Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Just shooting the breeze
The cost of living in Malaysia
Only losers scream
Losers galore
97 cows for me and 3 cows for you
This is how it works
Secularism is the way to go
Sometimes I can’t understand Umno
Apa sebab pergi cari pasal?
Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke?

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, 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."

Only losers scream

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.

Losers galore

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.

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.

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.

This is how it works

Posted: 01 Oct 2012 05:13 PM PDT

Now, if you want to whack Islam I have no problem with that. Just send me an e-mail with your details and I will register you to comment in Malaysia Today. Once you are registered your comment will automatically get published without needing to wait for the moderator to approve it. If you refuse to register then what more can I say? That would be your fault, would it not?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A number of readers have posted comments accusing me of being a hypocrite for not practicing what I preach. They allege that while I propagate freedom of expression, I do not walk the talk, I block or delete their comments. They further allege that I am denying them their right to post comments in Malaysia Today and hence am not respecting their freedom of expression. This, therefore, makes me a hypocrite.

A couple of readers also posted comments wanting to know why I blocked or deleted their comments whenever they bash Islam. If some readers can bash Christianity, they say, why can't they also post comments bashing Islam?

First of all, those whose comments get posted without 'censorship' are those readers who have registered to comment. So, whenever they post a comment, their comment automatically gets published, even if it is seditious, inflammatory, malicious, racist, etc. Those who are not registered will have to wait for the moderator to view that comment before it gets published. In such a situation the comment may or may not get published.

So this is a problem normally faced by those not registered to comment. Those registered to comment would seldom face a problem of blocked or deleted comments unless under very 'severe' situations.

Another point to note would be when so many readers repeat the comments of others. For example, one reader (or two or three readers) already posted a racist comment about Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's Mamak or Indian birth and this comment (or two or three comments) gets published. Then another ten or 20 readers post similar comments whacking Dr Mahathir's Indian or Mamak birth.

Do we need 20 comments all similarly referring to Dr Mahathir's Mamak or Indian birth? I think the first (or two or three) readers have already made his/her point -- and that point is Dr Mahathir is evil because his father was Indian. If his father had been Chinese or Malay then he would not be so evil. Hence anyone who has an Indian father is an evil person.

However, two or three comments regarding Dr Mahathir's Indian father should be enough, don't you think so? Why do we need to read comments from 20 people saying the same thing?

I think most, if not all Malaysians already know the story of Dr Mahathir's father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. It is already common knowledge. But not many know the story of Dr Mahathir's mother. Now, if someone wants to post a comment regarding Dr Mahathir's mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc., that would probably be something interesting since no one talks about that.

Hence if you have something new to say by all means post your comment. But if you just want to repeat what 500 people before you have already said then maybe we need not publish your comment. It would be most boring to read 500 comments regarding something we all already know -- Dr Mahathir's father's race.

Hence, also, if your comment does not get published it could be because your comment is so boring. I mean, you might not find it boring even though 500 other people have already said what you are saying before you said it. You may even get an orgasm with your comment. But then this could just be because you are a boring person.

Boring people normally regard what they say as extremely exciting although others may find them boring. Malays call this 'shiok sendiri'. It is like mental masturbation. They get turned on by the sound of their own voice and they think that others also get a hard on just because they do. Hence they get very upset when we find their comment too low standard and not worthy of publishing. They cannot accept the fact that their comment is not good enough for publishing. But I suppose that is the problem with shiok sendiri readers.

Now, if you want to whack Islam I have no problem with that. Just send me an e-mail with your details and I will register you to comment in Malaysia Today. Once you are registered your comment will automatically get published without needing to wait for the moderator to approve it. If you refuse to register then what more can I say? That would be your fault, would it not?

I can't understand why these people who want to whack Islam refuse to register to comment. It is not like they have to pay anything to register. Registration is free. Just e-mail me your details and you will get registered with no hassle whatsoever. It is so simple to do and yet they do not do it. It is really mind-boggling.

So, for those readers who complain that they want to whack Islam and their comments do not get published, send me an e-mail with your details now and I promise you I will immediately register you. I will also not block or delete your comments -- they will automatically get published. Can you do that?

Another point I want to discuss is regarding rights and privileges. Many readers confuse privileges with rights. They think that they have rights in Malaysia Today.

Actually you do not have any rights in Malaysia Today. You see Malaysia Today is not a democracy. No one appointed me or elected me to head Malaysia Today. I set up Malaysia Today and appointed myself. So I call the shots, not you. Hence I decide what happens in Malaysia Today and I can even make up the rules and change them as we go along.

Of course, you do not have to like this or agree to this. And if you don't like it you can set up your own Blog with your own rules. Then you decide what happens since it is your own Blog and set up with your own effort and money.

This works just like your passport. A passport is not a right. It is a privilege. The passport does not belong to you. It belongs to the government and the government can take it away if you abuse the privilege. Your passport does not determine your citizenship. You can be a citizen of the country without owning a passport.

Hence don't start screaming about your right to post comments in Malaysia Today. You have no rights whatsoever. You are merely a guest and as a guest I will allow you certain privileges. And I can also take away these privileges or deny you any privileges. And I do not need any reason to do that. Maybe I don't like your smell or your hairstyle or I think your skin is too dark or your eyes too shifty or whatever. I need no reason and I need not tell you my reason. That is how it works.

I trust you now understand how it works. In short, you have privileges while I have rights. You have the privilege to post comments in Malaysia Today and I have the right to decide whether your comment gets published or not. You have the privilege to register to comment in Malaysia Today and I have the right to refuse your registration or delete your registration later if I don't like what you say.

Is that now clear? And if it is not, then get a friend to help translate this into Bahasa Malaysia, Tamil or Mandarin.

Secularism is the way to go

Posted: 30 Sep 2012 05:17 PM PDT

Yes, as Anwar said, and as I have also been saying for many years, Malaysia can't make it just with electoral reforms. We need political and government reforms as well. And this is why I joined LibDem in the UK. While the others were talking merely about electoral reforms, LibDem was talking about political and government reforms.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar touts Turkey as model for economic, political reforms

(The Malaysian Insider) - Like Turkey, Malaysia can regain its economic lustre within a short period only through comprehensive political and government reform, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today in debating Budget 2013.

The opposition leader blamed Malaysia's blunted competitive edge on the Barisan Nasional (BN) government's failure to redress the lopsided economic policies awarded to "cronies and rich parties with interests", leading to a protracted Budget deficit for the last 15 years.

"Turkey's success under Reccip Tayeb Erdogan, for example, gives us confidence that economic policy and governance that is based on social justice, transparency, trust and recognising the potential talent of its people can boost the country's economic prosperity within a short period."

"That is why Pakatan Rakyat has from early on stressed that change and economic improvements cannot happen without political and government reform," he said in his Budget speech.

Using Turkey as an example, the former finance minister said in the 10 years since Erdogan became its prime minister, the latter had managed to transform the secular Muslim country's economy that had contracted in 2002 to become a "new economic miracle".

Turkey's gross domestic product (GDP) had tripled in nine years, he said, from US$233 billion (RM722 billion) in 2002 to US$773 billion last year. Its projected economic growth for this year is estimated to be more than 11 per cent, based on the first-quarter figures, which Anwar said topped China's and every other developed country worldwide.

He pointed out too that Turkey's economy had grown an average of between seven and nine per cent a year during Erdogan's administration and, more notably, the country would have offset its €1 billion (RM4 billion) sovereign debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by next April, the shortest-ever repayment considering the amount owed.

The Permatang Pauh MP said Malaysia was now facing the risk of being left further behind by other Asian countries that used to lag behind it in the 1970s and 1980s, like South Korea, which had succeeded in forging ahead with measures to combat corruption and level the economic playing field to raise the competitive edge for business entrepreneurs.

But he believed that Malaysia, which had a higher economic potential due to its oil reserves, still stood a strong chance of surging ahead by overhauling the existing economic structure.

"Barisan Nasional's failure to end the Budget deficit for 15 consecutive years while Malaysia has oil reserves shows there is a structural economic problem that it has neglected and allowed to spread like a cancerous tumour, for resolving the economic imbalance means touching cronies and the rich parties with interests," he said.

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

Turkey's political system is based on a separation of powers. Executive power is exercised by the Council of Ministers while legislative power is vested in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. Its current constitution was adopted on 7th November 1982 after the Turkish constitutional referendum.

The function of head of state is performed by the president who is elected every five years on the principle of universal suffrage according to the current constitution. The president does not have to be a member of parliament but he/she must be over 40 years old and hold a bachelor's degree.

Executive power rests with the president, the prime minister and the Council of Ministers. The ministers do not have to be members of Parliament. The prime minister is appointed by the President and approved through a vote of confidence in the Parliament.

Legislative power is invested in the 550-seat Grand National Assembly of Turkey representing 81 provinces. The members are elected for a four-year term by mitigated proportional representation with an election threshold of 10%. To be represented in Parliament, a party must win at least 10% of the national vote in a national parliamentary election. Independent candidates may run, and to be elected, they must only win 10% of the vote in the province from which they are running.

Turkey has a legal system that has been wholly integrated with the continental European system. For example the Turkish civil law system has been modified by incorporating elements of the Swiss Civil Code, the Code of Obligations and the German Commercial Code. The administrative law bears similarities with the French Counterpart and the penal code with the Italian Counterpart.

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

When Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim talks like this I will certainly support what he says. These are the type of things I like him to say. This not only gives Anwar a more statesmanlike image but what he says is in line with my own thoughts.

And, just like most Pakatan Rakyat supporters, I will agree with someone who says things that I agree with and will whack all those who say things that I do not agree with. In fact, that is not just the Pakatan Rakyat way but also the Malaysian way -- you have the right to say anything as long as I agree with what you say.

Above is a bit of background into the Turkish system. Turkey used to be called 'The Sick Man of Europe'. Today it can actually be called one of the most progressive Muslim countries in the world. Even Anwar would agree with this.

However, Islamists and fundamentalist Muslims would disagree with this prognosis. They would consider Turkey a bad example of what a Muslim country should be like. For that matter, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the man whom the west calls 'The Father of Modern Turkey', would be called an apostate and a traitor to Islam by the fundamentalist.

I once prayed in the Rusila mosque in Terengganu and the PAS President, Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, actually whacked Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to kingdom come. Hence I know for a fact that the PAS President (and most fundamentalist Muslims) does not regard Mustafa Kemal Atatürk highly. He would consider Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as someone whose head should be separated from his neck.

In Turkey, everyone is entitled to freedom of worship, religion, conscience and belief. In other words, apostasy does not exist in Turkey. That can never be accepted in a 'proper' Muslim country. On that one score alone Turkey can never be accepted as a Muslim country. Hence, how can we classify Turkey as the perfect example of a Muslim country (at least be western interpretations) when by Eastern interpretations it cannot qualify as a Muslim country?

Anwar is singing Turkey's praises and is telling us that if Malaysia can be like Turkey then Malaysia's economy will become just like Turkey's. And in singing Turkey's praises he lists down Turkey's virtues.

I can buy that. I agree that if Malaysia became like Turkey then we can expect to see our economy improve, just like Turkey. But to become like Turkey we will need, as Anwar said, political and government reforms -- to quote what Anwar said.

Again, I can buy that. In fact, Anwar took the words right out of my mouth. And this is what I have been saying for many years. And this is what I said when Anwar and I met up in London two years ago. And this is what I said when we launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). And this is also what I said in my TV3 interview in April 2011 and my NST interview on 1st January 2012.

So what do I now say? Do I say 'I told you so'? Do I say 'now Anwar Ibrahim is singing the same song as I have been singing for so long'? Or do I say 'how far is Pakatan Rakyat prepared to go to see political and government reforms'?

So we want to become just like Turkey -- a successful country, in particular in terms of governance and the economy. But are we prepared to do things just like Turkey? Maybe I should pose this question another way: will the Islamists and fundamentalists agree to Malaysia becoming like Turkey? In short: we cannot be slightly pregnant. Either we are or we are not. That is the bottom line.

And does Anwar realise that to become just like Turkey we need a lot of reforms -- not just cosmetic changes but a major structural change?

That, I fear, is what most Malaysians are not ready to accept. And that is why I have been screaming at both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. They talk about setting up home but they shy away from marriage. So are you saying we need to live in sin? Either we go all the way or we are neither here nor there. And this is what we plan for Malaysia -- a lot of cosmetics to give the impression of external beauty but rotten to the core internally?

And don't try to tell me that once we kick out Barisan Nasional all this is going to change. The problem is not Umno. The problem is the Muslims. The Muslims are not prepared to embrace secularism in favour of Islam, like what the Turks have done. That is the core issue here. Hence no change of government is going to help if Muslims resist a change of mindset.

Sometimes I can’t understand Umno

Posted: 25 Sep 2012 05:58 PM PDT

Umno needs to walk the talk. If it wants to convince Malaysians that it is serious about reforms and that it respects the rights of Malaysians to free speech then Umno has to prove it. Talking alone is not enough. Unless you can demonstrate that you mean what you say then expect many voters to vote against you come the next general election.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I can't understand why Umno is making a big fuss regarding the foreign funding that Suaram, Bersih, Malaysiakini, and so on, are alleged to have received. Is it illegal for Malaysian organisations to receive money from overseas (or from local sources for that matter)? Organisations, especially NGOs, need donations and grants to survive. If not how would they operate?

I myself donate monthly to the cancer research institute and the seeing-eye dogs for the blind NGO (http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/) here in the UK. They stand on street corners and go door-to-door to sign people up as monthly donors. In fact, the dog I have adopted is called 'Sparkle' and it is being loaned to a blind person for a payment of just one pound.

Umno should demonstrate a bit of maturity and not treat everything as a political issue. Umno reminds me of the opposition supporters who question me as to where I get my funding from, as to who is sponsoring me, as to how I survive here in the UK, and whatnot. That is very childish -- raising issues that are a non-issue. Umno should not reduce itself to this level.

The private jet that was loaned to the Pakatan Rakyat leaders is another issue that is silly. So a Malay businessman lent the opposition leaders the use of his jet -- or he paid the cost to rent a private jet. Is that wrong?

The fact that the businessman does business in the Pakatan Rakyat ruled states should not be the excuse to turn this into an issue. You are just assuming that since this person is a businessman then there must be strings attached. That is malicious and mischievous. You are jumping to conclusions and are insinuating that one is considered guilty until proven innocent.

Again, Umno is acting like those Pakatan Rakyat supporters who questioned me about my friend's yacht that I holidayed on in Phuket during the Christmas holidays last year. Actually, we had a meeting on that yacht and a few activists such as Haris Ibrahim also joined me a couple of days in Phuket. And that meeting was actually what resulted in me doing that NST interview on 1st January 2012.

Another thing that Umno is being silly about is regarding Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah's statements. He has always demonstrated an independent spirit and has always spoken his mind. No doubt some of his statements and opinions may go against Barisan Nasional's 'party stand'. But then what Saifuddin said is very true and is mere coincidental that some of the things he says are what some people in Pakatan Rakyat are also saying.

But just because what he says is sometimes also what those in the opposition say does not mean he is a traitor, Trojan horse, mole, or whatever. As the Deputy Higher Education Minister, what he says is very important because the youth are Malaysia's future. Hence it is very crucial that the youth are told the right things and who better to do that than the Deputy Education Minister himself, especially one from Umno?

Umno, which has been in power for more than half a century, should know this and, therefore, should allow its ministers some degree of independence. Umno cannot always expect its leaders to just toe the party line. When it is right the leaders must be allowed to say it is right and if it is wrong to say it is wrong.

Umno should prove to Malaysians that it is really interested in reforms and respects the rights of Malaysians to speak freely. Umno should not act like those in Pakatan Rakyat who are calling Nasharudin Mat Isa a Barisan Nasional agent, mole, Trojan horse, and whatnot, just because he speaks his mind and what he says does not go down well with the Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

Umno should know that the days when you vilify someone for expressing an opinion opposite to yours is long gone. Maybe some in the opposition still do that but this is forgivable since Pakatan Rakyat has not ruled Malaysia for more than 50 years like Umno has. Hence, while the opposition can be excused for being less tolerant or matured, there is no excuse for Umno to also be like that.

That is all I wish to say to Umno. If Umno does not wish to listen that is their problem. Then expect the voters to show you what they think of your hypocrisy when they next go to the polls. And if the people vote against you don't get upset. You have only yourself to blame.

Apa sebab pergi cari pasal?

Posted: 21 Sep 2012 06:31 PM PDT

You can find almost anything in this world if you go looking for it and if you know where to find them. There are even gay parties, wife-swapping parties, orgies, 'adult' entertainment centres, nudist colonies, singles resorts, etc. You name it; you can find it -- even sex with cows and goats if that is what turns you on.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Israel won't force Google to block anti-Muslim video

Court rejects MK Talab el-Sana's petition to prevent the controversial film from being available to people in Israel via the Internet • Court: Those who may be offended by it should not look for it on the Internet.

(Israel Hayom) - The Jerusalem District Court rejected a petition by MK Talab el-Sana (Ra'am-Ta'al) on Thursday requesting that the controversial film, 'Innocence of Muslims', produced in the U.S., be made inaccessible to people in Israel through the Internet. Judge Miriam Mizrahi decided to refrain from issuing an order to restrict access to the film through the YouTube website.

El-Sana, together with other Israeli-Arab political and religious leaders, requested that the YouTube page featuring the film be shut down, or, alternatively, that the page be blocked from access throughout the country.

Although the petitioners asked for an urgent hearing on the matter so that the court could issue a temporary order to prevent the film from being accessible on the Internet, Mizrahi said in her ruling that those who thought they would be offended by viewing the film should not search for it on the Internet. "Whoever does not look for the film will not find it, so the public who would be offended by the film can avoid seeing it," Mizrahi said.

The court is scheduled to continue to discuss the matter on Oct. 15, after both sides submit their detailed legal explanations. The petitioners, through attorney Kais Nasser, claimed, "The movie is extremely offensive, desecrates the image of the Prophet Muhammad in a racist manner, tramples his sanctity and name, and offends the honour and faith of more than a billion Muslims throughout the world and more than a million Muslims who are citizens of Israel."

(READ MORE HERE)

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

When my wife and I first moved into our new home in Manchester three years ago, on Saturdays and/or Sundays people from the local church would come knocking on our door to talk to us about Jesus Christ. Most times I would be in my office working so my wife goes to answer the door.

My wife would stand there patiently as they spoke to her about Jesus. They would also invite her to the local church to meet the community. After their 'ceramah' they would leave pamphlets and booklets with her before they left. My wife would just place the material on the sideboard and later would dump them in the dustbin together with the other 'junk mail' that goes out with the Thursday rubbish collection.

Different people would come at different times and sometimes they would ask what religion we profess. My wife would reply that we are Muslims and they were usually very pleased to hear that. This probably made their 'mission' more interesting and challenging.

They don't come around that much nowadays, at least not weekly any longer like before. I suppose they have given up on us as a 'lost cause'.

Nevertheless, my wife (and I as well whenever I happen to be the one answering the door) is never rude to these Christian evangelists. We always smile -- and maintain the smile throughout even when they stand on our doorstep for half an hour -- and politely give them our full attention. We never show that we are impatient for them to leave. We will allow them to finish what they want to say and leave when they are ready to leave. Until then we stand there and play the perfect host and make sure they are not uncomfortable about 'disturbing' us.

I sometimes even flip though the pamphlets and booklets before I throw them into the dustbin. I feel guilty about throwing them away without reading them and therefore waste their effort and money in their attempt to convert us to the way of Christ. They left them so that we will read them -- so I do just that, I read them. Hence at least that part of their mission succeeds although they failed to get us to go to church.

I just hope that at least that small effort of ours at being nice, hospitable and friendly managed to give these Christian evangelists the impression that not all Muslims run berserk and will foam at the mouth when you try to preach Christianity to them. I consider this my greatest jihad for Islam -- showing Christians that Muslims can be nice, hospitable and friendly.

They never tried to tell us that Islam is bad or is the wrong religion. They just focused on talking about Christianity and to tell us that Jesus loves us and is our saviour and all that. They also tried to put across to us that they love us as well and is why they come to our door every week to talk to us. And I also showed them that I love them and appreciate the trouble they took to come to speak to us.

I could, of course, have screamed at them to leave us alone. I could also have told them that we are Muslims and hence are not interested to hear what they have to say about Christianity or Christ. But that would be downright rude and unfriendly even though that would be within our rights to do so. After all, they are disturbing us very early on a Sunday or Saturday morning so I have every right to tell them off. At the very least I could have just not opened the door and after a while they would have gone away.

But why disappoint them? Why make them feel like they have wasted their time? Why make them feel unwelcome by not opening the door when they clearly know we are at home? Make them feel welcome and let them go home happy that they managed to talk to a Muslim about Christianity and Christ.

I know most Muslims reading this will be appalled. They would probably think that my imam (faith) is very weak. How can week after week I layan (entertain) Christian evangelists who are trying to convert me to Christianity?

Well, I am not a 'regular' Muslim. If you can't accept me for what I am then that is your problem, not mine. You lead your life the way you want to lead your life and leave me to lead my life the way I want to. That is the long and short of it all.

I want to now talk about that news item from Israel above. What the Israeli court said regarding that controversial movie is very sensible. "Those who may be offended by it should not look for it on the Internet. Whoever does not look for the film will not find it, so the public who would be offended by the film can avoid seeing it."

You may have heard or read that there is a trailer of an anti-Islam movie on the Internet, YouTube in particular. But did they come to your door to give you a copy of that movie? Did they force you to sit down and watch that movie? Are you obligated to watch that movie?

You heard or read about it. Then you went looking for it. And then you found it. After that you get angry and run berserk. Apa ni? Apa sebab pergi cari pasal? You go looking for it and then you get upset.

There are many things out there. There are brothels and prostitutes (plus transvestites) walking on the streets and hanging around seedy back lanes and side alleys. There are massage parlours that throw in sex or a hand job/blow job for an extra fee. There are bars, pubs, clubs, etc., where you can go to get drunk plus to pick up girls, boys, lady boys and whatever may turn you on. There are casinos, gambling dens and gaming outlets where you can gamble.

So don't go looking for it. And if you go looking for it and find it, don't go and get upset about it. Now, if they come to your home and knock on your door to offer you these 'services', then by all means get upset. Scream, rant and rave if you want since they came to your home to disturb you.

But even then, if they came to my home and knocked on my door I would not get upset. I would either politely refuse them, tell them not to disturb me again, or just not open my door. But I would not bother to run amok, even if they came to my door.

And if they did not come to my door why the hell would I want to go and seek them out and then get upset?

Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke?

Posted: 20 Sep 2012 03:43 PM PDT

Cina sudah kurang ajar. Cina perlu diajar. Cina sudah lupa 13 Mei. Ini negara Melayu. Agama Malaysia ialah Islam. Sekiranya Cina tak boleh terima ini maka mereka boleh keluar dari Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"It appears like the opposition is not consistent with its stand regarding freedom of speech. When we say something they don't like they whack us. They call us all sorts of foul names. They call us a traitor and turncoat. They call us a Trojan horse." -- RPK.

Whacking, calling foul name, and calling traitor/turncoat might be inflammatory, but they are still covered by freedom of expression under USA 1st Amendment and also re-affirmed by later ruling of US Supreme Court. Alas, we are not USA. Despite we are not USA, we should still appreciate how the freedom of expression can and have prevented monopoly of those in powerful position. How to prevent the over-concentration of power (i.e. the hallmark of dictator)? One of the answers is to protect the right of expression of every citizen; the right must include whacking, calling foul name, and other inflammatory remarks. The freedom of expression includes the right to say stupid things and being bias to "your team". It is that "pain" of freedom of expression that allows powerful counter-weight to those in power position. If we cannot take that "pain" or sacrifice, we can kiss goodbye to democracy.

"I remember when Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim expressed his personal view and he was whacked kau-kau for that. Does not Tunku Aziz also have a right to his personal view just like Ngeh?" -- RPK.

So is the right of those who whack Tunku Aziz kau-kau. We should stop confuse people about the right of freedom of expression. Whacking someone kau-kau might be bad manners and even politically stupid, but it has not violated the right of Tunku Aziz.

I think I can understand RPK whacking DAP and Pakatan Rakyat asking them to behave. But, confusing people on what is freedom of expression is a great "sin" -- as far as nurturing nascent democracy is concerned. (Comment by Shiou in my article 'How the knife cuts both ways').

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

That was what Shiou commented in my article 'How the knife cuts both ways'. Basically, Shiou is of the opinion that freedom of expression means 'no holds barred', anything goes, there are no limits or boundaries to what one can say.

Let's say I buy that. Let's say I go along with what Shiou says -- that freedom of expression means 'no holds barred', anything goes, there are no limits or boundaries to what one can say.

But then, in the same breath, Shiou contradicts himself/herself and concludes that confusing people on what is freedom of expression is a great sin. If Shiou is a propagator of absolute freedom of expression with no limits or boundaries, then how can he/she infer that confusing people is a great sin? There are no sins under absolute freedom of expression, going by Shiou's argument.

Would not whatever I say, even if it is my intention to confuse people, be my freedom of expression? How can Shiou regard a statement meant to confuse people as a great sin? There is no such thing as a sin as far as absolute freedom of expression goes. Everything is fair game -- even a lie, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, distortions, innuendoes, and whatnot. All are kosher. They all come under freedom of expression if we use Shiou's interpretation of no limit to freedom of expression.

Now look at this photograph.

And then read the heading of my article: Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke?

I am relating my heading to the photograph above. To Shiou, this Chinese chap is merely expressing himself under his right of freedom of expression by stepping on the photograph of the Prime Minister. I, too, am expressing myself under my right of freedom of expression by saying, "Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke?"

Am I making a racist statement? Am I instigating racial hatred? Is what I am doing dangerous considering that racism in Malaysia has reached a dangerous level never seen before since May 1969?

As far as I am concerned I am just applying Shiou's standards and yardstick of freedom of expression. Under your right of freedom of expression there should be no limits or boundary. Anything goes. Everything is kosher. And I do not see that Chinese chap who is stepping on the Prime Minister's photograph as him exercising his freedom of expression. I see it as Chinese arrogance and a challenge to the Malays (cabaran kepada Melayu). Hence I say: Cina sudah kurang ajar! Dah lupa 13 Mei ke?

Maybe what I am doing is dangerous. Maybe what I am doing may trigger racial discord. It may even expose Malaysia to the danger of racial conflict and violence. But that is not important. What is important is that I am expressing my view under my right of freedom of expression. What I am doing may result in deaths, maybe even hundreds or thousands of deaths. But can we allow that possibility to stand in the way of freedom of expression?

Cina sudah kurang ajar. Cina perlu diajar. Cina sudah lupa 13 Mei. Ini negara Melayu. Agama Malaysia ialah Islam. Sekiranya Cina tak boleh terima ini maka mereka boleh keluar dari Malaysia.

Yes, that statement, too, is covered under my right of absolute freedom of expression. So how can you say it is malicious, seditious, vicious and mischievous? Under freedom of expression, as Shiou says, there are no limits. There are no boundaries. Everything goes. All is kosher.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 9 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan