamp down on societal dissent, often ended with bloody consequences.

Is civil disobedience a crime?

Would civil disobedience then be construed as a criminal act against a corrupt and oppressive state even though it is perceived to be a democratic nation?

History of the struggle of mankind for freedom and truth (not necessarily for democracy) has shown that civil disobedience is the budding blossom that complements and strengthens the process of democratic governance, and a democratic government has a duty to listen to legitimate dissenting views and issues brought forward by its people.

The key word here is legitimate, and one does not need a very justifiable and most exceptional reason to be involved in civil disobedience.

The Bukit Asahan Long March of 1967 and the Baling protest of 1974 are two clear examples civilians took part to fight for the rights of oppressed groups, to protest again unjust laws, corruption, the poor, and against oppressive stakeholders.

Civil disobedience can never be practiced in the extreme because it would then be known as a mob or a riot.

READ MORE HERE

 

PKR :Change before you have to!

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 10:35 AM PST

STEADYAKU47

Anwar, change before you must! You were a visionary once. Reformasi and Pakatan Rakyat. Two intangibles , two ideas whose time had come but it was you that brought those ideas into fruition. For that our people are grateful. But even a grateful nation does not have long memories. Mudah lupa. The Pakatan Rakyat you brought into being is only as good as its next task. And its next task is to form government. Fail to do this and all that you have achieved so far in your life is consigned to a footnote in the history books that our children will read!

The times that we now live in moves forward at such a rapid pace that we sometimes see our present only as it is already disappearing. Even as try to comprehend the enormity of Pakatan Rakyat's success in the 12th general election we are already into the 13th general election. The only constant is change.   

If you're in a bad situation, don't worry it'll change. If you're in a good situation, don't worry it'll change. (John A. Simone, Sr)

And for Anwar the situation now is not good. What will it take for it to change?

But how has it come to this again? Why are we waiting to see if Anwar will again be incarcerated? Is it UMNO? They said it was Mahathir before, today is it Najib? I do not have answers to that question. Only Anwar knows the truth.

The reality id that we are now faced with fighting for political change  through a political process that is flawed and much inclined towards the incumbent. And the incumbent is further advantaged by a host of legal and illegal maneuvers aided by an abundance of corruption and a determination to hold on to power at all costs – a combination that has seen UMNO hold on to power for over 50 years.

There is no fair mechanism for power change in Malaysia. With Anwar we had hoped that whatever 'fairness' missing from the political process in Malaysia would at least be turfed down to a somewhat level playing field. It would seem that this is not to be in the 13th general election.  Pakatan Rakyat is in the fight for their lives, for our lives –and Anwar or no Anwar we are locked in with Pakatan Rakyat in this fight with UMNO and BarisanNasional.

We know that it is not the business of UMNO to make it any easier for Pakatan Rakyat to succeed in the 13thUMNO, for Najib, to prosecute Anwar again. Has he not gone through enough? general election. But in all decency I cannot understand the need for

Am I angry? More sad then angry. But there is enough anger within me to stir my very soul to fight with PakatanRakyat against Barisan Nasional. Enough anger within me to work tirelessly to oust Barisian Nasional from government.

READ MORE HERE

 

Real cause of air crash never known - Yong

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 10:26 AM PST

WIKISABAH

Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Seri Panglima Yong Teck Lee told the High Court here yesterday that he was only asking the relevant authorities to re-open the air crash tragedy file and re-investigate as the formal investigation report and the real cause of the air crash has never made known to the public.

Yong, 53, said that in his press statements, he had never even once made any reference to the plaintiff Tan Sri Harris Salleh as he alleged.

"It is a well-known fact by the public and the people of Sabah that the formal investigation report and the real cause of the air crash are never released to the public and the people of Sabah despite concerns and questions by the people on what was the real cause of the incident," he said, adding that he was not the only one who raised the issue for re-investigation into the incident.

The former chief minister testified that the newspaper reports which Harris alleged were defamatory to him was basically a call by him (Yong) for the air crash tragedy known as the "Double or Triple Six Tragedy" to be re investigated.

"The reason is, so that all doubts about the true causes of the crash are removed," he said.

Yong was testifying before Justice Dato' Abdul Rahman Sebli in the on-going hearing of a RM50 million suit brought by Harris against him and the party for allegedly insinuating that he (Harris) was involved in causing the plane crash which killed former Chief Minister Tun Fuad Stephens and all 10 others on board a Nomad aircraft on June 6, 1976. Harris, 81, who filed the suit on June 6, last year, is claiming for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages of not less than RM50 million to be assessed separately against Yong and SAPP as the first and second defendants respectively.

He is also seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants whether by themselves or their servants or employee or agents from printing and publishing further the statements and similar libel in any form or means.

Harris is represented by counsel Yunof Maringking and Trevor Maringking while Yong and the party are represented by counsel Datuk Simon Shim and Flora Dius. In that newspaper reports, Yong said he was also commenting on the revelation by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah that the Usno-led government under the late Tun Datu Mustapha Datu Harun in 1975 was unwilling to sign the petroleum agreement and this had revived a relevant issue in Malaysia federalism, the intrusion of the Federal Government on uncooperative state governments.

"I was again commenting that normally it is proper to re-open an investigation into an old accident if new information surfaces.

"I also said that maybe nothing new would come out of the re-investigation or maybe something big and depths of history," he said.

He said the government had decided in a few other cases in which public inquiries were conducted because the public demanded for them.

"For example in the case of V.K Lingam Video Clip and the death of Teoh Beng Hock because they involved the interest of the public," he pointed out.

Yong said, the government even formed an independent commission to investigate incidents which involved abuse of powers by the police force.

He said he and the plaintiff have political differences but he has never made any disrespectful statements on the plaintiff.

Thus, he said he was merely making fair comments in response to Tengku Razaleigh's statement during his talk at KDCA on April 2, 2010, which was published in the Daily Express with regards to the ill-fated aircraft that crashed.

"It was Tengku Razaleigh who made the statement that he and two others were already on board the ill-fated aircraft but the same left the said aircraft due to the last minute invitation by the plaintiff to board another plane to Pulau Banggi, Kudat. I did not make that statement.

"In response to that statement, I commented that for so long nobody really knew about the cause of the air-crash, I said that proper investigation should be made so the people would know what really caused the crash," he said.

Yong pointed out that there were a few theories of the incident.

"Some said it was caused by sabotage, some said it was because of pilot error, some said because of overloading and some said it was because the Nomad plane was defective.

"However, the official investigation report of the cause of the crash has never been released," he said, adding that these theories were discussed in some books like the books of "The Sabahan - The Life and Death of Tun Fuad Stephen" and "The Harris Salleh of Sabah".

"I also think that my party and I were merely exercising out rights of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution to call for a re-investigation into a very significant event in response to the revelation of the personal account of Tengku Razaleigh before the air crash. He was there before the plane flew," he said.

Yong told the court that if a public inquiry or re-investigation is conducted, there will be a witness who can testify on the conditions of the plane and of the passengers at that time and that the plaintiff can also be called to testify on his own account of the event.

Earlier in the proceedings, Yong told the court that he had an appointment at Tengku Razaleigh's office on Nov 14, and Dec 8, in Kuala Lumpur.

He said in the first meeting on Nov 14, they talked about his (Tengku Razaleigh's) speech and informed the latter that arising from his speech and the news reports, he was now being sued by the plaintiff in respect of what he (Yong) said in responding to the speech.

READ MORE HERE

 

PKR baits rural voters with NFC issue ahead of polls

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 10:06 AM PST

(The Malaysian Insider) - The National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal has proven to be a hit among rural voters, according to PKR leaders who plan to use the issue as campaign fodder for the general elections.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Pakatan Rakyat, especially PKR have been going on a pre-polls campaign blitz using the graft allegations surrounding embattled Cabinet minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and her family to maximise voter support.

"In a way we are actually lucky. The NFC issue couldn't have come at a better time. Before this we were always trying to give examples of what we claim to be corruption by Umno-Barisan Nasional.

"But with this issue, we have a golden opportunity to reach out to a host of voters... for us, Shahrizat's case is the best example of what is wrong with Umno and its leaders... corruption, cronyism, money politics," Rafizi (picture) Ramli told The Malaysian Insider.

The PKR strategic director said that recent "test runs" by party leaders during ceramahs showed an increasing demand for the NFC scandal to be highlighted, especially among rural voters.

"In Kemaman, for instance where there's a ceramah, sometimes I don't bring up the NFC issue but then they get upset. The kampung folk, rural folk want to talk to about it. They are upset about it," he said.

"It's something they can relate to...you talk about submarine scandals it's a bit confusing, but with the NFC it's about lembu (cows)- how much do you need to menternak lembu (take care of cows) and how do you make money out of it.

"Whenever we mention the figures, people are outraged," added Rafizi.

He said PKR has also taken steps to ensure the entire chronology of the scandal could be "appreciated" and understood by all via pamphlets and posters.

PKR first latched onto the issue after the RM250 million federally-funded cattle project made it into the pages of the Auditor-General's report for 2010, which described the NFC as "a mess".

Since then, the party has made several revelations related to the scandal, including the NFC's purchase of twin multi-million luxury condominium units in Bangsar, the alleged use of project funds to finance Shahrizat and her family's personal expenses and trips abroad.

It also alleged there was a transfer of resources to unrelated companies in Singapore, as well as the purchase a Mercedes-Benz CLS350 for RM534,622 and two plots of land in Putrajaya's Precinct 10 for RM3,363,507.

READ MORE HERE

 

Ramasamy must go, says Karpal

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 10:04 AM PST

(The Star) - The spat between DAP chairman Karpal Singh and Dr P. Ramasamy has reignited with the veteran leader demanding that the Penang Deputy Chief Minister II resign from his post for making allegations against party leaders.

Karpal said Dr Ramasamy's position was no longer tenable in the state government because he had defied a directive from the party's three-member committee not to talk about their spat to the press.

"He has made baseless allegations against party leaders and his statement amounts to attempted corruption," he said at a press conference here yesterday.

Karpal referred to a report in The Star on Friday quoting Dr Ramasamy as saying that his critics were plotting against him because he did not respond to their overtures for projects and favours.

"Till now, he has not denied making the statements.

"If the allegations are true, I challenge him to lodge a report to the police and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission," he said.

Karpal said the matter was now beyond the "godfather-warlord" squabble and has gone to "a dangerous level".

"The ball is now in his court to react to my statement," he added.

Dr Ramasamy had earlier hit out at his critics for their "grand design" to oust him.

He said the people would be astounded if he revealed what some grassroots leaders had demanded from him.

On Dec 15, the committee comprising party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, life advisor Dr Chen Man Hin and parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang said the dispute between the two leaders had been resolved.

Dr Ramasamy, when contacted yesterday, declined to comment.

Last night, Kit Siang tweeted that DAP leaders should resolve their differences using party channels, and not fall into the trap of the mainstream media.

Penang DAP chairman Chow Kon Yeow called on party members to remain calm over the spat.

"This is to allow the party's central executive committee to continue in the mediation and find a solution to resolve the matter," he said in a statement.

 

Christmas Eve 2011 in Phuket

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:30 AM PST

HARIS IBRAHIM AT THE END OF A HARD NIGHT OF PARTYING

 

Hasan Ali refutes allegations he is pursuing Umno’s agenda

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:06 AM PST

(Bernama) - Former Selangor PAS commissioner Datuk Dr Hasan Ali on Saturday denied accusations by PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali that he (Hasan) was pursuing Umno's agenda.

"I refute any allegations of meetings between me and Umno leaders at the higher, lower or mid-levels at the time and date (Mustafa) mentioned.

"As the secretary-general of an Islamic-based party, he should not even utter such wild accusations," he told a news conference at his home here Saturday.

Previously, Mustafa was reported as claiming that he had evidence to link that Hasan was working with Umno leaders to sabotage PAS.

Mustafa was quoted saying that he had knowledge of a meeting between Hasan, former PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa and three other individuals at a hotel in the city last Ramadan.

Hasan, who is also Selangor Religious Affairs, Malay Culture, Infrastructure and Public Utility Committee chairman, urged Mustafa to clarify the accusations made against him.

"I want an explanation from him on when the secretary-general's office set up an investigation unit at the PAS office.

"I also want to know the need for spying on members in the context of party unity," he added.

In response to a question, Hasan said he had turned down an invitation from Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) president Datuk Ibrahim Ali to join the right-wing Malay movement as he really wanted to continue his struggle to uphold Islam and the Malays.

"I have no intention of doing so and plan to continue championing Islam, the Malay race and the royal institution," he said.

On the accusation that he was using Umno-owned media to seek publicity for himself, Hasan said he was open towards working with the country's media.

"I would like to say that I basically accept any media. It's natural to choose a media that has power over us and the media is open enough to make room for people like me," he said.

He claimed that PAS' organ, Harakah, never allowed him to voice his opinion and preferred to feature other individuals besides party members.

Meanwhile, Hasan also said that he was withdrawing his statement regarding PAS' welfare state concept he made at a news conference on Tuesday, admitting he went too far when commenting on the party's struggles.

 

Umno welcomes unhappy opposition leaders to join party

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:05 AM PST

(The Star) - Umno has welcomed leaders who are unhappy with the Opposition pact to quit and join rank with the Government, said party vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

He said while welcoming leaders from the Pakatan Rakyat to join Umno, all decisions would be determined by the party's supreme council.

"Our doors are always open to leaders, including former PAS deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa, Selangor executive councillor Datuk Dr Hasan Ali as well as PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, if their own party rejects them," he said at a press conference at the opening of Kuala Lumpur Bike Week 2011, Saturday.

Dr Zahid was asked to comment on the controversy surrounding Dr Hasan and Nasharuddin who had refused to toe the party's line by publicly slamming PAS for allegedly deviating from its Islamic principles.

Dr Zahid said that many PAS leaders in the past had quit and joined Umno, including the late Tan Sri Asri Muda, former PAS president.

"Pas Syura Council should not be so sensitive when their own leaders express criticism or meet with Umno leaders.

"They claim Malaysia is a democratic country. They should let the rakyat decide," he said.

Dr Zahid, who is also the Defence Minister, refuted allegations that the ministry had overpaid RM11.36mil to agents for he purchase of six naval patrol vessels.

"The allegations are all untrue," he added.

It was reported that Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air (Kita) president Datuk Zahid Ibrahim had alleged that the ministry had paid a total of RM11.36mil for technical assistance in the purchase of the patrol vessels.

 

Jakim uses various channels in probing same-sex marriage

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:03 AM PST

(Bernama) - The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) is using various channels in probing into the case of a former medical student from Malaysia who reportedly married an Irish guy in Ireland.

Jakim director-general Datuk Othman Mustapha said these included collaborating with the Foreign Ministry, the man's friends and other relevant agencies, including the local authorities in the republic.
   
He said this in response to the couple's wedding photographs which had been widely circulated on the social media and the internet.
   
"We are investigating the case with cooperation from the Foreign Ministry and other relevant agencies. So far, we don't have any new information.
   
"InsyaAllah (God willing), we will soon know whether the man in the photographs is really a former medical student from Malaysia," he told reporters after attending the National Convention of Muslim Brotherhood here today.
   
However, Othman did not dismissed the fact that Jakim was also facing difficulties in its bid to investigate the case and bring the man home as it had to adhere to the laws and regulations in Ireland.

 

NFC case suspect remand extended

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:01 AM PST

(Bernama) - The businessman detained to facilitate investigations on the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) case has been remanded for a further three days starting yesterday.  

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation director Datuk Mustafar Ali said the 45-year-old man was initially remanded for two days, until yesterday. 

"The remand was extended to complete and facilitate the case under the MACC Act 2009," he said to Bernama when contacted today.  

The issue on NFC surfaced following the 2010 Auditor-General's Report in October, which stated the centre had failed to comply with the objectives of its formation and when opposition parties alleged misappropriation of its funds, particularly in relation to the purchase of a luxury condominium in the city. 
 
Meanwhile, NFC chairman Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail said in a statement today that the businessman was not related to him or other members of his family.

The individual was also not and has never been an employee of NFC, he said.

 

NFC chairman: Detained Datuk not related to my family

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 09:00 AM PST

(Bernama) - National Feedlot Centre (NFC) chairman Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail said in a statement Saturday that a businessman detained to facilitate investigations into the NFC case was not related to him or other members of his family.

"The individual was also not and has never been an employee of NFC," he said.

Meanwhile, the businessman has been remanded for a further three days starting on Friday.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation director Datuk Mustafar Ali said the 45-year-old man was initially remanded for two days.

"The remand was extended to complete and facilitate the case under the MACC Act 2009," he said.

The NFC issue surfaced following the 2010 Auditor-General's Report in October, which stated the centre had failed to comply with the objectives of its formation.

The opposition parties also alleged misappropriation of funds, particularly in relation to the purchase of a luxury condominium in the city.

 

`Tiada ruang untuk saya bersuara dalam Harakah’

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 08:54 AM PST

Dr Hasan Ali mendakwa sejak dua minggu lalu beliau tidak diberikan ruang dalam media parti sendiri untuk bersuara.

(Free Malaysia Today) -  Exco Selangor Datuk Dr Hasan Ali menegur lidah rasmi PAS Harakah yang didakwanya hanya membuat liputan berita terhadap golongan tertentu sahaja dan mengenepikan pihak lain.

Katanya, keadaan itu ketara lebih-lebih lagi isu membabitkan dirinya sejak dua minggu lepas,  malah beliau tidak diberikan ruang dalam media parti sendiri untuk bersuara.

"Kalau buat analisis kajian kandungan dalam Harakah berhubung polemik ini sejak dua mniggu lepas berapa peratus ruang yang diberikan untuk Hasan Ali?

"Masa saya jadi Pesuruhjaya PAS Selangor pun tak banyak peruntukan diberikan kepada saya berbanding orang lain,  kadang-kadang ruang diberikan kepada parti komponen lain lebih besar berbanding golongan tertentu dalam PAS sendiri," katanya dalam sidang media di rumahnya di sini hari ini.

Beliau berkata sedemikian ketika diminta mengulas mengenai temuramahnya dengan TV3 menerusi slot 'Soal Jawab' Rabu lalu.

Katanya, perkara ini dapat dibuktikan apabila Timbalan Mursyidul Am PAS Datuk Dr Haron Din yang pernah memanggil media termasuk Harakah untuk menjelaskan pandangannya mengenai isu Gereja Methodist Damansara Utama (DUMC).

`Mungkin perintah orang berkuasa'

"Biasanya kalau timbalan mursyidul nak keluar akhbar mereka ini didahulukan tapi kemungkinan atas perintah orang yang berkuasa dalam Harakah didapati artikel sampai sekarang tak tersiar.

"Bayangkan kalau berita timbalan mursyidul am pun  tak keluar apatah lagi Hasan Ali," katanya yangmendakwa turut mendapat aduan yang sama daripada anggota dan pimpinan PAS  yang lain mengenai isu ini.

READ MORE HERE

 

Mustafa Ali enggan jawab tuduhan mahu jumpa Umno

Posted: 24 Dec 2011 08:51 AM PST

"Dia (Dr Hasan) sudah berhenti lawan PAS, saya pun berhenti cakap," kata setiausaha agung PAS itu.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Setiausaha Agung PAS, Datuk Mustafa Ali enggan mengulas tuduhan Datuk Dr Hasan Ali yang beliau mahu berjumpa pemimpin Umno.

Orang kuat PAS itu memberi alasan bekas pesuruhjaya PAS Selangor sudah tidak lagi menyerang PAS.

"Dia (Dr Hasan) sudah berhenti lawan PAS,  saya pun berhenti cakap.

"No komen,  biar dia kata apa pun. Kalau dia nak bercakap, biarlah dia bercakap," katanya ketika dihubungi hari ini.

Mustafa berkata demikian ketika diminta mengulas dakwaan Dr Hasan bahawa setiausaha agung PAS itu mahu berjumpa pemimpin Umno.

Dalam sidang media baru-baru ini, Mustafa mendakwa exco agama kerajaan negeri Selangor mengatur rancangan mahu berjumpa pemimpin Umno.

`Saya sign surat'

Selain Dr Hasan, kata Mustafa, bekas Timbalan Presiden PAS Nasharudin Mat Isa juga mahu berjumpa dengan pemimpin Umno.

Bagaimanapun, dalam sidang media di rumah Dr Hasan di Taman Tun Dr Ismail di Kuala Lumpur pagi tadi, Adun Gombak Setia itu menafikannya.

READ MORE HERE

 

Akjan, go ahead and sue!

Posted: 23 Dec 2011 03:22 PM PST

Daniel J Jambun

Datu Akjan's media conference in which he said that there was never an Projek IC and the call for an Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was ill-intended and can damage interracial relations was the strangest event with the most stupid statement I have ever seen in my years of political observations!

I know that in politics we may sometime meet certain characters who are extra daring and say a lot of shocking things, purposefully to agitate society for the sake of cheap publicity. But there is a limit to everything. One can overdo things and behave in a way that goes beyond what is acceptable and respectable, and this is what Akjan had done to himself. It seems that he had not learned anything form his huge blunder in declaring himself as Sultan of Sulu on Malaysian soil. After all the nationwide ridicule and insulting remarks about him because of the declaration, and after the arrest and investigation, it seems he has not grown up enough to behave in a civil and educated manner.

Now he had taken a most ridiculous action by saying there was no such thing as a Projek IC, when in fact he himself was arrested under the ISA for his direct involvement in the project. I fully support Datuk Wilfred Madius Tangau for pointing out to Akjan about the court ruling in the election petition for Likas, in which the judge made a ruling based on the sworn testimony if Hassnar Ibrahim about his involvement in Projek IC. Why doesn't Akjan make a statement to say that Hassnar Ibrahim, Jabar Khan and many others who had confessed about their involvement in the project, are liars? And why not also say the judge in the Likas election petition was unprofessional and should be defrocked and disbarred? Why not sue these people, including the judge?
 
And for goodness sake, how is an RCI going to cause ill-feeling between the races? Who indeed is causing ill-feeling between people and between the people of Sabah and the Federal Government? It thought it was those people who produced the false ICs. But now Akjan is saying those people who want the RCI are causing the ill-feeling. What kind of logic is this? The whole state wants and RCI except for him, why? Obviously Akjan is trying to defend the illegal immigrants and wants the huge problems of illegals immigrants in Sabah to continue and become worse. Again, why? Is it because he himself is an illegal immigrant who managed to get a MyKad through his own Projek IC (as proven by Mutalib M.D. in his book IC Palsu)? How come he had sued Mutalib? By his statement we are reminded that Sabahans are losing their position as masters of their own future, because now an immigrant is saying it is wrong to investigate illegals. If Akjan really believes there is no Projek IC and no illegal immigrants, why not let this be proven with an RCI? The RCI will clear up everything, and settle the issue once and for all. There will be no ill feeling against anyone, including aliens, as long as they are legal. What we don't want is a lot of questions about people like Akjan claiming to have been born in Limau-Limauan Kudat but the people there swear they don't know him, or Pakistanis holding ICs saying they are from a village in Ranau and they don't know a word of Dusun. Are the people of Semporna happy that they are being outnumbered by aliens by five to one?
 
So if Akjan is offended and believes he is right, I challenge him to go ahead and sue. By suing and the case going to trial we will be able to know the real story behind why he was arrested under the ISA for manufacturing false ICs, how many aliens benefited from his unpatriotic act, how much money those people involved managed to make to enrich themselves, and whether Akjan himself is an illegal immigrant. He had admitted that he is not a Malaysian by declaring that he is the Sultan of Sulu. His personal history raises a lot of questions, but he has all the opportunity to prove himself by proceeding to sue on the matter. But then again, I would also like to ask if he still considers himself a Sultan of a foreign country, in which case he has no business trying to be a Sabahan and a Malaysian or interfering in our state affairs.
 
DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN
Advisor, UK-based Human Rights Foundation Malaysia

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved