Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

When might is right
Show me the money!
Many versions of the truth
How our mind works
I have a dream
Everything is for sale
Why change will never come
Jangan shiok sendiri
Just shooting the breeze
The cost of living in Malaysia

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 07:31 PM PDT

Not only Malaysians but many in the west -- in particular the United States, Britain, Australia, etc. -- also oppose Malaysia's detention without trial law. They make their opposition very clear and are vey open and vocal about it. Western counties also offer funding to Malaysian NGOs and movements that oppose laws such as the ISA, OSA, Sedition Act, etc. -- draconian laws that violate your civil liberties and fundamental human rights, not to mention the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

How the CIA managed to kill long-wanted Al-Qaeda mastermind Al Awlaki through 'marriage plot'

(ANI) - The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) managed to kill one of its most wanted terrorists in the world, Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al Awlaki in a drone strike attack in September 2011, through a fake marriage plot with a Croatian woman.

Al Awlaki was linked with 2009's Fort Hood shooting and the foiled airplane underwear bomb that happened later in the same year.

The devilish plot to kill al Awlaki revolved around a Danish CIA-Al Qaeda double agent, who was paid 250,000 dollars by the CIA in 2009 to find and deliver a European wife to the terrorist mastermind, the New York Post reports.

According to the paper, Morten Storm, the double agent, said that in 2010 he found a Croatian woman named Aminah through a Facebook page setup for fans of al Awlaki, and used the money he got from the CIA to play matchmaker, and through a series of bizarre and chilling videos, text messages, and emails, he helped Aminah entice al Awlaki.

Storm said that apparently Aminah's wooing worked because al Awlaki accepted the proposal in a video of his own, saying "If you can live in difficult conditions, don't mind loneliness, and can live with restrictions on your communications with others, that is great."

Storm revealed that with the courtship done, al Awlaki invited Aminah to meet up with him in Yeman whereupon the CIA was planning to kill the couple in a drone strike. He was subsequently killed in a CIA drone strike in September 2011.

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

When I participated in the anti-ISA demonstration in front of the Kamunting Detention Centre in June 2003 (see pictures below), little did I know that five years later I was going to suffer my second detention without trial and spend time in the very place I was demonstrating against.

Malaysians are outraged about Malaysia's detention without trial law that has been around since 1960 and saw an estimated 10,000 Malaysians picked up and locked away merely because they oppose the government and thus are seen as a 'threat to national security'.

Yes, anyone who opposes the government is considered a threat to national security and thus loses his/her right to a fair trial. They are no longer innocent until proven guilty. They are considered guilty and once they are locked away they need to prove their innocence if they want to see freedom.

Of course, it is harder for you to prove your innocence than for the government to prove your guilt. So the onus is on you to convince the government as to why you should not be locked up. The government need not prove why you deserve to be locked up.

We must certainly commend the west for condemning the Malaysian government and for financing NGOs and movements that fight for civil liberties and fundamental human rights.

No one should be punished for any perceived crime until first allowed a fair and just trial in an open court of law and is confirmed guilty beyond any shadow of doubt -- and even then only after the different levels of appeal and pardon have been exhausted. To punish someone otherwise is unjust.

It needs western countries to knock some sense into countries like Malaysia. If not we will never see justice in developing countries. Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, etc., do not understand the meaning of justice, fair and just trial, civil liberties, fundamental human rights, and whatnot. This concept is foreign to them. Hence we need the west.

By the way, since 2004, the United States government (the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division) has made hundreds of attacks on targets in Northwest Pakistan using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles). These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terrorism that seeks to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan.

Most of these attacks are against targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Of course, many non-combatants or 'innocent bystanders' also die in these attacks but these are what the US considers 'collateral damage'. Some innocent people unavoidably need to die in this War on Terrorism. Sometimes entire family members of the targets also die for this 'good cause'.

It is good that Malaysian activists have friends like America to help them in their fight against the evil perpetrated by the Malaysian government. And that is why we cannot protest what the Americans are doing. Maybe it is not right to bomb other countries and kill many people just to assassinate one person. But that is war.

Okay, maybe war has not been officially declared. But it is not quite like America sends soldiers into another country to kill non-Americans. No humans are involved here, only bombs with engines.

Without America's help the ISA will never be abolished. But because of America's concern for fair trials and justice, the Malaysian government has no choice but to review all these draconian laws. And that can only help to make Malaysia a better place.

I remember back in form one when my teacher in MCKK who smoked lectured us about the evil of smoking. We all gave him a cheeky grin and he said: do what I say, not do what I do.

I suppose that best describes America. Might is, after all, right.

THE JUNE 2003 ANTI-ISA DEMONSTRATION IN KAMUNTING

Show me the money!

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 05:47 PM PDT

The problem with Malaysia is that it has a Malay Finance Minister so the government cannot see all this. Maybe we should consider appointing a Chinese as the Finance Minister like in the past. We never had problems when Tun Tan Siew Sin was the Finance Minister. Chinese have the ability to look at everything in terms of money and profit while the close-minded Malays can only look at things from the point of view of heaven and hell.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Soi Lek: Hudud will cause 1.2 million to lose jobs

(Malaysiakini) - MCA president Chua Soi Lek claimed that 1.2 million Malaysians would lose their jobs if PAS implements hudud in Malaysia, citing an anonymous SMS.

Chua cited various industries that he said would contribute to this alleged massive loss of employment should hudud be implemented, including jobs at gambling resort Genting Highlands, betting outlets as well as massage parlours.

He made this claim on his video blog and Facebook today based on a SMS he supposedly received this morning.

However, he said he could not verify the sender as no one picked up his call.

"This SMS said that MCA talks about hudud but never talks about the jobs that will be lost because of the strict enforcement of hudud in this country," Chua said.

"So the figures he gave come to 1.2 million that will be affected if there is a strict interpretation and implementation of hudud in this country."

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

Now that makes more sense. It is of no use arguing about freedom of religion, justice, abuse of power, human rights, democratic principles, respect for the constitution, secularism, and whatnot. The normal man-on-the-street would not appreciate all this. At the end of the day it all boils down to what the Chinese would say cari makan.

Money makes the world go around. Even war is about money, sometimes hidden behind the camouflage of ideals, honour, defence of the nation's sovereignty, religion, God, and all that nonsense. Ultimately it is about power and territory, and hence money.

Arguing in defence of or on in opposition to hudud using theological arguments will get you nowhere. This is because humankind is divided on matters of theology. But everyone will be united by greed. So money will unite us more than politics, race, religion, ideology, dogma, doctrine and what have you.

Even the 'fanatical' Wahhabis can work with the 'evil' Jews when it comes to money. They will place their petrodollars in the hands of the American Jews rather than in Malaysia's Bank Islam. That is how uniting greed and money can be.

Now MCA is talking. I think MCA will not only retain its 15 parliament seats but it may even see its seats increase to 30 or so if it can talk common sense like what Chua Soi Lek said about hudud. Basically, hudud will result in 1.2 million Malaysians becoming unemployed. Now, that is a lot when you consider that Malaysia's working population is about 10 million. Malaysia will become as bad as Greece.

Massage parlours, brothels, discos, nightclubs, bars, pubs, gambling dens, gaming outlets, casinos, etc., will all have to close down. And that would not be good for both the economy as well as for Malaysia's working population. Imagine the financial impact on the country when business takes a beating and 1.2 million Malaysians have to stay home with no income.

So we need vice. Vice keeps people employed. It also gives the country revenue. The government can collect all sorts for taxes -- corporate tax, income tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, import tax, etc.

In fact, if the government were to approve casino licences (plus licences for discos, nightclubs, pubs, bars, gaming outlets, massage parlours, etc.) for each and every town in Malaysia, can you imagine how much the country will earn and how many more people can get employment?

And don't forget the 'underground' or black economy. Police and enforcement officers can be paid low salaries (at a huge saving to the country) because they can receive 'commission' from the vice businesses for 'closing one eye'.

Officially, brothels are not allowed in Malaysia and many 'fuck shops' need to masquerade as 'health centres'. Many people go to these so-called health centres not to get healthy but to screw. And the police raid these places and arrest the prostitutes (at least those that do not pay 'commission' to the right people).

If prostitution was legalised and brothels were licensed, this would be a great boost to the economy and it will create employment. In fact, we would have a shortage of workers so we would have zero unemployment.

Prostitution can actually be a huge industry. The Arabs, Germans, etc., will fly to Kuala Lumpur instead of to Bangkok. Malaysia can overtake Thailand as the vice centre of South East Asia.

I suppose Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was right when he said that the Chinese are more pragmatic whereas the Malays are emotional and feudalistic. It is time Malaysians acknowledge this fact and learn how to agree with Dr Mahathir when he is right and not disagree with him just because you don't like him.

Another interesting point is what Nazri Aziz said (read below). There is no evil in receiving donations. Why do we always question the motives behind these donations, whether it is to Suaram, Umno, or whoever? We always assume that when someone donates tens of millions or hundreds of millions there must always be a hidden agenda or ulterior motive.

Hey, I donate to the cancer society. I also donate to the guide dogs for the blind association. I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motive. I do so because I want to help cancer research and to help blind people who need to get out of their homes from time to time.

So Umno Sabah received RM40 million in donations. Do you remember about eight years ago Malaysia Today revealed that Umno Sabah received RM100 million to build their RM60 million headquarters in Kota Kinabalu? No one was upset about it then. So why get so upset now, eight years later?

In fact, that RM40 million donation issue is not something new. Malaysia Today had already revealed this a couple of years ago. Everyone read this story and just shut up and said nothing. So why scream about it now? Is it because the general election is near? Is that why you all said nothing about it years ago, because there was no general election?

Some people complain that Malaysia Today no longer reveals the wrongdoings of the government like back in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. I agree that back in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Malaysia Today was actively exposing the wrongdoings of the government. But did anything good come out of it?

It was like anjing menyalak bukit (dog barking at the hill). Only Malaysia Today screamed. No one else screamed. So why should I want to waste my time screaming like a mad fellow about this, that and the other when no one cares about it?

Malaysia Today revealed more wrongdoings by the government than all the opposition parties combined. At the end of the day nothing happened. But now that the general election is around the corner everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts screaming.

Is all this rhetoric really about wanting to see the correct thing done or is it merely about winning the election? I wonder! There is no longer any honesty in Malaysian politics.

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

Nazri sees no evil in RM40mil donation

(Malaysiakini) - There is no harm in Sabah Umno receiving the RM40 million 'political contribution' from an unidentified donor, said de facto law minister.

"There is nothing wrong with (the) political contribution.

"It is not an offence. If you want to make it an offence, you must enact the legislation," Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz told the Dewan Rakyat during Question Time today.

Many versions of the truth

Posted: 16 Oct 2012 05:10 PM PDT

The bottom line is Malaysians regard anything that they read which they agree with as true and anything that they read which they disagree with as false. Hence true or false is subject to what I already believe and if it goes against my belief system then it has to be false.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Lawyers: Anwar did not seek 'settlement'

(Malaysiakini) - PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers have denied former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan's claim that the team had sought a settlement for the defamation suit brought by the latter.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom today, Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

In a press release issued after the trial came to an abrupt halt, lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

"The withdrawal was initiated by Musa or his representative. At all times, Anwar was ready to proceed with the case. The withdrawal against our client was unconditional and there was no out-of-court settlement as alleged by Musa. Our client is satisfied with the unconditional withdrawal and hence did not seek for costs," adds the statement by Surendran and Latheefa.

'Withdrawal vindicates our client'

In a shocking turn of events, Musa today withdrew his defamation suit against Anwar, over the latter's police report on July 1, 2008. The police report says Musa, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim and Hospital Kuala Lumpur pathologist Dr Abdul Rahman Mohd Yusof had fabricated evidence in the Sodomy I trial.

During Sodomy I, Gani was the chief prosecutor while Musa was the chief investigator. Following Anwar's police report, Mat Zain immediately sued him for defamation. The suit is still pending.

Musa was expected to be put on the witness stand today and this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop.

Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, who is standing firm by his police report.

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

I always joke that Malaysia Today does not lie. We only give you our version of the truth. I suppose, as my late mother used to say, many a true word is said in jest. Hence there is much truth in that 'joke'.

The issue here would be what is the truth? Who determines the truth? Furthermore, what is the definition of truth? And could 'truth' be half and half, meaning part truth and part not true?

For example, let's say I make a statement as follows: The Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals.

Now, that would be what I would call part truth and part not true. The truth part is: it is a fact that Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year. It is also true that this is done for funerals.

But the part about doing so is bad luck is not a fact. It is only a belief based on superstition. It is like believing that it is bad luck to walk under a ladder or bad luck if a black cat crosses your path.

Hence the statement 'the Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals' is part true and part not true. Part of that statement is fact and part of it is an opinion or perception based on your belief system.

Let me give you another example. Around 20% of the world believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he died on the cross to save humankind and was resurrected three days later. Another 20% of the world believes that Prophet Muhammad and not Jesus was the last prophet and Muhammad's miracle is the Qur'an.

To the first 20% this is the truth. To the second 20% this is also the truth. Then the balance 60% of the world thinks that these 40% are silly and the 'evidence' they offer to support their 'truths', their so-called 'Holy Books', are fabrications and were created to menegakkan benang basah or to substantiate a myth and present it as fact.

Hence which would be the fact here, and hence also which would be the truth? We have three versions of the truth and all sides would argue that theirs is the truth while the others are lies. Can you see, therefore, that not always is the 'truth' true? Sometimes the truth may not be true.

When someone reports what he or she saw then that would be an eyewitness account. That could be considered as evidence and therefore the truth.

When someone reports what he or she had been told then that would be hearsay. In a court of law hearsay is not accepted as evidence.

When someone interprets an event (whether witnessed or reported) then that would be an opinion. That person is merely stating what he or she perceives the event to mean.

Readers need to analyse the source of the information, whether the report is based on an eyewitness account or third party information, and whether it is a 'raw' report or a conclusion/analysis of what that event means to the person making that statement.

This, many Malaysia Today readers do not appear to understand. They take everything they read as something that a reporter reports. And they classify what they read as true or false based on their own perception of things.

Now read that Malaysiakini news report above regarding Musa Hassan versus Anwar Ibrahim. That is what I would consider a 'raw' report. It is about an event and about what some people said and did.

That report could be true -- unless Malaysiakini misreported it (which would mean then that it would be a lie). But let us assume that Malaysiakini did not misreport that event and therefore consider that report as true.

Now, that news report comes in eight paragraphs. I would read that report and consider the first six paragraphs as the truth. It is what happened and the first six paragraphs is about what happened.

As for the last two paragraphs, though, this may or may not be true. Hence part of Malaysiakini's report may be true and part may not be true.

Malaysiakini said: this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop. Malaysiakini also said: Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client.

Now, when you say 'huge' crowd what do you mean by huge? Huge is relative. Was the crowd bigger than the Bersih 3.0 rally? Was it bigger than Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's Hari Raya open house?

Hence this part of the news report may or may not be true. No figures were quoted and no comparison of 'hugeness' was offered.

For example, my interpretation of huge crowd would be 10,000 people. To me, anything below 10,000 would be considered miserable. Malaysiakini may regard 200 people as a huge crowd. This means this part of the report is subject to interpretation and not fact and which also means it may or may not be the truth.

So you see, you need to know how to separate fact from opinion or perception.

Malaysiakini also said the crowd was 'hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop'. Is this a fact or is this an opinion? Say 200 people were in the public gallery. Did Malaysiakini talk to at least 50 or 60 of them to ask them why they were there?

This was never explained. So, again, do we take this is fact or merely your suspicion?

Regarding the part where Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, this, again, may be true or may not be true. That is merely the opinion of Anwar's lawyers.

Malaysiakini reported as follows: Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

Is that true? If that is true then that last paragraph cannot be true. That was what Musa said (the "settlement" proposed by Anwar). Is this a lie? So you see, the truth of the last paragraph hinges on whether Musa lied or he told the truth.

Read this part also: lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

That is also true. Musa is suing Anwar so he and not Anwar has to make the decision as to whether to withdraw the suit or not. But this report is confusing us. Anwar's lawyers talk about WHO withdrew. Musa talks about WHY he withdrew. These are two different issues.

So can you see how sometimes 'truth' can be presented in all sorts of ways? But not always is the truth the truth. It can sometimes be your opinion or perception presented as the truth.

But why I even need to educate you on how to understand what you read is beyond me. Is Malaysia's education system that bad that it breeds a generation of Malaysians who have lost the ability to understand what they read?

It sometimes amuses me to read Malaysians condemning me for what I write merely because they are too stupid to understand what I am saying. And because they cannot understand what I say they whack me.

Malays call this bodoh sombong. Dah lah bodoh, sombong pulak.

And we want to trust these Malaysians to do the right thing come GE13? Heavens!

How our mind works

Posted: 12 Oct 2012 04:34 PM PDT

So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Maybe just for today we can lay off talking about politics and instead look at what Ashok Vohra wrote below. Ashok teaches philosophy at Delhi University and the article below was published in The Times of India.

One interesting part of this article was this part:

Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life.

Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist.

If you were to study philosophy of religion, this would be the key question that you pose. Do you prove the existence of God by scientific evidence or do you 'prove' it by the fact that it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

In other words, because you cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore God has to exist.

God is supposed to be the God of this universe, not just the God of this planet. But does more than one universe exist? Humankind does not yet have the ability to explore the reaches beyond this universe to prove or disprove that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe. Hence, in the event that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe, does this mean that another God exists for that other universe as well?

Now, since we cannot prove that another universe does not exist and hence there is another God for that universe, does this mean it and He does exist since it cannot be proven otherwise? This is based on the argument that it/He exists because it cannot be proven it/He does not.

Nevertheless, as Swami Sivananda said: Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man.

And that is the key to the whole thing: it is a question of faith and subject to our intuition or 'gut feeling' that a divine power that created us does exist. God exists because we exist and if God did not exist then we would not exist as well. Something had to have created us and this something has to be some form of higher power called God.

In conclusion, we can prove that God exists by our own existence. We are the proof that God exists.

Okay, that is one issue. Now let's move on to the next issue. And this next issue is how we perceive things and how our perception of things dictates our beliefs.

However, could we be seeing things opposite to what they are? What our eye sees is what our brain tells us we see. In other words, we do not actually see things with our eyes but we see things with our brain.

For example, when you look at your reflection in a mirror what do you see? Your eyes see left as right and right as left. Your left ear is actually reflected on the right in that mirror. But your brain tells you that you see your left ear as being on the left rather than on the right.

Say I stand beside the mirror and face you. You will see my right ear as being on the right. Now compare that to what you see in the mirror beside me. Would not your reflection be 'parallel' to me? But then your right ear in the mirror is actually your left ear.

Hence, your reflection in the mirror, if seen in isolation, will appear as how your brain wants you to see it. But when I stand beside the mirror and face you, your reflection 'looking' at you is opposite to my 'reflection' looking at you. But you do not see it this way because your brain does not tell you to see it this way. Hence my right ear appears right while your 'right ear' in the mirror appears left.

I know this concept is very hard to comprehend because all your life you have always been looking at your reflection in the mirror and it has always looked the way your brain wanted you to see it. It never occurred to you that what you are looking at is the opposite reflection but your brain 'turned it around'.

And that demonstrates the power of your brain and how your brain can make you see what you think you see even if it is actually an opposite reflection. Hence faith works on the basis of not what you see but what you do not see and how your brain tells you that since you do not see it then it has to exist.

And this is how we convince ourselves that God does exist -- the absence of proof is evidence that God does exist.

I am not going to stray into the argument that the evidence of the existence of God lies in the existence of the Holy Books. That would be the traditional argument by religionists and is an old argument. Basically it will be a debate of no winners. What I want to discuss instead is the concept of our existence and which eventually will result in our non-existence, meaning we eventually die.

We are taught that at first we did not physically exist. Then we are born, so we physically exist. Then we die and we physically no longer exist. That is what we are taught and our brain accepts that concept of birth and death.

But that is what our brain tells us and we believe what our brain tells us. But could it actually be the opposite of what we see? Could our brain actually be tricking us just like how it tricked us regarding our reflection in the mirror?

In other words, could we actually be living before we were born and died when we got born and then will live again when we die?

What is the concept of most religions? Most religions tell us that our body is merely a shell for our soul to occupy. So 'we' are not really that body that we occupy. 'We' is the soul that occupies our body. The body is temporary. The soul is eternal.

The soul existed before our body was formed. And the soul will continue to exist after it leaves our body. Hence our body is not what we are. 'We' are our soul.

In that case, we need to redefine what 'we' are. 'We' are not what we see in that mirror. 'We' are what we cannot see in that mirror. What we see in that mirror is the external shell that our soul occupies. But that is not who we are. 'We' lurk within that body and it cannot be seen in that mirror.

If we do not possess a soul then our existence would start the day we were born and will end the day we die. In that case we need not be accountable for what we do. We need not be good, compassionate, kind, honest, merciful, etc. We can do what we want because once we die that is the end of everything.

But that is not what religion tells us. Religion tells us the opposite of that. Hence our soul will pay for what we do. So it is not the body but the soul that has to beware because it will be the soul and not the body that has to account for our deeds.

In that case, is humankind really free? We talk about freedom. But then we are not free. We are guided by certain rules, regulations and codes of conduct. But it is not easy to follow these rules, regulations and codes of conduct because we are controlled by emotions, sentiments, lust, greed, ego, anger, jealousy, envy, etc.

On the one hand there are so many dos and donts. On the other hand there are so many influences that oppose these dos and donts. Hence most of us fail. And religion tells us we shall pay for this later.

Hence is death or non-birth a better option? Death or non-birth would have spared us a lot of suffering, both in this world as well as the next life after death. We are cursed by having been born whereas those that did not live do not suffer like we do.

But we see life as good and non-life or death as bad. Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to live. We will fight tooth and nail to stay alive. Why do we not see life as a curse and death as a blessing? No life means no sin and no sin means no hell. Is that not better?

Our brain, however, will disagree with that. Our brain tells us that life is good and non-life or death is bad. Is our brain tricking us? Is our brain making us see the opposite of what is just like how it makes us see the opposite when we look at our reflection in the mirror?

Religion is basically about being good and avoiding bad. Over thousands of years, however, religion has been modified with dogma and rituals. And because of that the very essence of religion has been lost and buried amongst all those 'teachings'.

Do we know why we exist? Do we know whether we existed before we existed (meaning being born)? And do we know whether we shall exist after we exist (meaning we die)? And if we know all this then will we come to a conclusion that life is a curse whereas non-life is a blessing?

We used to be free. One day we shall again be free. But in the meantime while we have life in our body we are not free but am serving a period of imprisonment. Hence freedom is imprisonment while imprisonment is freedom -- yes, the opposite of what our brain tells us.

Our soul is trapped because we are alive. Our soul would be free had we not been born. Hence how can we say that life is good and death is bad when the opposite is actually true?

So there you are, no politics today. And ponder on that one over the weekend and see whether you can defy your brain and see life and death as what it is and not as what your brain tells you it is.

Have a good weekend everyone.

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

Proof That God Does Exist

Ashok Vohra, The Times Of India

Vedanta says that Brahmn is ultimate reality. All other beings and things are unreal. But when we ask questions about the nature of Brahmn, the Upanishads describe it as neti, neti – not this, not this. Therefore, they describe the ultimate reality, Brahmn, in negative terms alone.

Swami Sivananda is not satisfied with the negative description of Brahmn because it is impossible for the mind to conceive of an absolute nothing. He argues that 'Brahmn is not void. It is not blankness or emptiness'. It is not shunyata.

Brahmn, he upholds, is paripoorna, full, because all desires melt there. Brahmn to him 'is something, after seeing which there is nothing more to be seen, after becoming which there is nothing more to become, after knowing which there remains nothing to be known'.

Brahmn is that which is all-pervading, which surrounds us from all sides - around, above, and below. It is satchidananda or existence, knowledge and bliss. It is that which has no other. It is without a second, endless, eternal, one and one alone. It is everlasting, the one continuous experience-whole.

Hence Swami Sivananda has described Brahmn in term of positive attributes. He upholds that Brahmn has six attributes: 'jnana, divine wisdom; vairagya, dispassion; aishwarya, power; bala, strength; sri, wealth and kirti, fame'.

He is nitya, eternal; ananta, infinite and ananda, supreme bliss. He is unchanging amidst changing phenomena. He is permanent amidst the impermanent, and imperishable amidst the perishable. He is what the Gita calls "Jyotishamapi tat jyoti, Light of all lights". He is the Adhisthana or support of the phenomenal world.

Brahmn is the sutradhara, string-puller of all bodies of beings. He is the antaryamin, inner ruler of all beings. He is in you and you are in Him. Each of the five primary elements is a manifestation of His qualities.

Brahmn is swatantra or independent. He has satkama, good desires and satsankalpa, pure will. Since karmas are jada or insentient, on their own they cannot yield fruits, so it is Brahmn who dispenses fruits of actions of jivas. He is all-merciful; quenching the thirst of jivas. He satiates our hunger. He dispenses justice to all. The five activities of God are: Srishti, Creation; sthiti, preservation; samhara, destruction; tirodhana or tirobhava, veiling; and anugraha, grace.

One can also prove the existence of Brahmn conceptually. One cannot think of impurity, duality, disagreement, variety and mortality without thinking of purity, oneness, agreement, unity and immortality. The possibility of the relative implies reality of the Absolute.

Finally, Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist.

'Whether the owl accepts the presence of light or not, there is always light'. Likewise, whether you accept the existence of Brahmn or not, He always exists. Even the one who claims the non-existence of Brahmn is himself Brahmn. Likewise, the one who claims that there is only shunya, void, forgets that that the knower who knows the shunya is himself Brahmn.

The author teaches philosophy at Delhi University

I have a dream

Posted: 11 Oct 2012 05:24 PM PDT

Those who understand English would understand that I meant 'let's pretend', or 'hypothetically speaking', or, as the Malays would say, 'katalah'. I did not say that DAP did want to do this. I also did not say that Zul Noordin was correct. I was saying, even if DAP does plan this and even if Zul Noordin was correct, so what? What is wrong with that? Why can't we dream? Why can't we wish? Why can't we aspire?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He is best known for his role in the advancement of civil rights using non-violent civil disobedience. King has become a national icon in the history of modern American liberalism.

A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, serving as its first president. King's efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. There, he established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history. He also established his reputation as a radical, and became an object of the FBI's COINTELPRO for the rest of his life.

In 1964, King received the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through non-violence. In the next few years leading up to his death, he expanded his focus to include poverty and the Vietnam War—alienating many of his liberal allies with a 1967 speech titled "Beyond Vietnam". King was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C., called the Poor People's Campaign.

King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. federal holiday in 1986. Hundreds of streets in the U.S. and beyond have been renamed in his honour. (Wikipedia)

V57lotnKGF8

See the video on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V57lotnKGF8

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

In my article yesterday, 'Why change will never come', I said: Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. So what? What is wrong with that? PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Do we make a police report against PAS and demand that they apologise? Has PAS committed a crime by aspiring for Malaysia to become an Islamic State? So why is it wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State?

Many responded by saying that I have missed the point and that the point is the Member of Parliament for Kulim–Bandar Baharu, Zulkifli Noordin, lied and that DAP did not say it wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. Some even argued that a Christian State does not exist so it would be impossible to turn Malaysia into a Christian State.

If that is your argument then it will be equally impossible to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State because an Islamic State also does not exist. If it does exist then can you tell me what it looks like? Even the Muslim scholars are not able to define an Islamic State or agree on what an Islamic State looks like.

So, what is an Islamic State? Define it!

No doubt, in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, it does say that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Well, Christianity, in particular the Church of England, is the religion of the United Kingdom, although it is not stated in the 'Constitution'. But it is the 'law'.

At least Malaysia's Constitution does not prevent a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian (or non-Malay) from becoming the Prime Minister. The Constitution is silent on that issue. In the UK, not only must you be a Christian, but you must also be a Protestant Christian. A Catholic cannot sit on the 'throne' -- whether as the Prime Minister or the Monarch.

That is the law in England, while it is not law in Malaysia but merely 'by convention' (kelaziman, as the Malays would say). So, in that sense, Malaysia is more liberal than the UK although I do not see in the near future a Chinese Christian or Indian Hindu becoming Malaysia's Prime Minister in spite of it being nothing wrong from the legal aspect.

The next point I want to talk about is the part where I said: Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State.

Those who understand English would understand that I meant 'let's pretend', or 'hypothetically speaking', or, as the Malays would say, 'katalah'. I did not say that DAP does want to do this. I also did not say that Zul Noordin was correct. I was saying, even if DAP does plan this and even if Zul Noordin was correct, so what? What is wrong with that? Why can't we dream? Why can't we wish? Why can't we aspire?

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. He had an aspiration. He had a wish. But it took 46 years before Martin Luther King, Jr. saw his dream come true. And because he had a dream they murdered him. Hence even having an aspiration is considered a crime. So he did not live to see his dream come true.

But it has to start from a dream. You need an aspiration. And you should not be killed just because you have an aspiration.

Hence, if there are people who aspire to see Malaysia become a Christian State what is so wrong with that? I am not saying that there are people who aspire this. I am saying that even if there are, what's wrong with having such an aspiration?

It may never happen. We may never even see Malaysia turned into an Islamic State. Malaysia may remain a Secular State until the end of time, or at least until you and I are all dead. But that should not stop us from dreaming or from having an aspiration.

I am sure many of you also aspire to become millionaires. Most likely most of you will die in debt. Hardly 1% of you are going to become millionaires. But carry on aspiring. Dream of the day you will become a millionaire with so much money you don't know what to do with it.

It is probably never going to happen. But I am not going to whack you for dreaming. It is good to dream. Dreams keep you going. The day you stop dreaming is the day you die although you may still be breathing.

Take note, though, that aspiration minus the perspiration is no bloody good. Then it would be, as the Malays say, angan-angan or daydreaming. You start with an aspiration. But then you need to work on these aspirations. If not, nothing is going to happen.

We all dream of a better Malaysia. That may never happen, of course. Malaysia may not get any better but in fact may even get worse. But if we do not dream of a better Malaysia then that means we do not care a damn about what happens to the country. In the end your dreams may not come true. But that should not stop us from dreaming.

It is better we die with a dream than die having wasted our time here on earth. And Martin Luther King, Jr. died with a dream but did not waste his time here on earth because 46 years later what he dreamed about happened. The US finally saw the African Americans get elevated from second-class citizens to residents of the White House.

And you know what? They did not even need to rename the White House to the Black House.

Everything is for sale

Posted: 11 Oct 2012 03:54 PM PDT

Hence don't be too impressed if someone has Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of his/her name with a J.P behind it. Most likely not only the Ph.D but the other titles as well have been bought. And that is why some of the worst scum of Malaysian society have long and impressive titles in front of their name.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The first thing you look for in life is security. And security here not only involves the safety of your property, life and limb (and that of your family) but also financial security. Hence we go to school and then to college and/or university. Some of us even spend 5-7 years to do a Ph.D.

But why do you go through all that trouble of obtaining an education from age 6 (some start at age 4) to age 21-22 (some up to age 27-28)? Are you seeking knowledge?

Actually, most of us are not concerned about knowledge. I have met Ph.D. students who think just like the fishermen and farmers from the East Coast. Hence that foreign university education and the 8-10 years in England is a total waste of time. Their mindset has not changed one bit since the days they were in primary school back in their kampong.

Most Malaysians do not care about knowledge. Most receive a tertiary education but their minds remain closed and backward. The comments posted in Malaysia Today are proof of that. You should see the ones I deleted. Those comments will put you off sex for a whole week.

Education, which any Chinese will tell you, is very important. It will enable you to have a good life. And 'good life' here means plenty of money in the pocket. Education is not about making you smarter. In fact, many 'educated' people are actually quite stupid. Education is about getting rich.

Hence Malaysians seek a good education as the shortcut to wealth. With education also come recognition, power and position. But money has to come first. Then, once you have enough money in the pocket, you can aim for the rest.

Of course, sometimes you work backwards. You go for recognition, power and position and use that to make plenty of money. No doubt you cannot admit this. You have to pretend that you are serving the rakyat and that you only have the rakyat's interest at heart. Then, using this excuse, once you have recognition, power and position, you use that as a platform to make money.

Let us say you already achieve that. Let us say you have plenty or enough money and you also have a position (maybe even a position of power). Then what next?

Well, next you go for status. You wangle your way into the ranks of the elite. You become one of the titled people. And to do that you need to get yourself a Datukship (which later can be upgraded to Datuk Seri, Tan Sri, Tun, etc.).

And you can buy these titles. For around RM250,000 or so you can get Barisan Nasional or one of the Rulers to make you a Datuk. (Even Pakatan Rakyat is now in the game in case you were not aware).

The Rulers, Umno, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc., all have an annual 'quota' of titles and awards to sell (just like APs). For the right amount of money and with the right connections you can easily pick up a title. Even foreigners can do so.

If you are named Mohamad bin Mohamad or Rajalingam a/l Rajadurai or Tan Beng Kok that would not be as impressive as Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Mohamad bin Mohamad J.P. or Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Rajalingam a/l Rajadurai J.P. or Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. Tan Beng Kok J.P.

Hence don't be too impressed if someone has Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of his/her name with a J.P behind it. Most likely not only the Ph.D but the other titles as well have been bought. And that is why some of the worst scum of Malaysian society have long and impressive titles in front of their names.

But then, as they say, there would be no sellers if there were no buyers. This is the law of supply and demand. There are prostitutes only because there are people who want to buy sex.

Hence there are Rulers and political parties that are in the business of selling awards and titles because there are many Malaysians with plenty of money in their pockets who want Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Datuk Seri Datuk Dr. in front of their names and a J.P. behind it.

Just to digress a bit, I now have five grandchildren and so I am automatically a Datuk. My wife, however, is not a Datin. She is a Nenek. My wife asked me: so what is wrong with that? I told her that sleeping with a Mak Datin is probably more fun than sleeping with a Nenek. I heard that many Mak Datins in Malaysia are swingers. Hmm…and to think that I no longer live in Malaysia…sigh…

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

Datuk among trio held over 4D licence scam

(The Star) - A Datuk and two others have been arrested for cheating a housing developer of RM1.6mil by offering him a "licence" to open 4D numbers forecast outlets here.

The three are also believed to be involved in operating a syndicate offering to help people get Datukships and approved permits (AP) for cars.

To convince their victims, the three drove luxury cars while one of them posed as an officer attached to the Prime Minister's Department.

The Selangor Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) got wind of the syndicate after a 35-year-old victim, also a Datuk, lodged a report in June.

Since then, police have identified four other victims of the syndicate.

Selangor CCID chief Asst Comm Chong Mun Phing said the housing developer was introduced to the syndicate as he was interested in opening numbers forecast outlets.

"The victim was brought to a government building in Putrajaya, where a bogus Datuk claiming to work in the Prime Minister's Department acknowledged the application," she said at the Selangor police headquarters yesterday.

She said the victim then made seven payments amounting to RM1.6mil and was given the "licence".

"The syndicate advised him to wait for the other permits before setting up the outlets," she said, adding that suspecting something amiss, the victim went to the Prime Minister's Department and was told that the licence was a fake.

ACP Chong said the man then lodged a report and police monitored the movements of the three suspects before arresting them early this month.

"We arrested the 45-year-old Datuk and his 29-year-old bodyguard following a raid in Kuchai Lama on Oct 2," she said, adding that a 52-year-old man was arrested at his home in Shah Alam three days later.

Investigations revealed that the third man arrested did not work with any government agency.

"Investigations also led us to the recovery of various documents which the syndicate hid in two safe boxes at Masjid Jamek and KL Sentral," she said.

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

Absent Datuk forces businesswoman to part with RM700,000 bail

(The Star) - A Datuk, convicted of cheating and using forged documents involving almost RM12mil, had his appeal struck out as he was absent in court.

The failure of his bailor to appear and produce him in court also caused her RM700,000 bail to be forfeited.

High Court judge Justice Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah struck out the appeal filed by Datuk Paiman Shakimon against his jail term and conviction.

"The appeal is struck out as the appellant (Paiman) has no interest (to continue his appeal)," Justice Tee ruled.

Justice Tee forfeited the bail, saying that the bailor, businesswoman Dr Norma Ahmad, 55, had been given a last chance to produce Paiman in court.

(Justice Tee had on Sept 21 heard a show-cause proceeding, where Dr Norma was asked to explain why her RM700,000 house used as a collateral for Paiman's bail should not be forfeited and she was given a last chance to produce Paiman in court yesterday.

(Dr Norma had said that she had gone to Paiman's house three times but was unable to meet him. DPP Syed Faisal had also said police had gone to Paiman's house in Country Heights, Kajang, three times but could not execute the July 20 arrest warrant issued against him.)

Paiman, 53, was sentenced by the Sessions Court here to 13 years jail on two counts of cheating and two counts of using forged documents involving almost RM12mil.

Justice Tee also issued a warrant to commit Paiman to jail.

Sessions judge Jagjit Singh ruled in April last year that Paiman's defence was a mere denial and that he did not find him credible.

Syed Faisal told the judge that Paiman had failed to appear in court although he had previously contacted his former lawyer Gobind Singh Deo to file a petition of appeal.

"Gobind Singh discharged himself from acting for him at the last proceedings," Syed Faisal added.

Paiman had pleaded not guilty on Sept 28, 2007, to cheating businessman Datuk Rosidi Kamaruddin, 60, into paying him RM3.8mil after inducing him to believe that a roll-over programme investment scheme was approved by Bank Negara and was profitable.

He had also claimed trial to duping lawyer Datuk Liew Teck Keong, 57, into paying him RM8mil after convincing him the same scheme was valid.

Paiman faced two other charges of using 28 forged documents in his dealings with both Rosidi and Liew.

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

Umno MP to go to jail after court upholds conviction

(The Malaysian Insider) - Umno's Sabak Bernam MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakri will have to serve his jail sentence after the Shah Alam High Court upheld today his conviction March for making false claims.

Abdul Rahman and his aide Rosli Busro were sentenced by a Sessions Court in March to six years' jail and fined RM400,000 each for making false claims.

But the court had then granted them a stay of execution pending appeal.

Today, Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir dismissed the appeal and also rejected an application for a stay of execution.

The judge also ordered the sentence carried out immediately.

In March the Sessions Court had found the two guilty on eight counts of making false claims totalling RM80,000 for events that never took place four years ago.

The Barisan Nasional (BN) lawmaker was accused of committing the offences while a Sungai Air Tawar assemblyman before Election 2008.

The 47-year-old was charged under Section 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 in November 2009 with falsely claiming RM10,000 each time between January 21 and February 4, 2008.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said in March that Abdul Rahman had been stripped of his party divisional post, but remained an Umno MP.

In making his ruling today, Akhtar dismissed arguments made by Abdul Rahman's lawyer to reject the testimony of two witnesses — Mohd Harmizar and Rizam ismail — because it was alleged that they were also accomplices in the criminal acts.

"I have read the testimony of the two witnesses and I do not consider them accomplices," said the judge, who added that he considered the two men merely followed Abdul Rahman's instructions.

He added that the accounts given by the two men were corroborated by other witnesses.

Akhtar said it was clear that Abdul Rahman and Rosli had the intention to make the false claims, and this was proven when the money was used for their own purposes and not stated in their claims.

Abdul Rahman, 47, had been found guilty of making claims from his allocation as state legislator for events and activities that did not take place.

The claims were for the purchase of gifts, souvenirs and meals for events listed as Program Motivasi Pelajar Peringkat Dewan Undangan Negeri Sungai Air Tawar; Program Mesra Rakyat dan Hari Keluarga di Dewan Simpang 4 Bagan Nakhoda Omar (BNO); Program Forum Perdana Peringkat Mukim BNO; Program Mesra Rakyat dan Sambutan Maulud Nabi and Program Mesra Rakyat Hari Keluarga Guru Kemas.

Why change will never come

Posted: 10 Oct 2012 04:52 PM PDT

Okay, let us say that DAP does plan to turn Malaysia into a Christian State. So what? What is wrong with that? PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Do we make a police report against PAS and demand that they apologise? Has PAS committed a crime by aspiring for Malaysia to become an Islamic State? So why is it wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many Malaysians feel that Malaysia is a not a free country. These people may be right.

Many Malaysians feel that Barisan Nasional needs to be kicked out so that Malaysia can become a free country. These people may be wrong.

To demonstrate why I say this let us look at the Nasharuddin Mat Isa controversy.

DAP is going to make a police report against Nasharuddin for saying that DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian state. DAP is very upset about this. They also demand that Nasharuddin apologise for this allegation against DAP.

Now, first of all, what is wrong with saying DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State? What if I say that Umno wants to turn Malaysia into a Malay State? Or PAS wants to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State? Or MCA wants to turn Malaysia into a Capitalist State? Or PSM wants to turn Malaysia into a Socialist State?

Is this not my right to say what I think? I may be wrong in thinking that way. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion based on what I perceive. My perception may be wrong. Nevertheless, right or wrong, I have my reasons for thinking so and hence I have a right to say what I think.

I studied Islam. I also studied Christianity. My opinion after studying both religions is that Islam is right and Christianity is wrong. And I tell you what my opinion is. Do you make a police report against me for saying what I said and demand that I apologise?

I studied Islam. I also studied Christianity. My opinion after studying both religions is that Islam is 'borrowed' from Judeo-Christianity. Hence I believe that Islam is a deviation of Judaism and Christianity. And I tell you what my opinion is. Do you make a police report against me for saying what I said and demand that I apologise?

I have my opinions. And I have my reasons as to why I have such opinions. And I tell you what my opinions are. This is called freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is what freedom is all about.

But do we allow such freedoms in Malaysia? And is this denial of such freedoms a crime that only Barisan Nasional is guilty of or is Pakatan Rakyat equally guilty?

Hence is Malaysia really a free country? And will kicking out Barisan Nasional give us that freedom that we seek?

The solution will not come by changing the government. This has nothing to do with the government. The problem lies with us. We do not understand the meaning of freedom. And we demonstrate very clearly this lack of understanding. It is we, and not the political parties, that are at fault.

What makes it okay for PAS to want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State but not okay for DAP to want Malaysia to be turned into a Christian State? If we can respect PAS's wishes to see Malaysia become an Islamic State why can't we also respect DAP's wishes to see Malaysia become a Christian State?

I do not see why DAP should make a police report against Nasharuddin for alleging that DAP wants to turn Malaysia into a Christian State or demand that he apologise. Doing this means DAP is admitting that such a thing is wrong (wanting to turn Malaysia into a Christian State). DAP is agreeing with Nasharuddin that the aspiration of wanting to turn Malaysia into a Christian State is wrong. Why would DAP want to admit that?

DAP should uphold the ideals of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. DAP should be free to aspire for anything it wants to aspire for. And Nasharuddin should be free to express anything he wishes to express. That is what freedom of thought and freedom of expression is all about.

DAP is admitting that freedom of thought cannot be allowed. You cannot aspire to see Malaysia turned into a Christian State. That is something wrong. You must not think those things. And anyone who thinks those things is doing something wrong. And anyone who accuses DAP of thinking like that needs to be whacked.

If you think that Malaysia should be Secular State that is okay. If you think that Malaysia should be an Islamic State that is okay as well. And it is also okay if you think that Malaysia should be a Christian State, Communist State, Republic, Absolute Monarchy, Sultanate or whatever. You can aspire for what you think is right. You can also express what you aspire. That is what you aspire. You may be right or you may be wrong. But you have a right to be wrong if you wish to be wrong.

Unfortunately, both sides of the political divide do not understand this yet. And that is why PAS thinks it is wrong for DAP to aspire for Malaysia to become a Christian State. And that is why DAP thinks it is wrong for PAS to say that DAP aspires for Malaysia to become a Christian State.

You can even aspire for Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Republicanism, Theologian, Federalism, self-determination, anarchism, or whatever it is that turns you on. I might not agree with you. I might even oppose you. But it is your right to believe whatever you wish to believe and it is my right to disagree with you.

And PAS and DAP must understand this as well before we talk about changing the current/bad government for a new/better one. Currently, both PAS and DAP are yet to grasp the concept of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is what the Nasharuddin Mat Isa controversy has revealed.

The most unfortunate thing about this entire episode is that we think the fault lies with the politicians or political parties whereas it is we who are at fault. We refuse to allow others to hold views and express their views that run opposite to ours.

That is not called freedom of thought and freedom or expression. So how can changing the government help? It is we who need to change.

Jangan shiok sendiri

Posted: 09 Oct 2012 08:05 PM PDT

And this is what happens when you close your mind and refuse to look at the bigger picture. You are just one person with one vote. You may even be amongst four million like-minded people. But then 10 million people will be coming out to vote in the 13th General Election. And how many of these 10 million are following the TV news every night? And how many of these 10 million have been swayed by what they saw on TV?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I asked you this question last week: are you guys and gals following the news on the mainstream media, in particular the TV news? Most likely the answer is 'no', and for obvious reasons -- because the mainstream media, in particular the TV stations, are government-owned/controlled. So you are boycotting the mainstream media plus you don't trust what the mainstream media, in particular the news on TV, says.

Okay, I can understand that reason although not necessarily I agree with it. Basically, you are not interested in what 'the enemy' has to say. So you shut your eyes and ears to what you consider 'government propaganda'.

I can see from the comments that you post here in Malaysia Today plus the comments in the other Blogs and news portals that you express your views in 'total isolation'. You already have your own views and perception on what the situation is and you make comments based on this belief.

Again, I can understand this. This is the culture of most religionists. Followers of religions have been conditioned and indoctrinated to do this. Hence, if you are a follower of a religion, this is how you would do things. You would read and listen to things that you feel are the truth and you would close your eyes and ears to what you consider false or lies.

Malays, for example, are not encouraged to read literature or attend lectures on, say, Christianity. You would never find Malays attending Sunday school. In fact, if they do the Religious Department would probably arrest these Malays plus those Christians behind that Sunday school.

The Sunday school may even turn the Malays away and not allow them to join the class lest they run foul of the government and risk getting closed down. That is how sensitive the matter of Christians preaching to Muslims is in Malaysia (and most Muslim countries).

So, how do Malays get to know about Christianity? What the Malays know about Christianity is what the Muslim religious teachers tell them. Hence their understanding of Christianity is based on 'Muslim propaganda'. The Muslim religious teachers tell them certain negative things about Christianity and this is their understanding of Christianity.

In other words, what most Malays know about Christianity is what other Muslims tell them, not what the Christians tell them. And most times what they have been told about Christianity is meant to run down Christianity and to give Christianity a negative image.

Let me put it another way. If, say, I hate the Jews and you ask me about the Jews, certainly what I tell you about the Jews will be very negative. But you will not travel to Israel to find out for yourself what the situation really is. Your source of information is based on what a Jew-hater has to tell you. Will not, therefore, your views on Jews be very negative?

So, you read only pro-Pakatan Rakyat websites and attend pro-Pakatan Rakyat functions. Hence your source of information is from Barisan Nasional-haters. You have only one source of information. You do not get to hear from the other side. And you believe that what you have been told is true and what the other side says, which you do not listen to anyway, is false.

And this reflects in the comments you post here in Malaysia Today and in the other (pro-Pakatan Rakyat) websites. You believe that what you believe is true and that the other side of the story is false. And, most damaging of all, you believe that what you believe is the same as what the majority of Malaysians also believe. Hence you are amongst the majority and not the minority.

Let me quote another example. Say a Muslim was to talk to you about Islam being the true religion, etc. You then ask that Muslim what evidence he or she can offer to prove this. As 'evidence', this Muslim will quote various verses from the Qur'an. The verses from the Qur'an are the evidence to support the argument that Islam is the true religion.

But is not the Qur'an the 'product' of Islam? So how can the Qur'an, the product of the religion, be that evidence? If the tree were poisonous, would not the fruit of the tree be equally poisonous?

The same would apply to a Christian who talks to you about Christianity. Jesus is the Son of God and the saviour. How does this Christian know this? He or she then quotes verses from the Bible as 'evidence' to support that argument.

Again, is not the Bible the 'product' of Christianity? So how can the Bible, the product of the religion, be that evidence? If the tree were poisonous, would not the fruit of the tree be equally poisonous?

Religionists do not appear to grasp this logic. Hence there is no logic in their argument and they end up arguing in circles. They are selling the concept of the authenticity of their religion. However, although they are ones doing the selling, they refuse to prove that what they say is true. Instead, they ask you to prove that what they say is false.

In short, you insist that God exists. But you do not have to prove that God exists. Instead, I have to prove that God does not exist. The onus is on me to prove that you are wrong and not on you to prove that you are right. But it is you, not me, that is doing the selling. So how come I need to do the proving (or disproving)?

Can you see how the mind of a religionist works? They are in a mode of self-deception. Then they accuse us of being deceived (in this case by the devil who has misled us). So how do you reason with such people? They are beyond reasoning. They have made their minds up and no amount of logic or reasoning is going to change their mind.

And these are the same people who have made their minds up that Pakatan Rakyat is going to win the coming general election and is going to form the next federal government. But what do they base this conclusion on? They base this conclusion on the fact that they believe this is so and hence if they believe this then the majority of other Malaysians would definitely also believe this.

No Christian would agree that he or she is following a false religion and is going to hell rather than to heaven. No Muslim would agree that he or she is following a false religion and is going to hell rather than to heaven.

But how can both the Muslim and Christian be right? One has to be right while the other has to be wrong. Or can both be wrong?

Yes, Barisan Nasional is confident that it is going to win the election. Pakatan Rakyat is also confident that it is going to win the election. And you, the followers of each of the respective coalitions, also believe what your party believes. But you can't both be right. One of you has to be right while the other must be wrong. Both cannot win the election. One has to lose.

Do you know? Do you even watch the TV news? The answer is probably 'no' to both questions. Aren't you going to heaven while the other (competitor) is going to hell? That is what both Muslims and Christians believe. But both can't be right.

Just shooting the breeze

Posted: 08 Oct 2012 04:49 PM PDT

In theory, these ten positions are merely ceremonial with no executive powers. In practice, however, the ten Monarchs wield more power than you think. And if the Sultan can order the police to detain his own brother and the police will comply (read the news item below) do you not think that the Rulers can order the military to do what they feel is needed for this country?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mentally ill man attacks drunk

(The Star) - A drunk was shaken out of his stupor when his mentally ill neighbour attacked him with a machete.

The neighbour approached the man who was sitting outside his house in Cheras and drinking yesterday afternoon.

The neighbour attacked the man, injuring him on the head.

The man escaped and ran to a nearby police station.

Police detained the 35-year-old neighbour.

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

Neighbour 1: "I thought you said you do not drink any more."

Neighbour 2: "I don't. I drink exactly the same amount as I always drink. I don't drink any more than usual."

Neighbour 1: "That's means you don't drink any less either then."

Neighbour 2: "No, I don't drink any less, but I also don't drink any more."

Neighbour 1: "Aiyah. You ni dah mabuk lah!"

Neighbour 2: "Ah, yes, but tomorrow I will be sober while you will still be…"

And that was when neighbour 1 attacked neighbour 2 with a parang. And what would the moral of this story be? The moral of the story is: never ague with a mad chap. When they lose the argument they will resort to violence.

And this is what we appear to be seeing in Malaysia of late. Malaysian politics is hovering around the fringes of violence. It is not that serious yet. It is still only splashing of red paint, breaking of windscreens, throwing of stones, fisticuffs and cuts and bruises on the face, etc. But then that is how it all starts, isn't it so?

Tempers are rising. People are beginning to allow the suppressed feelings of frustration to surface. Both sides feel that the 13th General Election is the final lap that will determine who is going to take power come dinner time of Polling Day. It is now or never. Hence the coming general election has to be an all-out race where winner takes all and loser loses all.

And this is why the ante has been upped. In a system where winner takes all and loser loses all, there is no margin for compromise. It is an all or nothing situation. And if you want all rather than nothing, then you need to fight tooth and nail to win because losing cannot be an option.

Have we maybe forgotten the original objective of a general election? Why do we even have a general election in the first place? The intention of a general election is to allow the people (citizens) to rule themselves. This is opposed to the old monarchy system where a Ruler rules over the people.

In a monarchy system, power is hereditary. Basically, God decides who rules over you. And God makes this decision through the successors of the Ruler (in Islam called Caliph). Hence the people have no choice as to who rules over them since the decision is in the hands of God.

Since then the system has changed somewhat. For Malaysia that would be August 1957 -- and about 100 years earlier for Europe and 200 years earlier for the US. Malaysia has what we call a Constitutional Monarchy. That means the people get to choose who they want to rule over them with the Monarchy being basically a means to maintain some checks and balances.

That is in theory, of course. But is this how it works in practice? Actually, in practice anything goes. The Sultan can banish the dentist who was late going to the palace and the dentist can be escorted out of the state immediately. The Sultan can refuse the choice of Chief Minister (Menteri Besar) if he does not like the chap. The Sultan can order the detention of his own brother and mother.

In short, the Rulers can do quite a lot, far beyond what their powers under the Constitution allow.

Is this legal? Well, if the Ruler does something far beyond what the Constitution allows then of course it is not legal. But who is going to argue with the Sultan? The OCPD? The CPO? The IGP? The Minister of Home Affairs? The Prime Minister?

Technically, the police or government can refuse the Sultan. In practice, no one wants to be the mouse that bells the cat. Hence, in practice, the Sultan can order the police to kick you out of the state if His Highness does not like the colour of your shirt. And the police will do just that without arguing with the Sultan that this action is not allowed under the law.

Now, the police take orders from the government, mainly the Minister. The military, however, have a different chain of command.

Have you noticed that most times it is the Colonels who head military coups? Well, that is because most times the Colonels are the Camp Commanders and the military has been trained to take orders from their Commanders. Hence the Colonels take charge of the military coups and they can even order the arrest or execution of the generals.

Now, the British, in their wisdom, have made all the nine Rulers the Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the armed forces. And the Agong is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Hence we have nine Colonels-in-Chief with one Commander-in-Chief who is also the Supreme Head of the Federation.

In theory, the nine state Rulers are supposed to act on the advice of the Chief Ministers (Menteris Besar) while the Agong is supposed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. But can we be assured that this will always be the case?

Let us look at a hypothetical situation. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak seeks an audience with the Agong to request the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the nine Menteris Besar also seek an audience with the nine state Rulers to request permission to dissolve the nine State Assemblies. And the three Chief Ministers in Penang, Melaka, and Sabah also do the same (but with the Governors of the States).

Parliament and the 12 State Assemblies (except Sarawak) are then dissolved.

Technically, there is no longer a government and Malaysia is headed by a caretaker Prime Minister. The country is run by the civil service while the Elections Commission (SPR) takes charge of the federal and state elections and is answerable to the Rulers.

Yes, the civil service is now running the country with SPR running the elections. And the State Secretaries will 'report' to the state Rulers while the KSN will 'report' to the Agong. The SPR head will also 'report' to the Agong. And the military will be on standby in case the Rulers decide that an Emergency needs to be declared because of a breakdown in law and order.

So you see, even though in theory the position of the Constitutional Monarchs is purely ceremonial, in practice they actually have more power than you think. And while you may argue that Malaysia's system does not allow a military takeover with the Monarchs heading an Emergency government, who is going to go face the Rulers to argue with them?

Did not Chairman Mao say that power comes out from the barrel of the gun? So, in whose hands are these 250,000 or so guns? And if the current splashing of red paint, breaking of windscreens, throwing of stones, fisticuffs and cuts and bruises on the face, etc., escalates to something more serious like that case of the mentally ill chap slashing his drunk neighbour with a parang, do you think the Rulers will just turn away and do nothing?

I think we should cool our tempers a bit. We are currently only hovering around the fringes of violence. But it takes very little to move from the fringes into the centre. The right (or wrong) words and the shouting match can turn into a melee.

I have tried, again and again, to caution you readers of Malaysia Today to tone down the rhetoric a bit. I know when you can post insults behind the security of your computer without having to reveal your identity everyone can be brave. And I see many 'brave' readers posting comments in Malaysia Today because they need not reveal themselves.

But eventually the mocking and insults will migrate to a higher level. And when that happens it will be too late to back down. Elections should be about the people choosing who they want to rule over them for the next five years. But when it is reduced to the level of one race (or religion) 'fighting for survival' against another, then politics takes on a whole new dimension, which I think most Malaysians would not want to experience.

Kerana mulut, badan binasa. Always remember that. Don't test the resolve of the Rulers to end this current madness called 'Malaysian political culture'. It is not the kind of culture we will enjoy seeing. And as has been proven in many other countries, once we adopt this culture it is very difficult to turn back the clock. Wounds do not heal so easily and grudges can be retained over many generations, again, as has been proven in many other countries.

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

I did not commit any offence, says Tengku Fakhry

(Bernama) - The Sultan of Kelantan's brother, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra told the High Court yesterday that he had not committed any criminal offence on 30 July 2009, the day he was confined by police.

Tengku Muhammad Fakhry, 34, testified that he was neither informed of any criminal wrongdoing nor the reason for his detention by the police in the Istana Mahkota grounds, in Kubang Kerian, Kelantan.

"I was confined for at least an hour by the police and not allowed to leave the palace grounds that day," he said during the proceedings against Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tan Sri Ismail Omar and three others related to his alleged wrongful confinement on July 30 2009.

He added that his lawyer, Datuk Mohd Haziq Pillay, was also in the car with him at the time.

The fifth plaintiff' witness said, just before he was detained by the police he had driven out the Bentley Brooklands car which belonged to his father, Sultan Ismail Petra, from the palace garage.

Tengku Muhammad Fakhry said prior to that day his father had instructed him to drive the car down to Singapore.

However, as he was about to drive the car out of the palace grounds a Volvo had blocked his way and the main gates were closed.

Tengku Muhammad Fakhry described the situation as scary saying he saw several armed policemen moving in and out of the palace.

During cross-examination by senior federal counsel, Azizan Md Arshad, who represented the defendants, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry said he was not aware of the order issued by his brother, the acting Sultan of Kelantan at the time, Tengku Muhammad Faris Petra, prohibiting him from taking the car out of the palace.

He also refuted Azizan's suggestion that the police had actually prevented the Bentley Brooklands from being taken out of the palace grounds and had not confined him.

The plaintiff filed a RM150 million suit on Dec 9 last year, naming the IGP; the Kelantan Sultan's chief personal bodyguard, ASP Norazman Ismail; Kelantan police chief at the time, Datuk Abdul Rahim Hanafi, and the Royal Malaysian Police as the first to fourth defendants respectively.

In his statement of claim, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry alleged that he was wrongfully confined on July 30, 2009 in the compound of Istana Mahkota, Kubang Kerian as he was about to leave in a Bentley Brooklands car.

He is seeking RM100 million in general damages, RM50 million in aggravated and exemplary damages, interest at a rate of four per cent, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

The trial before Judge Datin Zabariah Mohd Yusof resumes today.

The cost of living in Malaysia

Posted: 07 Oct 2012 03:49 PM PDT

Malaysia's Approved Permit (AP) process, which restricts importing cars to government approved permit holders, is intended to favour Bumiputeras (ethnic Malay's and members of native tribes) by enabling Bumiputeras to set up automobile sales and service operations. Instead, the AP process has become a lucrative "middleman" operation, where many Malay AP holders sell their permits to non-Malays and keep the cash.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

On 16th December 2009, the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur sent the report below to Washington. Basically, it is a report regarding Malaysia's automobile industry.

Now, while both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat whack each other and condemn each other's '2013 Budget', what we should be discussing instead is: what are both sides going to do about what was reported below? What is the policy regarding the automobile industry?

Malaysians, like most Asians, have a 'love affair' with their car. Sometimes the car(s) parked outside their house cost more than the house itself. However, while the house may appreciate in value, the same cannot be said about the car. The car is a depreciating asset and sometimes you cannot even dispose of your car for more than what you owe the finance company. How many times have you heard people grumble that when they sold their car they actually had to 'top up' the full-settlement payment to the finance company?

In countries that have a good/efficient public transport system, you can get by without a car. Bankers, managers and even Members of Parliament can use public transport to get to work. In Malaysia, even clerks need to drive to work. Hence cars are not only a status symbol but also a necessity.

However, while in some countries (like the UK) your car can be equivalent of 1-2 years of your monthly salary, in Malaysia it can be 5-10 years of your monthly salary depending on your salary and what car you buy. That is just too much. The car should be working for you, not you work for your car, which is what is happening in Malaysia.

In the UK this car costs less than one year of your monthly salary while in Malaysia it is 6-7 years if you work as a security guard, waiter, driver, clerk, etc.

No doubt car prices in Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, etc., are about the same as in Malaysia (in fact, Malaysia is about 10% cheaper), but that is not a good argument to use to defend car prices in Malaysia.

Malaysia has to decide whether it wants a free market policy or a protectionist policy. A free market, no doubt, favours the capitalists. But then in a protectionist environment, although it helps protect the weak from the powerful, invariably the consumer ends up paying.

I would go for a free market and may the fittest survive. Certainly, in a free market, the weak are going to die. But is that not the law of nature -- the survival of the fittest? Anyway, I am not going to be contesting the election or wish to form the next government. Hence what I think does not matter. What we, the voters, should be concerned about is: what do those who are offering themselves for election think?

Can we hear from them before Malaysians go to the polls to vote in the coming election, which Anwar Ibrahim said last night is going to be held later this year?

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

In October 2009, GOM announced revisions to its National Auto Policy (NAP), in effect since 2005, which will be implemented in January 2010. The revised NAP lifts the freeze on some Manufacturing Licenses, and reduces intra-ASEAN duties and excise taxes, and sets aside tax exemptions for high-value added exports. However, the policy extends the Approved Permit (AP) system for another 10 years (effectively extending quota restrictions), expands import restrictions especially on used vehicles, and does not significantly change subsidies to the industry.

U.S. firms will find little to cheer about in the changes to the NAP because there is no significant departure from the past in terms of opening up the market for imports or reducing subsidies to the "national" automakers. Importers of passenger vehicles complain that the measures Malaysia maintains are protectionist, opaque, and potentially inconsistent with Malaysia's obligations under the WTO.

According to one American manufacturer's regional representative, the NAP, even after these revisions, seriously restricts the ability of importers to compete on a level playing field. The key policy preferences for bumiputera ownership and high local content remain in place. The small liberalization measures, i.e. duty and excise reductions, are mostly in categories where "national" brands do not compete, or where the infrastructure does not exist (i.e. electric cars).

National Auto Policy (NAP) - Objectives

Malaysia has protected its automobile manufacturing industry from foreign competition using both high tariffs and non-tariff barriers for the past 20 years. Even for cars produced in Malaysia, Malaysian government policies distinguish between "national" cars, (e.g., domestic producers Proton and Perodua) and "non-national" cars, which include most vehicles manufactured in Malaysia by non-Malaysian owned firms.

Malaysia's current National Auto Policy (NAP) has been in effect since 2005. The NAP framework is intended to encourage increased foreign investment in Malaysia's auto sector, while simultaneously strengthening national car-makers Proton and Perodua.

The NAP Framework's five major objectives have been:

"-- to promote a competitive and viable automobile sector, in particular national car manufacturers;

-- to become a regional hub for manufacturing, assembly and distribution for automotive vehicles;

-- to enhance value added and local capabilities in the automotive sector;

-- to promote export-oriented Malaysian manufacturers as well as component and parts vendors;

-- to promote competitive and broad-based Bumiputera participation in vehicle manufacturing, distribution and importation as well as in component and parts manufacturing."

Review of the NAP

In November 2008, the (then) Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak (currently prime minister) announced that the GOM would review the NAP to potentially liberalize the sector. In October 2009, the GOM announced the completion of its review of the NAP. The new measures will be implemented in January 2010.

According to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), the primary objectives of the review were to ensure the long-term viability and competitiveness of the industry, and to ensure that consumer interests, safety, and the environment were protected. Additional objectives included promoting new and existing investment, promoting utilization of the latest technology, and continued expansion of Bumiputera participation in the industry.

Based on the review, the GOM introduced 18 new policy measures or revisions. The policy measures covered adjustments to licensing, duties, incentives, technology, environment, safety, standards, and the Approved Permits (AP) system.

Manufacturing Licenses

The NAP lifts the freeze on Manufacturing Licenses for luxury vehicles, pick-up trucks, commercial vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and motorcycles with engine capacity over 200 cc. Also, there will not be any bumiputra equity requirements imposed on new manufacturing licenses. The current freeze on new licenses for rebuild activities, however, will remain in force.

Duty and excise taxes selectively reduced

The new policy reduces the intra-ASEAN duty rate from 5 percent to zero by January 2010. Electric / hybrid vehicles will be exempt from duty and the excise tax reduced to 50 percent (from the usual 105 percent). Duties and excise taxes for other imports from non-ASEAN countries will remain unchanged.

Tax exemptions for high value added exports

The revised NAP increases the income tax exemption for high-value added exports of vehicles and parts. Tax exemption on statutory income is based on the percentage increase in value-added of exports: if the value-added is at least 30 percent, 30 percent of the value is exempt from income tax (as compared to the previous 10 percent); if the value-added exceeds 50 percent, 50 percent is exempt (as compared to the previous 30 percent).

Gazette prices expanded to used vehicles

Malaysia currently uses gazette prices (determined by MITI) for the purpose of computing the duty on the value of new imported vehicles. In that past, importers of used vehicles have reportedly under-declared the value of used cars. The NAP addresses this problem by establishing gazette prices for imported used motor vehicles.

Approved Permit (AP) system extended

Malaysia's Approved Permit (AP) process, which restricts importing cars to government approved permit holders, is intended to favor Bumiputera (ethnic Malay's and members of native tribes) by enabling Bumiputera to set up automobile sales and service operations. Instead, the AP process has become a lucrative "middle man" operation, where many Malay AP holders sell their permits to non-Malays and keep the cash. According to MITI statistics, 156 companies out of 254 have lost their APs since 1986 because of misuse or resale of their APs. This system adds thousands of dollars to the retail cost of imported cars.

The revised NAP extends the planned phase-out of AP system to 2020 (from the previous planned 2010), and maintains the minimum 70 percent bumiputera equity requirement for prospective importers. (NOTE: GOM announced in January 2009 that they planned to extend the deadline for the phase-out, but probably not more than five years.) The revised NAP also further restricts importation of used vehicles, by terminating the open APs for used vehicles by December 31, 2015.

Automotive Development Fund (ADF)

Malaysia's fiscal stimulus package set aside USD56 million for Malaysia's Automotive Development Fund. The purpose of the fund is to support the development of Malaysian auto manufacturers and auto dealers. Under the revised NAP, both the ADF and separate Industrial Adjustment Fund (IAF) will continue providing soft loans, grants and subsidies. The stated purpose of ADF is to "improve competitiveness of parts and components manufacturers through soft loans and grants," whereas the IAF grants are made available to "companies that create significant economic contribution."

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 20 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Pengikut

Trafik

Live Traffic

Mesyuarat Tingkap

Archive