Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- How our mind works
- I have a dream
- Everything is for sale
- Why change will never come
- Jangan shiok sendiri
- Just shooting the breeze
- The cost of living in Malaysia
- Only losers scream
- Losers galore
- 97 cows for me and 3 cows for you
| Posted: 12 Oct 2012 04:34 PM PDT So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Maybe just for today we can lay off talking about politics and instead look at what Ashok Vohra wrote below. Ashok teaches philosophy at Delhi University and the article below was published in The Times of India. One interesting part of this article was this part: Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life. Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist. If you were to study philosophy of religion, this would be the key question that you pose. Do you prove the existence of God by scientific evidence or do you 'prove' it by the fact that it cannot be proven that God does not exist. In other words, because you cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore God has to exist. God is supposed to be the God of this universe, not just the God of this planet. But does more than one universe exist? Humankind does not yet have the ability to explore the reaches beyond this universe to prove or disprove that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe. Hence, in the event that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe, does this mean that another God exists for that other universe as well? Now, since we cannot prove that another universe does not exist and hence there is another God for that universe, does this mean it and He does exist since it cannot be proven otherwise? This is based on the argument that it/He exists because it cannot be proven it/He does not. Nevertheless, as Swami Sivananda said: Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. And that is the key to the whole thing: it is a question of faith and subject to our intuition or 'gut feeling' that a divine power that created us does exist. God exists because we exist and if God did not exist then we would not exist as well. Something had to have created us and this something has to be some form of higher power called God. In conclusion, we can prove that God exists by our own existence. We are the proof that God exists. Okay, that is one issue. Now let's move on to the next issue. And this next issue is how we perceive things and how our perception of things dictates our beliefs. However, could we be seeing things opposite to what they are? What our eye sees is what our brain tells us we see. In other words, we do not actually see things with our eyes but we see things with our brain. For example, when you look at your reflection in a mirror what do you see? Your eyes see left as right and right as left. Your left ear is actually reflected on the right in that mirror. But your brain tells you that you see your left ear as being on the left rather than on the right. Say I stand beside the mirror and face you. You will see my right ear as being on the right. Now compare that to what you see in the mirror beside me. Would not your reflection be 'parallel' to me? But then your right ear in the mirror is actually your left ear. Hence, your reflection in the mirror, if seen in isolation, will appear as how your brain wants you to see it. But when I stand beside the mirror and face you, your reflection 'looking' at you is opposite to my 'reflection' looking at you. But you do not see it this way because your brain does not tell you to see it this way. Hence my right ear appears right while your 'right ear' in the mirror appears left. I know this concept is very hard to comprehend because all your life you have always been looking at your reflection in the mirror and it has always looked the way your brain wanted you to see it. It never occurred to you that what you are looking at is the opposite reflection but your brain 'turned it around'. And that demonstrates the power of your brain and how your brain can make you see what you think you see even if it is actually an opposite reflection. Hence faith works on the basis of not what you see but what you do not see and how your brain tells you that since you do not see it then it has to exist. And this is how we convince ourselves that God does exist -- the absence of proof is evidence that God does exist. I am not going to stray into the argument that the evidence of the existence of God lies in the existence of the Holy Books. That would be the traditional argument by religionists and is an old argument. Basically it will be a debate of no winners. What I want to discuss instead is the concept of our existence and which eventually will result in our non-existence, meaning we eventually die. We are taught that at first we did not physically exist. Then we are born, so we physically exist. Then we die and we physically no longer exist. That is what we are taught and our brain accepts that concept of birth and death. But that is what our brain tells us and we believe what our brain tells us. But could it actually be the opposite of what we see? Could our brain actually be tricking us just like how it tricked us regarding our reflection in the mirror? In other words, could we actually be living before we were born and died when we got born and then will live again when we die? What is the concept of most religions? Most religions tell us that our body is merely a shell for our soul to occupy. So 'we' are not really that body that we occupy. 'We' is the soul that occupies our body. The body is temporary. The soul is eternal. The soul existed before our body was formed. And the soul will continue to exist after it leaves our body. Hence our body is not what we are. 'We' are our soul. In that case, we need to redefine what 'we' are. 'We' are not what we see in that mirror. 'We' are what we cannot see in that mirror. What we see in that mirror is the external shell that our soul occupies. But that is not who we are. 'We' lurk within that body and it cannot be seen in that mirror. If we do not possess a soul then our existence would start the day we were born and will end the day we die. In that case we need not be accountable for what we do. We need not be good, compassionate, kind, honest, merciful, etc. We can do what we want because once we die that is the end of everything. But that is not what religion tells us. Religion tells us the opposite of that. Hence our soul will pay for what we do. So it is not the body but the soul that has to beware because it will be the soul and not the body that has to account for our deeds. In that case, is humankind really free? We talk about freedom. But then we are not free. We are guided by certain rules, regulations and codes of conduct. But it is not easy to follow these rules, regulations and codes of conduct because we are controlled by emotions, sentiments, lust, greed, ego, anger, jealousy, envy, etc. On the one hand there are so many dos and donts. On the other hand there are so many influences that oppose these dos and donts. Hence most of us fail. And religion tells us we shall pay for this later. So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life. Hence is death or non-birth a better option? Death or non-birth would have spared us a lot of suffering, both in this world as well as the next life after death. We are cursed by having been born whereas those that did not live do not suffer like we do. But we see life as good and non-life or death as bad. Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to live. We will fight tooth and nail to stay alive. Why do we not see life as a curse and death as a blessing? No life means no sin and no sin means no hell. Is that not better? Our brain, however, will disagree with that. Our brain tells us that life is good and non-life or death is bad. Is our brain tricking us? Is our brain making us see the opposite of what is just like how it makes us see the opposite when we look at our reflection in the mirror? Religion is basically about being good and avoiding bad. Over thousands of years, however, religion has been modified with dogma and rituals. And because of that the very essence of religion has been lost and buried amongst all those 'teachings'. Do we know why we exist? Do we know whether we existed before we existed (meaning being born)? And do we know whether we shall exist after we exist (meaning we die)? And if we know all this then will we come to a conclusion that life is a curse whereas non-life is a blessing? We used to be free. One day we shall again be free. But in the meantime while we have life in our body we are not free but am serving a period of imprisonment. Hence freedom is imprisonment while imprisonment is freedom -- yes, the opposite of what our brain tells us. Our soul is trapped because we are alive. Our soul would be free had we not been born. Hence how can we say that life is good and death is bad when the opposite is actually true? So there you are, no politics today. And ponder on that one over the weekend and see whether you can defy your brain and see life and death as what it is and not as what your brain tells you it is. Have a good weekend everyone. ******************************************* Proof That God Does Exist Ashok Vohra, The Times Of India Vedanta says that Brahmn is ultimate reality. All other beings and things are unreal. But when we ask questions about the nature of Brahmn, the Upanishads describe it as neti, neti – not this, not this. Therefore, they describe the ultimate reality, Brahmn, in negative terms alone. Swami Sivananda is not satisfied with the negative description of Brahmn because it is impossible for the mind to conceive of an absolute nothing. He argues that 'Brahmn is not void. It is not blankness or emptiness'. It is not shunyata. Brahmn, he upholds, is paripoorna, full, because all desires melt there. Brahmn to him 'is something, after seeing which there is nothing more to be seen, after becoming which there is nothing more to become, after knowing which there remains nothing to be known'. Brahmn is that which is all-pervading, which surrounds us from all sides - around, above, and below. It is satchidananda or existence, knowledge and bliss. It is that which has no other. It is without a second, endless, eternal, one and one alone. It is everlasting, the one continuous experience-whole. Hence Swami Sivananda has described Brahmn in term of positive attributes. He upholds that Brahmn has six attributes: 'jnana, divine wisdom; vairagya, dispassion; aishwarya, power; bala, strength; sri, wealth and kirti, fame'. He is nitya, eternal; ananta, infinite and ananda, supreme bliss. He is unchanging amidst changing phenomena. He is permanent amidst the impermanent, and imperishable amidst the perishable. He is what the Gita calls "Jyotishamapi tat jyoti, Light of all lights". He is the Adhisthana or support of the phenomenal world. Brahmn is the sutradhara, string-puller of all bodies of beings. He is the antaryamin, inner ruler of all beings. He is in you and you are in Him. Each of the five primary elements is a manifestation of His qualities. Brahmn is swatantra or independent. He has satkama, good desires and satsankalpa, pure will. Since karmas are jada or insentient, on their own they cannot yield fruits, so it is Brahmn who dispenses fruits of actions of jivas. He is all-merciful; quenching the thirst of jivas. He satiates our hunger. He dispenses justice to all. The five activities of God are: Srishti, Creation; sthiti, preservation; samhara, destruction; tirodhana or tirobhava, veiling; and anugraha, grace. Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life. One can also prove the existence of Brahmn conceptually. One cannot think of impurity, duality, disagreement, variety and mortality without thinking of purity, oneness, agreement, unity and immortality. The possibility of the relative implies reality of the Absolute. Finally, Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist. 'Whether the owl accepts the presence of light or not, there is always light'. Likewise, whether you accept the existence of Brahmn or not, He always exists. Even the one who claims the non-existence of Brahmn is himself Brahmn. Likewise, the one who claims that there is only shunya, void, forgets that that the knower who knows the shunya is himself Brahmn. The author teaches philosophy at Delhi University |
| Posted: 11 Oct 2012 05:24 PM PDT Those who understand English would understand that I meant 'let's pretend', or 'hypothetically speaking', or, as the Malays would say, 'katalah'. I did not say that DAP did want to do this. I also did not say that Zul Noordin was correct. I was saying, even if DAP does plan this and even if Zul Noordin was correct, so what? What is wrong with that? Why can't we dream? Why can't we wish? Why can't we aspire? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He is best known for his role in the advancement of civil rights using non-violent civil disobedience. King has become a national icon in the history of modern American liberalism. A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, serving as its first president. King's efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. There, he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history. He also established his reputation as a radical, and became an object of the FBI's COINTELPRO for the rest of his life. In 1964, King received the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through non-violence. In the next few years leading up to his death, he expanded his focus to include poverty and the Vietnam War—alienating many of his liberal allies with a 1967 speech titled "Beyond Vietnam". King was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C., called the Poor People's Campaign. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. federal holiday in 1986. Hundreds of streets in the U.S. and beyond have been renamed in his honour. (Wikipedia) V57lotnKGF8 See the video on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V57lotnKGF8 ***************************************** In my article yesterday, 'Why change will never come', I said: Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. So what? What is wrong with that? PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Do we make a police report against PAS and demand that they apologise? Has PAS committed a crime by aspiring for Malaysia to become an Islamic State? So why is it wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State? Many responded by saying that I have missed the point and that the point is the Member of Parliament for Kulim–Bandar Baharu, Zulkifli Noordin, lied and that DAP did not say it wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. Some even argued that a Christian State does not exist so it would be impossible to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. If that is your argument then it will be equally impossible to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State because an Islamic State also does not exist. If it does exist then can you tell me what it looks like? Even the Muslim scholars are not able to define an Islamic State or agree on what an Islamic State looks like. So, what is an Islamic State? Define it! No doubt, in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, it does say that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Well, Christianity, in particular the Church of England, is the religion of the United Kingdom, although it is not stated in the 'Constitution'. But it is the 'law'. At least Malaysia's Constitution does not prevent a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian (or non-Malay) from becoming the Prime Minister. The Constitution is silent on that issue. In the UK, not only must you be a Christian, but you must also be a Protestant Christian. A Catholic cannot sit on the 'throne' -- whether as the Prime Minister or the Monarch. That is the law in England, while it is not law in Malaysia but merely 'by convention' (kelaziman, as the Malays would say). So, in that sense, Malaysia is more liberal than the UK although I do not see in the near future a Chinese Christian or Indian Hindu becoming Malaysia's Prime Minister in spite of it being nothing wrong from the legal aspect. The next point I want to talk about is the part where I said: Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. Those who understand English would understand that I meant 'let's pretend', or 'hypothetically speaking', or, as the Malays would say, 'katalah'. I did not say that DAP does want to do this. I also did not say that Zul Noordin was correct. I was saying, even if DAP does plan this and even if Zul Noordin was correct, so what? What is wrong with that? Why can't we dream? Why can't we wish? Why can't we aspire? Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. He had an aspiration. He had a wish. But it took 46 years before Martin Luther King, Jr. saw his dream come true. And because he had a dream they murdered him. Hence even having an aspiration is considered a crime. So he did not live to see his dream come true. But it has to start from a dream. You need an aspiration. And you should not be killed just because you have an aspiration. Hence, if there are people who aspire to see Malaysia become a Christian State what is so wrong with that? I am not saying that there are people who aspire this. I am saying that even if there are, what's wrong with having such an aspiration? It may never happen. We may never even see Malaysia turned into an Islamic State. Malaysia may remain a Secular State until the end of time, or at least until you and I are all dead. But that should not stop us from dreaming or from having an aspiration. I am sure many of you also aspire to become millionaires. Most likely most of you will die in debt. Hardly 1% of you are going to become millionaires. But carry on aspiring. Dream of the day you will become a millionaire with so much money you don't know what to do with it. It is probably never going to happen. But I am not going to whack you for dreaming. It is good to dream. Dreams keep you going. The day you stop dreaming is the day you die although you may still be breathing. Take note, though, that aspiration minus the perspiration is no bloody good. Then it would be, as the Malays say, angan-angan or daydreaming. You start with an aspiration. But then you need to work on these aspirations. If not, nothing is going to happen. We all dream of a better Malaysia. That may never happen, of course. Malaysia may not get any better but in fact may even get worse. But if we do not dream of a better Malaysia then that means we do not care a damn about what happens to the country. In the end your dreams may not come true. But that should not stop us from dreaming. It is better we die with a dream than die having wasted our time here on earth. And Martin Luther King, Jr. died with a dream but did not waste his time here on earth because 46 years later what he dreamed about happened. The US finally saw the African Americans get elevated from second-class citizens to residents of the White House. And you know what? They did not even need to rename the White House to the Black House. |
| Posted: 11 Oct 2012 03:54 PM PDT Hence don't be too impressed if someone has Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of his/her name with a J.P behind it. Most likely not only the Ph.D but the other titles as well have been bought. And that is why some of the worst scum of Malaysian society have long and impressive titles in front of their name. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin The first thing you look for in life is security. And security here not only involves the safety of your property, life and limb (and that of your family) but also financial security. Hence we go to school and then to college and/or university. Some of us even spend 5-7 years to do a Ph.D. But why do you go through all that trouble of obtaining an education from age 6 (some start at age 4) to age 21-22 (some up to age 27-28)? Are you seeking knowledge? Actually, most of us are not concerned about knowledge. I have met Ph.D. students who think just like the fishermen and farmers from the East Coast. Hence that foreign university education and the 8-10 years in England is a total waste of time. Their mindset has not changed one bit since the days they were in primary school back in their kampong. Most Malaysians do not care about knowledge. Most receive a tertiary education but their minds remain closed and backward. The comments posted in Malaysia Today are proof of that. You should see the ones I deleted. Those comments will put you off sex for a whole week. Education, which any Chinese will tell you, is very important. It will enable you to have a good life. And 'good life' here means plenty of money in the pocket. Education is not about making you smarter. In fact, many 'educated' people are actually quite stupid. Education is about getting rich. Hence Malaysians seek a good education as the shortcut to wealth. With education also come recognition, power and position. But money has to come first. Then, once you have enough money in the pocket, you can aim for the rest. Of course, sometimes you work backwards. You go for recognition, power and position and use that to make plenty of money. No doubt you cannot admit this. You have to pretend that you are serving the rakyat and that you only have the rakyat's interest at heart. Then, using this excuse, once you have recognition, power and position, you use that as a platform to make money. Let us say you already achieve that. Let us say you have plenty or enough money and you also have a position (maybe even a position of power). Then what next? Well, next you go for status. You wangle your way into the ranks of the elite. You become one of the titled people. And to do that you need to get yourself a Datukship (which later can be upgraded to Datuk Seri, Tan Sri, Tun, etc.). And you can buy these titles. For around RM250,000 or so you can get Barisan Nasional or one of the Rulers to make you a Datuk. (Even Pakatan Rakyat is now in the game in case you were not aware). The Rulers, Umno, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc., all have an annual 'quota' of titles and awards to sell (just like APs). For the right amount of money and with the right connections you can easily pick up a title. Even foreigners can do so. If you are named Mohamad bin Mohamad or Rajalingam a/l Rajadurai or Tan Beng Kok that would not be as impressive as Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Mohamad bin Mohamad J.P. or Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Rajalingam a/l Rajadurai J.P. or Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Tan Beng Kok J.P. Hence don't be too impressed if someone has Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of his/her name with a J.P behind it. Most likely not only the Ph.D but the other titles as well have been bought. And that is why some of the worst scum of Malaysian society have long and impressive titles in front of their names. But then, as they say, there would be no sellers if there were no buyers. This is the law of supply and demand. There are prostitutes only because there are people who want to buy sex. Hence there are Rulers and political parties that are in the business of selling awards and titles because there are many Malaysians with plenty of money in their pockets who want Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of their names and a J.P. behind it. Just to digress a bit, I now have five grandchildren and so I am automatically a Datuk. My wife, however, is not a Datin. She is a Nenek. My wife asked me: so what is wrong with that? I told her that sleeping with a Mak Datin is probably more fun than sleeping with a Nenek. I heard that many Mak Datins in Malaysia are swingers. Hmm…and to think that I no longer live in Malaysia…sigh… ****************************************** Datuk among trio held over 4D licence scam (The Star) - A Datuk and two others have been arrested for cheating a housing developer of RM1.6mil by offering him a "licence" to open 4D numbers forecast outlets here. The three are also believed to be involved in operating a syndicate offering to help people get Datukships and approved permits (AP) for cars. To convince their victims, the three drove luxury cars while one of them posed as an officer attached to the Prime Minister's Department. The Selangor Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) got wind of the syndicate after a 35-year-old victim, also a Datuk, lodged a report in June. Since then, police have identified four other victims of the syndicate. Selangor CCID chief Asst Comm Chong Mun Phing said the housing developer was introduced to the syndicate as he was interested in opening numbers forecast outlets. "The victim was brought to a government building in Putrajaya, where a bogus Datuk claiming to work in the Prime Minister's Department acknowledged the application," she said at the Selangor police headquarters yesterday. She said the victim then made seven payments amounting to RM1.6mil and was given the "licence". "The syndicate advised him to wait for the other permits before setting up the outlets," she said, adding that suspecting something amiss, the victim went to the Prime Minister's Department and was told that the licence was a fake. ACP Chong said the man then lodged a report and police monitored the movements of the three suspects before arresting them early this month. "We arrested the 45-year-old Datuk and his 29-year-old bodyguard following a raid in Kuchai Lama on Oct 2," she said, adding that a 52-year-old man was arrested at his home in Shah Alam three days later. Investigations revealed that the third man arrested did not work with any government agency. "Investigations also led us to the recovery of various documents which the syndicate hid in two safe boxes at Masjid Jamek and KL Sentral," she said. ****************************************** Absent Datuk forces businesswoman to part with RM700,000 bail (The Star) - A Datuk, convicted of cheating and using forged documents involving almost RM12mil, had his appeal struck out as he was absent in court. The failure of his bailor to appear and produce him in court also caused her RM700,000 bail to be forfeited. High Court judge Justice Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah struck out the appeal filed by Datuk Paiman Shakimon against his jail term and conviction. "The appeal is struck out as the appellant (Paiman) has no interest (to continue his appeal)," Justice Tee ruled. Justice Tee forfeited the bail, saying that the bailor, businesswoman Dr Norma Ahmad, 55, had been given a last chance to produce Paiman in court. (Justice Tee had on Sept 21 heard a show-cause proceeding, where Dr Norma was asked to explain why her RM700,000 house used as a collateral for Paiman's bail should not be forfeited and she was given a last chance to produce Paiman in court yesterday. (Dr Norma had said that she had gone to Paiman's house three times but was unable to meet him. DPP Syed Faisal had also said police had gone to Paiman's house in Country Heights, Kajang, three times but could not execute the July 20 arrest warrant issued against him.) Paiman, 53, was sentenced by the Sessions Court here to 13 years jail on two counts of cheating and two counts of using forged documents involving almost RM12mil. Justice Tee also issued a warrant to commit Paiman to jail. Sessions judge Jagjit Singh ruled in April last year that Paiman's defence was a mere denial and that he did not find him credible. Syed Faisal told the judge that Paiman had failed to appear in court although he had previously contacted his former lawyer Gobind Singh Deo to file a petition of appeal. "Gobind Singh discharged himself from acting for him at the last proceedings," Syed Faisal added. Paiman had pleaded not guilty on Sept 28, 2007, to cheating businessman Datuk Rosidi Kamaruddin, 60, into paying him RM3.8mil after inducing him to believe that a roll-over programme investment scheme was approved by Bank Negara and was profitable. He had also claimed trial to duping lawyer Datuk Liew Teck Keong, 57, into paying him RM8mil after convincing him the same scheme was valid. Paiman faced two other charges of using 28 forged documents in his dealings with both Rosidi and Liew. ****************************************** Umno MP to go to jail after court upholds conviction (The Malaysian Insider) - Umno's Sabak Bernam MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakri will have to serve his jail sentence after the Shah Alam High Court upheld today his conviction March for making false claims. Abdul Rahman and his aide Rosli Busro were sentenced by a Sessions Court in March to six years' jail and fined RM400,000 each for making false claims. But the court had then granted them a stay of execution pending appeal. Today, Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir dismissed the appeal and also rejected an application for a stay of execution. The judge also ordered the sentence carried out immediately. In March the Sessions Court had found the two guilty on eight counts of making false claims totalling RM80,000 for events that never took place four years ago. The Barisan Nasional (BN) lawmaker was accused of committing the offences while a Sungai Air Tawar assemblyman before Election 2008. The 47-year-old was charged under Section 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 in November 2009 with falsely claiming RM10,000 each time between January 21 and February 4, 2008. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said in March that Abdul Rahman had been stripped of his party divisional post, but remained an Umno MP. In making his ruling today, Akhtar dismissed arguments made by Abdul Rahman's lawyer to reject the testimony of two witnesses — Mohd Harmizar and Rizam ismail — because it was alleged that they were also accomplices in the criminal acts. "I have read the testimony of the two witnesses and I do not consider them accomplices," said the judge, who added that he considered the two men merely followed Abdul Rahman's instructions. He added that the accounts given by the two men were corroborated by other witnesses. Akhtar said it was clear that Abdul Rahman and Rosli had the intention to make the false claims, and this was proven when the money was used for their own purposes and not stated in their claims. Abdul Rahman, 47, had been found guilty of making claims from his allocation as state legislator for events and activities that did not take place. The claims were for the purchase of gifts, souvenirs and meals for events listed as Program Motivasi Pelajar Peringkat Dewan Undangan Negeri Sungai Air Tawar; Program Mesra Rakyat dan Hari Keluarga di Dewan Simpang 4 Bagan Nakhoda Omar (BNO); Program Forum Perdana Peringkat Mukim BNO; Program Mesra Rakyat dan Sambutan Maulud Nabi and Program Mesra Rakyat Hari Keluarga Guru Kemas. |
| Posted: 10 Oct 2012 04:52 PM PDT Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. So what? What is wrong with that? PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Do we make a police report against PAS and demand that they apologise? Has PAS committed a crime by aspiring for Malaysia to become an Islamic State? So why is it wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Many Malaysians feel that Malaysia is a not a free country. These people may be right. Many Malaysians feel that Barisan Nasional needs to be kicked out so that Malaysia can become a free country. These people may be wrong. To demonstrate why I say this let us look at the Nasharuddin Mat Isa controversy. DAP is going to make a police report against Nasharuddin for saying that DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian state. DAP is very upset about this. They also demand that Nasharuddin apologise for this allegation against DAP. Now, first of all, what is wrong with saying DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State? What if I say that Umno wants to turn Malaysia into a Malay State? Or PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State? Or MCA wants to turn Malaysia into a Capitalist State? Or PSM wants to turn Malaysia into a Socialist State? Is this not my right to say what I think? I may be wrong in thinking that way. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion based on what I perceive. My perception may be wrong. Nevertheless, right or wrong, I have my reasons for thinking so and hence I have a right to say what I think. I studied Islam. I also studied Christianity. My opinion after studying both religions is that Islam is right and Christianity is wrong. And I tell you what my opinion is. Do you make a police report against me for saying what I said and demand that I apologise? I studied Islam. I also studied Christianity. My opinion after studying both religions is that Islam is 'borrowed' from Judeo-Christianity. Hence I believe that Islam is a deviation of Judaism and Christianity. And I tell you what my opinion is. Do you make a police report against me for saying what I said and demand that I apologise? I have my opinions. And I have my reasons as to why I have such opinions. And I tell you what my opinions are. This is called freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is what freedom is all about. But do we allow such freedoms in Malaysia? And is this denial of such freedoms a crime that only Barisan Nasional is guilty of or is Pakatan Rakyat equally guilty? Hence is Malaysia really a free country? And will kicking out Barisan Nasional give us that freedom that we seek? The solution will not come by changing the government. This has nothing to do with the government. The problem lies with us. We do not understand the meaning of freedom. And we demonstrate very clearly this lack of understanding. It is we, and not the political parties, that are at fault. Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. So what? What is wrong with that? PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Do we make a police report against PAS and demand that they apologise? Has PAS committed a crime by aspiring for Malaysia to become an Islamic State? So why is it wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State? What makes it okay for PAS to want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State but not okay for DAP to want Malaysia to be turned into a Christian State? If we can respect PAS's wishes to see Malaysia become an Islamic State why can't we also respect DAP's wishes to see Malaysia become a Christian State? I do not see why DAP should make a police report against Nasharuddin for alleging that DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State or demand that he apologise. Doing this means DAP is admitting that such a thing is wrong (wanting to turn Malaysia into a Christian State). DAP is agreeing with Nasharuddin that the aspiration of wanting to turn Malaysia into a Christian State is wrong. Why would DAP want to admit that? DAP should uphold the ideals of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. DAP should be free to aspire for anything it wants to aspire for. And Nasharuddin should be free to express anything he wishes to express. That is what freedom of thought and freedom of expression is all about. DAP is admitting that freedom of thought cannot be allowed. You cannot aspire to see Malaysia turned into a Christian State. That is something wrong. You must not think those things. And anyone who thinks those things is doing something wrong. And anyone who accuses DAP of thinking like that needs to be whacked. If you think that Malaysia should be Secular State that is okay. If you think that Malaysia should be an Islamic State that is okay as well. And it is also okay if you think that Malaysia should be a Christian State, Communist State, Republic, Absolute Monarchy, Sultanate or whatever. You can aspire for what you think is right. You can also express what you aspire. That is what you aspire. You may be right or you may be wrong. But you have a right to be wrong if you wish to be wrong. Unfortunately, both sides of the political divide do not understand this yet. And that is why PAS thinks it is wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State. And that is why DAP thinks it is wrong for PAS to say that DAP aspires for Malaysia to become a Christian State. You can even aspire for Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Republicanism, Theologian, Federalism, self-determination, anarchism, or whatever it is that turns you on. I might not agree with you. I might even oppose you. But it is your right to believe whatever you wish to believe and it is my right to disagree with you. And PAS and DAP must understand this as well before we talk about changing the current/bad government for a new/better one. Currently, both PAS and DAP are yet to grasp the concept of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is what the Nasharuddin Mat Isa controversy has revealed. The most unfortunate thing about this entire episode is that we think the fault lies with the politicians or political parties whereas it is we who are at fault. We refuse to allow others to hold views and express their views that run opposite to ours. That is not called freedom of thought and freedom or expression. So how can changing the government help? It is we who need to change.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2012 08:05 PM PDT And this is what happens when you close your mind and refuse to look at the bigger picture. You are just one person with one vote. You may even be amongst four million like-minded people. But then 10 million people will be coming out to vote in the 13th General Election. And how many of these 10 million are following the TV news every night? And how many of these 10 million have been swayed by what they saw on TV? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I asked you this question last week: are you guys and gals following the news on the mainstream media, in particular the TV news? Most likely the answer is 'no', and for obvious reasons -- because the mainstream media, in particular the TV stations, are government-owned/controlled. So you are boycotting the mainstream media plus you don't trust what the mainstream media, in particular the news on TV, says. Okay, I can understand that reason although not necessarily I agree with it. Basically, you are not interested in what 'the enemy' has to say. So you shut your eyes and ears to what you consider 'government propaganda'. I can see from the comments that you post here in Malaysia Today plus the comments in the other Blogs and news portals that you express your views in 'total isolation'. You already have your own views and perception on what the situation is and you make comments based on this belief. Again, I can understand this. This is the culture of most religionists. Followers of religions have been conditioned and indoctrinated to do this. Hence, if you are a follower of a religion, this is how you would do things. You would read and listen to things that you feel are the truth and you would close your eyes and ears to what you consider false or lies. Malays, for example, are not encouraged to read literature or attend lectures on, say, Christianity. You would never find Malays attending Sunday school. In fact, if they do the Religious Department would probably arrest these Malays plus those Christians behind that Sunday school. The Sunday school may even turn the Malays away and not allow them to join the class lest they run foul of the government and risk getting closed down. That is how sensitive the matter of Christians preaching to Muslims is in Malaysia (and most Muslim countries). So, how do Malays get to know about Christianity? What the Malays know about Christianity is what the Muslim religious teachers tell them. Hence their understanding of Christianity is based on 'Muslim propaganda'. The Muslim religious teachers tell them certain negative things about Christianity and this is their understanding of Christianity. In other words, what most Malays know about Christianity is what other Muslims tell them, not what the Christians tell them. And most times what they have been told about Christianity is meant to run down Christianity and to give Christianity a negative image. Let me put it another way. If, say, I hate the Jews and you ask me about the Jews, certainly what I tell you about the Jews will be very negative. But you will not travel to Israel to find out for yourself what the situation really is. Your source of information is based on what a Jew-hater has to tell you. Will not, therefore, your views on Jews be very negative? So, you read only pro-Pakatan Rakyat websites and attend pro-Pakatan Rakyat functions. Hence your source of information is from Barisan Nasional-haters. You have only one source of information. You do not get to hear from the other side. And you believe that what you have been told is true and what the other side says, which you do not listen to anyway, is false. And this reflects in the comments you post here in Malaysia Today and in the other (pro-Pakatan Rakyat) websites. You believe that what you believe is true and that the other side of the story is false. And, most damaging of all, you believe that what you believe is the same as what the majority of Malaysians also believe. Hence you are amongst the majority and not the minority. Let me quote another example. Say a Muslim was to talk to you about Islam being the true religion, etc. You then ask that Muslim what evidence he or she can offer to prove this. As 'evidence', this Muslim will quote various verses from the Qur'an. The verses from the Qur'an are the evidence to support the argument that Islam is the true religion. But is not the Qur'an the 'product' of Islam? So how can the Qur'an, the product of the religion, be that evidence? If the tree were poisonous, would not the fruit of the tree be equally poisonous? The same would apply to a Christian who talks to you about Christianity. Jesus is the Son of God and the saviour. How does this Christian know this? He or she then quotes verses from the Bible as 'evidence' to support that argument. Again, is not the Bible the 'product' of Christianity? So how can the Bible, the product of the religion, be that evidence? If the tree were poisonous, would not the fruit of the tree be equally poisonous? Religionists do not appear to grasp this logic. Hence there is no logic in their argument and they end up arguing in circles. They are selling the concept of the authenticity of their religion. However, although they are ones doing the selling, they refuse to prove that what they say is true. Instead, they ask you to prove that what they say is false. In short, you insist that God exists. But you do not have to prove that God exists. Instead, I have to prove that God does not exist. The onus is on me to prove that you are wrong and not on you to prove that you are right. But it is you, not me, that is doing the selling. So how come I need to do the proving (or disproving)? Can you see how the mind of a religionist works? They are in a mode of self-deception. Then they accuse us of being deceived (in this case by the devil who has misled us). So how do you reason with such people? They are beyond reasoning. They have made their minds up and no amount of logic or reasoning is going to change their mind. And these are the same people who have made their minds up that Pakatan Rakyat is going to win the coming general election and is going to form the next federal government. But what do they base this conclusion on? They base this conclusion on the fact that they believe this is so and hence if they believe this then the majority of other Malaysians would definitely also believe this. No Christian would agree that he or she is following a false religion and is going to hell rather than to heaven. No Muslim would agree that he or she is following a false religion and is going to hell rather than to heaven. But how can both the Muslim and Christian be right? One has to be right while the other has to be wrong. Or can both be wrong? Yes, Barisan Nasional is confident that it is going to win the election. Pakatan Rakyat is also confident that it is going to win the election. And you, the followers of each of the respective coalitions, also believe what your party believes. But you can't both be right. One of you has to be right while the other must be wrong. Both cannot win the election. One has to lose. And this is what happens when you close your mind and refuse to look at the bigger picture. You are just one person with one vote. You may even be amongst four million like-minded people. But then 10 million people will be coming out to vote in the 13th General Election. And how many of these 10 million are following the TV news every night? And how many of these 10 million have been swayed by what they saw on TV? Do you know? Do you even watch the TV news? The answer is probably 'no' to both questions. Aren't you going to heaven while the other (competitor) is going to hell? That is what both Muslims and Christians believe. But both can't be right.
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2012 04:49 PM PDT In theory, these ten positions are merely ceremonial with no executive powers. In practice, however, the ten Monarchs wield more power than you think. And if the Sultan can order the police to detain his own brother and the police will comply (read the news item below) do you not think that the Rulers can order the military to do what they feel is needed for this country? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Mentally ill man attacks drunk (The Star) - A drunk was shaken out of his stupor when his mentally ill neighbour attacked him with a machete. The neighbour approached the man who was sitting outside his house in Cheras and drinking yesterday afternoon. The neighbour attacked the man, injuring him on the head. The man escaped and ran to a nearby police station. Police detained the 35-year-old neighbour. ********************************************* Neighbour 1: "I thought you said you do not drink any more." Neighbour 2: "I don't. I drink exactly the same amount as I always drink. I don't drink any more than usual." Neighbour 1: "That's means you don't drink any less either then." Neighbour 2: "No, I don't drink any less, but I also don't drink any more." Neighbour 1: "Aiyah. You ni dah mabuk lah!" Neighbour 2: "Ah, yes, but tomorrow I will be sober while you will still be…" And that was when neighbour 1 attacked neighbour 2 with a parang. And what would the moral of this story be? The moral of the story is: never ague with a mad chap. When they lose the argument they will resort to violence. And this is what we appear to be seeing in Malaysia of late. Malaysian politics is hovering around the fringes of violence. It is not that serious yet. It is still only splashing of red paint, breaking of windscreens, throwing of stones, fisticuffs and cuts and bruises on the face, etc. But then that is how it all starts, isn't it so? Tempers are rising. People are beginning to allow the suppressed feelings of frustration to surface. Both sides feel that the 13th General Election is the final lap that will determine who is going to take power come dinner time of Polling Day. It is now or never. Hence the coming general election has to be an all-out race where winner takes all and loser loses all. And this is why the ante has been upped. In a system where winner takes all and loser loses all, there is no margin for compromise. It is an all or nothing situation. And if you want all rather than nothing, then you need to fight tooth and nail to win because losing cannot be an option. Have we maybe forgotten the original objective of a general election? Why do we even have a general election in the first place? The intention of a general election is to allow the people (citizens) to rule themselves. This is opposed to the old monarchy system where a Ruler rules over the people. In a monarchy system, power is hereditary. Basically, God decides who rules over you. And God makes this decision through the successors of the Ruler (in Islam called Caliph). Hence the people have no choice as to who rules over them since the decision is in the hands of God. Since then the system has changed somewhat. For Malaysia that would be August 1957 -- and about 100 years earlier for Europe and 200 years earlier for the US. Malaysia has what we call a Constitutional Monarchy. That means the people get to choose who they want to rule over them with the Monarchy being basically a means to maintain some checks and balances. That is in theory, of course. But is this how it works in practice? Actually, in practice anything goes. The Sultan can banish the dentist who was late going to the palace and the dentist can be escorted out of the state immediately. The Sultan can refuse the choice of Chief Minister (Menteri Besar) if he does not like the chap. The Sultan can order the detention of his own brother and mother. In short, the Rulers can do quite a lot, far beyond what their powers under the Constitution allow. Is this legal? Well, if the Ruler does something far beyond what the Constitution allows then of course it is not legal. But who is going to argue with the Sultan? The OCPD? The CPO? The IGP? The Minister of Home Affairs? The Prime Minister? Technically, the police or government can refuse the Sultan. In practice, no one wants to be the mouse that bells the cat. Hence, in practice, the Sultan can order the police to kick you out of the state if His Highness does not like the colour of your shirt. And the police will do just that without arguing with the Sultan that this action is not allowed under the law. Now, the police take orders from the government, mainly the Minister. The military, however, have a different chain of command. Have you noticed that most times it is the Colonels who head military coups? Well, that is because most times the Colonels are the Camp Commanders and the military has been trained to take orders from their Commanders. Hence the Colonels take charge of the military coups and they can even order the arrest or execution of the generals. Now, the British, in their wisdom, have made all the nine Rulers the Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the armed forces. And the Agong is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Hence we have nine Colonels-in-Chief with one Commander-in-Chief who is also the Supreme Head of the Federation. In theory, these ten positions are merely ceremonial with no executive powers. In practice, however, the ten Monarchs wield more power than you think. And if the Sultan can order the police to detain his own brother and the police will comply (read the news item below) do you not think that the Rulers can order the military to do what they feel is needed for this country? In theory, the nine state Rulers are supposed to act on the advice of the Chief Ministers (Menteris Besar) while the Agong is supposed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. But can we be assured that this will always be the case? Let us look at a hypothetical situation. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak seeks an audience with the Agong to request the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the nine Menteris Besar also seek an audience with the nine state Rulers to request permission to dissolve the nine State Assemblies. And the three Chief Ministers in Penang, Melaka, and Sabah also do the same (but with the Governors of the States). Parliament and the 12 State Assemblies (except Sarawak) are then dissolved. Technically, there is no longer a government and Malaysia is headed by a caretaker Prime Minister. The country is run by the civil service while the Elections Commission (SPR) takes charge of the federal and state elections and is answerable to the Rulers. Yes, the civil service is now running the country with SPR running the elections. And the State Secretaries will 'report' to the state Rulers while the KSN will 'report' to the Agong. The SPR head will also 'report' to the Agong. And the military will be on standby in case the Rulers decide that an Emergency needs to be declared because of a breakdown in law and order. So you see, even though in theory the position of the Constitutional Monarchs is purely ceremonial, in practice they actually have more power than you think. And while you may argue that Malaysia's system does not allow a military takeover with the Monarchs heading an Emergency government, who is going to go face the Rulers to argue with them? Did not Chairman Mao say that power comes out from the barrel of the gun? So, in whose hands are these 250,000 or so guns? And if the current splashing of red paint, breaking of windscreens, throwing of stones, fisticuffs and cuts and bruises on the face, etc., escalates to something more serious like that case of the mentally ill chap slashing his drunk neighbour with a parang, do you think the Rulers will just turn away and do nothing? I think we should cool our tempers a bit. We are currently only hovering around the fringes of violence. But it takes very little to move from the fringes into the centre. The right (or wrong) words and the shouting match can turn into a melee. I have tried, again and again, to caution you readers of Malaysia Today to tone down the rhetoric a bit. I know when you can post insults behind the security of your computer without having to reveal your identity everyone can be brave. And I see many 'brave' readers posting comments in Malaysia Today because they need not reveal themselves. But eventually the mocking and insults will migrate to a higher level. And when that happens it will be too late to back down. Elections should be about the people choosing who they want to rule over them for the next five years. But when it is reduced to the level of one race (or religion) 'fighting for survival' against another, then politics takes on a whole new dimension, which I think most Malaysians would not want to experience. Kerana mulut, badan binasa. Always remember that. Don't test the resolve of the Rulers to end this current madness called 'Malaysian political culture'. It is not the kind of culture we will enjoy seeing. And as has been proven in many other countries, once we adopt this culture it is very difficult to turn back the clock. Wounds do not heal so easily and grudges can be retained over many generations, again, as has been proven in many other countries. ********************************************* I did not commit any offence, says Tengku Fakhry (Bernama) - The Sultan of Kelantan's brother, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra told the High Court yesterday that he had not committed any criminal offence on 30 July 2009, the day he was confined by police. Tengku Muhammad Fakhry, 34, testified that he was neither informed of any criminal wrongdoing nor the reason for his detention by the police in the Istana Mahkota grounds, in Kubang Kerian, Kelantan. "I was confined for at least an hour by the police and not allowed to leave the palace grounds that day," he said during the proceedings against Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tan Sri Ismail Omar and three others related to his alleged wrongful confinement on July 30 2009. He added that his lawyer, Datuk Mohd Haziq Pillay, was also in the car with him at the time. The fifth plaintiff' witness said, just before he was detained by the police he had driven out the Bentley Brooklands car which belonged to his father, Sultan Ismail Petra, from the palace garage. Tengku Muhammad Fakhry said prior to that day his father had instructed him to drive the car down to Singapore. However, as he was about to drive the car out of the palace grounds a Volvo had blocked his way and the main gates were closed. Tengku Muhammad Fakhry described the situation as scary saying he saw several armed policemen moving in and out of the palace. During cross-examination by senior federal counsel, Azizan Md Arshad, who represented the defendants, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry said he was not aware of the order issued by his brother, the acting Sultan of Kelantan at the time, Tengku Muhammad Faris Petra, prohibiting him from taking the car out of the palace. He also refuted Azizan's suggestion that the police had actually prevented the Bentley Brooklands from being taken out of the palace grounds and had not confined him. The plaintiff filed a RM150 million suit on Dec 9 last year, naming the IGP; the Kelantan Sultan's chief personal bodyguard, ASP Norazman Ismail; Kelantan police chief at the time, Datuk Abdul Rahim Hanafi, and the Royal Malaysian Police as the first to fourth defendants respectively. In his statement of claim, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry alleged that he was wrongfully confined on July 30, 2009 in the compound of Istana Mahkota, Kubang Kerian as he was about to leave in a Bentley Brooklands car. He is seeking RM100 million in general damages, RM50 million in aggravated and exemplary damages, interest at a rate of four per cent, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court. The trial before Judge Datin Zabariah Mohd Yusof resumes today.
|
| The cost of living in Malaysia Posted: 07 Oct 2012 03:49 PM PDT Malaysia's Approved Permit (AP) process, which restricts importing cars to government approved permit holders, is intended to favour Bumiputeras (ethnic Malay's and members of native tribes) by enabling Bumiputeras to set up automobile sales and service operations. Instead, the AP process has become a lucrative "middleman" operation, where many Malay AP holders sell their permits to non-Malays and keep the cash. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
On 16th December 2009, the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur sent the report below to Washington. Basically, it is a report regarding Malaysia's automobile industry. Now, while both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat whack each other and condemn each other's '2013 Budget', what we should be discussing instead is: what are both sides going to do about what was reported below? What is the policy regarding the automobile industry? Malaysians, like most Asians, have a 'love affair' with their car. Sometimes the car(s) parked outside their house cost more than the house itself. However, while the house may appreciate in value, the same cannot be said about the car. The car is a depreciating asset and sometimes you cannot even dispose of your car for more than what you owe the finance company. How many times have you heard people grumble that when they sold their car they actually had to 'top up' the full-settlement payment to the finance company? In countries that have a good/efficient public transport system, you can get by without a car. Bankers, managers and even Members of Parliament can use public transport to get to work. In Malaysia, even clerks need to drive to work. Hence cars are not only a status symbol but also a necessity. However, while in some countries (like the UK) your car can be equivalent of 1-2 years of your monthly salary, in Malaysia it can be 5-10 years of your monthly salary depending on your salary and what car you buy. That is just too much. The car should be working for you, not you work for your car, which is what is happening in Malaysia. In the UK this car costs less than one year of your monthly salary while in Malaysia it is 6-7 years if you work as a security guard, waiter, driver, clerk, etc. No doubt car prices in Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, etc., are about the same as in Malaysia (in fact, Malaysia is about 10% cheaper), but that is not a good argument to use to defend car prices in Malaysia. Malaysia has to decide whether it wants a free market policy or a protectionist policy. A free market, no doubt, favours the capitalists. But then in a protectionist environment, although it helps protect the weak from the powerful, invariably the consumer ends up paying. I would go for a free market and may the fittest survive. Certainly, in a free market, the weak are going to die. But is that not the law of nature -- the survival of the fittest? Anyway, I am not going to be contesting the election or wish to form the next government. Hence what I think does not matter. What we, the voters, should be concerned about is: what do those who are offering themselves for election think? Can we hear from them before Malaysians go to the polls to vote in the coming election, which Anwar Ibrahim said last night is going to be held later this year? ************************************************ In October 2009, GOM announced revisions to its National Auto Policy (NAP), in effect since 2005, which will be implemented in January 2010. The revised NAP lifts the freeze on some Manufacturing Licenses, and reduces intra-ASEAN duties and excise taxes, and sets aside tax exemptions for high-value added exports. However, the policy extends the Approved Permit (AP) system for another 10 years (effectively extending quota restrictions), expands import restrictions especially on used vehicles, and does not significantly change subsidies to the industry. U.S. firms will find little to cheer about in the changes to the NAP because there is no significant departure from the past in terms of opening up the market for imports or reducing subsidies to the "national" automakers. Importers of passenger vehicles complain that the measures Malaysia maintains are protectionist, opaque, and potentially inconsistent with Malaysia's obligations under the WTO. According to one American manufacturer's regional representative, the NAP, even after these revisions, seriously restricts the ability of importers to compete on a level playing field. The key policy preferences for bumiputera ownership and high local content remain in place. The small liberalization measures, i.e. duty and excise reductions, are mostly in categories where "national" brands do not compete, or where the infrastructure does not exist (i.e. electric cars). National Auto Policy (NAP) - Objectives Malaysia has protected its automobile manufacturing industry from foreign competition using both high tariffs and non-tariff barriers for the past 20 years. Even for cars produced in Malaysia, Malaysian government policies distinguish between "national" cars, (e.g., domestic producers Proton and Perodua) and "non-national" cars, which include most vehicles manufactured in Malaysia by non-Malaysian owned firms. Malaysia's current National Auto Policy (NAP) has been in effect since 2005. The NAP framework is intended to encourage increased foreign investment in Malaysia's auto sector, while simultaneously strengthening national car-makers Proton and Perodua. The NAP Framework's five major objectives have been: "-- to promote a competitive and viable automobile sector, in particular national car manufacturers; -- to become a regional hub for manufacturing, assembly and distribution for automotive vehicles; -- to enhance value added and local capabilities in the automotive sector; -- to promote export-oriented Malaysian manufacturers as well as component and parts vendors; -- to promote competitive and broad-based Bumiputera participation in vehicle manufacturing, distribution and importation as well as in component and parts manufacturing." Review of the NAP In November 2008, the (then) Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak (currently prime minister) announced that the GOM would review the NAP to potentially liberalize the sector. In October 2009, the GOM announced the completion of its review of the NAP. The new measures will be implemented in January 2010. According to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), the primary objectives of the review were to ensure the long-term viability and competitiveness of the industry, and to ensure that consumer interests, safety, and the environment were protected. Additional objectives included promoting new and existing investment, promoting utilization of the latest technology, and continued expansion of Bumiputera participation in the industry. Based on the review, the GOM introduced 18 new policy measures or revisions. The policy measures covered adjustments to licensing, duties, incentives, technology, environment, safety, standards, and the Approved Permits (AP) system. Manufacturing Licenses The NAP lifts the freeze on Manufacturing Licenses for luxury vehicles, pick-up trucks, commercial vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and motorcycles with engine capacity over 200 cc. Also, there will not be any bumiputra equity requirements imposed on new manufacturing licenses. The current freeze on new licenses for rebuild activities, however, will remain in force. Duty and excise taxes selectively reduced The new policy reduces the intra-ASEAN duty rate from 5 percent to zero by January 2010. Electric / hybrid vehicles will be exempt from duty and the excise tax reduced to 50 percent (from the usual 105 percent). Duties and excise taxes for other imports from non-ASEAN countries will remain unchanged. Tax exemptions for high value added exports The revised NAP increases the income tax exemption for high-value added exports of vehicles and parts. Tax exemption on statutory income is based on the percentage increase in value-added of exports: if the value-added is at least 30 percent, 30 percent of the value is exempt from income tax (as compared to the previous 10 percent); if the value-added exceeds 50 percent, 50 percent is exempt (as compared to the previous 30 percent). Gazette prices expanded to used vehicles Malaysia currently uses gazette prices (determined by MITI) for the purpose of computing the duty on the value of new imported vehicles. In that past, importers of used vehicles have reportedly under-declared the value of used cars. The NAP addresses this problem by establishing gazette prices for imported used motor vehicles. Approved Permit (AP) system extended Malaysia's Approved Permit (AP) process, which restricts importing cars to government approved permit holders, is intended to favor Bumiputera (ethnic Malay's and members of native tribes) by enabling Bumiputera to set up automobile sales and service operations. Instead, the AP process has become a lucrative "middle man" operation, where many Malay AP holders sell their permits to non-Malays and keep the cash. According to MITI statistics, 156 companies out of 254 have lost their APs since 1986 because of misuse or resale of their APs. This system adds thousands of dollars to the retail cost of imported cars. The revised NAP extends the planned phase-out of AP system to 2020 (from the previous planned 2010), and maintains the minimum 70 percent bumiputera equity requirement for prospective importers. (NOTE: GOM announced in January 2009 that they planned to extend the deadline for the phase-out, but probably not more than five years.) The revised NAP also further restricts importation of used vehicles, by terminating the open APs for used vehicles by December 31, 2015. Automotive Development Fund (ADF) Malaysia's fiscal stimulus package set aside USD56 million for Malaysia's Automotive Development Fund. The purpose of the fund is to support the development of Malaysian auto manufacturers and auto dealers. Under the revised NAP, both the ADF and separate Industrial Adjustment Fund (IAF) will continue providing soft loans, grants and subsidies. The stated purpose of ADF is to "improve competitiveness of parts and components manufacturers through soft loans and grants," whereas the IAF grants are made available to "companies that create significant economic contribution."
|
| Posted: 04 Oct 2012 06:12 PM PDT What happened to you all those years? When we told you we need change and when we explained why we need change you still went ahead and voted for Barisan Nasional. You not only voted for Barisan Nasional but you gave 101 excuses as to why you had no choice but to vote for Barisan Nasional. And now you talk full of self-righteousness and scream: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
There is one comment that is oft repeated. It is repeated by readers who post comments here in Malaysia Today. It is repeated by Bloggers, writers and 'political analysts'. Many of you keep saying this over and over again. And that comment is: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change. Why do you keep repeating this? Is it because you thought that this is something we do not already know? Or did you think that maybe we have forgotten this and that is why you have to keep reminding us? Or is it you wanted to impress us with your analytical skills in being able to come to that conclusion using your intelligence and superior education? This is like telling us that water is wet. Do you think we do not already know that? Do you feel smart because you have told us something you thought we did not know until you told us? Even if we did not realise this, does it make you feel smart because you are telling us something that 500 or 1,000 people before you have already told us? Anyway, Barisan Nasional has not ruled Malaysia for 55 years. Barisan Nasional was formed in January 1973. Hence Barisan Nasional is only 39 years old, going on 40 in another three months time. For the first 16 years after Merdeka, it was the Alliance Party that ruled Malaysia. Even then it can be argued whether the Alliance Party was in power for 14, 16 or 18 years. The first municipal elections were held in 1955, two years before Merdeka, and the first general elections were held in 1959, two years after Merdeka. Hence did the Alliance Party come into power in 1955, 1957 or 1959? Whatever it may be, for purposes of this discussion, let us just say that Umno has been in power for 55 years. They took over when the British granted independence to Malaya and it ruled though one coalition called the Alliance Party for 16 years and thereafter through a second coalition called Barisan Nasional for another 39 years. So the total for both coalitions would come to 55 years. Now, what do we achieve by discussing this matter? So it may have been 57 years or 55 years or 53 years or just 39 years. Does it make any difference if we argue about how long Barisan Nasional has been in power? And what do you achieve by screaming over and over again: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change. If you keep repeating this, you are merely admitting your own stupidity. I do not care how long Barisan Nasional has been in power. I do not care whether the correct answer is 57 years or 55 years or 53 years or just 39 years. I would rather ask: how was Barisan Nasional able to stay in power for so long (whether the correct answer is 57 years or 55 years or 53 years or just 39 years)? If Barisan Nasional is bad for the country and if Barisan Nasional has been in power just too damn long, that can only mean that there are many stupid people who voted for them to allow them to retain power for 12 general elections since 1959. So who are these stupid people? And aren't these stupid people the same people who voted for Barisan Nasional, election after election, and now scream: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change. When I voted in the general elections I voted for the opposition. And to prove that I voted for the opposition I held up the ballot paper for all and sundry to see before I put it into the ballot box. You should have seen the shocked faces of the election workers who panicked when I held up my ballot paper so that they can see whom I voted for. I did not even bother to go into the booth to mark my ballot paper. When they handed me the ballot paper I asked for them for a pencil and marked it right there, in front of them. When they tried to usher me into the booth I told them no need to do that because I was going to vote for the opposition. I then showed them my ballot paper as proof that I had voted for the opposition. And while I did this each and every general election do you want to know what you did? You expressed anxiety that your vote may not be a secret because the ballot papers have serial numbers on them so the government can actually find out whom you voted for. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were worried that if you voted for the opposition you might get into trouble. You did not want to vote for Barisan Nasional but you were scared of voting for the opposition so you did not come out to vote. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you did not have confidence that the opposition can run the country. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were worried that the economy would suffer if the opposition takes over. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were scared that if the opposition wins the election there might be race riots. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were not aware that Barisan Nasional is bad, you thought they were good. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you did not have access to the Internet so you were not informed about the truth. You voted for Barisan Nasional because no one told you about the bad things that Barisan Nasional had done. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were scared of PAS's Islamic State so you would rather Umno run the country. You voted for Barisan Nasional because you were scared that DAP would abolish Ketuanan Melayu so you would rather Umno run the country. You voted for Barisan Nasional because it had proven it can run the country while the opposition had not proven itself yet. In short, you voted for Barisan Nasional and today you give all sorts of lame and stupid excuses as to why you did that. So it is not your fault that you voted for Barisan Nasional. It is someone else's fault that you voted for Barisan Nasional. And because you voted for Barisan Nasional they were able to retain power for 55 years (or 57 years or 53 years or 39 years) or 12 general elections (or nine general elections since 1974 after Barisan Nasional was formed). So, now you want to kick out Barisan Nasional, is it? Why do you want to kick out Barisan Nasional? You want to kick out Barisan Nasional because: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change. But why do we need change? We need change because there is so much corruption in Malaysia. We need change because there is no democracy in Malaysia. We need change because the government does not respect human rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to lead the lifestyle of your choice, etc. We need change because we need transparency, good governance, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, etc. In short, the system is not working, the government is not working, society is not working, in fact, everything is not working. So we need change. But when did all this begin to break down? Only since 2008? Only since 1998? Or since 1958? Tell me what has changed since Merdeka of 1957? Things are basically still the same. Okay, you argue that things have gotten worse over the last 55 years. Have they? Who told you that? Do you mean there was no corruption in Malaysia until Barisan Nasional took over? There was already corruption in Malaysia even before there was a Malaysia. 200 years ago Yap Ah Loy was already bribing the government officials so that he could open his brothels and opium dens along Jalan Ampang in Kuala Lumpur. The Chinese tin miners were bribing members of the Selangor and Perak royal families 200-300 years ago so that they could mine tin in those two states. Barisan Nasional did not invent bribery. Bribery had been 'invented' hundreds of years before that. The Chinese, the Malays, and the government, were already involved in bribery long before Merdeka. Many towns and cities in Malaysia emerged and flourished against the backdrop of bribery and corruption. So, Malaysia got independence in 1957. And bribery and corruption was already well entrenched in Malaysian society back in 1957. The government and the businessmen were corrupt to the core. And we told you this back in the 1970s. We told you this back in the 1980s. We told you this back in the 1990s. Now, suddenly, you are screaming about corruption. What happened to you all those years? When we told you we need change and when we explained why we need change you still went ahead and voted for Barisan Nasional. You not only voted for Barisan Nasional but you gave 101 excuses as to why you had no choice but to vote for Barisan Nasional. And now you talk full of self-righteousness and scream: Barisan Nasional has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. 55 years is long enough. It is time for change.
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2012 06:04 PM PDT When we talk about change or reforms that has to mean something different and something better. If we act and talk just like the Barisan Nasional or Umno people do, then what change or reforms are we talking about? We lie, we distort facts, and we practice double standards and hypocrisy. We are just the reverse side of the same coin. So what changes or reforms are we talking about? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Actually, it is not only comments that whack Islam that do not get published here, comments that whack you also do not get published here. Are you saying you are on the same level as this great religion Islam? And are you saying whacking you is seditious, inflammatory, malicious and racist? I have read comments in other blogs where they say that comments here that do not agree with you or whack you do not get published. (Kim) ********************************************* That was a comment by Kim. According to Kim, "I have read comments in other blogs where they say that comments here that do not agree with you or whack you do not get published." First of all, Kim did not reveal what 'other Blogs' he was referring to. This is like saying that 'I heard something' or 'some people say'. You need to be specific. Which 'other Blogs' are you talking about? If it was a pro-Umno or pro-Pakatan Blog, then I can understand why they say this. They are biased. They have a political master and their job is to serve a political master. Would you believe it when TV3 or Utusan Malaysia says that Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali are immoral people and hypocrites to boot? You would allege that TV3 and Utusan Malaysia are owned by Umno and serve Umno's agenda. Therefore you cannot believe what they say. When the Umno Blogs came out with a story saying that the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Dr Mansor Othman, called Lim Guan Eng cocky, arrogant and tokong, you did not believe it. You said that that was a lie. And you did not believe it mainly because it was the Umno Blogs that were saying this. Whatever the Umno Blogs say cannot be believed. Then Dr Mansor and Guan Eng held a joint-press conference so that this incident can be denied. Then you said, "There you are. That is the proof that the Umno Blogs lied." Then TV3 played a recording of Dr Mansor saying what he initially denied saying. Then you said, "So what? Dr Mansor has a right to express his opinion. What is so wrong with that?" Then you say that the person who leaked this recording should be hunted down and action must be taken against him/her. This is the same kind of kepala otak as Kim. They cannot see things beyond their own nose. They will simply talk without knowing the facts. And then, when they are caught with their pants down, they will twist and turn and say things that suit them. Secondly, what was this specific comment that was posted that I am alleged to have blocked or deleted? Can you quote that comment? Kim said, "Comments here that do not agree with you or whack you." What was that comment? I want to know what that comment said. It is so easy to make a sweeping allegation without any supporting details. When I said that the PKR lawyers are getting legal work from the Selangor government, everyone demanded proof and details. You cannot accept a sweeping allegation. You want details. So give me details. Quote me that comment that you are talking about. Be specific. I too can make such allegations. The Chinese plan to take over Malaysia. The Christians are trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. My allegation is as 'strong' as Kim's allegation if we can make sweeping allegations without proof or details. Then I gave you the details and evidence to prove that the PKR lawyers got legal work from Selangor (now, even some DAP leaders have come to to confirm this). I even published a letter to show that certain PKR people had issued instructions that legal work must be given to PKR lawyers. You demanded details and evidence. You will not believe it unless I give details and evidence. So I gave you the details and evidence. Then what do you do? You said that the amount of legal work that the PKR lawyers got was small compared to what the Umno lawyers got when BN was running Selangor. If the Umno people can do it so what if the PKR people also do it? The Umno people are worse. The PKR people are not that bad, only small time corruption -- so can be forgiven. When we say something, you say it cannot be believed unless the details and evidence can be shown. When we show you the evidence, you make a U-turn and explain why it is okay and you say that it is not considered a crime or something wrong because it is small corruption and not big corruption. What kind of people are you? You are so immoral and hypocritical. When Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat leaders fly in a private jet sponsored by businessmen it is very okay. When Ali Rustam's son's wedding is sponsored by businessmen it is not okay. When Karpal Singh disagrees with Hudud it is okay. When Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim disagrees with demonstrations it is not okay. Karpal Singh is just following the law so it is okay to disagree with Hudud. Tunku Aziz is also following the law but it is a bad law so it is not okay to disagree with demonstrations. So, according to Kim, "I have read comments in other blogs where they say that comments here that do not agree with you or whack you do not get published." Well, tell me which Blogs said that and what were the comments that I blocked or deleted. Until then I can only say that Kim is lying through his/her teeth. I can also say that 'Kim' is actually Tian Chua who is posting under a false name. Can I prove that? Do I need to prove that? Kim does not need to prove what he/she says either. When we talk about change or reforms that has to mean something different and something better. If we act and talk just like the Barisan Nasional or Umno people do, then what change or reforms are we talking about? We lie, we distort facts, and we practice double standards and hypocrisy. We are just the reverse side of the same coin. So what changes or reforms are we talking about? We say that Pakatan Rakyat may not be clean but they are not as bad as Barisan Nasional or Umno. We say we want freedom of expression as long as that does not include criticising the opposition. What is all this? Look at yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see. Can you see a clone of Barisan Nasional staring back at you? Do you remember this article? Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke? Well, that is unbridled freedom of expression. But from the almost 300 comments in that article you do not seem to regard that as freedom of expression. And why not? Isn't that the type of freedom of expression that you are talking about? So why get upset? Even Haris Ibrahim was very upset. And I thought he was one of the greatest defenders of freedom of expression. Are you telling me that freedom of expression has its limits? Or are you telling me that freedom of expression means the right to criticise the government but not to criticise the opposition? By the way, the total donations received by Ahli Parlimen Lambah Pantai for August was RM22,231.80 and for September was RM31,393.35.The total received for Aug-Sept was RM53,625.15. That was all. Less than RM54,000. And that reflects the level of commitment from Pakataan Rakyat people. Yes, Pakatan Rayat people talk a lot. They sure can scream. But that is all they do -- they talk and scream. But they never put their money where their mouth is. And because of that Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin is going to win the Lembah Pantai Parliament seat and Nurul Izzah Anwar is going to be a one-term MP. Do you know who is Raja Nong Chik's strategist? The man who is heading Raja Nong Chik's election campaign is the ex-Secretary General of PKR. Yes, that's right, that is Raja Nong Chik's head of election strategy and campaign, Datuk Salehuddin Hashim. Raja Nong Chik has plenty of money, a ministerial position, and a good campaign team headed by the ex-PKR Sec-Gen. And Nurul Izzah has a bunch of young chicos running around in circles, with RM54,000 in the bank, and many 'supporters' amongst the readers of Malaysia Today who talk a lot and are not even registered to vote in Lembah Pantai. Yes, I know, I have read the comments that said people refuse to donate to Nurul Izzah because they don't trust me. What have I got to do with this? That is not my bank account. It is Nurul Izaah's bank account. I am not contesting the election. Nurul Izzah is. I am just the messenger boy. So you don't trust me. So what? Where is the logic in not donating to Nurul Izzah because you do not trust me? I do not get the logic in that. The bottom line is many of you are just hot air, a load of bullshit, and you are trying to 'explain' the poor figure that Nurul Izzah collected by trying to shift the blame to me. That is the level of intelligence of Pakatan Rakyat supporters. And because of that Barisan Nasional is going to win the coming general election. And on the morning after Polling Day I am going to write an article that is going to say, "Ha…ha...ha…I told you so." What a bunch of bloody losers! |
| 97 cows for me and 3 cows for you Posted: 02 Oct 2012 08:08 PM PDT Hence trade and commerce is very crucial to Islam. And the distribution of wealth (zakat) is one of the tenets of Islam alongside praying, fasting and performing the pilgrimage (Haj). And in Islam it is mandatory that every year you pay 2.5-3.0% of your wealth as zakat. This zakat is then distributed to the needy, poor, orphans, people too old or too sick to work, travellers, people in debt, etc. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin This was an e-mail sent by a friend in the UK to another friend in the UK. Both are Malaysians although I have not revealed their names. I thought it would be interesting to read the exchange. Obviously you need some proper understanding of what is meant by socialism. Give me a call to meet up for a sensible discussion. Hopefully you will then realise the trash you are circulating has nothing to do with socialism. Brown's "socialism" was a continuation of Reagan/Thatcher free market for the greedy to take all they could take in an unregulated market. Free market is not about rewarding those who worked hard. Free market is about giving the descendants of land and cattle thieves (the lords and ladies of the manor) and the generations of the slimy greedy bloodsuckers the freedom to accumulate more wealth by using their existing wealth, power and connection to screw the majority of the population. I am saddened that a nice and intelligent guy like you is circulating trash on behalf of those bloodsuckers who wish to divert attention from their despicable greed that caused the economic and financial disaster we are all facing today. I am currently in Malaysia, best wishes. Basically, my two friends above were debating the workings of 'western' socialism. Let me join the fray (or throw the cat amongst the pigeons) and add 'Islamic' socialism to the discussion. Muslims would normally argue that Islam is not a religion but a way of life (adeen). However, not every Muslim practices what they preach. Hence we tend to find a lot of hypocrisy amongst Muslims -- as we also find amongst the other religions that preach love but invade other countries since the last 1,000 years and have never stopped doing so until today. If you were to study Islam in depth, you will find that Islam is a combination of socialism and capitalism. For example, Islam teaches you that doing business is better and more virtuous than working for someone. Prophet Muhammad was a businessman, as was his first wife who owned the business that the Prophet was managing. And so on. Now, as much as most Muslims would never want to admit this (and will whack me for saying it), the first 'Holy War' was actually a war concerning trade. This first 'war' at Badr (a village south of Medina on the road to Mekah) was a caravan raid and was meant to cripple Mekah's position as the centre of trade for the Arabian Peninsular. At that time, Mekah was the centre of commerce and this resulted in it also being the centre of religion, or vice versa. People from all over did their pilgrimage to Mekah and at the same time engaged in trade. If Medina wanted to replace Mekah as the new centre, it would have to first cripple Mekah's trade supremacy. And to achieve this the Prophet attacked the trade caravans on route to Mekah. Before the war of Badr, many caravan raids were conducted and the biggest 'battle' was supposed to be the one passing through Badr. Hence while the Islamists would insist that the first 'holy' war of Badr was about religion, I will insist that it was about trade, although it can be indirectly regarded as about religion since whichever became the centre of trade invariably would also become the centre of religion. In short, trade and religion went hand-in-glove and to be the centre of one you must be the centre of the other. Let me put it another way. The Prophet's forces attacked the trade caravans not to convert these 'pagans' to Islam but to disrupt the trade routes and cripple Mekah's supremacy as the trade centre of the Peninsular. Mekah, in turn, sent an army to Badr not because the Prophet was propagating Islam but because he was disturbing Mekah's trade. The fact that one force was Muslim and the other 'pagan' was incidental. That is my interpretation of the events and is based on history and not theology. And the Islamists for sure will not agree with my interpretation of events -- but that is their problem, not mine. Hence trade and commerce is very crucial to Islam. And the distribution of wealth (zakat) is one of the tenets of Islam alongside praying, fasting and performing the pilgrimage (Haj). And in Islam it is mandatory that every year you pay 2.5-3.0% of your wealth as zakat. This zakat is then distributed to the needy, poor, orphans, people too old or too sick to work, travellers, people in debt, etc. In short, you are encouraged to do business rather than work for someone so that you can become wealthy and so that once you are wealthy you can take care of those less fortunate than you. So, as I said, Islam is a combination of capitalism and socialism. Islam wants you to create wealth so that you can share this wealth. Now tell me, how many Muslims will understand this or will agree with this? Of course, the manner in how you make your money and how much profit you make is also an issue. But let's not go into that or else this piece is going to turn into a thesis. The long and short of it would be no one starves or sleeps on the streets under Islam's capitalist-socialist system. But the reality is, there is more poverty in Muslim countries than in non-Muslim countries plus more exploitation, discrimination, injustice and so on. So, the system may be good but the people living under that system do not comply and deviate from what should be. And that is why I always say that changing the system (or the government) is of no use unless the people themselves are prepared to reform. In theory, the Islamic capitalist-socialist system is superb. In practice, Muslim countries suck. It is not about the system or the government. It is about the mentality of the people. In Malaysia, when we scream about reforms, we normally talk about changing the system or the government. But if it is merely old wine in a new bottle nothing good is going to come out of it. Islam's capitalist-socialist system is already good enough. It is better than even some western concepts. But show me one superb Muslim country. And show me one Muslim country that changed its government and became a Shangri-La. Most times the new government was as bad or worse than the old government. Hence the best system in the world would be like throwing pearls to swine if the people are not capable and resist change.
Read more here: http://www.hidaya.org/zakat-calculator?gclid=CLXv5_HE5LICFaTHtAodKToA0g |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan