Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

For Selangor DAP, the fight is also within
‘Peaceful revolutions’ underway in Malaysia, Singapore
Dark (K)Nights in Malaysia (Part 1)
Malaysia – the Islamic state
MyKad "Islamisation" of Sabah's bumiputra Christians
Knowing what not to post…
Shafie puts foot in mouth about Sabah oil and basic politics
Malaysia – revisiting the secular state debate
Amangate: will Najib clean up Nazri’s mess?
Yang membela Islam tiga orang Cina

For Selangor DAP, the fight is also within

Posted: 05 Nov 2012 11:42 AM PST

The poor turnout at the Selangor DAP convention last weekend was a missed opportunity to rally the troops to defend the premier state against a hungry opposition.

The fact that Teng himself did not bother to attend and the flimsy excuse he made for not turning up says it all. Teng is apparently cheesed off with her because she has refused to discuss the issue of election candidates at state party meetings. His team feels that big decision on candidates should be shared by both factions. He also claimed that she holds pre-council meetings and, as a result, the actual meetings end up dealing with inconsequential matters.

Joceline Tan, The Star

TERESA Kok is known as the "Sassy MP" and her Facebook page shows her posing with a dragon head. She is also known as DAP's Iron Lady in Selangor where she is the state party chairman.

Technically, that means she is the most powerful woman in the party in Selangor. But last Sunday, DAP's Iron Lady was put on the defensive over the poor turnout at the Selangor DAP convention.

Of the 1,153 delegates, only 311 or 27% showed up for the annual meeting. The minimum quorum is 25% and party leaders were left struggling to explain the numbers. Many of them said this was usually the case in a non-election year for the party and delegates think it would not make a difference whether they are there or not.

Yet, this is as good as an election year with the general election so near. DAP is spearheading Pakatan Rakyat's defence of Selangor, the party is the leader of the pack and the coalition is depending on DAP to deliver the bulk of the votes.

Size matters in politics and Kok ought to have used this final state convention before the polls as a show of force that the party is hungry, ready and able to hold on to Selangor. A huge turnout would have provided a more convincing backdrop to her rah-rah speech that her party wants to win another eight state seats. Sadly, she ended up talking big to a small hall.

Kok did not appreciate the questions raised about the low turnout and she attempted to brush it off in a rather casual manner, attributing it to some delegates being "lazy," the rainy weather and that delegates had activities in their constituencies.

But there is another reason there is obviously some degree of sabotage going on.

Kok, who is Seputeh MP and Kinrara assemblywoman, is a popular figure in Selangor but she does not exactly have full control over her party. She has had problems consolidating the different factions in her party since becoming state chairman. She does not have the personality or the skills to manage the overnight success of the party.

For instance, Pandamaran assemblyman and state exco member Ronnie Liu has his own faction and is still very much a tai-kor or big brother figure in Selangor. He had even tried to replace the people whom Kok had nominated as municipal councillors several months ago.

Another faction led by State Speaker Datuk Teng Chang Khim is said to regard Kok as a puppet whose strings are being pulled by PJ Utara MP Tony Pua. Pua is the deputy state chairman but they call him the "de facto chairman".

Kok's image also took a knock when a sacked local leader in Selangor Tan Tuan Tat he insists he resigned went public with his criticism of her leadership. Sacked party members can hardly be expected to say nice things but Tan was merely articulating what people in the party had been gossiping in private that Kok's rise in the party was because she was a loyalist of secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, the multiple salaries she is earning from her multiple positions and her limited leadership skills.

Then, there is the lingering unhappiness over whether she really deserves to be the Selangor chairman. In the 2010 state party election, Kok's Unity Team was pitched against Teng's Rainbow Team. Teng came in at fourth spot in the 15 seat line-up whereas Kok trailed in at the 11th spot.

But there was a lot of backroom horse-trading and Kok managed to secure the chairmanship by getting eight of the 15 office bearers on her side. As they say in politics, the best man does not always win.

Teng's people have always suspected Teratai assemblywoman Jenice Lee as the one who gave Kok the crucial vote and they were delighted when Lee was ousted as the Selangor DAPSY chief last Saturday.

But the point is many people thought that her 11th position was an indication that she does not enjoy as much grassroots support as Teng, yet she became the boss and is holding some of the most lucrative posts in the Selangor government.

Given the history, it is inevitable that onlookers saw it as a reflection of the way people in the party feel about her.

But Klang MP Charles Santiago defended Kok as a consensus builder and said she had reached out to bring together the warring factions in Klang.

"Sometimes, you cannot please everybody. Even what you eat and wear can become an issue. She has been moving around and she's trying her best," said Santiago.

Overall, the convention was a missed opportunity for the DAP leaders to rally the troops for battle. DAP is the party in power in Selangor yet the mood at the convention was not that of a party ready for the mother of all battles. It was rather too subdued and the fighting spirit was not there.

Kok has no excuses actually because she has all the resources at her disposal. She is not only Selangor chairman, she is also the national organising secretary as well as the national secretary for the party's women's wing.

She has expressed confidence that most people in Selangor still want Pakatan but said that chances of winning would be jeopardised if Umno scares the Malay ground by using the religious and race card among Malays.

Instead of blaming Umno, Kok should take a good hard look at her own party organisation. Political parties rise and fall not only on the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent but also on their own strengths and weaknesses. There is still time to assess the party's readiness for the election and do what needs to be done. The blame game is sounding like an old story.

‘Peaceful revolutions’ underway in Malaysia, Singapore

Posted: 05 Nov 2012 11:11 AM PST

For most of its history, Malaysia has been guided by the desire for "equality of outcomes". It has been trying to redistribute the fruits of growth in a more equitable fashion by giving some people—the majority Malay Muslims, the so-called bumiputeras—more opportunities than others. Singapore has been guided by the desire for "equality of opportunities", with little concern for outcomes. Both countries have pursued their philosophies with determination; now both see the systems faltering.

Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, SingaporeScene

Malaysia and Singapore are witnessing two slow, quiet, largely peaceful socio-political revolutions that will ultimately change the complexion of the region.

For decades, the vast majority of Malaysians and Singaporeans appeared relatively content with their respective ruling parties—the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition and the People's Action Party (PAP). Their consistent electoral success was built on a combination of rapid economic growth and iron-fisted political control.

As living standards got better, most people in the two countries were happy to live their lives quietly under the democratic radar.

But over the past decade, a combination of forces—including policy missteps by the ruling parties, the emergence of more credible opposition candidates, and the widening of political space through the Internet—has blown the lid off these hitherto politically apathetic countries.

In both Malaysia and Singapore, authoritarian states are making way for more democratic participation. Ordinary people, who for long took their electoral rights for granted, have now realised that their voices and votes do actually make a difference. Civil society is being forced to evolve at warp speed. Private and public actors are adapting to new ways of communicating on a multitude of new platforms.

Hence the BN's and PAP's 50 odd years of dominance is ending. In Malaysia, the revolution is a few years ahead: after its next general election, which must be held by June 2013, there is an outside chance that the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition will be governing the country.

Across the border, though the PAP still appears very much in control, it is licking its wounds after its worst ever electoral performance last year. Though unthinkable just a few years ago, political observers today have a new favourite pastime: speculating when the PAP might lose power. A minority believes it could happen as soon as the next election, due by 2016.

A big reason for these parties' relative decline is that Malaysians and Singaporeans have grown increasingly disillusioned with their respective socio-economic models. For most of its history, Malaysia has been guided by the desire for "equality of outcomes". It has been trying to redistribute the fruits of growth in a more equitable fashion by giving some people—the majority Malay Muslims, the so-called bumiputeras—more opportunities than others. Singapore has been guided by the desire for "equality of opportunities", with little concern for outcomes. Both countries have pursued their philosophies with determination; now both see the systems faltering.

Malaysia's pursuit of "equality of outcomes" has created some serious problems, not least the ethnic tensions in society today. Furthermore, the noble ideal of wealth equality has frequently been hijacked by corrupt elements, undermining the policy's effectiveness.

Singapore's desire only for "equality of opportunities" has led to gross inequality—or very different "outcomes"—in the country. And with that, it has become harder and harder to guarantee "equality of opportunities"—a rich family's child will always be much better positioned for success than a poor family's child.

As Malaysia and Singapore embark on their next stage of development, they face pressures to become a bit more like each other. Malaysians are yearning for more "equality of opportunities" and Singaporeans, "equality of outcomes".

This is not just theoretical fluff. These guiding philosophies have influenced how millions of Malaysians and Singaporeans think and interact with each other. In Malaysia, for instance, there are Chinese and Indians who look down on the Malays around them because they are perceived as dependent on government help.

Meanwhile, there are a fair number of Malay nationalists who continue to regard Chinese and Indians, some of whose families have been in the country for more than four generations, as second-class citizens.

The bumiputera policies also feed the idea that economic opportunity and wealth is a zero-sum game, played out amongst different ethnic groups, based on luck and timing. An Indian church warden in Kuantan, Pahang, likened the process to the spokes on a revolving bicycle wheel. "The Malay bicycle spoke is up now, so the Indian one must necessarily be down," he told me. He believes it is impossible for all ethnic groups to develop together; the Indians must simply sit tight and wait for their chance again.

Hence, by mandating this wealth transfer to the bumiputeras, Malaysia has unwittingly cultivated the idea that in order for one race to progress, another one must be subdued.

Dark (K)Nights in Malaysia (Part 1)

Posted: 04 Nov 2012 05:52 PM PST

When politics and power are concerned, we must reflect on the possibility that truth is something that must be discarded at times without which chaos would reign.

Alwyn Lau

What's arguably the most anicipated movie event in Malaysia this year? Batman. What's the most anticipated event in the country per se? The coming General Elections. In this piece, I hope to look at the two recent Dark Knight instalments and extract insights relevant to Malaysia, our politics, our hopes and, importantly, our fear.

The Dark Knight (2008), like many of Christopher Nolan's movies (e.g. The Prestige, Inception), is predicated on fundamental lies. The movie depicts a world which needs to be lied to; a society which cannot face a full-blown encounter with the truth. Hence, the hero – Batman himself – embodies deception in its purest. He has a secret identity known to less than a handful of people. The secret identity itself is based on people's uncanny fear of bats i.e. of a mammal with wings often used to cloak itself. Yet it's not simply that Batman has to maintain a lie. In order to save society, the District Attorney Harvey Dent had to pretend he was Batman; Dent had to lie to the city in order to save the city itself. In the end, of course, Batman returned the favour by willingly taking on the role as baddie, as Dent's killer, in order that the city would have a hero to celebrate. Dent (a good guy turned bad) was venerated and Batman (a great guy turned bat) was vilified – this was the solution the city had to be fed.

The 'Dark Knight', thus, refers to the falsely incriminated hero who takes on the sins of the real criminals so the city could continue life as normal believing in lies. It's the 'bogeyman' a country needs to believe has been adequately dealt with so it can feel secure in itself. In Malaysia one name comes quickly to mind: the Communists.

To this day, one could argue that the Communists are indeed the dark knights of our country. From the very start, their cause for the poor(er) working classes in British Malaya. Their presence galvanized labourers to speak up as a collective, to fight for causes and issues largely ignored by a ruling class more concerned about protecting their business interests. The British colonial leaders, however, sought to derail a potential working class revolution by demonizing all Left-leaning political groups and transferring power to the very group who would ensure that colonial interests are sustained after Independence i.e. the aristocrats and business folks. Afterwards, a convenient story was told of how cruel the Commies were and how close Malaysia was to being overwhelmed by the Red Terror if not for the patriotic stalwarts from UMNO and so on. Hence, Malaysia's myth of origins.

Our society needs to keep on hearing this lie failing which we may actually question the role of groups like UMNO in 'liberating' Malaysia. Our society needs to believe that Communism is bad in whatever form it comes – and that a profit-making system, by contrast, will always be great and 'all-natural' no matter how many rivers are polluted and forests rendered bare – lest the every-spiraling yearning after money is, gasp(!), questioned. Our society needs to see in Communism nothing but terror and mass poverty because without this 'Satan' of political groups, we may actually be forced to take a good hard look at the multitudes in ACTUAL poverty as a direct result of Capitalism itself. Our society needs to vote Commies out because this way we can continue believing that Democracy truly is nothing but the best and fairest political system created by Man (if not God himself) and it has no complicity whatsoever with an economic system which generates waste, slums, debt and greed.

Batman's arch-villain, the Joker, on the other hand, is all about truth. He sought to expose the truth of Batman's identity, of love and dilemmas (was Rachel Dawes more worth saving than Harvey Dent?), of the superficiality of noble intentions (could a public figure/hero turn bad over the death of a loved one?), of human self-centeredness (could a group of people willingly blow up another group to save themselves?) and, most critically, the truth of what it takes for society to police itself.

Towards the movie's end, Batman realized that the only way to apprehend the Joker was to rely on mass surveillance, effectively ending the privacy of Gotham's inhabitants. That is the price and the ground of peace – an exceptional act which takes the form of violence. In Malaysia, such political 'exceptions' are very familiar, aren't they? The standard roll call of anti-democracy laws - The Security Offenses Act (formerly known as the ISA), the Sedition Act, the Peaceful Assembly Act,and most recently, Section 114A of the Evidence Act – are, in essence, legal acts of violence towards the people. To protect national harmony, we need the threat of personal disharmony (in the form of many nights in a 6-by-8 feet cell).

Nolan also presents a stark and awkward contrast between the candor of evil and the superficiality of the good. The Joker never takes anything personally – perfect candidate for Prime Minister? Batman takes justice too personally – perfect example of a political whiner? The Joker uses anarchy to expose the lies the people tell themselves (of goodness, of heroes, etc.). Batman uses and perpetuates a lie – himself! – so people can continue believing in the illusory motifs of hope and justice. Batman wears a mask and disguises his voice. The Joker wears make-up, which is to say that he turns his face into a mask i.e. the Joker becomes the mask he wears which is about as close to the truth as anybody can get (simply reflect on how many personalities we 'put on' in our everyday dealings; the Joker, really, has only one face and is entirely transparent). Of course, the Joker – unlike Batman - doesn't bother to fake his voice.

Could the painful message of the movie therefore be that, in a world as messed up as ours, we often yearn to be lied to almost as desperately as we yearn for justice? That we are as ill-equipped to handle transparency and truth as we are frantic in demanding them?

When politics and power are concerned, we must reflect on the possibility that truth is something that must be discarded at times without which chaos would reign. Political governance is inseparable from the sacrifice of truth, the betrayal of heroes and the elevation of falsehood. Political maturity, hence, is not simply the ability to expose socio-political lies but to decide which lies have to endure and be endured.

Does all this simply translate into the boring fact that all politicians must lie? No, it means that in radical politics truth often takes the form of fiction. Justice may have to look like injustice. True democracy may, in other words, resemble its violation. Enter … Bane.

To be continued ....

Malaysia – the Islamic state

Posted: 04 Nov 2012 03:19 PM PST

A dark humour piece on a perceived puritan Islamic state which PAS is insistent on championing one day in the future.

Iskandar Dzulkarnain, FMT

The Muslims in this country have certainly come of age. Lovingly protected by the government against the pitfalls of sin and eternal damnation, today a growing majority of Muslims are attracted to the beautiful notion of being governed by the hudud penal code and becoming a true Islamic nation.

It is wonderful to know that a Muslim NGO has called for the banning of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan's "My Name Is Khan" movie which confuses Muslims as it promotes liberal Islam and religious pluralism. It has also warned Malaysian broadcasters against airing the hit film and called for the blocking of the distribution of the film CD.

Malay right-wing group Perkasa also called for Muslims nationwide to boycott award-winning singer Jaclyn Victor for singing the Malay-language Christian song "Harapan Bangsa".

PAS Youth has done its bit to ban Valentine's Day, a well-known Western celebration and live concerts which promote a loose lifestyle. And now it wants to meet the King, because the MCA president refuses to apologise for purportedly insulting Islam.

PAS is also ready to hold a discussion with former Perlis mufti Prof Madya Mohd Aszri Zainul Abidin on the "Ayatollah" issue should it ever come to power.

Malay bibles have been banned in the Peninsula and the government is serious to disallow Allah's name to be uttered by non-Muslims.

Maybe, the time is ripe for the Muslims in this country to have an Islamic state.

Umno and PAS

Umno has been instrumental in the past to Islamise this nation, and it is satisfied that Malaysia is already a thriving Islamic state. It has even planned a mandatory mosque law to build a mosque in every new housing estate.

PAS, however, feels that more should be done and that the hudud penal code be part and parcel of an Islamic state.

Both parties agree that Muslims in Malaysia are weak and open to the temptations of the world. Some form of "state control" is needed to ensure that Muslims do not breach religious etiquette or go over the line.

Weak Muslims cannot be allowed to go through life without the state monitoring their progress and to provide them spiritual guidance.

Many believe that only an Islamic state will pave the way for them to exercise and exert control over the Muslims' social, mental and spiritual upbringing.

Muslims cannot carry on living a liberal and pluralistic lifestyle like what they are doing now. Something must be done to arrest the hedonistic lifestyle of the current Muslims and a puritanical Islamic way of life must be implemented.

Of course, it is not political. Islam is above politics. Whoever wins the election will still ensure that the Islamic agenda is on course.

One day in the future, PAS may have no choice but to reunite with Umno to form an Islamic state and enforce an Islamic way of life which includes the hudud penal code.

The idea of a Malaysia for Malaysians, where the various races coexist together in peace and harmony and striving to become a developed first world nation, will not be part of this equation.

To prevent further Muslim confusion, an affirmative Muslim Agenda is necessary to ensure that Muslims in this country conform fully to the Islamic code.

Under Islamic governance, the issue of hypocrisy or exploitation of religion for political gain does not arise.

The perfect role model to emulate will be Saudi Arabia as a puritanical Islamic state free of liberalism and pluralism, and where the Muslims journey on their lifetime pilgrimage.

A dress-code

A strict dress code will be enforced. The "burqa" – a gown that covers a woman's body from head to toe – should be considered, and an instant ban on shorts.

With the women fully covered, there will be an instant reduction in sexual crimes, harassment or abandoned foetuses. Prostitution, close proximity and rape will become a thing of the past.

Muslim men will be able to contain their sexual desires and concentrate on their work and their religious obligations without any distraction.

Muslim men may never see the face of another Muslim woman again for the rest of their lives, except for their wives. The need to spend on expensive cosmetics and latest fashion will be void.

Muslims will abandon the silly art of dating, or subscribing to love and romance. Women of child- bearing age will be encouraged to get married without delay. If they find difficulties in getting a partner, the option of being second wives should be considered. Women should not be subjected to sexual urges and impure thoughts unnecessarily while remaining single.

It will be apt to follow Saudi Arabia's policies to disallow women from appearing in public without a related male accompaniment. Women should also be discouraged from driving or working in public.

House keeping and caring for the children should be a priority. Without a women workforce, there will be ample job openings for Muslim males.

Restrictions for Muslims

Entertainment outlets like cinemas, snooker parlours, massage health centres, hair dressing saloons, pubs and discos, betting outlets, bars and cabaret should carry warning signs barring Muslim patrons.

Moral squads should be planted in all hotels, nature parks and gambling outlets to nab unsuspecting offenders

MAS should go liquor-free with family friendly seats and male/female seats clearly marked to prevent the opposite sex from mingling. All transport modes should follow a strict segregation code. That includes ferries, trains, buses, cinemas, concert halls, cashier counters in supermarkets, departmental stores and even taxis should have clear signs to segregate the opposite sex.

Hotels nationwide should go alcohol-free, so as not to deter Muslims from working in such outlets.

Wholesome entertainment

Television, too, should be limited to "For Muslims Viewing" Astro Channels package, with programmes that meet religious guidelines. All movies, sit-coms, comedies or cartoons must espouse wholesome family values. Programmes that contain Western values, liberal or pluralism should be banned.

Moreover, it is pointless to ban live shows if we continue to be exposed to them on TV. News, music videos and side-views that do not conform to the standard should be filtered for consumption.

Computer games, Play-stations and online games should be severely restricted as it doesn't provide intrinsic value and are littered with western influences.

Karaoke could be allowed as wholesome family entertainment, as long as the music content does not contain elements of love and romance, rock, heavy metal and disco.

Access to the Internet should be severely restricted, as it contains a Pandora's box of disinformation that may confuse and corrupt the minds of Muslims. It will not be in the interest of Muslims to surf the world wide web uninhibitedly without strict parental controls.

Smartphones with Internet capablilites and MMS should only be restricted to high-ranking officials in the civil service, police and military intelligence who need access to such high-tech devices. Apple Ipads, too, are dangerous devices in the inexperienced hands of the weak Muslims.

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 06:20 PM PDT

Bob Teoh, Sin Chew Daily

Bumiputra Christians in Sabah continue to be "converted to Islam" by the National Registration Department (NRD) simply because they have "bin" and "binti" in their names. Sabah churches are seeking urgent solutions to the crisis but none seems to be in sight.

The NRD has made it clear it would continue to list bumiputra Christians in Sabah as Muslims as long as they are known by bin or binti. It would also not rectify past entry errors by way of changing the religion listing back to Christianity in the identity cards (MyKad) of those affected. The NRD would only act upon an order by a Syariah High Court to determine whether those bumiputra Christians whom it had listed as Muslims are not Muslims indeed.

Even if these native Christians get a hearing from the Syariah Court, both the NRD and Islamic authorities may not turn up, thus causing unnecessary delays.

A current test case has been mounted by a 53 year-old widow and her two adult daughters and supported by the respective local churches. All three are from the Dusun Banggi tribe.

Intim binti Lambatan, was born in 1959 in Banggi, the northernmost island in Sabah. Her husband died 20 years ago. She was officially baptised in her church, the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) in Limbuak Darat, in Kudat on mainland Sabah seven years ago and issued a Baptism Certificate.

The SIB is the biggest indigenous protestant church in Sabah. Her elder daughter, Norina binti Nuhudan,28, was baptised when she was 15 while her younger daughter, Listin Nuhudan, 22, was baptised when she was 14. Both are also SIB members.

When all three had their religion wrongly classified as "Islam" in their MyKad, they brought the matter up to their pastors. A Christian lawyer from another SIB church in Kota Kinabalu agreed to take up their case but the lawyer had to engage a Muslim counsel to act on their behalf in the Syariah High Court.

In March last year a Christian lawyer, Victoria Jayaseele Martin, was barred from practising in a Syariah court despite having a Diploma in Syariah Law and Practice from the International Islamic University Malaysia, in addition to a University of London law degree.

The test case was initiated several months ago when Intim went to the Kudat office of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Negeri Sabah – JHEAINS - or the Sabah Islamic Affairs Department, to clarify the status of her religion.

On 25 July, the department wrote to the Syariah Court in Kudat to say that Intim's name is not on record in their Pendaftaran Pengislaman (Islamisation Register).

With JHEAINS's clarification, she made a statutory declaration at the Kudat Magistrate Court stating that she is not a Muslim and that her name is not on the Islamic department's register. She said she was not originally a Muslim but when she applied for her identity card, the word "Islam" was wrongly recorded on it.

But still the NRD would not rectify its error and issue her a new identity card with her correct status as a Christian. It looks like it is Intim's responsibility to first go to the Kudat Syariah High Court for a declaration that she is not a Muslim.

This she did by filing a case against the Ketua Pendafter Muallaf (Chief Registrar of New Believers) of Sabah on 14 August. The Director General of the NRD was cited as the second respondent. She is asking for her status as a Muslim to be deleted from her identity card.

The Kudat Syariah High Court then wrote back to the Islamic Department to investigate further whether Intim is a Muslim on their register. The mention date was twice postponed to last Monday (28 Oct). But both the respondents did not turn up, thus causing more delays.

The problem has long reached a crisis in Sabah when SIB churches could not marry their members as some are found to be "Muslims" in their MyKad and the Registrar of Marriages would not recognise such marriages.

Two years ago, the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), of which SIB is a member, met the NRD Director General and his senior officers. NECF was assured that the problem could easily be resolved be those affected filing in what it called a "Borang A" to change the status of their religion.

The NECF was happy with that assurance and posted an advisory on its website: "Fuss-free way to change religion data in MyKad."

"Christians who wish to change their religion to Christianity in their MyKad data are not required to tender any legal documents, such as baptism certificates. They only need to fill in 'Borang A' to effect the change," NECF then said.

"This was confirmed at a recent meeting between NECF Malaysia and top officials from the National Registration Department (NRD)."

But NECF itself pointed out the catch. "This is not applicable if they had been registered as Muslims."

NECF said, at the meeting with NRD officials, it also raised the issue of East Malaysian Christians whose religion in their MyKad is recorded as "Islam" simply because their names carry "bin" and "binti".

"This is a prevailing problem in Sabah and Sarawak where many indigenous citizens have names that carry bin and binti". The NRD automatically assigns their religion as 'Islam' even though many of them are Christians," according to NECF.

NECF also said the NRD confirmed that those who are affected could change the data in their MyKad provided they had obtained clearance from the Syariah Court.

It looks like NECF had bought a dud – the Borang A assurance by the NRD is just a ruse to continue its "Islamisation" by deception in Sabah.

Knowing what not to post…

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 05:47 PM PDT

Does an alleged crime repeated often enough become the truth?

I personally believe that a democracy should allow vigorous debate. The debate we want is the voice of reason, not the strident arguments that reverberate with dissent for the sake of automatically dissenting with your opponent or automatically agreeing to everything "your" side says.

Dave Avran, Free Malaysia Today

With the elections looming large, there is simply too much politicking today. This has trickled down to involve everything that occurs now, including crime.

The catalyst for this phenomenon is social media, which has enabled everyone with a smartphone to scan the news and pass instant judgment on current issues.

However, social media has a Jeckyll and Hyde personality. If you are constantly aware and use it consciously, you are safe. Overstep the boundries and you pay dearly.

I am referring to my previous article "What is wrong with our judges" where I highlighted the unhappiness and anger expressed by many Malaysians via social media channels (including MARAH) over the lenient sentences for rapists with "bright" futures in contrast to the death sentence meted out to two Indonesian brothers who killed a violent burgler, R Khartic, in self defense.

You now have Khartic's father VP Rajah emerging to say that he is a licensed money changer, a plantation business owner and a mini market operator who paid his son RM10k a month in salary and commissions.

He is very upset that his son has been labelled a burglar and has defended his son as a good man and a registered organ donor.

Despite eyewitnesses claiming that Khartic entered the shoplot unit through an opening in the ceiling, Rajah is accusing investigating officer ASP Zaiharul and the deputy public prosecutor Yusof Rahman of working in cahoots with the shop operator to pin the blame on his son, and has counter claimed to have witnesses including his brother-in-law who saw Khartic being dragged upstairs of the shophouse by four men.

Here are the obvious questions. If there was a fracas of sorts and Khartic was dragged upstairs, why didn't anybody (including the brother-in-law) come to his aid or call the cops?

The Indonesian brothers were the only ones who testified in their own defense. Why didn't any of these witnesses step up to vouch for Khartic?

Here's another question. Who do we, Joe and Jane public, believe?

Clearly, there is manipulation of social media channels to form public opinion. Whilst Malaysians are quick in assuming that there are always hidden hands in every picture, we are also quick to judge on issues.

A scan of the comments section indicates an outpouring of sympathy for the father and hate for the designated bad guys – the police.

Have we had all the complete facts of the case to mull over and evaluate before commenting?

Vigorous debate

Apparently today you must take a side, otherwise how are we know which team you are playing for? The diplomatic art of agreeing to disagree is dead today's sociopolitical climate.

Shafie puts foot in mouth about Sabah oil and basic politics

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 11:06 AM PDT

Isn't it ridiculous to reject an increase in oil royalty on the ground that we need to share our good fortune with the non-oil states? If we believe in this twisted economic logic then we should share whatever we have – everything including wealth as well as problems. Why not share our misfortunes as well, such as our highest poverty rate, lack of developments, illegal immigrants and high prices of basic commodities?

Daniel John Jambun

In Datuk Shafie Apdal's comment about the opposition's promise to give 20% royalty for its oil if it was voted to power, he stressed only two important points, that is, Sabah shouldn't take 20%"because it needs to share its wealth" and "the opposition should not makes promises that causes rift among the people."

I have one thing to say about what he said: these are some of the dumbest and most idiotic statements we have heard in the political history of Sabah. It is no better than when Datuk Salleh Said Keruak said the people should blame themselves for the increase in illegal immigrants inSabah, or when Tun Mahathir said the illegals in Sabah should be given citizenships because they can speak Bahasa Malaysia!

How ridiculous of Shafie to say that Sabah needs to share it wealth with non-oil producing states in Malaysia. First of all the oil belong to us, but 95% is being taken away. All we are asking for is this 95% being taken away be reduced to 80%. That's still a lot of sharing to satisfy Shafie.

Strangely, he admitted he himself wants 20% royalty but at the same time said he is happy with 5%! What? He rather sees Sabah remain poor, rather than get a little bit more of what belong to us in the first place.

Doesn't Shafie realize that with just 20% oil royalty, we can already solve most of these problems? Is he saying that we decided to be part of Malaysia so that the Federal Government can take away what we have and cause us to be the poorest state? No, we formed Malaysia with the promises of progress, development and wealth, not this poverty which Shafie seems to prefer. Being part of the Federal Government, Shafie is also an accomplice in the scheme to strip Sabah of its wealth, and he is admitting he prefers it that way!

The other silly thing Shafie said is that the opposition is making this promise to cause a rift among the people. Is Shafie still a greenhorn in politics, or is he now behaving like the typical Umno leaders who are telling the people that we shouldn't speak up the truth because "it causes disunity among the people"?

Has he forgotten that we are living in a democratic society and now thinks we are in an autocratic regime? How stupid to say that we shouldn't say anything in politics to cause rifts among the people! This is what we politicians have been doing since day one –to speak the truth and to expose lies of the other party to educate the people, and now we have "caused a rift among the people" (memecah-belahkan rakyat), that is to cause them to go into at least two camps, the ruling coalition and the opposition! Is Shafie against this? Does Shafie prefer it if we don't have any election and everyone joins the BN? Will that be good for us, or for Shafie, in the long run? Ther we don't need politics, we don't need elections of parliament!

What I suspect is that Shafie is very worried that the real rift is happening in the BN. Many BN members have long started to love the promise of 20% royalty and had left the BN to support the opposition, causing a rift among the BN members (not among the people), because as Shafie says, who doesn't want 20% royalty?

I would advise Shafie to refrain from making childish statements in the future as if we the rakyat are so uneducated, backward and unable to think intelligently.

Malaysia – revisiting the secular state debate

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 05:56 PM PDT

Whether the people will decide to choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.

Ahmad Farouk Musa, New Mandala

One of the most contentious issues in our country is the debate on Islamic State vis-à-vis Secular State. It should be highlighted at this initial point that the Islamic State concept was borne out only early in the twentieth century after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Irrespective of which divide we are on, one basic fact that we have to agree upon is that the terminology Dawlah Islamiyyah or Islamic State was never mentioned in the Qur'an.

However, Islamic State remains the main agenda of political Islam that defines Islam as ad-deen wa-dawlah or "religion and state". It could be argued that since there is no single predominant interpretation of what an Islamic state is, a vicious contestation still exists among the Islamists about the concept of Islamic State.

The realm of as-siyasi – the political

It is also worth noting from historical evidence that Muslims have been fighting against each other for centuries over political power. Rachid Ghannouchi leader ofHizb en-Nahda – The Renaissance Party – quotes a renowned Muslim historian, Shahrastani, as saying that it was on a question of political power that Muslims drew sword, fought each other and shed blood of one another.

And because of this, Ghannouchi distinguishes what he calls as ad-deeni – the religious, sacred or absolute – to that of as-siyasi – the political, profane or relative. The main problem Muslims especially are facing is in the realm of as-siyasi.

Many Muslims including some conservative political activists from the Islamic Party especially in the Ulama' and Youth wings are insistent on the idea of replicating the Medinan city-state model of the seventh century. The Qur'an is considered as a constitution that spells out everything that is needed to form a "truly Islamic" government.

Obviously this understanding is anything but a fallacy. The Qur'an only lays the basic foundation that guides mankind. As the erudite Muhammad Asad said: "Every generation faces different circumstances and thus many laws and ways for society cannot be fixed for all time. This is also why the Qur'an fixes time-less law, ethics and restrictions that are universal in its appreciation.

The companions of the Prophet were not left with a set of rules as to how to settle disputes or lead their worldly lives. However they were compelled to perform ijtihad or independent reasoning, using God-given faculty in order to find their own ways.

The en-Nahda leader, Ghannouchi argues that if Islam is the final divine revelation to humanity then it is only appropriate that no fixed prescriptions are given for matters that are of a changing nature such as governing a country. Muslims should be able to exercise their independent reasoning to devise suitable solutions for emerging problems. And the result of this exercise, Islam is then suitable for all times and all places.

Many Islamists argued that the Qur'an provides a solution to every single problem that faces humanity. Many verses have been cited to prove that Muslims need not find answers anywhere else. Among the most famous is: Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me – al-Islam – shall be your religion." [al-Ma'idah– The Repast 5: 3]. And another verse is: 'No single thing have We neglected in Our decree." [Al-An'am – Cattle 6: 38]

In interpreting these verses, Ghannouchi asserted that many misunderstood them to mean that the Holy Qur'an has a solution to every problem whether major or minor. However what these verses really meant is that while some answers are already there, which if considered absolute, belong to the realm of ad-deeni; only guidelines and foundations are provided in the case of as-siyasi, so that Muslims may search for the detailed answers in accordance with the requirements of their respective time and place.

To exemplify this, Ghannouchi draws the attention to the Qur'anic declaration that: "And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God". [Hud11: 6] For in spite of such a declaration many creatures, including human communities, die of thirst and hunger. Where is then their sustenance? Their sustenance has indeed been stored in the earth and the heavens, but to become readily available, it requires exploring, an exertion of effort, on the part of those to whom it has been destined.

The need for human intellectual exegesis

Having said that, we have to acknowledge the fact that there exist shortcomings of a great deal of what we may believe to be sacred. The acceptance of God as Lord of the universe does not mean that everything is a priori. Islam is not a panacea that provides ready-made answers to all human problems. Muslim scholars have not solved all the problems of humanity, in history and for all times. Rather, Islam provides a moral and just perspective within which Muslims must find answer to all human problems.

Ultimately governing a state is a human endeavor. And there is only one thing that could rescue us from our current impasse: democracy. Democracy is essential for any Muslim group and only democracy could guide Muslim societies towards Islam, where the operation of the community and the demands of Islam are freely debated and refashioned.

This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people.

This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but He has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in thisworld. He has blessed humanity with revelations and His essential guidance. We are to shape and conduct our lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human.

God does not seek to regulate all human affairs and instead leaves human being considerable latitude in regulating their own affairs. In the Qur'anic discourse, God commanded the angels to honor man because of the miracle of human intellect – an expression of the abilities of the divine.

When we humans, search for ways to approximate God's beauty and justice, we do not deny God's sovereignty; instead we honor it. But if we were to say that the only legitimate source of law is the divine text, and that human experience and intellect are irrelevant to the pursuit of the divine will, then divine sovereignty will become an instrument of authoritarianism and an obstacle to democracy. And in effect, that authoritarian view denigrates God's sovereignty.

The democratic ideals

It should be emphasized that a state has to govern the relations between human beings and the ultimate aim of the state is to set up a society based on justice and benevolence – or 'adl and ihsan in the Qur'anic terms. 'Adl and ihsan are most fundamental human values and any state worth its salt has to strive to establish a society based on these values.

But for this, no particular form of state is needed. Even an honest monarch can do it. It is for this reason that the holy Qur'an praises prophet-rulers like David and Solomon, who were kings and just rulers. But the Qur'an is also aware that such just rulers are normally far and few in between. The governance has to be as democratic as possible so that all adults can participate in it. If governance is left to an individual, or a monarch, the power may corrupt him or her as everyone knows absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is for this reason that the Qur'an refers to democratic governance when it says: "And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have given them". [Ash-Shura– Consultation 42: 38]

Thus the mutual affairs – those pertaining to governance – should be conducted only by mutual consultation which in contemporary political parlance will be construed as democratic governance. Since in those days there was no well-defined practice of political democracy, the Qur'an refers to it as `amruhum shura baynahum, i.e. affairs to be conducted through mutual consultation, which is a very meaningful way of hinting at democracy.

The Qur'an is thus against totalitarian or absolute monarchical rule. This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur'anic legislation relating to statecrafts, and is binding on all Muslims and for all times as asserted by Muhammad Asad, in his book, State and Government in Islam.

Then what happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict where for example the majority of the Muslim society does not want to uphold Islam? It must be emphasized that the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion.

Observe that God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad – and we could be wrong; where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation – and we can err; when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world.

Amangate: will Najib clean up Nazri’s mess?

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:12 PM PDT

If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them? Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister. So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament?

Kim Quek

Minister in Prime Minister's Department cum de dacto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz's attempt to disown responsibilities for his contradictory statements in parliament on ground that he was only the reader – not the author – of those statements has brought serious concern to the soundness of the Barisan Nasional political leadership.

The senior minister was confronted with evidence of his son Nedim's family using a luxurious vehicle registered in Michael Chia's name, who together with Musa Aman (Sabah chief minister), were cleared by Nazri of corruption in parliament earlier.

Nazri had provided written answers in parliament that there was no corruption in the four-year-old scandal where Chia was alleged to have been arrested in Hong Kong for trying to smuggle S$16 million of Musa's cash to Malaysia. Nazri also denied that Chia was arrested, or that he had cash with him. Nazri attributed these findings to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Attorney General (AG).

Talking to reporters on Nov 1, Nazri explained that all his statements in parliament came from the MACC and AG, over whom he had no control. He was only the minister answering questions in parliament on issues that he was not involved in. As such, he sees no conflict of interest with Michael Chia. Sadly and shamefully, Nazri was in effect saying that he merely parroted what these government agencies told him, for which he disavowed any responsibility.

BREACH OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

Nazri's stance immediately raises an alarm. If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them?

Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister.

So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament?

Doesn't this amount to the Barisan Nasional leadership abdicating wholesale its accountability to parliament, and by extension, betraying the trust upon which the people have elected the coalition to power?

This is certainly a serious breach of the principles of parliamentary democracy upon which this nation was founded, for which Prime Minister Najib Razak can no longer keep silent and must promptly stand up to make his stand to the nation. He must urgently clarify in parliament whether Nazri was authorized to make those statements and whether every minister is personally responsible for what he states in parliament.

And since MACC comes under the prime minister's department while the AG is the cabinet's chief legal adviser, both of whom are claimed by Nazri to be responsible for the statements he made in parliament, Najib must now give unequivocal answers to many perplexing questions on the scandal, compounded by Nazri's contradicting versions of the story.

NAZRI'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

To appreciate the seriousness of these contradictions perpetrated by Nazri in parliament, I will briefly recap them as follows:

· On Oct 11, answering MP Chua Tian Chan, Nazri stated that the AG decided that there was no corruption, based on MACC's investigations and reports. However, this assertion immediately clashes with MACC's own statement a few days earlier, when its deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said on Oct 5 that investigation was still on-going, due to instruction by its review panel to get more evidence.

· On Oct 18, answering MP Tan Kok Wai, Nazri changed his tune by saying that investigation was not carried out by MACC, but instead, by Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which concluded that there was no corruption. No explanation was given as to why Nazri reversed his story.

· On Oct 22, answering questions in the committee stage of the Budget 2013 debate in Dewan Rakyat, Nazri astounded all by denying that Michael Chia was ever arrested, neither did Chia possess the alleged cash, as he understood from MACC. No explanation was given why the BN government had kept its strange silence, while reports of Michael Chia's arrest with S$16 million cash meant for Musa Aman swirled for the past four years.

It is important to note that while Nazri was dancing like yo-yo in parliament with his statements of exoneration for Chia and Musa, none of the investigating/law-enforcing bodies – ICAC, MACC or AG – ever uttered a word on the scandal (except for MACC's statement on Oct 5 that investigation was still in progress), least of all any declaration of the duo's innocence.

All we have is Nazri's words – words that are not collaborated or substantiated with even an iota of evidence, in addition to being self-contradictory and conflicting with MACC.

PM MUST ANSWER

Under the circumstances, Premier Najib must take responsibility for the bumbling minister in his department and step up to give categorical answers to the following questions in parliament to avert a total collapse of confidence in his leadership:

1. Is it true that ICAC has conveyed its findings of money laundering to MACC, including a money flow chart trailing the Sabah timber corruption money through a convoluted network to end up in Musa Aman's UBS AG account in Zurich, complete with details of various nominee accounts, payers and payees, deposit amounts, etc? (This money flow chart has been widely circulating in the Internet for some time).

2. Is it true that MACC has carried out an investigation of its own on Sabah timber corruption including probe on Musa Aman and his brother Anifa Aman (Malaysia's foreign minister) since the Michael Chia incidence in Hong Kong?

3. Is it true that neither ICAC nor MACC has ever exonerated Chia and Musa of money laundering and corruption?

To avoid falling into the same quagmire as minister Nazri has, the premier is well advised to buttress his answers with sufficient and credible facts – the kind of evidence that will restore public confidence.

THE LATEST NAZRI-CHIA CORRUPTION SCANDAL

With regards to Nazri's latest refutation of any impropriety over his family's beneficial link to Michael Chia on ground that his son is his son, with whom he has nothing do, this is sheer child's talk.

Whether Nazri likes it or not, his son Nedim is his immediate family, and for any improper favour granted to Nedim by virtual of Nazri's position as a minister, the latter is deemed beneficiary and recipient of that improper favour.

Would Chia have given the half-million-ringgit Hummer SUV for use by Nedim's family, if not for the fact that Nazri is a senior minister capable of doing Chia a favour?

In this case, Nazri easily stands out as a prime corruption suspect, as he has already stuck his neck out in parliament where he recklessly cleared Chia (as well as his alleged master Musa Aman) of any wrong-doing. This is clearly a case with classical corruption ingredients, cut out for action by any corruption buster worth its salt in any democratic country.

However, in Malaysia, our MACC has already played deaf and dumb on the Chia-Musa scandal for the past four years. Will it also do a Chia-Musa on the latest Nazri-Chia corruption scandal this time around?

Yang membela Islam tiga orang Cina

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 11:48 AM PDT

Bagi membendung api perkauman yang belum benar-benar padam, Sarena Tay menyeru orang Melayu beramai-ramai menyokong PAS. Jika orang Melayu tidak lagi dalam Umno, maka perkauman boleh diredakan. Tidak lagi orang yang hendak menyokong MCA. Jika MCA dapat dilumpuhkan, kuranglah puak yang berani mencerca Islam.

Subky Latif, Harakah Daily

Hampir menitis air mata menahan sebak melihat yang membela Islam dicerca Dr Chua Soi Lek dan pemimpin MCA ialah orang Cina dipercayai ketiga-tiganya bukan Islam.

Jika yang sensitif apabila Islam dicerca ialah orang Islam, orang PAS dan orang yang beriman, tiada suatu yang luar biasa kerana orang Islam tidak wajar membisu apabila agamanya dicerca.

Tetapi amat menakjubkan apabila rakan-rakan Cina yang tampil menyifatkan Soi Lek dan MCA menghina Islam seperti yang disuarakan oleh Anthony Loke, MP DAP Rasah, kolumnis Siang Malam di Harakah, Lim Hong Siang dan seorang penulis lagi Sarena Tay.

Pada mereka apa yang cakap oleh Soi Lek dan semua pemimpin MCA dalam perhimpunannya dua hari pada 20 Oktober lalu adalah menghina Islam, hudud dan PAS.

Mereka bukan orang Isalam, bukan beriman dengan hudud dan bukan pejuang PAS. Mereka adalah pembawa berita sebenar dan pembuka mata, sesuai dengan ajaran ilmu kewartawanan iaitu berita adalah maklumat berunsur kejutan seperti anjing digigit orang. Bukanlah berita lagi kalau orang digigit anjing.

Hujah biasa jika yang membela Islam itu orang, kerana adalah tanggungjawab orang beriman membela dan menegakkan Islam dan hukum-hukumnya. Tetapi ia adalah pembuka mata ada wibawa apabila orang yang tiada kepentingan dengan Islam dan hudud mengira Islam dan hudud telah dicemuh.

Mereka tidak bercadang untuk mendaulatkan Islam seperti yang PAS perjuangkan dan jaga mahu hudud menjadi perundangan seperti yang dituntut oleh Islam, tetapi mereka tidak melihat bijak dan rasional apabila Islam dan hudud dihina begitu rupa.

Kewajaran mereka berbuat demikian bukan untuk melihat Islam itu daulatkan tetapi tindakan MCA itu menggamit keserahan di kalangan rakyat dan negara. DAP belajar dari keterlanjuran pemimpinnya Karpal Singh pernah berkata langah mayatnya jika Islam diperundangkan. Ia pernah menimbulkan ketegangan di kalangan orang Islam dan ia menyukarkan DAP untuk menembusi pasaran pengaruh politik.

Kesilapan itu telah dibaiki, Karpal dan DAP tidak lagi dilihat oleh umat Islam di luar Umno sebagai pencetus ketegangan.

Ketiga Cina itu termasuk ketua pemuda DAP, Anthony Loke mahu mewujudkan suasana negara yang aman, adil dan harmoni, menolak provokasi dan penghinaan terhadap Islam yang lakukan oleh MCA itu.

Lebih menjolok mata Perdana Menteri Najib telah diperalatkan oleh MCA dalam politiknya untuk menyerang Islam dan hudud itu. Soi Lek menjemput Najib merasmikan perhimpunannya dan lepas itu menggunakan perhimpunan itu untuk menyerang hudud dan PAS. Dengan sendirinya ia menyerang dan menghina Islam.

Syukur orang Islam dapat mengawal sabar dan pendirian tidak bangun menyeru pejabat MCA dan premis kepunyaan Cina. Tetapi ia telah mengguris perasaan orang Islam. Siapa yang dapat menghalang kalau ada orang Islam yang bangkit bertindak kasar kepada masyarakat Cina.

Walaupun ketiga anak Cina memunyai rasa setiakawan yang tinggi terhadap PAS yang ada pakatan dengan DAP, tetapi tindakan spontan mereka atas kecetekan Soi Lek dan MCAnya adalah untuk mengelakkan ketegangan berlanjutan antara kaum di negara ini.

Malaysia beruntung ada tiga Cina seperti itu dan orang seperti mereka dipercayai ramai.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 6 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan