Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The Challenge of Malaysian Civil Society: Good Governance Beyond BN & PR
BN’s only strategy in economics
Rumble in Jelapang
PAS’ unwavering pursuit of Islamic state
Different cars on road to Putrajaya
Reformasi: The big leap forward
Is Malaysia an Islamic or secular state?
PAS – making the right choice
Is Islam under threat?

The Challenge of Malaysian Civil Society: Good Governance Beyond BN & PR

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 09:10 PM PST

Democracy concerns maximizing opportunities for as many people as possible to participate in the political process. Throughout history, we have witnessed the exclusion of women, the poor and minority groups. More recently, the debate over whether a candidate should be allowed to stand in both federal and state seats makes a mockery of this participatory principle. If we cannot find suitable candidates to contest in the state and federal legislative assemblies, fifty-five years after independence, that is a gross failure of our national development.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

On the eve of Malaysia's 13th general election, the challenges of good governance whichever coalition wins, are the concerns of a vibrant Malaysian civil society. Throughout the Arab world and Asia, the actions by civil society have produced results in recent months. In India, the massive demonstrations against corruption have forced the government to legislate anti-corruption laws. It was the denial of democratic space to civil society that led to the Arab Spring. And the consequence of bad governance in the richest capitalist countries in the world, namely, the failure to regulate finance capital, has led to the greatest credit crisis ever in the United States and Europe.

The Malaysian state has failed to structurally meet the needs of the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized minorities in our highly inequitable society. Nor is the strategy by both competing coalitions of chasing after investments through neo-liberal policies, likely to fill this gap. It remains a crucial role for civil society, made up of "Concerned NGOs" (CONGOs), to play, in demanding that this imbalance be urgently and effectively redressed. At the same time, we face the challenge of "uncivil society" made up of GONGOs, or "Government NGOs" – the far-right who undermine the democratic rights of Malaysians in their pursuit of private interests and special privileges through racism.

The challenge for Malaysian civil society is to push demands for good governance covering the political, economic, social and cultural spheres and for these reforms to be as concrete and time specific as possible. These have been drafted in "REFORM MALAYSIA: Malaysian Civil Society 13GE Demands", highlighting twenty institutions in Malaysia targeted for reform.

We need bottom-up not top-down governance, especially when we confront so-called development projects such as the MRT and hydroelectric power dams. Civil society needs to mobilise grassroots social movements to confront these global forces, to put people first before profits, empowerment above development.

What is good governance?

Governance – the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented – concerns not only the government but also NGOs, corporate organisations, unions, associations right down to families and individuals. As citizens of a democratic country, we expect good governance to include processes that are equitable and inclusive; promote participation; accountable and transparent; responsive, effective and efficient, and that follow the rule of law. This requires the establishment and strengthening of credible national institutions to implement good governance.

We aspire to good governance not because we wish to please international investors. Good governance involves not only technocratic criteria of efficiency and order but more importantly, democratic principles of participation and accountability. If governance is the exercise of authority in managing the resources of a country, then good governance concerns improving the quality of life of all citizens.

Good governance is by no means some grand utopian ideal. It is achievable now and that is why Malaysian civil society has drafted its "13GE Demands to Reform Malaysia". The future of our country depends on it, as we try to claim a place in this increasingly competitive global world. Malaysian civil society can provide this vital contribution to promote and protect the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

In the political sphere, democracy in Malaysia does not stretch very far beyond elections to the federal and state legislative assemblies. A general election is less about contending parties telling us their election manifestoes, it is more about people and civil society deciding what they think policies ought to be in a locality and the country. And candidates must convince us that they will champion our policies and carry them forward.

In economic policy, the competition by both BN and PR coalitions in chasing after investments in a free and unfettered market, especially in land, housing & property development and private health "tourism" is cause for Malaysian civil society to be alarmed and alert. It is the responsibility of Malaysian civil society to ensure that people come before profits and that people's empowered engagement determines development. We expect both BN and PR to live up to these tenets of good governance by making clear to us (inter alia):

(i) Their progressive economic policy that includes nationalizing all utilities and essential services including water resources, health, public transport, energy; a sustainable agricultural policy to ensure self-sufficiency in rice and basic food items and a reduction in food imports; providing fair and adequate support for all sectors and a just land distribution to all farmers, irrespective of ethnicity; modernizing the New Villages by giving land titles, improving infrastructure and government assistance to small and medium enterprises; apportioning more revenue from oil and gas (60%) to the states that produce these resources.

(ii) Their fiscal policy to reduce income inequality and fund public services. We expect a higher marginal tax rate on high income earners and a correspondingly lower tax rate for lower income earners; an incremental Capital Gains Tax on property; a progressive inheritance tax; regular review and monitoring of the tax laws and implementation to ensure there are no tax loopholes; review of capital allowances and tax holidays for foreign firms; tax on all international financial transactions and hedge funds; no Goods and Services Tax and a progressive tax on all luxury goods.

(iii) Their defence policy to ensure that the defence budget is diverted to productive investments and social services and the reshaping of a national defence policy that promotes a culture of peace and disarmament; promoting ASEAN cooperation in order to pool resources and slash arms spending in all ASEAN countries; cutting the defence budget to below 1% of GDP and apportioning a correspondingly higher budget for health, education and social services; setting up a Parliamentary Defence Committee chaired by an Opposition MP as well as an independent Ombudsman to oversee the defence budget; abolishing RELA - powers of arrest and detention, and the right to bear firearms must be restricted to professionally trained law enforcement officers;

(iv) Their energy policy, and transparency, especially regarding the decisions to build mega dams, nuclear reactors and the privatization of power plants to Independent Power Producers. We need to know PR's alternative energy policy relating to the use and investment in renewable energy sources and the implementation of demand management to encourage conservation and efficient use of energy resources.

Equity & Inclusiveness

Good governance should ensure that all citizens in the country have a stake in the country, particularly, the most vulnerable, who need to have the opportunity to improve their lot in society. Slogans such as "1Malaysia" are empty, when Malaysians are divided into "bumiputera" and "non-bumiputera" to suit racially discriminatory policies such as the "Bumis Only" enrolment policy of public sector institutions such as UiTM and other excesses of the New Economic Policy since 1971.

After more than forty years of the NEP, good governance requires the eradication of institutional racism through a "New Equitable Policy" with corrective action in all economic and education policies based on need / sector or class and not on race, with priority given to indigenous people, marginalised and poor communities; institutionalizing means testing for access to scholarships or other entitlements; implementing merit-based recruitment in civil & armed services; enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission, and ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Good governance relating to Malaysian women's human rights and dignity requires: the implementation of at least a 30% quota for women's representation in all decision-making bodies of government, the judiciary, political parties and corporate bodies; incorporating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its provisions into national law; reviewing and amending all laws and constitutional provisions that discriminate on the basis of gender; confronting sexism and prejudice based on gender stereotypes; equal pay for women holding similar posts as men; ensuring through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination.

The contribution of Malaysian workers to the nation's progress and their rights must be recognized by ensuring labour laws are compatible with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention; encouraging and promoting workers' unionisation; - legislating a progressive guaranteed minimum wage for all workers, including foreign workers; abolishing the Contractor for Labour System and restoring direct two-party employment relationship between principal/owners of workplaces and the workers that work therein; ensuring all workers are employed as permanent employees who enjoy all benefits, including maternity rights and an extended retirement age; Including workers and their trade unions in decision-making at the workplace, especially control of pension funds; enabling workers to have a controlling stake in their company stock ownership and for profits to be diverted into employee share funds; electing workers' representatives into the management so that they share corporate decisions, including investments, technology, wages and prices.

Although they are the Orang Asal, the indigenous peoples are among the poorest sectors of the Malaysian population and the most marginalized. Good governance would demand: recognising the right of the Orang Asal to self-determination; protecting the right of the Orang Asal to sustainable development, access to basic needs and advancement of their traditions and languages; following through on Malaysia's endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); enacting or amending state laws that recognise and protect the native customary rights of the Orang Asal to their traditional lands and territories.

Participation

Democracy is not simply the act of casting one's vote once every four years. Party leaders likewise hang on to their posts and monopolise positions by spreading the myth of their indispensability.

Democracy concerns maximizing opportunities for as many people as possible to participate in the political process. Throughout history, we have witnessed the exclusion of women, the poor and minority groups. More recently, the debate over whether a candidate should be allowed to stand in both federal and state seats makes a mockery of this participatory principle. If we cannot find suitable candidates to contest in the state and federal legislative assemblies, fifty-five years after independence, that is a gross failure of our national development. Or perhaps it is indicative of party leaders who seek to monopolise positions and material privileges. And it is not a question of asking political leaders to give up their privileges voluntarily, it is a democratic principle that any party that claims to be democratic should abide by. As Aung San Suu Kyi put it:

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

Fixed term of office is another fundamental principle of a democratic society that has been recognized in the US, China and many other countries. But somehow, this democratic principle of encouraging broader participation has not been discerned by many political party leaders in either BN or PR.

Malaysian NGOs have spoken loudly and clearly in the Bersih campaign for free and fair elections. It is a campaign that has not only pushed this principle of participation to the fore but also made a breakthrough in Malaysian peoples' power. This campaign and the campaign for a safe and clean environment have shown that we need to take direct action and resort to civic mobilization to solve our societal issues – we no longer need to accept injustice and oppression.

Locally elections are vital for democratic participation in electing legitimate representatives. In the modern state, many social groups such as women, manual workers, urban settlers, farmers and indigenous peoples are grossly under-represented and local government can provide them with the channels to air their concerns. Generally speaking, at this local level it is easier for voters to influence decisions.

This dispersal of political power is therefore a concrete way to realise the civil society. Local councils should not be the arenas for "professional" NGO activists to have themselves appointed by the political parties. It should be the role of NGO activists to nominate empowered leaders from the communities they work with to sit in local councils. Greater participation can also be realized when social services such as housing, education, health and even crime prevention are decentralized once local government officials are elected rather than appointed.

Full participation in a democratic society requires the freedoms of expression, assembly and association to prevail. The freedom of expression and information cannot prevail until we abolish the Sedition Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Film Censorship Act; enact a Freedom of Information (FoI) Act at federal and state levels which is reflective of the peoples' right to know, with the public interest as the overriding principle; prevent the monopoly of ownership and control of the press and broadcasting stations by political parties or corporate bodies. Media organs paid for by tax payers – including RTM and Selangor Times - must be independent and not be used as propaganda organs of the ruling coalitions.

Good governance relating to the freedoms of assembly & association entails repealing the Police Act, the Societies Act, the Universities & University Colleges Act, Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 and other relevant laws which restrict these fundamental freedoms, and granting students of voting age the full freedoms enjoyed by other Malaysian citizens.

Transparency

Decisions taken and enforcement that follows must be done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. The recent harassment of SUARAM and the directive by the government for six government agencies to pin a charge on SUARAM show a total lack of transparency. Their actions were prompted by police reports made by some far-right group that did not produce any evidence of SUARAM wrongdoing. What evidence must be furnished before the police investigates? Is there no standard operating procedure for the police to initiate any investigation? Why haven't these government agencies started their investigations when there is ample evidence uncovered by the French police after two years of investigation into questionable payments in the Scorpene scandal?

The lack of transparency over mega projects is another recent example of the Malaysian state's willful negligence. The Murum dam is nearing completion but the resettlement report is still being withheld. As for the Bakun dam, all studies related to the projects have not been transparent. The affected Penan and Kenyah have stated that they have never been asked for consent as demanded by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The project developer, Sarawak's state-owned electricity generating company, Sarawak Energy Berhad (SEB) has not provided indigenous communities with an opportunity to grant or withhold their "free, prior and informed consent" for the project as required by UNDRIP. Even in cases where there was agreement, however, it was neither FREE from coercion; the resettlement plan was not made known to the indigenous peoples PRIOR to the start of the construction, and they were not INFORMED by access to information about the project's impacts.

Accountability

All institutions of the state as well as civil society must be accountable to their stakeholders. SUARAM is proud to say we have been proven to be accountable after the closest scrutiny by the Companies Commission of Malaysia which had pledged to pin a charge on us but had the file thrown back at them by the Attorney General's Office. At the same time, the CCM and the Domestic Trade Minister have suffered the worst humiliation by the expose of the Auditor General that CCM had failed to bring to book corporations which had failed to pay their compounds amounting to millions of ringgit. Again, this has exposed the government's lack of acountability in their arbitrary actions and prosecutions.

The recent expose of money laundering when RM40 million was uncovered by the Hong Kong police and purportedly meant to be donations for the Sabah UMNO and the billions of ringgit in illicit money flowing abroad every year require strong regulation and tougher laws to ensure greater accountability. According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI), Malaysia lost a total of US$338 billion (RM1.08 trillion) through illicit money outflows over the first decade of the century.

Corruption in Malaysia needs to be curbed effectively through setting up an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission answerable to parliament with the power to recommend prosecutions for all offences of corrupt practice; a Public Accounts Committee in Parliament that is chaired by an Opposition Member of Parliament and not by the ruling coalition; tighter regulation to prevent money laundering and the outflow of illicit money; eliminating opportunities for corruption by proscribing the "revolving door" opportunities between the civil/armed services and the private sector; ensuring the government ministry/department head accounts for every discrepancy in the annual Auditor-general's report and pays for any negligence or corruption involved; open tendering all privatised projects, and for all wakil rakyat and heads of civil and armed services to declare their assets and those of their family's.

Responsiveness, Effectiveness & Efficiency

Good governance requires institutions and processes to serve stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe and to make the best use of our resources. The BN government has been found wanting in many areas including the implementation of the Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Committee; anti-corruption measures; reduction of crime and ensuring public safety; environmental protection measures and the use of sustainable energy sources, among others.

In defence procurements, deployment of police personnel, construction and maintenance of power plants, the BN government has flouted the imperatives of effectiveness and efficiency.

The selectiveness of the BN government in responding so speedily to complaints by far-right groups against Suaram while remaining totally unresponsive to ample documents by the French police on the questionable dealings by Terasasi is bad governance.

Rule of Law

The concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law in that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. The rule of law ensures that laws are enforced impartially and there is full protection of human rights, especially for minorities. This requires the existence of an independent judiciary, an impartial Civil Service, and an incorruptible police force. The BN government has often confused the rule of law with rule BY law, in which the law is a mere tool for the government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion. The recent harassment of SUARAM has seen the most extreme mockery of the rule of law in Malaysia.

Through the years, Malaysian NGOs have been playing the important role of watchdogs to ensure the rule of law and human rights are safeguarded. Good governance to uphold the rule of law requires repealing all laws that allow torture, whipping, detention-without-trial and incommunicado detention; abolishing the death penalty in Malaysia; ratifying the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and the Convention on Refugees; implementing the Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCMC); establishing a law reform commission to restore the independence of the judiciary; reviewing the Federal Constitution and all laws that are unjust and violate human rights, and resolve the conflict of jurisdiction between civil and syariah laws; establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry to solve once and for all the problem of citizenship for Malaysians, their foreign spouses as well as the problem of undocumented migrants in the country; ensuring social justice for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT).

The Struggle Continues…

Real change requires focus and commitment. We have to stand up to the fascism of the far-right, the complicity of the state. We do not have to accept oppression. Like all human beings, Malaysians share a destiny to be free and independent and we have to keep struggling for it:

"And if we do act, in however small a way, we don't have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." (Howard Zinn)

BN’s only strategy in economics

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 02:17 PM PST

The Felda Global Venture issue and democracy under Umno have many similarities, says a former Umno Pahang assemblyman.

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, FMT

What has the Felda Global Venture (FGV) issue got to do with the state of democracy in the country under Umno?

The FGV listing simply illustrates that special interest groups in this country determine our democracy instead of the wishes of the majority.

The listing of FGV has more to do with the agenda of the moneyed class than the agenda of the no-money settler class.

Settlers and employees got 200.6 million of the 2188.9 million shares to be sold.

The people representing the majority and overriding interest are the settlers and the employees. There are 112,635 settlers and 3835 employees.

They represent directly the interest of Felda people. They are the majority on whose backs and on whose name, this listing was supposed to be done for and benefits meant.

My questions to the Felda people is this: Why get only 200.6 million out of the 2.188 billion shares offered? Why own the same from the 3.6482 billion of the enlarged share capital?

That's only 5.5% of the interest in Felda.

What Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and the government are doing to you is just cosmetics.

Because you are 116,470 strong, you are bribed with RM15,000, RM380 duit raya, 810 shares worth RM3685 at listing and your sons' and daughters' PTPTN are being paid by the government using money that belongs to YOU.

Najib will do anything to keep you corralled and addicted to the cocaine of handouts.

Who are the "people"?

The same is happening to the state of democracy under Umno.

This country's future is being determined by special interest groups who are self-selected and thrive on a single chosen issue.

When the FGV shares rose up to near RM6 per unit, everyone said that was a testament of the confidence people have with FGV.

But who are these "people" exactly?

The "people" – a nebulous and hazy term which could be infused with whatever meaning one wishes – refers to the various state governments that were asked to buy the shares and the various government-linked companies (GLCs) that Najib directed to buy FGV's stocks.

More important, these "people" are really the moneyed and special interest groups.

And of course, Najib alone represents the "people" and naturally he wasn't shy to pat his own back. He must now be an accomplished contortionist.

Now that the share price has gone down tremendously, everyone who previously jumped up and down, are saying that it is a normal course in share trading.

Going down is part of the normal course, but going up is taken to mean much more?

Our take is this – going by the logic of the majority of us with only weak school certificates – the reduction in price, must be testament to lack of confidence.

READ MORE HERE

Rumble in Jelapang

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 02:13 PM PST

The writer, in his usual style, uses satire to question the warrior of Jelapang's quest to recontest in Jelapang.

Iskandar Dzulkarnain, FMT

Deputy Perak Speaker Hee Yit Foong who quit DAP in 2009 to become a Barisan Nasional-friendly independent, expressed her interest to re-contest Jelapang again, saying that she will not run away from her constituents.

"I will be in Jelapang till death and not be a renegade," she said, as the voters of Jelapang have accepted her decision as she has been serving them all this while.

What a pleasant surprise for the Jelapang folks. Her announcement is timely and noble of her to reassert her rights as an Independent elected state rep. MCA who is also eyeing the seat has expressed shocked at such a notion and promptly passed judgment that she is unlikely to win the seat.

But if she does contest in Jelapang, it is quite certain that any MCA candidate wouldn't stand a chance in a three-cornered fight. Even the DAP candidate may lose his deposit under a heavyweight like Ms Hee. Yes, if there is anyone that can make mincemeat of the opposition, it would be none other than Hee Yit Foong.

A petite giant

Hee made headlines when she turned independent, leading to the fall of Perak state, much to the annoyance and sullen faces of Pakatan Rakyat.

From a nobody, she crawled up to be an MP and a Deputy Speaker. Today, she is an Independent DUN with a fiery ambition, and possesses a beautiful and desirous face that sells. In short she is candidate material and a winnable one too. She is the epitome of political mastery and an example for other aspiring politicians.

DAP should seriously woo her back again and apologise for her ill treatment. She is an asset to any coalition. If she happens to contest, DAP knows that the seat is as good as gone.

She has determination, self-dignity, loyalty, unselfish, focus and honesty. Such traits are not found in many candidates nowadays. You can be sure that she would not let her constituents down again.

A petite lass with a cute smile, somewhat handicapped but still willing to give her life to fight for the downtrodden masses.

Today, she is well known as the patriot of Jelapang and the warrior of Jelapang. Someone even called her St Joan of Arc – a famous French woman crusader who fought against the tyrants in the Royal Court.

A victim of hate propaganda

Why she became independent is still vague, but she had cited being bullied and she was tired of DAP internal politics. After making the brave decision to quit DAP, she became an innocent victim of hate propaganda out to tarnish her impeccable image.

She was even accused of being bought over for thousands of ringgit, even though there was no concrete proof.

Another rumour was that she was spurned by the DAP who denied her an official Toyota Camry vehicle which led to her walking out. And to top it all, she was blamed for the loss of the Perak state.

That is so unfair and you can hardly blame her, as once she turned independent, she obviously cannot be PR-friendly anymore.

The fact that she was seen later in a Mercedes Benz proves that she did not leave because of a miserable Camry?!

Today, Perak state is in good hands under the meticulous leadership of Zambry Abdul Kadir and efforts are underway to ensure that BN retains the state from falling into the wrong hands again. Kudos to her for such a fine job!

There are even critics who said that fielding a donkey against her; the donkey will win hands down. Now, that is rather absurd, as a donkey does not carry an IC and thus cannot become a candidate.

Secondly, if the donkey cannot garner enough votes and loses its deposit, how is anyone going to get the money out of that donkey?

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 02:10 PM PST

Those following closely the ongoing muktamar will see that PAS is still trapped in the age-old agenda. Implementing hudud laws still remain a priority in its struggle.

By Ahmad Farouk Musa, FMT

If there is anything unmistakably clear from the recent muktamar or general assembly of Islamic party PAS is that despite the acceptance of the concept of tahalluf siyasi or political consensus among the three major components of the opposition front – Pakatan Rakyat – PAS' ambition in establishing an Islamic state and implementing hudud laws is unwavering, if not more resolute.

It appears rather incongruous that despite the acceptance of Buku Jingga or Orange Book as a comprehensive framework of the opposition front on how to govern the country when they come to power, PAS seems to have a higher agenda – to transform the multiracial and multi-religious country into a full-fledged Islamic state with Islamic laws.

Islamic laws and hudud were never mentioned in Buku Jingga and neither was the establishment of Islamic State. PAS even came out with its own manifesto "Nation of Care and Opportunity". However this concept of a benevolent state is not well received by many PAS members themselves.

Reason being, the so-called Erdoganists in PAS mainly mooted it.

Recent spate of debate about the concept of Islamist Democrat – a term popularised by the Erdoganists – between the ulama faction and the young Turks clearly proved that they are considered contaminants in the "pure and pristine" PAS struggle.

The changing trend

While PAS has been in existent since 1951, it has remarkably shown to be very consistent in its struggle ever since, no matter how insensible it could have been to many. PAS has tried to restore Islam's place as a central reference point for all social, cultural, economic and political life in Muslim society.

In the words of Bobby Said in his book "A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism", he said: Islamism is a project that attempts to transform Islam from a nodal point in the discourse of Muslim communities to a master signifier. In particular, the Islamist project is an attempt to make Islam the master signifier of the political order.

However this project of political Islam has taken a new turn after what is known as the Arab Spring or the Arab Awakening. The discourse now is not about establishing an Islamic state or implementing hudud laws.

The aspiration now is to nurture pious Muslims within a democratic polity. Rachid Ghannouchi, leader of en-Nahdha in Tunisia has categorically rejected Islamic State in favour of parliamentary democracy. His party en-Nahdhah is committed to social justice, multiparty democracy and religious pluralism.

A Professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois, Asef Bayat termed this shift as post-Islamism. There was a clear shift from the age-old slogan of al-Islam huwa al-hal – Islam is the solution to all problems – to a more practical approach and solution.

As put forward by Rachid Ghannouchi in interpreting the saying of the Prophet: "You are the best people to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affairs" meaning to say that it is not the duty of religion to teach us agriculture, industrial or even governing techniques. Reason is qualified to teach this truth through the accumulation of experiences.

The role of religion, however, is to answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny and the purpose for which we were created. It is to provide us with a system of values and principles that would guide our thinking, behaviour and the regulation of the state to which we aspire.

Same old rhetoric

For those who followed closely the ongoing muktamar, it is evident that PAS is still trapped in the age-old agenda. Implementing hudud laws still remain a priority in its struggle.

Obviously this is a clear contradiction to the mutually agreed Buku Jingga. Whether they are aware of the repercussion or not, it definitely provides ammunition to the ruling party that PAS has an ulterior motive to change this country into an Islamic state.

The patronising speech by head of Dewan Ulama or the Religious Council in saying in a jest that hudud will create more job opportunities since training is needed in order to chop off hands and that training is also needed for caning of alcohol drinkers only showed that they are not serious about the current economic problems faced by the nation.

It is as though by simply implementing hudud, all the economic woes and social ills of the society will be solved.

Nothing serious was discussed about the idea of nation of care and opportunity. PAS seems to have lost interest in pursuing the welfare state agenda. The main tone that vibrates especially among the Islamic scholars was nothing more than hudud and their unyielding push for this agenda and not in the least worried about going public about it.

One of the most worrying trends during the muktamar is the voices of little Napoleons who tried to silence Harakah and the online Harakahdaily who had been accused to give more space to progressive figures in PAS and sidelining conservative forces.

Harakah is accused to have strayed away from its original intent and aspiration of PAS. Such an act would have been seen by many who understand freedom of the press as stifling with the most fundamental foundation of freedom of speech.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

Now this act by the little Napoleons only showed how much they understand and respect human rights and what the future may hold if they come to power. There will not be any room left for dissension and differing opinions than what is being held by them.

The political reality

Perhaps the most important thing that PAS should appreciate and understand is that the appeal for hudud and Islamic state is not there anymore in the post-Islamism period.

PAS should not misunderstand the votes they received as amounting to the support for their Islamic agenda.

More than a hundred thousand went to the street for demonstration during Bersih 3.0 recently. The demand was not to implement hudud or establishing an Islamic state.

People of various races and religions from all walks of life marched together for a better democracy. They wanted a clean and fair election and a government free of corruption. It was an act of defiance to the draconian and unconstitutional Act that prevented people from any peaceful assembly.

It must be heard loud and clear that the people want a truly democratic state. Not a state ruled by a group of Mullahs who considered themselves to be above the law.

The precedent was already set when one state under PAS passed an enactment that a fatwa or religious verdict from a Mufti cannot be challenged in the court of law.

It has to be understood that the state is not something from God but from the people. The state has to serve the benefit of the people and not just a certain group based on their faith. The state has to be neutral in all aspects. It must also be made clear that a state is a human product and managing a state requires human endeavor and not divine inspiration.

READ MORE HERE

Different cars on road to Putrajaya

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 03:51 PM PST

PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang had his sights set on Putrajaya when he opened the PAS muktamar and chose to sidestep the thorny issue of hudud and the Islamic state.

Whatever some in the party may think about Mat Sabu and his lack of religious credentials, he is able to do what Hadi cannot do — he is a good organiser, a rebel rouser and very entertaining. He has promised the delegates that the next muktamar will be in a hall in Putrajaya.

Joceline Tan, The Star

KOTA Baru is flush with political banners. The moment one steps out of the airport, one is greeted by banners welcoming those returning from the Haj or the tetamu-tetamu Allah (guests of God).

One banner shows Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat smiling like a proud grandfather. Another shows the man who Umno says will be the next Mentri Besar, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, wearing a blazing red baju Melayu and an even bigger smile than the Tok Guru.

But banners of Nik Aziz alongside PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang dominate the landscape, especially along roads leading to Putik, the party centre where the muktamar is taking place.

The official muktamar banner usually includes the deputy president and everyone has noticed that Mohamed Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu, is missing from the banner this year and no one can quite explain why.

One possible reason is that the party is still feeling awkward about the fact that, apart from Hadi, the deputy and the three vice-presidents are all non-ulama. Hence, it is best to allow the two top ulama to shine for now.

There were a few other famous faces missing at the opening of the muktamar yesterday. Pakatan Rakyat's "future prime minister" was not there for the second year in a row but his wife and PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail was.

DAP's mentor figure Lim Kit Siang, a usual attendee, was also absent. He had a dental appointment and Dr Tan Seng Giaw took his place.

Hadi's policy speech was his longest and most political since becoming PAS president. It was an election type of speech that reaffirmed that his party is committed to its partnership with Pakatan.

His Dewan Ulama chief Datuk Harun Taib had been uncompromising about the party's stand on hudud but Hadi sort of sidestepped the issue and is taking the stand that PAS and DAP would agree to disagree on Islam and hudud for now.

Hadi and his ulama chief seem to be driving different cars on the road to Putrajaya.

He gave the assurance that if the coalition wins power, it would be a smooth and peaceful transition and there will be no victimisation of civil servants. He also dangled carrots in front of Sabah and Sarawak voters, offering to return 20% oil royalties to the two states.

His slogan of PAS ganti Umno (PAS to replace Umno) has caught on and he labelled Umno the "party of devils," a reference to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's call to Malaysians to vote for the devil they know.

He said the party's Negara Berkebajikan (welfare state) would be better than Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's 1Malaysia policy in promoting national unity but he will have to take it beyond sloganeering if he wants to convince people out there.

The Negara Berkebajikan idea is still as hazy an idea today as when it was introduced three years ago. Even the muktamar audience seemed lukewarm to the idea. They either prefer the Islamic state concept or, like most people, they are still unsure what the new concept is really about. As the muktamar chairman noted, the weather outside was hotter than the mood in the hall.

The signs are that Mat Sabu will have to assume the role of "war general" in the election. He took centrestage at the Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat rally held in the Kota Baru stadium in the evening.

Kota Baru is the second stop of the event which was launched in Negri Sembilan earlier this month. It is as good as an election campaign minus the candidates.

The rally is Mat Sabu's version of the Arab Spring. Many in PAS are inspired by what is going on in Egypt and they hope the rallies will build up a momentum for regime change.

This is his big moment and the opportunity to show the party why he deserves to be their No 2. He is under a lot of pressure to deliver. He knows that the conservatives in the party are gathering their forces to push him from the No 2 spot at the party election next year.

This was very clear from the tone of the meetings at the Dewan Pemuda and Dewan Ulama a day earlier. For instance, criticism of slanted reporting by the party propaganda organ Harakah and its online sister Harakahdaily was read as a warning shot by the conservatives in the party.

The two publication bodies were accused of not giving sufficient coverage to the ulama viewpoint. The critics are basically warning people in the party not to dominate the party organ for their own interests.

They are setting the stage for the party polls next year and the talk is that the conservatives want an ulama as deputy president and also ulama figures among the three vice-presidents.

The general election is foremost on the mind of everybody in PAS but so is the party election for some of them.

Reformasi: The big leap forward

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 02:29 PM PST

Is the general election being delayed as a ploy by Barisan Nasional to simply put off the potential takeover of Putrajaya by the 'reform' movement?

The release of the former deputy prime minister and finance minister was also the culmination of the long and strong campaign led by people like Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Malaysia Today editor in chief and maestro of "citizen journalism" in Malaysia.

By Ali Cordoba, FMT

It was in September 1998 that the "reformasi" movement started in Malaysia. Since then, the reform movement has grown from a "group" of people pressing for change to that of a formidable opposition coalition.

With this great leap forward, the "reform" movement in Malaysia is bound to make history again in the next general election with massive gains and a potential total defeat of the ruling Barisan National coalition.

A great push forward for the Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th general election will have untold consequences for Umno, in power since independence in 1957. It will also mean that Malaysia has finally made headway in choosing a "reform" movement that was thought to have run out of steam in the 2004 BN's historic victory.

In 1998, a majority of the "reformasi" supporters had to hide behind the cloak of the "Internet" to promote the movement or propose ideas on how to rein in the masses against the BN and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then prime minister.

Since then, the country has made serious gains in "Internet" freedom to the extent that the government of Najib Tun Razak is facing a daily uphill battle against "pro-reform" and "pro-opposition" elements.

With Anwar Ibrahim's release from jail in 2004, the reform movement made an incredible revival. To many, the release of Anwar, promised by the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi regime in case of a big victory in the election, was an act of divine intervention.

However, to a few observers, it is the intense pressure from some members of the International Islamic Ulema (Muslim religious figures) and the Arab World that led to the release of the most popular political figure in the country.

In 2003, the Abdullah regime was in the midst of wooing the Saudi Arabian, Qatari and UAE regimes to win their favours and gain in respect and investment projects. Attempts by the Abdullah regime to win the Arab world on its side failed as the need to release Anwar became a pressing element in the negotiations.

These were the behind-the-scenes event that were not reported by the local or international media as they were kept under wraps by the Abdullah government.

Nonetheless, after the big win by the BN against an ailing opposition that had decided not to campaign on the "Anwar Ibrahim" issue (particularly by PAS), the Abdullah government decided to free Anwar.

Mahathir's move

It was his hard work, tough writings on the freeanwaribrahim.com blog and his campaigns in the country that helped in Abdullah regime's considerations.

During the time of Mahathir, negotiations to free Anwar and allow him to have an operation in Germany backfired when the former prime minister angrily uttered the now infamous "muktamad".

Mahathir was being pressed by the local and international media on rumours that Anwar would be freed and that negotiations between the Anwar group and Mahathir's government were ongoing on the issue.

The fact remains that the Mahathir regime was not prepared to let go of Anwar from its claws as his release and subsequent presence in Germany would have been negative for the regime.

Not only Anwar would be free to campaign against the Mahathir regime from Germany while receiving treatment for his growing back pain, there was also the possibility that Anwar would raise funds through his friends in Germany.

That would have meant a triumphant return of Anwar at the KLIA, a return that would have probably caused tremors within the Mahathir regime at that particular fragile era.

In Germany, Anwar would have been aided by his close "friend" and ally, the former president of Indonesia, Burhanuddin J Habibie. The latter established himself in Germany after his downfall as the "replacement" president following the removal of General Suharto from power in the aftermath of the Indonesian "reformasi".

This would have meant a lot of support not only for Anwar but also for the "reform" movement in Malaysia.

At that particular time what remained of the movement launched by Anwar in 1998, at least in the eyes of the public, were merely echoes of "reformasi" and "memories" of the police beating and tear gas in the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

His flight to Germany would have been an unexpected boost to the Malaysian reform movement. It was, however, just a question of delaying the "tsunami" that would almost wipe out the BN in 2008.

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:55 AM PST

Malik Munip, NST

WRITING'S IN THE LAW: Several provisions in the Constitution disqualify Malaysia from being a secular state, writes Malik Munip

The debate on the nature of Malaysia's identity—whether it is a secular or an Islamic state—is mired in confusion. The confusion firstly is of a semantic nature—a lack of clarity on what defines a secular or an Islamic state. The second confusion is about the extent of any entity's authority—be it former Premiers, The Alliance Memorandum or the Reid Commission--in deciding the debate. This article will discuss the second confusion first.

Secular or Islamic State: Premier vs. Premier

Though Malaysian Prime Ministers are vested with a whole battery of executive authority, nonetheless, they do not have the power to determine the identity of a country merely by making an announcement either way. Indeed, if we think about it, even an individual's identity cannot be determined by a pronouncement—a person doesn't become a Muslim, a Christian, an apostate or any identity along the 'faith- atheist' spectrum simply due to a declaration. To have meaning and force, the declaration must correspond with the individual's belief and practice. So if by itself a declaration cannot determine the religious identity of an individual, can it determine the identity of a state?

Nonetheless, many people attribute Malaysia identity as either Islamic or Secular, by citing the positions of previous Prime Ministers on the subject. Hence to shore up their claim, the proponents of a secular state will often draw on the statements of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussien Onn.

In this regard an often cited statement (but not the only example) used to represent the position of the former Premiers would be from a February 1983 Star report where the Tunku said "The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion". Another issue also reported Tun Hussien's support for the Bapa Kemerdekaan, "The nation can still be functional as a secular state with Islam as the official religion."

Unsurprisingly those that argue that Malaysia is already an Islamic State wouldn't cite the first and third Premiers. Instead they would quote Tun Mahathir's following statement in September 2001 to support their position: "Umno wishes to state clearly that Malaysia is an Islamic nation. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country.... " .

But with all due respect, there are limits in determining the nature of a country's identity by simple reference to a Prime Ministerial declaration. After all, if Malaysia already possesses many of the features that define a secular state, then her secular nature doesn't change just because a Prime Minister says otherwise. And vice versa—if Malaysia has many attributes of an Islamic state, or a feature that disqualifies her from being a secular state, then it won't be a secular State regardless of how many previous and future Prime Ministers states to the contrary.

So although they are Prime Ministers, nonetheless, their statements, in and by themselves do not automatically determine the nature of Malaysia's identity. At best their statements would be a description of Malaysia's pre-existing identity. And like most descriptions, it would be valid only in so far it is accurate.

The Alliance Memoranda vs. The Reid Commission

Of course, in articulating their positions, participants in the debate don't limit themselves to Prime Ministerial declarations—references to legal authorities and legal documents will also be part of the argumentative arsenal. In this regard none comes with higher prestige than the Federal Constitution and its drafters, the Reid Commission. So with respect to whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state, let's sink our teeth into what the Federal Constitution and the Reid Commission have to say on the matter.

In the Federal Constitution, both terms, Islamic State or Secular State does not appear. Nonetheless, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This provision has often been cited to support the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic State or at least not a secular one.

Yet, many who claim to have read the Reid Report find this argument unconvincing; they maintain that the Commission stated that any provision in the proposed Constitution providing for Islam as the state religion will not invalidate the position of the Federation as a secular state.

Strictly speaking, this portrayal of the Reid Commission's position is incorrect. In respect to Islam being made a state religion, the Commission did not commit itself to that position. As historian Joseph Fernando wrote in his book 'The Making of the Malayan Constitution': "In respect of religion, the Commission decided not to make any provision relating to an official religion for the Federation although the Alliance had proposed that Islam should be made the official religion".

In fact it was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that wanted a declaration for Islam to be made the State Religion. And similarly, it was the Alliance that made the claim that such a declaration would not negate the position of the federation as a secular state. What the Reid Commission did was to acknowledge (see paragraph 169 of its report) that the Alliance wanted to insert such a provision; they themselves were reluctant to commit to it (with the exception of one member, Justice Hamid).

Be that as it may, even if was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that made the claim that having a state religion would not negate Malaya's status as a secular state, nonetheless, shouldn't such a claim prove beyond doubt, that Malaysia is a secular State? After all, the Alliance played a crucial role in the constitution-making process—before, during and after the Reid Commission's drafting. Additionally, they were the primary characters involved in securing Independence; hence, if the Founding Fathers claim that the country is a secular State, then it must be binding right? Uhm, not quite.

Firstly, none of them were recognized authorities on the inter-related issue of secular states and secularism, or its relationship to religion and Islamic States. It should be noted that the issue of an Islamic State has theological dimensions, yet none of them were theologians. And on the issue of a secular State, the problem was that they never defined properly what a secular state is; they just claimed that having Islam as the religion of the Federation doesn't annul its status as a secular state. Within the context of such statements, their conception of a secular state seems to be a conception by negation—conceiving it by what it is not, rather than what it is. Such a conception is not convincing.

In short, since the Alliance were not experts on the issue of Secular States, secularism or its relationship to Islam and not exact in conveying what they meant, does it make sense for us to elevate their claim (that having a state religion doesn't negate Malaya as a Secular State) as being the final authority on the matter?

Indeed according to the Joseph Fernando, there is evidence that in private, even the Reid Commission were not convince by the Alliance claim—to them, it was a contradiction. And for those who have some exposure to the literature on secular states and secularism, this shouldn't be surprising. Why? Because the Alliance's position just doesn't correspond with the accepted understanding of what constitutes a secular state. And that is the point: if a statement or description doesn't match up with the reality then regardless of the social standing of the entity making the statement, it cannot be authoritative.

So in determining whether Malaysia is a secular state or otherwise, instead of citing what former Premiers or the Reid Commission or the Alliance Memoranda says on the matter, it would be more pertinent to ask: What defines a secular state? And does the statement of the Alliance Memoranda and those that echo it, tally with such a definition?

What is a Secular State? The acid test

The literature on the subject of secular states and secularism is vast; as such there exist various interpretations. Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the foundation of a secular state is the principle that state and religion must be separate. Consequently, a secular state will have, among others, the following characteristics: the state must be neutral towards religion; the state cannot give religion a privilege position in the public arena; the state's coercive powers and resources cannot be utilised in the service of any religion; the State should not privilege a religion or its adherents over another; the state should not privilege religion over irreligion; the state should not permit religion to be a requirement of public office; and the state should not interfere with the affairs of religion and vice- versa.

Now by having Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, obviously Malaysia is not neutral towards religion. It gives Islam a privileged status over other religions. Nonetheless, if Article 3 was the only Islamic feature in the Constitution, perhaps the claim by the Alliance that having a State Religion doesn't imply a non-secular state can still be defended. But let's have a peek at other Articles of the Federal Constitution.

Through Article 11(4), missionary work amongst Muslims can be controlled and restricted. Yet there are no laws restricting missionary work to adherents of other faiths. Then there's Article 12(2). This article has far reaching consequences; it empowers the Federation and the states to establish or maintain Islamic institutions or provide assistance in that process. It also sanctions them to do same with regards to providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In pursuant of those purposes, it also authorises the use of public funds.

Both the above Articles violate the principles of a secular state on multiple scores. And these two Articles are not the only one; there exist other Articles that do the same. For instance, Malays are entitled to wear the cloak of Article 153, but professing Islam is a requirement of being Malay under the Federal Constitution. But let's cast our view beyond the Federal Constitution to the State Constitutions whereby the Islamic features are even more pronounced.

Many State Constitutions require the State Secretary to be a person who professes Islam. In those States the default legal requirement for the position of the Menteri Besar is also a person who professes Islam. And the state religion of most of the States that make up the Federation is Islam. In these States, not only is neutrality towards Islam not practice, but unlike the federal position of Prime Minister, religion is made a requirement of the public offices of the Menteri Besar and State Secretary. And beyond the formal structure of the constitution, there are other characteristics that these states have which are at odds with the essence of a secular state. With a name like Terengganu Darul Iman for example, is it realistic to expect otherwise? And does Kelantan under Nik Aziz seem like a secular state to you? But it is not the scope of this article to elaborate.

Conclusion

So to recapitulate the question: Is Malaysia a secular state? Well, by the characteristics that define a secular state then Malaysia by definition is not a secular state; it violates the principle attributes of a secular state on multiple fronts. Breaches to the tenants of a secular state are not the exception; it is almost the rule. In Malaysia, religion is not separated from the state but entrenched, empowered, enforced, expressed and elevated.

Hence, does this mean Malaysia is an Islamic State? My answer is: I don't know; I have no idea what a universally accepted Islamic state in the contemporary world looks like. But it does mean Malaysia disqualifies from being a secular state.

Dr Malik Munip taught history at University of Malaya for two decades, and was also a former Member of Parliament for Muar

PAS – making the right choice

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:53 AM PST

Will there be 'an arrangement of sorts' between PAS and Umno after the general election at the expense of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition?

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

There are many in PAS who will not have Anwar Ibrahim as their prime minister. Many also see PAS' alliance with DAP and PKR as a necessary evil if they are to be relevant in politics at the national level.

There are many still within PAS who have begun to vocally question the need of these "arrangements" when there is a willing and able ally in Umno which can deliver far more than what DAP and PKR can deliver to PAS.

An ally racially and religiously in sync with PAS – an ally that will allow them to keep Kelantan, Kedah and give them Terengganu. So why, they ask, are they in Pakatan Rakyat and not with Umno?

Of course, the state of PAS politics and the politics in the states under PAS is really the business of PAS and nobody else, except when it concerns the state of Pakatan and the state of our nation. And what is happening in PAS today concerns all of us.

PAS with its overtones of Islam, slightly masked by its overtones of political expediency, is now increasingly unable to internally contain the ever-widening divide of these factions within PAS that see this 13th general election as the definitive moment for each of their varying ideology to be tested and proven in order to achieve what they are all agreed upon: to establish Malaysia as a country based on Islamic legal theory derived from the primary sources of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah as well as Hadiths.

So wither goes PAS ulamas and its technocrats? Wither goes this Islamist political party that has a loyal membership of over one million, strong organisational structure and an ability to source for funding that is the envy of its coalition partners within Pakatan?

Wanting a win-win situation

As I have said previously, politics demand much more than what the aged can give and PAS has an abundance of this in Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Hadi Awang and Azizan Abdul Razak.

For the moment, their absence from PAS' first-tier leadership is unthinkable only because its second echelon of leaders are still sorting out their allegiance to the ranks of the ulamas or the technocrats within PAS.

Do not be distracted by the claims of either factions that the other has compromised too much or too little in the name of political or religious expediency – these are but the nuances of individuals promoting their individual agendas.

What is reality is the existence of opposing factions within PAS that now have real choices to make in the run-up to and after the 13th general election.

What choices PAS will make will depend on the numbers it has allied to or against what Pakatan has to offer PAS and what Umno has to offer PAS.

How will PAS ensure that heads they win and tails they win too?

This they can only do when they have sorted out among themselves which factions have the numbers to make the "right" choice for PAS.

Until then the bickering and the arguments will be contained within PAS with the intermittent leakages by those who seek to have their voices heard by the "masses" – something even PAS cannot prevent from happening despite the Islamic vows and oath-taking it requires of those who are its members

Is Islam under threat?

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 11:49 AM PST

The writer takes a cynical and satirical look on the Islamic threat that will backfire on the political and religious hypocrites.

Iskandar Dzulkarnain, Free Malaysia Today

Yes, leave the Muslims alone and let us sort out our differences. Whether the Muslims choose PAS or Umno will be decided in the next election. And most people believe that race and religious issues will disappear naturally after the election, so be patient.

Yes, Islam is under threat. It is not only from Christians who purportedly try to convert weak Muslims or from MCA which keeps on insulting the hudud penal code but also from within our very own borders.

Wahabbism is purportedly on the rise and Shi'itism, too, among the Sunni followers of Islam in this country. The Al Arqam sect which was supposedly neutralised by the government is rearing its head again.

There are also other deviant Muslim sects operating quietly in the country, and their low-key activities are yet to attract any attention.

Recently, 20 of Al Arqam followers were arrested for celebrating the 75th birthday of the late Ashaari, the founder of the deviant Al Arqam sect.

It has even been reported that Rawang, a back water town, has registered phenomenal economic growth due to its activities

The late founder's wife, Khatijah Am, is operating from an expensive mansion (RSA Palace) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She is purportedly overseeing a "government" already in place in the country.

Although no one really knows how big the movement is, there is fear that it is large enough for them to form a "shadow cabinet" with 41 different ministries. Even the Malaysian government doesn't have that many ministries.

Some of the ministries include the ministry of the netherworld (kementerian alam ghaib), the ministries of true souls and sects (roh suci dan tariqat), death and the hereafter (kematian dan akhirat) and family and holy sex (keluarga dan seks suci).

Intelligence agencies have reported that it is part of a plot to overthrow the government and to form an Islamic state. It also said that Khatijah had since been holding a total of 54 monthly meetings with "top leaders" of the sect in Malaysia via video conferencing, where she holds the post of prime minister.

It is also reported that nearly RM800,000 is collected each month through various sources to fund the movement. A clairvoyant of sorts, Khatijah claims she receive direct orders from her late husband.

Meanwhile, Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on the freedom of religion for the Malays seems to have confused everyone in the country. Now she is facing investigation by JAIS and legal action may be taken against her.

Even the news media and Barisan Nasional politicians were totally confused, judging by the vehement reaction towards her seemingly innocent statement. How can we expect the ordinary Muslims not to be confused?

A pondok cleric with far-sighted vision has declared that it is forbidden for Muslims to vote for opposition party DAP.

A Pahang mufti has also backed a growing campaign among Umno-aligned religious leaders to echo the same after several Islamic scholars called the secular party "belligerent infidels".

Apparently, DAP is not such an innocent political party, after all.

Threats to our way of life

Even the Jews are known to be a security threat to the country and to Islam. That is why the government refuses to have anything to do with the Jews and Israel. Communism is another credible threat that needs to be constantly monitored.

Some non-Muslims pose a threat as they continue to ridicule the government about "sin taxes" collected from alcohol, gambling and cigarettes, even though the government has made it clear that such taxes go into a separate account.

Some have even gone to the extent of questioning income taxes paid by non-Muslims in this country. Now isn't that going a little too far?

Not only that, "it is also very unnecessary of non-Muslims to comment on Islam by using far- fetched examples of "political hypocrisy". They should put a full stop to it or comment on their own religion. The actions of a few renegade Muslims cannot be used to judge the majority of law- abiding Muslims.

As we speak, action is being taken on an outrageous letter to Malaysiakini written by one "Steve Oh." How can Steve humiliate the country and its people by espousing such liberal views? Doesn't he have a heart?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 18 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan