| We didn’t start the fire Posted: 23 Oct 2012 08:42 PM PDT 
Be careful what you wish for. The Malays get angry very easily. The Malays suffer from what we call the Amok Syndrome. But just because the Malays are emotional this does not mean they are stupid as well. They know who to get angry with. They know who these people who 'rampas' all the land in the cities are. And this was precisely one of the reasons (I said 'one of the reasons') why the Malays 'mengamok' in May 1969. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Properties in Penang only for the rich, says Chua (The Star) - The Penang Government has come under fire for depriving more than 100,000 local families of the chance to own houses on the island. MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said the properties on Penang island were now beyond the reach of those earning below RM7,000. "It seems that Penang island is now only meant for the rich." Dr Chua said this in response to the drastic increase in the price of condominiums/apartments (by 411%), flats (339%), low-cost flats (157%) and detached units (103%) within the span of a year. According to the Valuation and Property Services Department statistics, the price of a detached unit, which was RM1.72mil during the first quarter of last year, has soared as high as RM3.5mil during the corresponding period this year. The price of condominiums/apartments rose from RM528,000 to RM2.7mil, low-cost flats from RM68,000 to RM175,000 and flats from RM132,000 to as high as RM580,000 during the corresponding period. Chua also lambasted Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for misleading the public into thinking that the state was doing well based on the size of its coffers. "They (the DAP-led state government) go around proudly showing how much they have collected. But generating revenue from the sale of land is not sustainable, especially in a land-scarce state like Penang." "Income from sale of land should be regarded as extraordinary gain, as it is certainly not recurrent, sustainable or long term," he said. Dr Chua said the claims by some quarters that people in Penang were happy with the state government was a mere illusion. "Reality will hit them when the majority start pushing for decent, affordable homes," he said. ******************************************* "It seems that Penang island is now only meant for the rich," said Chua Soi Lek today. Actually, that was what we in the Malay Chamber of Commerce have been lamenting about for over 30 years since the early 1980s when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad first became Prime Minister. Not only was this a complaint about Penang. Syed Ali Alattas, the then Chairman of the Johor Malay Chamber of Commerce, also complained about the same thing regarding Johor Baru. "Do you know only 3% of the land in Johor Baru belongs to the Malays?" asked Syed Ali. We laughed when someone asked him, "3% of the land in Johor Baru belongs to the Malays or 3% of the land belongs to the Arabs?" Syed Ali did not find it amusing. "At least 3% belongs to the Arabs. If not because of the Arabs then it would be zero!" You see, in Johor, Arabs are not considered Malays (they can't buy Malay Reservation land) so that 'joke' was actually a sore point for Syed Ali. Anyway, the point is, this is a 30-year old grouse amongst the Malays regarding Penang, Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, etc. And that was why UDA was formed -- to solve this problem of the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays in the main cities. However, along the way, UDA lost its way and deviated from its charted course. And this was one of the bones of contention of the then Federal Territory Malay Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Izat Emir, who whacked UDA kau kau. Today, 30 years on, 30 years after the Malay Chamber of Commerce raised the issue, MCA is talking about it. The only thing is MCA is making it appear like this happened only over the last four years since Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang. This is NOT something that happened only over the last four years since Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang. And this is NOT happening only in Penang. This has been going on (slowly and silently) over the last 55 years. And 51 of those 55 years were under a Barisan Nasional (Alliance Party earlier) government. Kuala Lumpur has always been under the Alliance Party/Barisan Nasional since the beginning (even now when they hold only 1 of the 11 seats). Johor has always been under Barisan Nasional since the beginning. And the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays in Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, etc., is as bad or worse than in Penang. If MCA wants to talk about this then let's talk about it. We in the Malay Chamber of Commerce have been talking about it for 30 years since Dr Mahathir first became the Prime Minister of Malaysia. And it has not improved. In fact, it has become even worse. (Even Dr Mahathir tried to solve it but failed, as he admitted). This has nothing to do with Lim Guan Eng, DAP or Pakatan Rakyat. Maybe they are guilty of not addressing the problem since they took over Penang four years ago. But the culprit is not Lim Guan Eng, DAP or Pakatan Rakyat. The culprit is CAPITALISM. Yes, that's right. When property prices go up, only the rich can afford to buy them. And those who happen to own property in areas where prices have spiralled will sell their property when the price is good. That is called CAPITALISM. So how to avoid this? How to avoid the 'de-urbanisation' of the Malays (and poor Indians and Chinese as well) in the big/main cities of Malaysia? One way would be to not develop these places. Do like what you do in Kampong Baru in Kuala Lumpur. 'Gazette' the land and leave the place poor like an urban slum. Then the land will have no value and the Malays would remain living there because their land has no value. Once it has value and they can get millions if they sell their land then they would sell their land. I would! So I don't know why the others wouldn't. Chua Soi Lek and MCA are trying to get the Malays to become angry with Lim Guan Eng and DAP/Pakatan Rakyat. That, I agree, is what politics is all about. I would do the same if I were a politician. But this strategy can backfire. The Malays, in particular those from the Malay Chamber of Commerce, have been angry that the Malays are being slowly 'ousted' from the city centres. And we have been angry about it since way back 30 years ago. But 30 years ago it was Barisan Nasional that we blamed, not the opposition. Hello, Mister Chua, this did not happen since only four years ago. This has been going on since 55 years ago. And we blame Umno, the Alliance Party and Barisan Nasional for this. Actually, I am no longer in the Malay Chamber of Commerce. So, many of us have given up talking about this matter. Yes, we no longer talk about it. But now that you have resurrected something long 'dead' and have reminded us about something we talked about 30 years ago but have now forgotten, you have just opened a Pandora's box. So now I do want to talk about it. You have just reminded me about a matter we talked about 30 years ago but have since forgotten about it. And that matter is the Chinese have kicked the Malays out of the city centres. And those Chinese who kicked the Malays out of the city centres are the rich Chinese, the capitalist Chinese, the crony Chinese, the Chinese aligned to the ruling party -- Barisan Nasional, Umno and MCA. So let's get angry. Let the Malays rise up in anger about being kicked out of the city centres. Let's see the Malays outraged about the Chinese taking over all the expensive property in the cities. And when that happens they will hate the government and the rich Chinese from MCA for this 'injustice'. Be careful what you wish for. The Malays get angry very easily. The Malays suffer from what we call the Amok Syndrome. But just because the Malays are emotional this does not mean they are stupid as well. They know who to get angry with. They know who these people who 'rampas' all the land in the cities are. And this was precisely one of the reasons (I said 'one of the reasons') why the Malays 'mengamok' in May 1969. These MCA people are so stupid. They start a fire and end up burning their own house down. Just remember: we didn't start the fire! 7AXGIl1yHWA SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXGIl1yHWA |
| Dr Mahathir’s masterstroke Posted: 23 Oct 2012 06:18 PM PDT Then Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad stirred the pot to see what surfaces from the bottom of the pot. And this shows that Dr Mahathir is savvier than the PAS politicians. Dr Mahathir said that PAS promised -- if they manage to take over Terengganu -- that they would implement Islamic laws. Now that PAS has taken over Terengganu where are these Islamic laws? PAS is utter bullshit, said Dr Mahathir. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin This whole thing started about 12 years ago soon after the November 1999 general election when PAS retained Kelantan, which it won in 1990, and added Terengganu as the second state to fall to the opposition. Losing Kelantan or not being able to retake Kelantan was not as disastrous as losing Terengganu. This is because Kelantan is poor and it needs federal aid and grants to develop the state. Terengganu, however, has oil and gas and it contributes to about 50% of Petronas' income. Hence losing Terengganu is extremely bad news. Terengganu has only eight Parliament seats, which is no big deal. But it is not the Parliament seats or the state government that is the issue. It is the RM800 million to RM1 billion a year Oil Royalty that the opposition is going to get its hands on. Imagine that amount of money in the hands of the opposition. And this RM800 million to RM1 billion a year represents only 5% in 'Royalty' mind you. To know what the total revenue is, you need to multiply that figure by 20. And that figure is huge for a state that has only about one million or so inhabitants. (Just to digress a bit: and that was why Dr Mahathir withdrew the Oil Royalty merely five months after GE11 and changed it to 'Wang Ehsan', which was then managed by Umno -- meaning Idris Jusoh -- and no longer by the state government. And that was also why His Highness the Sultan of Terengganu did not want Idris Jusoh as the Menteri Besar -- because of his mismanagement of Terengganu's 'Wang Ehsan'). Terengganu is supposed to be the second richest state after Selangor. Terengganu even beat Penang and Johor. This was what a Malaysian business magazine reported back in the mid-1990s. However, said the same business magazine, the Terengganu citizens are second poorest after the people in Perlis. I was still in Terengganu then. We rushed out to buy copies of that magazine but found that none of the local newsagents or bookshops had any copies left. They had sold out every copy. Then we discovered that the Menteri Besar had instructed his office to buy up every copy. We then called up Kuala Lumpur and managed to get the people there to help buy some copies and put them on the next plane out to Kuala Terengganu. Hence we had to wait another day before we could read that most damaging report. Basically, the issue that the Terengganu State Government wanted to hide from us is that Terengganu was the second richest state (in terms of state wealth) but the second poorest (in terms of the people's wealth). And, a couple of years later, on 29th November 1999, Terengganu fell to the opposition because the people were pissed big time that the state was so rich but the people were still very poor. In short, money talks and bullshit walks, and the people had had enough of the Umno bullshit. PAS knew this. So, as soon as they took over the state in November 1999, they abolished the toll charges on the Terengganu bridge, they abolished council tax, they gave scholarships to poor students, and much more. Basically, PAS tried to turn Terengganu into a welfare or socialist state, so to speak. The Menteri Besar, Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, was also very careful about the perception he gave. First of all, he never referred to the Terengganu government as 'Kerajaan PAS' or the PAS Government. He would refer to it as 'Kerajaan BA' or the Barisan Alternatif Government. Then he appointed non-Muslims to head certain committees and held meetings with the Christians, Hindus and Buddhist before changing any policies or before implementing any new policies. (I know because I helped arrange some meetings between Hadi and the church groups from Kuala Lumpur, as Goh Kiat Peng can confirm). For example, when the state wanted to ban liquor and gambling, Hadi called the non-Muslims for a meeting and asked them what they had to say about the matter. The non-Muslims agreed that gambling is bad. Gambling was one of the causes of families breaking up, they said. So they have no problems if gambling is banned as long as the Chinese could still play Mah Jong in the privacy of their own homes. As for liquor, the non-Muslims want to still be allowed access to liquor in the state. Hadi agreed to this on condition that only non-Muslims were allowed access to liquor and not the Muslims. In other words, 'public' gambling is banned. Gambling in the privacy of your homes is not. Liquor is banned only for Muslims. Non-Muslims were still free to sell and drink liquor. Pubs and clubs could still operate in Terengganu on the basis of 'For non-Muslims Only' -- just like coffee shops selling pork have to post 'Non-Halal' signs whether in Terengganu or Kuala Lumpur. This worked well. Both PAS and the non-Muslims appeared happy with the arrangement. PAS will not deny non-Muslims their rights. Non-Muslims, however, must not involve Muslims in their 'vices' or do things in public. Gamble at home and drink in the pubs/clubs (or at home). Don't 'go public' or do all this in front of the Muslims. Then Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad stirred the pot to see what surfaces from the bottom of the pot. And this shows that Dr Mahathir is savvier than the PAS politicians. Dr Mahathir said that PAS promised -- if they manage to take over Terengganu -- that they would implement Islamic laws. Now that PAS has taken over Terengganu where are these Islamic laws? PAS is utter bullshit, said Dr Mahathir. Hadi suddenly forgot that he had always called the Terengganu government 'Kerajaan BA' and not 'Kerajaan PAS'. In fact, he had told his people to do the same -- say 'Kerajaan BA' and not say 'Kerajaan PAS'. But now, with Dr Mahathir's goading and provocation, Hadi and PAS forgot all this and suddenly announced that the PAS government of Terengganu was going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. Why 'the PAS government of Terengganu'? Was it not 'the BA government of Terengganu'? BA includes PKR and DAP as well. But this is not a BA decision, explained Hadi. This is a PAS decision. When I heard this I shuddered. This was the beginning of the end for BA. And I said so in the articles I wrote back in 2000. And I got whacked for saying that, by none other than Anwar Ibrahim himself, who told me to back off and not attack PAS. Yes, Dr Mahathir engaged PAS in a staring competition and PAS blinked first. PAS announced it was going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. But in the same breath they also announced that they have not quite formalised these laws yet. In other words, they have no idea yet what these laws are going to look like. This was merely a 'pre-emption' announcement. Announce first and sort out the details later. Even Tun Salleh Abas, the one-time Lord President, admitted this. So what more could I say? This was hara kiri. This was political suicide. And I wondered why they could not see this. Basically, Dr Mahathir laid a trap and PAS walked into that trap and got caught. Now, instead of sorting out the financial welfare of the people of Terengganu, they focused on the issue of Islamic laws. But the people wanted to talk about money. They didn't want to talk about Islamic laws. And they found that as more and more PAS talked about Islam, their pockets became emptier and emptier. (Of course, the withdrawal of the Oil Royalty and handing the money to Idris Jusoh as 'Wang Ehsan' for the exclusive use of Umno helped accelerate this financial disaster. But that was the intention in the first place). Then, on 21st March 2004, the Terengganu people kicked out PAS and gave the state back to Umno. And the reason why the Terengganu voters made PAS/BA a one-term government is all because of money, or rather the lack of it. In the meantime, Barisan Alternatif broke up. DAP left the opposition coalition and went independent. And 2004 was the worse election performance in history for the opposition. This all started 12 years ago as a contest of 'one-upmanship' between Umno and PAS. It was a contest to see who can be more Islamic than the other. It is like two peacocks showing of their feathers, each thinking it is more beautiful than the other. This was a contest that would go nowhere. PAS can demonstrate all it wants that it is more Islamic than Umno by announcing that it is going to implement Islamic laws in Terengganu. But as had been proven almost a decade earlier in Kelantan, it cannot be done unless Parliament approves these new laws first. And there is no way Parliament is going to approve it. Once PAS and Umno were done with flexing their muscles and showing off their peacock feathers, this thing should have died a natural death -- like what had happened in Kelantan almost ten years earlier. Back in the early 1990s, when PAS announced the implementation of Islamic laws in Kelantan (and which Parliament blocked), no one cared. No one said a damn thing (other than Zaid Ibrahim who took the matter to court). It was not even discussed, debated or argued. The only two groups that were quarrelling over it were Umno and PAS. And soon that quarrel ended and died a natural death when they got tired or arguing over a non-starter. Surprisingly, though, when PAS did the same thing in Terengganu almost ten years later, the whole issue did not die there. It was no longer just a PAS-Umno issue like ten years earlier. The non-Muslims got involved. Why did the non-Muslims not express outrage when Kelantan did the same thing back in the early 1990s? Why ten years later express outrage when it was done in Terengganu? Terengganu just did what Kelantan did almost ten years earlier. But for Kelantan it was a non-issue. For Terengganu it was such a big issue that resulted in the breakup of Barisan Alternatif. Maybe this was because the 1990 Kelantan Government was a PAS-Semangat 46 government while the 1999 Terengganu Government was a BA Government (which means DAP was supposedly part of it although they did not win a single seat in Terengganu). Whatever it may be, Dr Mahathir laid a trap and PAS and DAP walked right into it and got caught. Now, in 2012, 12 years on, the trap is still working. Today, the non-Muslims are talking about the matter more than even the Muslims themselves. What Dr Mahathir wanted was to goad PAS and make them do something that would upset the non-Muslims. PAS did what Dr Mahathir had hoped and the non-Muslims got upset as Dr Mahathir had hoped. And that proves Dr Mahathir is a far better politician than those from Pakatan Rakyat. Today, the non-Muslims are giving their opinions regarding Islam. And this just upsets the Muslims, even those who are pro-opposition. Dr Mahathir, as he always said, wants the Malays to unite. He means, of course, to unite under Umno, not PAS. But he failed to get them to unite. Race just can't seem to unite the Malays. However, religion can because most Malays (more than 50% according to the poll) consider themselves Muslims first, Malays second, and Malaysian third. Hence what Dr Mahathir started 12 years ago in 2000 has finally succeeded. The non-Malays have jumped onto the Islamic law bandwagon and are offering their 'expert' opinions regarding Islam. It is the right of non-Muslims to talk about Islam. Even if Islamic laws only affect the Muslims and not the non-Muslims the non-Muslims still have a right to talk about it and must talk about it. The non-Muslims are merely trying to save the Muslims who will be subjected to barbaric and outdated laws from the Dark Ages if Islamic laws are implemented. The Muslims must be allowed the freedom to do what they want even if it is to leave Islam, drink liquor, eat pork, etc. Yes, the non-Muslims are merely trying to help the Muslims. The non-Muslims want the Muslims to have the same rights as the non-Muslims and not have to suffer discrimination and persecution under separate (Islamic) laws. The non-Muslims are sincere and only have the interest of the Muslims at heart. Malaysia is a Secular State and not an Islamic State so Islamic laws have no place in Malaysia. Whatever it may be, the Muslims are now very divided. In fact, they have always been divided since 1,400 years ago anyway. The question is are the Muslims divided between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat or divided between Islam and Kafir? I suppose the coming general election will reveal the answer to that question and we shall find out whether Dr Mahathir's strategy that was launched 12 years ago has finally borne fruit. Dr Mahathir was hoping that the non-Muslims would become kay poh. And now the non-Muslims have become kay poh much to the delight of Dr Mahathir. |
| MyNewsHub propagates Nazism Posted: 22 Oct 2012 06:53 PM PDT Unless MCA, MIC, Gerakan and all those 10 or so other 'non-Malay' parties in Barisan Nasional come out to openly deny this, we will have to assume that this is true. There is such a thing as consent by silence. An allegation has been made against all the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional that they support the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State. Until it is proven otherwise we have to take this as true. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin I picked up the commentary below (Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims) from MyNewsHub. I suspect that website is pro-government. The reason I am publishing it here is so that I can reply to it. As I said, we must also read news from 'the other side' so that we know what they are saying and can then respond to their spin. First of all, the article below is very badly written. It looks like a Malay-educated writer wrote this piece. Did I not say that mother-tongue education is bad for the brain? If this is the standard of English of those who are pro-government then they can't expect to impress us with their 'logic' -- if in the first place we can find any logic in their arguments. Anyway, let's dissect what this person said (and, incidentally, who did not dare put his/her name to the piece). Let the game begin -- let's debate. I am going to start with the title of that article -- Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims. Okay, even if that is true so what? Is this not what war and politics is all about -- to divide the enemy? If this is DAP's strategy and if it works then jolly good for DAP. At least, after four years of whacking the opposition, DAP has finally woke up to the fact that the strategy of divide-and-rule is a very powerful strategy. Less than 10,000 Englishmen were able to rule over hundreds of millions of Indians using the divide-and-rule strategy (which means the Mat Salleh are clever while the Indians not so clever). Hence it is a proven strategy and if this is what DAP is doing then that makes them very clever indeed. So why grumble about how clever 'the other side' is? It just makes you look even more stupid than you already are. Anyway, is this not also BN's and Umno's strategy? If this is what DAP is doing then they are merely using your same strategy against you. So stop sounding like a school kid in the playground. Stand and fight. If you don't dare stand and fight then don't start a fight. You can't start a fight and then go crying to the teacher "teacher, teacher, he beat me". Let me put it another way. If DAP is really doing this and if it works, then you are just admitting that the Chinese are clever and the Malays are stupid. Now, why in heaven's name do you want to go and admit that the Chinese are clever and the Malays are stupid? Tak malu ke? Okay, next point. MyNewsHub said, "DAP's actions in really denying the fact that this is an Islamic country is enough to prove their anti-Islam/Malay mindset which has been running through their veins." Who says that Malaysia is an Islamic country? Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Westminster Parliamentary system of government and the government is elected every five years through a general election. The Constitution does, however, say that Islam is the religion of the Federation. But that does not make Malaysia an Islamic country. If I declare that English is the language of Malaysia Today that does not make us England Today. We are still Malaysia Today but using English as the medium of communication. Islam is the religion of the Federation. That's what is stated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that Malaysia is an Islamic country. It states that Malaysia is a Federation. And do you know a Federation means? A Federation is a grouping of many smaller States. How does that make Malaysia, which is a Federation, into an Islamic country? MyNewsHub then said, "No other non-Malay parties in Malaysia has ever turn this country's administration concept, either secular or Islamic, into a huge issue but DAP." Okay, let me try to understand that very badly worded statement. MCA, MIC, Gerakan and all those 10 or so other 'non-Malay' parties in Barisan Nasional support the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State. DAP is the only party opposed to this idea. Is this what MyNewsHub means? Unless MCA, MIC, Gerakan and all those 10 or so other 'non-Malay' parties in Barisan Nasional come out to openly deny this, we will have to assume that this is true. There is such a thing as consent by silence. An allegation has been made against all the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional that they support the idea of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State. Until it is proven otherwise we have to take this as true. I suppose this is just like the God Debate. If you think that God does not exist then prove it. If you can't prove it then we must assume that God exists. The onus, therefore, is on you to prove me wrong and not for me to prove I am right. MyNewsHub then quotes Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as saying, "UMNO would like to clearly state that Malaysia is an Islamic Country." I suppose what MyNewsHub is saying is, since Dr Mahathir has said Malaysia is an Islamic Country then Malaysia is an Islamic Country. No two ways about it. I will risk courting the displeasure of the Mahathir-haters by agreeing with Dr Mahathir. So, since Dr Mahathir said it, then there is no dispute. Dr Mahathir also said that there is no freedom of speech in Malaysia. Dr Mahathir also said that Malaysia is a police state. Dr Mahathir also said that the mainstream media is merely spinning and is not reporting the truth. Dr Mahathir also said that there is only one type of Islam -- there is no Islam this or Islam that (meaning there is no Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's version of Islam Hadhari, PAS' version of Islam, Umno's version of Islam, etc.). Dr Mahathir also said that we must not vote Umno (ABU) to teach them a lesson. Dr Mahathir also said it is wrong to detain Raja Petra Kamarudin under the Internal Security Act as he is only a Blogger and is not a threat to national security. Okay, okay, okay, I can write 600 pages of what Dr Mahathir said but I think you get what I mean already. Dr Mahathir said many things. So I take it since we accept what Dr Mahathir said then everything else he said should be accepted as well. Aiyoh! No need to continue rebutting this very low class spin by MyNewsHub lah. It's a total waste of time because all their arguments defy logic and are weak as hell. For example, what do they mean by saying, "In a way, an Islamic Country is formed on the policy and intention which does not break Islamic rules"? What kind of shitty English is this? That statement is total nonsense. Malu nak jawab. MyNewsHub then tries to defend its argument that Malaysia is an Islamic country by saying, "According to Hassan al-Banna, an Islamic government is a government where all of its leaders follow Islamic teachings, do not commit vice and they are the ones who practice all rules in Islamic teachings within themselves." Another nonsensical statement with bad English to boot. Okay, so now we are followers of Hassan al-Banna are we? Okay, let's follow Hassan al-Banna then if that is what you want. I can live with that. Hassan al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (Jamaat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) and a student of Islamic reformists such as Egyptian Muhammad 'Abduh and 'Abduh's disciple, the Syrian Rashid Rida. Their main concern was regarding the decline of Islamic civilisation in comparison to western countries. They believed that this trend could be reversed only by returning to a 'pure' form of Islam, free of all the exegesis and innovations that had diluted the strength of Islam's 'original message'. Al-Banna believed that the main danger to Islam was not the conservatism of Al-Azhar but the domination of the West and, more importantly, secularism. He wanted the conservatives to be more active in condemning atheism and Christian missionaries, and in combating colonialism. Al-Banna launched the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood in March 1928. The brotherhood was extremist and violent from its inception. Its motto is, "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way, and dying for God's cause our supreme objective." This is what al-Banna said: My brothers! The ummah that knows how to die a noble and honourable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the next. Degradation and dishonour are the results of the love of this world and the fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death. Life itself shall come searching after you. My brother, you should know that one day you will face death and this ominous event can only occur once. If you suffer on this occasion in the way of Allah, it will be to your benefit in this world and your reward in the next. And al-Banna also said: "Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated." Al-Banna considered the Muslim Brotherhood as equal to that of the German Nazi party and the Third Reich. From the ideological point of view, the Jew-hatred, authoritarianism, acts of violence, and the desire to defeat the British is shared by both the Muslim Brothers and the Nazis and gave the two movements a common cause. The Brotherhood's political and military alliance with Nazi Germany blossomed into formal state visits, de facto ambassadors, and overt and covert 'joint ventures'. So that, in a nutshell, is what MyNewsHub is propagating Nazism, violence, Islamic domination, anti-Semitism, etc. And they are calling DAP bad? Heavens! ************************************ Secular Country is just DAP's tactic to break up Muslims (MyNewsHub) - DAP's actions in really denying the fact that this is an Islamic country is enough to prove their anti-Islam/Malay mindset which has been running through their veins. No other non-Malay parties in Malaysia has ever turn this country's administration concept, either secular or Islamic, into a huge issue but DAP. DAP's argument was based on a verbal statement made by Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia who said that Malaysia is a Secular Country instead of an Islamic country. This was proven through a report from The Star on February 9, 1983, during the former Prime Minister's 80th birthday, which state "Do not turn Malaysia into an Islamic Country." According to Kit Siang, on February 13 the same year, former third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn then stated that he supports Tunku's stand who rejected Islamic country. If the verbal statement made by the first Prime Minister is taken as an official and base to determine the country's administration concept, then Kit Siang should also consider verbal statements made by other former Malaysian Prime Ministers who instead announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's fourth Prime Minister announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country on September 29, 2001 as he launched the National Conference of Perwakilan Representatives. He strictly stated, "UMNO would like to clearly state that Malaysia is an Islamic Country." The same thing goes to the fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who also announced Malaysia as an Islamic country on July 17, 2007. When he was the Deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak also stated that "Islam is the official religion and Malaysia is an Islamic Country," during an International Conference on Islamic Countries' Role In Globalization. And now, having Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as Prime Minister, Malaysia continues to gain acknowledgement not just as an Islamic Country, it is also an exemplary Islamic Country and confirmed by international acclaimed Ulama including Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. In his acknowledgment letter for Malaysia's contribution towards Islamic Countries around the world, he stated, "What is more important is that Malaysia is acknowledged as few of Islamic Countries which has an amazing development strategy and open, which currently became the center for reference and an example for the world of Islam." Taking into consideration for all of the verbal statements, declaration and written letters on whether Malaysia is either a Secular or Islamic country, we could find that two former Prime Ministers stated that Malaysia is a Secular country, and another two former Prime Ministers including our current Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak have announced Malaysia as an Islamic Country. That is why there should be no reason for Kit Siang to quote our former Prime Minister's stated, Tunku Abdul Rahman to go against other former Prime Ministers. In another angle, Kit Siang should not have held onto the former PMs statement alone. Instead, he should have seen this matter as a whole, in terms of the constitution and the social landscape of the society in this country. A few Ulama stated that an Islamic country is defined as a place which is ruled by a Muslim and the sign would be when all Muslims live peacefully at the place and its society could follow all of its teachings without having any fear or worry, and that the laws are also implemented towards the kafir, while bid'ah members do not rule in pressuring the Sunnah members. According to Hassan al-Banna, an Islamic government is a government where all of its leaders follow Islamic teachings, do not commit vice and they are the ones who practice all rules in Islamic teachings within themselves. In a way, an Islamic Country is formed on the policy and intention which does not break Islamic rules. Instead, Secular Country is formed based on power where it practices end justifies the means. It is clear that based on the facts above, Malaysia is indeed an Islamic country, and for Kit Siang to deny it by just using a single excuse, Tunku Abdul Rahman's statement, is simply irrelevant. Kit Siang's intention in raising this matter is not that hard to be read. He actually wants to break up Muslims by raising doubt upon Islamic governance. But, at the same time, he also in a way confirmed DAP's mission where the party fights for a Secular Country and with PAS to cooperating with them, shows that Muslims in PAS do fight for the same objective. Logic dictates that PAS should provide a swift response, whether they support the statement or they would simply play the political game by criticizing DAP for their fight for a Secular Country. If PAS really fights for Islam and they do not hold on to the principal of end justifies the means, Kit Siang's statement should be the end of their cooperation with DAP to avoid themselves from being an accomplice in fighting for a Secular Country. |
| Mind your language Posted: 21 Oct 2012 07:01 PM PDT So, legally, a Member of Parliament cannot resign his or her seat and re-contest that seat in a by-election. This means that issue first needs to be addressed. And then we need to amend/abrogate the Article in the Constitution that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association. You will be denied freedom of association once you get elected into office. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin First please read Chief Minister of Penang Lim Guan Eng's press statement below. I have not edited or amended it because I want you to read it as it is. It looks like someone had translated this statement into English from the original Chinese version. Since this press release carries the Chief Minister's name there should be a higher standard of language used. The grammar and sentence structure should be as flawless as possible and words or phrases such as 'political frogs' should be avoided. Name-calling cheapens the message. If we indulge in name-calling where do we draw the line? Mahathir al Mamak. Anwar al Jubur. Khalid (Ibrahim) al Lembik. Najib al Tantuya. Ibrahim (Ali) al Katak. Hee al Camry. Can you see that the list of 'names' we can attach to various Malaysian personalities is endless? You only need to allow your imagination to run wild and Malaysians certainly have a world-class imagination when it comes to giving people 'names'. I bet the comments below are going to be flooded with some very creative and imaginative 'names' of people you love to hate, me included. Nevertheless, I am giving Guan Eng the benefit of the doubt and will assume that his aides and speechwriters would usually prepare his press statements. I am sure Guan Eng is too busy to sit down with pen and paper and spend hours writing all these statements. Guan Eng has to review the quality of his staff and outsource some of this work if necessary in the interest of maintaining a higher standard. One of the criteria of a good speechwriter would be the research required. The statements must not only be consistent with earlier statements and the party stand but they must also be consistent with the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the State Constitution, convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments and whatnot. There are so many things to consider in making a statement because in this age of the information revolution people will remember what you said even 30 or 40 years ago. So you cannot make a faux pas and get away with it. It will come back to haunt you later. And the 'I have been misquoted' excuse no longer works, as many people have discovered. I can afford to ignore all these 'pitfalls' and write 'no holds barred'. I do not need for people to like or love me because I will not be contesting the election and, therefore, do not need your votes. The same can't be said for Guan Eng. Public perception and public support is very crucial in Guan Eng's case. This will determine whether he wins or loses the election. Now, before you go off tangent and start saying that this is a Guan Eng bashing article, please note for the record that Guan Eng is one of my more favourite politicians. I actually went to Penang back in 2008 to help campaign for him. I did not do that for the other Pakatan Rakyat politicians other than Ronnie Liu and Nurul Izzah Anwar (and the proof is all on YouTube if you care to do a Google search). Nazri Aziz made a statement in Parliament today saying that Malaysia is neither a Secular State nor an Islamic State. And the reason Nazri said this, according to him, is because Malaysia's Constitution is 'silent' on the matter and makes no mention of it. I find that politicians will quote the Constitution when it suits them and if it does not then they will quote the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sunnah, the Social Contract, the Merdeka Agreement, the 18-Point Agreement, the 20-Point Agreement, the New Economic Policy, the Election Manifesto, the Reid Commission, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and whatnot. If Nazri wants to follow the Constitution then the Constitution is also silent on the matter of the race and religion of the Prime Minister. Legally, Lim Guan Eng can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. But Guan Eng cannot become the Prime Minister even though legally, according to the Constitution, he can. And we know why he cannot and also know that it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Basically, politicians will make a statement and then they will find the justification for that statement. And most times they will contradict themselves from one statement to another. And if they fail to find the right justification they can always use convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments, etc., as the excuse to justify what they say. So which 'guideline' do we follow then? The Constitution, the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sunnah, the Social Contract, the Merdeka Agreement, the 18-Point Agreement, the 20-Point Agreement, the New Economic Policy, the Election Manifesto, the Reid Commission, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments, the powers of the Minister, or what? We must note that each of those various 'guidelines' may contradict one other. So, when yesterday we used one, today we use another, and tomorrow we use yet another, this means we are contradicting ourselves. Legally, when you vote for someone, whom are you voting for? At the back of your mind you may be voting for the party rather than the candidate. That may be what you are subconsciously doing. But I am asking: legally, whom do you vote for? When a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament, the Speaker will address you as, say, "Ahli (Member) dari Lembah Pantai". The Speaker does not address you as "Ahli dari PKR" or "Ahli dari Pakatan Rakyat". So you are the wakil or ahli from Lembah Pantai. That is your 'legal status'. Which party you are from is not the issue. Hence even if you change parties that does not affect your Parliament status. Now, if we want whoever changes parties to resign (by law) and re-contest the seat in a by-election, we will first need to amend the law that bars someone who resigns from re-contesting for a period of five years. Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail resigned her Permatang Pauh seat in mid-2008. That means she cannot contest any Parliament seat until at least mid-2013. And that also means she will have to give the coming general election a miss, unless she decides to contest a state seat instead. So, legally, a Member of Parliament cannot resign his or her seat and re-contest that seat in a by-election. This means that issue first needs to be addressed. And then we need to amend/abrogate the Article in the Constitution that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association. You will be denied freedom of association once you get elected into office. It also must be made clear that if you get elected into office you are not Wakil Rakyat but Wakil Parti. And to make sure this is clear, the Speaker must address the Members of Parliament as, say, "Ahli dari PKR" and not "Ahli dari Lembah Pantai". Can you see the changes that will be required? It is not merely a simple matter of amending a few words in the State Constitution. A paradigm shift will be required including reconditioning the minds of the voters and the minds of those people who the voters vote into office. Okay, back to Nazri's statement today. Nazri is using the Constitution as his guide and his argument is that Malaysia is neither a Secular State nor an Islamic State. So what are we then? For sure Malaysia is not a Republic because we are a Constitutional Monarchy. And the nine State Rulers are Heads of Islam in their respective states while His Majesty the Agong is Head of Islam for the Federation (plus the four states that do not have Rulers and instead have Governors). What powers do the Rulers have as Head of Islam? For example, say, Their Highnesses the Sultans of Kelantan and Terengganu want to implement Hudud in their respective states since these two State Assemblies have already approved it years ago. Can this be done? Nazri would say 'no' because Parliament first needs to approve these laws. And since Parliament has not approved it (or has rejected it) then it can't be done. New laws or amendments to old laws need to be approved by Parliament. But then is Islam a State matter under the charge of the Rulers or a Federal matter under the charge of Parliament? Ah, Nazri will argue, but Hudud is a legal matter, not a religious matter. So the Federal government and not the State governments have authority over this matter. Okay, but then apostasy (leaving Islam), drinking/selling of liquor, adultery, illicit sex (sex outside marriage), khalwat (close proximity), etc., are also religious issues. And they are also legal issues. Each state has its own laws and its own forms of punishment for these 'crimes'. And they differ from one state to another. We must also remember that although, officially, there are no Hudud laws in Malaysia, those crimes I mentioned above come under Hudud. Hence we DO have Hudud in Malaysia. The only thing is we do not call them Hudud. It is 'silent' as to what they are. So, for purposes of giving them a name, we call them Shariah laws. But Shariah laws are a collection of laws. And one of these collections of laws under the Shariah is Hudud. So what Malaysia has done is it has allowed the implementation of (part of) Hudud as long as you call them Shariah laws and not Hudud laws. You can implement Hudud laws but do not label them as Hudud although they are in reality Hudud laws. It is like the issue of usury or riba'. In Islam, riba' is haram (forbidden). So don't call it riba'. Call it faedah (benefit/interest) or keuntungan (profit/gain). Then it is no longer haram. It is halal (kosher). Sex outside marriage (zina) is also haram. So don't call it zina. Call it mut'a (temporary marriage). You get married for a couple of hours just for sex so it is no longer zina and hence not haram. After the sex you 'divorce'. Can we take this further? Say you have a bad cough. You then get the doctor (a Muslim doctor if need be) to say that you need some brandy to get rid of your cough. So, for health reasons, you can drink brandy and it is no longer haram. You don't call it arak. You call it ubat. Yes, then we can issue a fatwah concerning 'defending' Islam and then blow up a school bus with 50 Jewish children inside it. It is not called murder any longer. It is called jihad. Can you see there is no limit to what we can do when we twist and turn to suit our agenda? And can you also see why Malaysians in general and Malays-Muslims in particular are a very confused lot? They contradict themselves and make statements to suit their objective even though these statements do not make sense. One day they scream about freedom of this, that or the other. The next day they make a statement that violates all these freedoms. The issue of Islam and the rules of Islam is one case in point. Do we arrest and then jail, cane, fine, tickle, torture, slap, fondle, spank or punch a Muslim who is caught drinking liquor? Furthermore, do we just punish the offender or also the person/establishment that 'collaborated' in the 'crime'? When you allow prostitution in your massage parlour, not only the prostitutes but also the massage parlour owner will be punished. If your pub employs Muslim staff and they sell beer to Muslims, not only the Muslim customer will be punished. The Muslim staff and the pub owner will face punishment as well. Is this the law? Yes, according to some states, but not according to the Federal government -- or else the government-owned establishments and GLCs will also face punishment. But then they do not face punishment, do they? So it appears like this is a State criminal law and not a Federal criminal law. People can face criminal action in some states. And this is Hudud although not called Hudud. Hence it appears like the States can by-pass or ignore Parliament if they wish to do so. But then the Federal government says that the States cannot implement or amend laws without the approval of Parliament. Aiyah! Pening kepala! Yang mana yang betul ni? Okay, so can Penang introduce laws or amend laws that make party-hopping a crime? Do they need Parliament's approval or an amendment to the Federal Constitution for this? And while on that subject, can Penang then also pass a law that DOES NOT make it a crime for Muslims to drink beer? And if not, why not? Is it because His Majesty the Agong and not the Penang State government is the authority over Islam? And if that is the case then can His Majesty the Agong introduce Hudud in Penang whether the Penang State Government and/or DAP/Pakatan Rakyat agrees or not? Yes, confusing, is it not? Sometimes the Minister has sole authority. Sometimes the Cabinet is the authority. Sometimes the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister has authority. Sometimes the State EXCO has authority. Sometimes Parliament has authority. Sometimes the EXCO Member has authority. Sometimes the Ruler has authority. Sometimes the Mufti has authority. Sometimes the Religious Department has authority. Sometimes the Attorney-General has authority. Sometimes the IGP has authority. Sometimes the OCDP has authority. Sometimes the CPO has authority. Sometimes the court is the authority. And sometimes the dogcatcher is the final authority as to whether to kill the stray dogs by drowning or send them to a dog's home. *************************************** Lim Guan Eng's Press Release today The PR state government will not be deterred by BN's support for the culture of political frogs but is determined to table a historic constitutional amendment to push through an anti-hopping law in the Penang state assembly meeting on 1 November 2012. The State Legal Advisor has been tasked with the necessary process of gazetting the proposed constitutional amendment. Any amendment to the Penang state constitution requires a 2/3 majority and PR has the required numbers by holding 29 out of the 40 seats. All 3 parties in Penang PR of PAS, PKR and DAP have also supported the proposed constitutional amendment requiring State Assembly members who jump or change their party affiliation to resign and re-contest in a by-election. BN and MCA have taken the opportunity to hit out at the Penang state government at yesterday's MCA Annual General Assembly by dramatically labelling the proposed anti-hopping law as unconstitutional and that it will even creating a constitutional crisis that will be the very foundation of the Federal Constitution and the nation at risk. The Penang state government believes that the anti-hopping law should be within the Federal Constitution for 3 principal reasons. One, it respects the democratic mandate of the people being kingmakers by allowing their constituents to either support or reject the decision of their elected representatives to hop from one party to another. As parliamentary democracy is the basis of our Federal Constitution, the anti-hopping law by reinforcing its democratic character will only serve to strengthen the Federal Constitution. Two, the anti-hopping law does not infringe on a person's right of freedom of association as he or she can join any party subject to a renewal of mandate by the constituents. Finally this will also ensure the practice of political accountability as well as principled values and public integrity in Penang, where elected representatives can not be traded like a commodity at the highest price. BN and MCA's condemnation of Penang PR's anti-hopping laws provides a stark difference between BN's focus on party interests and personalities as compared to PR emphasis on policies and people. Lim Guan Eng |
| MCA’s bold move in secularising Malaysia Posted: 20 Oct 2012 07:00 PM PDT Malaysia's dual legal system has long been a bone of contention. While non-Muslims are free to lead an immoral lifestyle, Muslims who do the same are arrested and punished. This is a system of discrimination since Muslims are not allowed to be immoral while non-Muslims are free to do what they want. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Today, MCA, the second most important party in the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition after Umno, most probably made history. MCA took a very bold step in officially declaring what most people have been 'unofficially' saying for some time -- and that is the Islamic Shariah law is outdated and a relic of the Dark Ages. It is not only non-Muslims who are saying this. Even some Muslims, in particular those who are aware of the history of the Shariah, are of this opinion. But not many, in particular Muslims, dare condemn the Shariah. To do so would invite retaliation from orthodox or fundamentalist Muslims, sometimes physical in nature, who would feel antagonised by what they consider opposition to God's law. This is not just a Muslim problem. This was actually a dilemma amongst the Christians as well -- until slightly over 100 years ago. Then the Europeans overthrew the church and monarchy in favour of secular-based republics towards the end of the 1800s. Only then was religion 'kicked out' and the people became free. Religion's 'slavery' over the people for thousands of years finally really ended. It took Napoleon Bonaparte to lead the challenge to oppose the church and God's 'appointees' on earth, the hereditary monarchs. Now, 200 years later, MCA is leading the challenge to oppose the Shariah -- and hence oppose the heads of Islam in Malaysia, the Raja-Raja Melayu. Is MCA Malaysia's Napoleon Bonaparte? MCA's bold and most dangerous move to propagate secularism might yet reverse the fortunes of this Chinese party that appears to be heading for extinction -- or it might accelerate its death. Either way it is going to be extreme. MCA is either going to emerge as the largest Chinese party in Malaysia or it is going to be buried for good. Either way MCA has nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting everything on that last throw of the dice. If MCA does nothing it is finished anyway. By taking this bold step of opposing the Shariah and propagating secularism, MCA is embarking on an all-or-nothing high-stakes gamble. MCA Youth Chief, Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong, said the Pas leadership belonged to the Dark Ages and that they are trying to force our country to return to an old system, which every country in the world had fought hard to discard. He also called on Malaysians to reject laws based on theology or religious theocracy (meaning the Shariah). For those not familiar with the issue, the Islamic Shariah is a collection of various theological-based laws. One of these laws is the criminal law of hudud. However, only part of hudud is being implemented in Malaysia. Laws covering murder, robbery, theft and sodomy do not come under the Shariah while others such as apostasy, illicit sex/fornication, close proximity, adultery, drinking/intoxication, eating during the month of Ramadhan, etc., have been passed into Shariah law long before Merdeka. There are those who dispute that the Shariah is God's law and they argue that the Shariah was 'invented' long after the Prophet Muhammad had died. In other words, the Shariah did not come from God but is a fabrication of humankind. They also argue that the Shariah is a mix of Jewish law, Christian law, old Arabian tribal laws, and pagan laws. MCA, more or less, has officially stated its position on the Shariah -- in that it is not God's law and hence can be opposed. MCA also calls on Malaysians to reject all theological-based laws, the Shariah in general and hudud in particular. MCA has brought Malaysian politics up to a new level. Those who reject theological-based laws will now support Barisan Nasional while those who still want to live in what MCA calls the Dark Ages will support Pakatan Rakyat. This is a most interesting development indeed and it is not clear at this stage how this anti-Shariah card is going to be played out. Currently, of course, the Shariah only affects Muslims and non-Muslims are exempted from it. Only Muslims who do not fast, drink liquor, or commit 'illegal' acts such as close proximity, illicit sex, adultery, etc., are arrested and punished. If the Shariah was abolished like what MCA wants then Muslims will be free from the control of religion and will be able to lead a freer life like those in the west. Malaysia's dual legal system has long been a bone of contention. While non-Muslims are free to lead an immoral lifestyle, Muslims who do the same are arrested and punished. This is a system of discrimination since Muslims are not allowed to be immoral while non-Muslims are free to do what they want. For example, the MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, was caught on camera having sex with a woman he was not married to, and he even admitted it, but this did not damage his political career. Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader, was also allegedly caught on camera having sex with another woman, and which he denied, but there were calls for him to resign on grounds that he is immoral. With the abolishment of the Shariah, the immoral lifestyle of the Malay-Muslim politicians will no longer be an issue and can no longer be used against them. Also, it would address the unjustness of the system where only non-Muslims are allowed to be immoral while the Muslims do not enjoy that same benefit. It is not clear how many Malays-Muslims will support MCA's call to abolish theological-based laws such as the Shariah. I suppose how well MCA performs in the coming general election will answer this question. And considering that MCA will depend on Malays votes, if the Malays support the abolishment of the Shariah, MCA may be set to win big this coming general election. With this latest development, many may vote MCA if MCA succeeds in getting the Shariah abolished and Malays-Muslims can now enjoy their beer in the pubs without worrying about getting arrested and punished. That would overshadow the calls to get rid of corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement of the country's resources, racism, etc. *************************************** (NST) - PAS' aspiration to introduce its interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud, if the opposition coalition came into power was strongly criticised at the MCA Youth and Wanita assemblies yesterday. MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy and to denounce Pas' call to implement hudud. He also cautioned the people to be wary of the opposition's 'hidden traps'. "They are hoping to take over the country from the Barisan Nasional. The people need to see the hidden traps that will surface if this happens. Pas still insists on creating an Islamic state and to set up a political system based on religion. To date, Parti Keadilan Rakyat and DAP are unable to reject Pas' agenda," he said in his speech. Wee likened the mindset of Pas leadership to one that belonged to the Dark Ages. "They are trying to force our country to return to an old system which every country in the world had fought hard to discard. It is worrying and it saddens us." Wee also lambasted the DAP for conspiring with Pas to gain political mileage. "What is worse is that DAP, which had been adamant in rejecting an Islamic state in the past, is now working hand-in-gloves with Pas. They are now willing to sacrifice their stance and belief. Where is their integrity?" Wee said he sympathised with DAP stalwart Karpal Singh, the only party leader who had openly spoken up against Pas' aspiration to implement hudud. "Karpal's famous response 'over my dead body' with regard to the creation of an Islamic state has been drowned by the howls of new DAP leaders. We pity Karpal, who is powerless, as he is betrayed by party supremo Lim Kit Siang and his son, Lim Guan Eng." Wee recounted that in the past, Kit Siang had launched a campaign to protest against former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad when he announced that Malaysia was an Islamic country. "Yet, when Pas leaders announced that the Constitution will be amended for the implementation of hudud, Kit Siang kept his mouth shut." |
| The sins of our fathers Posted: 18 Oct 2012 06:22 PM PDT Hence liberalism changed Europe. But that only happened when the liberals outnumbered the conservatives. In Malaysia, we shall have to wait until such a time when the liberals outnumber the conservatives. But that time has not come yet. Today, most Malaysians are still conservative. So, until that time comes, we will need to educate the conservatives -- in particular but not confined to the Malays -- and try to turn them into liberals. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin A few days ago, when I spoke about conservatism versus liberalism, some readers did not quite understand what I meant. So let me explain it. I was equating 'conservatism versus liberalism' to Europe of the mid-1800s, the era after the Napoleonic War when it went through a period of turmoil that culminated in the collapse of the Holy Roman and Hapsburg Empires and saw the creation of the Republics of Italy and Germany respectively. Those who held on to 'traditional values' (for example, maintaining the monarchies) were said to be upholding conservatism while those who were pushing for reforms (for example, the abolishment of the monarchies) were said to be fighting for liberalism. Basically, those who resist change are conservatives while those who embrace change are liberals. Of course, depending on how you apply these words, the meaning can differ. Those wearing 'revealing' clothes can also said to be more liberal than those who do not. Those who indulge in 'swinger' activities can also said to be more liberal than those who do not. And so on. By today's meaning, liberals are those who live a more 'open' lifestyle, which some, in particular the religionists, might even interpret as an immoral lifestyle. Hence, in short, the liberals will try something new or go for change while the conservatives want to maintain status quo. And that would be what I mean by the fight between Malaysia's liberals and Malaysia's conservatives -- nothing to do with atheism, agnosticism, free sex, wife swapping, or a LGBT lifestyle. Okay, now that we are clear on what I mean by liberalism versus conservatism, let us explore in what way this applies to Malaysia. And for purposes of this discussion I have titled today's piece 'The sins of our fathers'. Undoubtedly, Malaysia's politics is race and religion driven and we tend to view these types of people as racists, chauvinists, parochial, religious fanatics, etc. Actually, this is not quite accurate. If it were, then every single Malaysian without exception would be a racist, chauvinist, and/or religious fanatic. Those who uphold or give preference to their race, tribe, language, culture, religion, etc., are conservatives, while those who want to discard these 'old values' in favour of a 'new identity' are liberals. They want to abandon their 'old ways' or 'old world order' and migrate to a 'new world' and adopt a 'new world order'. We think we are liberals. We claim to be liberals. But are we? How many would discard 'religious unions', also known as marriages, and choose a civil partnership, meaning 'living in sin' as husband and wife without going through the religious rituals of getting married? In the first place, does Malaysia have any laws that will recognise (and protect) a man and woman who have lived together for, say, at least six months, as being a legally married couple even though they did not have a 'proper' marriage? How many Malaysians would marry (whether officially/legally or unofficially by just living together for at least six months) someone not of his/her same race and religion? Even if they do, one partner would have to convert to the religion of the other partner. For example, seldom will you find one partner remaining a Hindu if married to a Muslim, etc., although there are some rare cases. The fact that most Malaysians would marry someone of their own race/religion and will go through a 'proper' or legal (plus religious) marriage shows that most Malaysians are conservatives and not liberals. Yet they claim to be liberals. Hence, when most Malaysians are conservative by nature (and, of course, by upbringing), it would be very difficult to propagate liberalism when it comes to politics. Hence, also, I would not classify Malaysians as racists, chauvinists, religious fanatics, etc. I would classify them as conservatives. I trust that point is clear and I trust, also, that you will regard this as my interpretation of what Malaysians are. Now, let us try to analyse all that in the context of the current political sentiments in Malaysia. Malays, by nature and upbringing (and also by conditioning and 'brainwashing'), are conservative. They uphold feudalism (a major complaint by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who tried to eradicate this in the 1980s but failed) and they refer to the Rulers as Raja-raja Melayu. Malays also hold dear their traditions and customs (adat istiadat Melayu). And their proverb is biar mati anak, jangan mati adat (let the child die but not let traditions and customs die). Malays (at least most Malays) regard themselves as Muslims first (and Malays second and Malaysian third). Hence Islam is paramount and supersedes everything else -- even democracy, civil liberties, fundamental human rights, etc. Malays, compared to the Chinese, Indians and 'others', are probably the most conservative group in Malaysia. You will find more liberalism amongst the non-Malays -- although this does not mean that many of the non-Malays are not conservative as well. Hence, to understand Malaysian politics, in particular in relation to 'Malay values', this concept has to be clearly understood. If not, you will fail to capture the heart and mind of the Malays. And anyone who wants to 'play politics' without knowing what makes the Malays tick and without knowing how to capture the heart and mind of the Malay is doomed to fail. You may feel that many of my articles over the last year or so are racist in nature. In 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, Malaysia Today focused on revealing the wrongdoings and transgressions of those who walk in the corridors of power. Then, since 2011, Malaysia Today appeared to have shifted its focus. Well, the answer to that is simple. In the beginning (meaning 2004 when Malaysia Today was first launched soon after the 12th General Election), my focus was to address the problems of two elections ago (meaning March 2004). And the 'problem' in 2004 was that the non-Malays did not vote opposition. By 2010, that problem no longer existed. We can safely say that the majority of the non-Malays (at least the Chinese) were already with the opposition. But the situation of the Malays, who since 1990 were divided roughly half-and-half between the ruling party and the opposition, remained more or less the same. The task in hand, therefore, was to swing more Malays to the opposition. But the non-Malays just do not understand the Malay mind. And this was the major obstacle in getting more Malays to vote opposition. In other words, the problem is not Umno. The problem is the non-Malays in Pakatan Rakyat. They are the hindrance to getting more Malays to support the opposition. And the more the non-Malays 'whack' the Malays, the worse it becomes. The non-Malays are actually helping Umno garner Malay support. This is the ironical part of this whole thing. The 'solution' was actually the problem but they could not see this. As I explained, Malays by nature and upbringing are conservative. Hence you need to interact with the Malays as you would interact with any conservative (even if they are Americans or Europeans). And conservatives are traditionalists, religionists, and resistance to change. This was the great difficulty faced by the liberals in Europe in the mid-1800s. This is the same problem being faced by the Malaysian liberals today. Let us take one issue as an example. And this issue is the pre-Merdeka 'Social Contract'. This, of course, is a bone of contention amongst the non-Malays and those from East Malaysia. And this is also why I titled this piece 'The sins of our fathers'. The pre-Merdeka Social Contract was a 'sin' left by our fathers (or grandfathers). Back in the 1940s-1950s, they had agreed on what post-Merdeka Malaya was going to look like. And we, five generations later, have to live with this sin. The conservatives would like to maintain status quo and leave things as they are. The liberals would like this pre-Merdeka Social Contract reviewed and possibly amended or abolished. But then there are more conservatives than liberals. Hence the conservatives are going to win while the liberals are going to lose. And that is the trouble with democracy. In a democracy, the majority will have its say and the minority has to abide by what the majority wants. This may not necessarily mean that the majority are right while the minority are wrong. It just means that when more people want it that way then, right or wrong, things will be done that way. Now can you see what's wrong with democracy? So, when will the liberals outnumber the conservatives, like what eventually happened in Europe towards the end of the 1800s? Meaning, also, when will we then be able to see the pre-Merdeka Social Contract reviewed and possibly amended or abolished? Well, in Europe, that happened when the Europeans 'threw away' religion. You see, the church and the monarchy (God's appointee) shared power and all the land was divided between the church and the nobles. The people were merely serfs who worked the land, which means they were basically slaves. When life became so bad and millions starved to death and lived in extreme poverty, they rose and grabbed power from the church and the nobles. Hence liberalism changed Europe. But that only happened when the liberals outnumbered the conservatives. In Malaysia, we shall have to wait until such a time when the liberals outnumber the conservatives. But that time has not come yet. Today, most Malaysians are still conservative. So, until that time comes, we will need to educate the conservatives -- in particular but not confined to the Malays -- and try to turn them into liberals. But make sure you understand that we are going to meet with a lot of resistance. The conservatives are not going to step aside and allow us a walk in the park. They are going to fight back fiercely. They are already fighting back fiercely in case you have not already noticed. And this is why we are seeing all this race, religion, anti-LGBT, etc., rhetoric going on over the last couple of years or so. This is a sign that the conservatives fear the liberals and are fighting back just they did in Europe more than 150 years ago. It took more than 30 years but eventually the conservatives lost and the liberals won in Europe. It may take as long for that to happen in Malaysia as well. But do not attack the Malay or those non-Malay conservatives. Doing so will just make them resist us even more. They might even become violent if they think they are going to lose. We need time and we need education. In time and with the right education the conservatives will come around to our line of thinking. And when that happens all that we aspire will come true. Well, if it does happen and if it takes 30 years to happen, I will no longer be around. So it will be my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren who will benefit. Therefore I am not doing this for myself but for them. After all, I have maybe 10 or 15 years more to go at the most before I take my last bow. In conclusion, let me repeat what I said. This is not about racism, chauvinism, religious fanaticism, etc. This is about conservatism versus liberalism. So, before you fight, understand what you are fighting against. If not you are never going to win this fight. And then, once we win the fight, we can correct the sins of our fathers. |
| And the fight intensifies Posted: 16 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT The Azmin Ali-Khalid Ibrahim fight in this game of thrones is being raised to the next level. Azmin's team is now on a whispering campaign regarding a piece of government land involving Khalid's 'blue-eyed' girl, Elizabeth Wong, which they say Khalid personally approved. And they say this is an abuse of power.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Battle for MB post eclipses polls (The Star, 14 Oct 2012) - The rivalry between Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Azmin Ali for the Selangor Mentri Besar post has overshadowed the battle for control of the state. The exchange of fire between loyalists of Azmin Ali and Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim last week was not the first but it was the fiercest to date. The stakes have increased as the general election draws near and there is no denying that the two PKR leaders are doing what it takes to be in the cushy seat of Selangor Mentri Besar (MB). The Azmin-Khalid feud has reached a new level of intensity. But politicians are such natural actors. When Khalid walked into the House shortly before the Dewan Rakyat session began on Monday, Azmin leapt to his feet with outstretched arms. There was no man-hug that would have been over-acting but they smiled like they were in a toothpaste advertisement as they shook hands, knowing that all eyes were on them. Anyone looking at the pair last week would have been puzzled, even confused, as to whether they are rivals or buddies. The two adversaries are, quite ironically, seated next to each other Khalid as the Bandar Tun Razak MP and Azmin as Gombak MP. Azmin immediately launched into an earnest explanation about his interview in a Malay daily that had sparked off the latest rounds of attacks, saying that the reaction generated was not fair to both of them. Khalid was quite blas about it and told him: "No problem, there's no need to apologise. In fact, I just told reporters outside: Thank you to Azmin for saying that I am federal material.'" The pair even left the House together a couple of hours later Khalid to attend a meeting and Azmin to visit one of his party workers in hospital. In the afternoon, they were together again, this time at a PKNS meeting in Shah Alam. Again, there were lots of smiles and jovial exchanges, with Azmin praising Khalid's handling of Selangor's financial affairs. It was not exactly Oscar-winning stuff but it was a good show. Beneath the civil smiles and pleasantries lie a simmering rivalry that is centred around the post of Selangor MB. The two men are savvy enough to leave all that I-say-you and the you-say-me attacks to their machais. They are well-matched to take on each other. Khalid is the MB, but Azmin pulls the strings in PKR as the deputy president, Selangor chief and party election director. Azmin is not only a political animal but a smooth operator. Khalid, on the other hand, is not as naive as some imagine. Behind that absent-minded professor demeanour is a man determined to hold on to what he has. READ MORE HERE: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/52124-battle-for-mb-post-eclipses-polls ***************************************** The Azmin Ali-Khalid Ibrahim fight in this game of thrones is being raised to the next level. Azmin's team is now on a whispering campaign regarding a piece of government land involving Khalid's 'blue-eyed' girl, Elizabeth Wong, which they say Khalid approved. And they say this is an abuse of power. Azmin had wanted Elizabeth kicked out long ago, ever since the naked photos controversy first emerged. Azmin's boys had insisted that Anwar get rid of her. But Khalid defended her, just like how he defended Faekah Husin, much to Azmin's chagrin. So Anwar backed off rather than upset Khalid. But Azmin is not finished with Elizabeth, especially since she, together with Faekah, is guarding Khalid's back. Azmin is suggesting that there is something not too kosher about this land transaction, which he says Khalid 'illegally' approved. This is the story according to Azmin and gang. Yaysan Selangor is the owner of an 18.51 acre piece of land in the middle of Kelang town near the Goldcoast Hotel and the new Kelang Mosque. In March 2011, Elizabeth Wong met up with Yayasan Selangor and instructed the Yayasan to hand over the land to her for purposes of a Chinese cultural centre. The Yayasan told Elizabeth that they had already signed a joint-venture agreement with Persada Istemewa Sdn Bhd to develop the land into commercial and residential property. Elizabeth replied that she has already discussed the matter with Persada and they have agreed to work with her. Yayasan Selangor was not happy to hand over the land and they asked why such a big piece of land in the middle of the town needs to be surrendered for a cultural centre when it would not need land that big in size. Furthermore, the cultural centre can always be built outside the town centre instead of in the middle of town. This irritated Elizabeth and she warned them that if they refuse to hand over the land then she would use her powers as an EXCO member to ask the Menteri Besar, who is the Chairman of the Yayasan, to intervene. A few days later, on 21 March 2011, Elizabeth sent the Menteri Besar a letter asking for his approval to surrender the land for a Chinese cultural centre. Four days later, on 25 March 2011, Khalid wrote to the Yayasan Selangor. In that letter, the Menteri Besar said that the Board had already discussed the matter and that the Yayasan should hand over the land to Elizabeth. The letter said: 'Sdr. Ilham, sudah dibincang di lembaga, sila uruskan'. On 11 April 2011, a company called Persada Istemewa Sdn Bhd sent the Menteri Besar a letter proposing to develop the land into commercial property and housing as per their joint-venture agreement. The letter was copied to Ronnie Liu. In reference to the 11 April 2011 letter from Persada, the Menteri Besar sent Yayasan Selangor a letter dated 4 May 2011 asking the Yayasan for its comments on the proposal. Yayasan Selangor replied on 23 May 2011 with a four-page report. On 14 June 2011, Yayasan Selangor sent the Menteri Besar a letter appealing against surrendering the land to Elizabeth for a Chinese cultural centre. On 17 June 2011, the Kelang town council sent the Yayasan a letter telling them that the land has already been approved for a cultural centre. On 12 July 2011, Yayasan Selangor replied to the 17 June 2011 letter from the Kelang town council and said that they do not agree to surrender the land for a cultural centre. Azmin's boys say that Elizabeth Wong abused her authority with the backing of Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and they want to use this as the leverage to oust Khalid. The question they raise is: why should a government-owned land meant for development be handed to the Chinese when it should be reserved for Bumiputeras? And while Azmin exposes what he says is Khalid's and Khalid's people's wrongdoing, Umno is consolidating in their attempt to grab back Selangor from Pakatan Rakyat. 
|
| The bogeyman and ‘under siege’ stratagem Posted: 15 Oct 2012 06:08 PM PDT In Malaysia's situation, you can regard the liberals as the reformist group, or Pakatan Rakyat, while the conservatist group is Barisan Nasional. The 'war' between liberalism and conservatism in the mid-1800s in Europe saw the collapse of the monarchies and the emergence of republics. Hence do not underestimate the 'danger' of liberalism versus conservatism. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred over a 13-day period from 16-28 October 1962. That was 50 years ago. I was still in standard six then and many of you were probably not even born yet. To commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Department for Continuing Education of the Oxford University is holding four lectures (details as below). I have signed up to attend these lectures this weekend so Malaysia Today may be slightly slow in the news updating during that period. I am not going to give you my opinion regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, at least not until I have attended the lectures this weekend. What I want to do instead is to talk about the use of bogeymen and 'under siege' stratagem as a political tool. When the government raises a crisis, this can unite the people. Hence if the impression can be created that Islam or the Muslims or the Malays are under attack (under siege), this can unite the Malays-Muslims against what they perceive as a common enemy. To do this, though, you need to create a bogeyman. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bogeyman for the Americans was the Communists and their satellite states such as Cuba. We must remember that just a year earlier, in 1961, America got involved in the Vietnam War and by 1962 America's troops in Vietnam had tripled. This war was supposed to be to stop the march of Communism but it was not well supported and most Americans were opposed to this war. Many Americans were openly opposed to the Vietnam War and it even spawned a peace movement, the Hippie culture (make love not war), Woodstock (with the many 'protest' songs), etc. Later, the Vietnam War escalated into an Indo-Chinese War when America began to bomb and invade Cambodia. In 1970, 500 students from the Kent University, Ohio, protested the Cambodian invasion resulting in 4 students being shot dead and 9 wounded. Anyway, in short, Americans did not support America's involvement in foreign conflicts. Martin Luther King, Jr., Muhammad Ali, Jane Fonda, and many more, all opposed the Vietnam War. And they were persecuted because of it. Communism had to be portrayed as an evil and the enemy of the 'free world'. America was becoming very divided and famous people were being attracted to the cause of the anti-war movement. The government had to make the people realise that war was necessary to protect the free world from the evil of Communism. Hence Communism must be seen as 'the enemy'. Today, of course, Communism is no longer feared. So they need a 'New Communism' and this new threat to the free world is Islam, the 'New Communism'. Islam is the new threat to the free world and the people must unite against radical Islam for the sake of democracy. That is in the west. In Malaysia the same strategy is used. Islam is a threat, or rather 'radical' Islam, so MCA plays up this issue to the hilt. Thus you are seeing a lot of rhetoric from the Barisan Nasional coalition partners as to the threat to democracy if Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power and PAS gets to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State with the Shariah criminal laws of Hudud as the laws of the land. MCA, of course, plays to the Chinese gallery. For the benefit of the Malay-Muslim audience, DAP is portrayed as an enemy of Islam with a hidden agenda of turning Malaysia into a Christian State. So both the Chinese and Malays are under siege -- the Chinese under siege from an Islamic State and the Malays under siege from a Christian State. To the Chinese, the bogeyman is Islam, while to the Malays it is Christianity. And to put icing on the cake, revelations of Christians converting Muslims to Christianity is played up. If the people can be made to believe that they face an evil and dangerous enemy they can be made to set aside their political differences and to unite against this common enemy. Chinese would no longer be MCA Chinese or DAP Chinese and Malays no longer Umno Malays or PAS Malays. It would be simply reduced to Malays versus Chinese. And in such a situation Umno and Barisan Nasional would benefit the most. The trouble is, Malaysians have big mouths. Since 2008, Malaysians have become more arrogant and they no longer care about what they say. They will say what they want to say and will even throw dares and challenges, which just increases the animosity between the races. Hence the loose talk only goes to help make the rift even bigger. The siege mentality becomes worse and the focus becomes 'unite against the enemy'. And the enemy of the Malays is the Chinese (in particular the Christian Chinese) and to the Chinese it is the Malays (in particular the radical Muslims). Common enemies are required to be able to unite the people. If there were no common enemy or, more accurately, a perceived common enemy, then the people would be divided along political lines. And in that type of situation you will see the liberals on one side and the conservatives on the other. In Malaysia's situation, you can regard the liberals as the reformist group, or Pakatan Rakyat, while the conservatist group is Barisan Nasional. The 'war' between liberalism and conservatism in the mid-1800s in Europe saw the collapse of the monarchies and the emergence of republics. Hence do not underestimate the 'danger' of liberalism versus conservatism. The government, therefore, cannot afford for Malaysia to be divided between liberalism and conservatism. Malaysia must be united so that the liberalism versus conservatism tide can be stemmed. And for this to happen Malaysians must be divided racially and religiously. When each race and religious grouping sees itself under siege, they would discard political ideology and unite. And this is why a bogeyman needs to be created whether it is Communism, America, Israel, Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, radical Islam, radical Christianity, Zionism, or whatever. And this is why Barisan Nasional and Umno are so successful. And they are successful only because Malaysians are so gullible and naïve. Malaysians can be made to feel that they are under siege and that a bogeyman is lurking in the dark waiting to get them. Maybe this is because when we were kids our parents planted the hantu syndrome into our minds. Hence we are able to see hantu everywhere. Bodohnya rakyat Malaysia. Percaya sangat dengan hantu. ***************************************** The Cuban Missile Crisis: 1962 Lecture 1: John Kennedy, American Foreign Policy and the Cuban Missile Crisis PROFESSOR MARK WHITE Department of History, Queen Mary, University of London Lecture 2: Soviet Communism and the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s DR GEORGE LAMBIE Principal Lecturer, Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University Lecture 3: The Cuban missile crisis: how close to Armageddon? PROFESSOR LEN SCOTT Professor in International History and Intelligence Studies, Aberystwyth University Lecture 4: The Cuban missile crisis in cultural memory RIKKY ROOKSBY Tutor for OUDCE (Department for Continuing Education) |
| When two forces collide Posted: 15 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT But you should not underestimate Faekah either. This girl may be small in size but she is big in resolve -- sort of like cili padi. And she is fighting back. Her 'team' is talking about the large sums of money Azmin has been siphoning out in the name of the party as well as in the name of the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) over the last 12 years since 2000. And they are talking about millions. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin PKR won't be taking action against Faekah (The Star, 12 Oct 2012) - PKR is not taking any action against the Selangor Mentri Besar's political aide Faekah Husin despite calls for her to be sacked following her criticisms against party deputy president Azmin Ali. PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution said the matter involving Faekah was not even discussed at its political bureau meeting on Wednesday. "We are not referring her to the disciplinary committee," he said, adding that the party certainly won't be taking any disciplinary action against Faekah for now. Saifuddin was commenting on calls by some party leaders for Faekah to be sacked for criticising Azmin, who had implied that her boss Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim would not be retained as Selangor Mentri Besar. Selangor PKR election director Borhan Aman Shah had said Faekah should be sacked immediately for publicly criticising state chief Azmin. The MB's deputy Zuraida Kamaruddin had also hit back at Faekah for saying that Azmin was not a smart politician. Saifuddin said the political bureau had discussed the divisions' AGM reports during the meeting. "We also discussed the latest status of our election preparations and other current issues," he added. Many observers had viewed the Khalid-Faekah-Azmin feud with interest as the aide was known to have the support of PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail while Azmin had the backing of party leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. "As Faekah is working under Khalid, Khalid is seen indirectly as having Wan Azizah's backing," said a party insider. ***************************************** Battle for MB post eclipses polls (The Star, 14 Oct 2012) - Khalid's chief defender has been his loyal political secretary Faekah Husin. She did not mince her words about Azmin's interview; as a result she has been severely criticised by Azmin's camp. The petite lawyer admitted with a laugh, "there are bullet holes all over my body." Azmin's boys joke that Faekah is the "First Lady of Selangor". They go for her because she is an easier target to hit than Khalid and there are now renewed calls to sack her for criticising Azmin. But sacked from what and for what? Faekah is only an ordinary party member, she does not have a party post and her remarks about Azmin were rather mundane. Moreover, the only person who can sack her is Khalid and he trusts her implicitly; that is what makes her so powerful in Selangor. Faekah is Khalid's spokeswoman, and during the launch of his book Fearless: From Kampung Boy to CEO, he singled her out for mention. Going by the video that was aired during the launch, it is quite clear that she is central to Khalid's politics and work. Her power status goes up another notch if one considers that she was the former political secretary to PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and they are still very close. Azmin's boys know they will have to take Faekah down before they can get Khalid, hence the periodic calls for her removal. In June this year, a group using the Twitter handle @PecatFaekah had agitated for Faekah's resignation. The group has not given up and has since extended their scope to @PecatFaekah/Arfah, the latter being Khalid's press secretary. While Khalid relies on Faekah to check Azmin, Azmin uses Ampang MP Zuraidah Kamaruddin to poke at Khalid. They are Alpha females who do not mind taking the heat for their men. Zuraidah, who is Azmin's No. 2 in Selangor, ticked off Khalid a few months ago when he declined to defend Azmin over some compromising photographs of a couple in a toilet. More recently, she lectured Faekah for "jumping the gun" and told her to improve her communication skills with party leaders. Azmin's supporters maintain that the MB post should have gone to him instead of Khalid. Azmin was in the lead to be the MB when Selangor fell in 2008. But in the early hours of March 9, Khalid's name overtook Azmin's and by the time the sun came up, Khalid was confirmed as the choice of MB. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had opted for Khalid because he was a big corporate name and also because he thought that Khalid would be easier to control than Azmin; he was wrong on the second count. Azmin was deeply disappointed and one of those at Anwar's house that morning recalled witnessing how the de facto leader tried to placate Azmin for almost an hour. "Azmin's face was white with anger if you had cut it with a knife, there would have been no blood," said an insider. READ MORE HERE: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/52124-battle-for-mb-post-eclipses-polls ***************************************** Azmin Ali is pissed big time. He wanted PKR to sack Faekah Husin. Anwar Ibrahim, however, refused to do so. It is not that Anwar has any love for Faekah. In fact, between Azmin and Faekah, Anwar would stand behind Azmin any time. It is just that sacking Faekah would create a worse rift in PKR. And the rift is already bad as it is. Azmin's boys are now trying to undermine Faekah in other ways. They know they need to isolate Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim if they want to bring him down. So they need to first get rid of Faekah who is aligned to Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and Nurul Izzah Anwar. These three ladies -- Wan Azizah, Nurul Izzah and Faekah -- are helping to keep Khalid afloat, even if it is just to prevent Azmin from getting Khalid's job. Azmin's boys are now insinuating that Faekah is guilty of sexual misconduct. But they are not suggesting that it is with Khalid. They are 'whispering' that Faekah is a lesbian and that her partner is a lady doctor. This is actually a very old story and not even a story for that matter. Everyone knows that these two single girls are sharing a house. But that does not make them lesbians, as what Azmin's boys are trying to suggest. But you should not underestimate Faekah either. This girl may be small in size but she is big in resolve -- sort of like cili padi. And she is fighting back. Her 'team' is talking about the large sums of money Azmin has been siphoning out in the name of the party as well as in the name of the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) over the last 12 years since 2000. And they are talking about millions. In fact, this is not a new story as well and is a story that I had already written about in the past. But Faekah's 'gurkhas' are resurrecting this story in light of the recent Suaram and Malaysiakini exposes, which more or less involves the same people. I remember telling you the story about one of Anwar's lawyers, Pawancheek Marican, asking me to close down the FAC back in 2004. Pawancheek had asked me how much money I had received to fund the FAC and I told him so far only RM3,000 -- RM1,000 from Wan Azizah and RM2,000 from Anwar's brother, Rosli. This made Pawancheek very upset. He said that 'they' had been collecting millions so how come I only received RM3,000? He also told me he had met Anwar in prison to complain about this but Anwar did not say anything. Hence Pawancheek suggested that I close down the FAC so that they can no longer use it to raise money. And who are 'they'? 'They' are Azmin Ali, Khalid Jaafar, Anuar Shaari, Dr Rahim Ghouse, Tian Chua, Elizabeth Wong, Saifuddin Nasution, Ezam Mohd Nor, Ruslan Kassim, etc. On one occasion, one of the PAS leaders, an 'Old Boy' of MCKK, told me he met one of the FAC Directors in London together with a Malaysian tycoon-in-exile. I asked this PAS leader who this 'Director' was and he replied Khalid Jaafar. I was surprised. Khalid Jaafar was not one of the FAC Directors so how come he was masquerading as one? On further investigation I found out that Khalid, as the 'Director' of the FAC, was in London to meet this Malaysian tycoon-in-exile to arrange 'financing' for the FAC. Millions changed hands but not a cent went to the FAC. On another occasion, I received a phone call from the US asking me to confirm the four 'Directors' of the FAC. I asked the chap from the US what their names were. Azmin Ali, Anuar Shaari, and two others whose names I will keep as a surprise. I vouched for these four people, as I did not want to place them in an embarrassing situation. I then immediately phoned Dr Rahim Ghouse in Perth and asked him about these four people. His response was, "Four? I thought only three." I then named the four and Dr Rahim said, "Oh, Anuar Shaari also went, is it?" My phone call to Dr Rahim ended in a bitter quarrel. I cursed him and swore at him, the worse language I could use that included 'mother-fucker' and all. We did not speak for more than a year after that. There were a number of other occasions when the FAC's name was used to raise quite a bit of money. Hence I was not surprised when in 2004 Pawancheek spoke to me about it. I just sighed and told him that I had known this for quite some time. But I swear, I told him, all I received was RM3,000 and not a cent more than that. Just close down the FAC, Pawancheek told me. The bastards are using you to collect money. If they gave you some funding at least that is not so bad. Now, as it is, they are collecting millions while you are funding the FAC from your own pocket. I did eventually close down the FAC, of course. But I did that on the day Anwar was released from jail on 2nd September 2004. And I closed down the FAC not because of the money they were collecting but because Anwar had been released from jail and I wanted to focus on Malaysia Today, which I had launched two weeks earlier. And this is what they are going to use against Azmin. However, Khalid Jaafar, Anuar Shaari, Dr Rahim Ghouse, Tian Chua, Elizabeth Wong, Saifuddin Nasution, Ezam Mohd Nor, Ruslan Kassim, and a few others, are also going to get implicated. But then they are merely 'collateral damage' in this game of thrones. Dr Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah both know about this transgression. They have known for some time. They even suspect that Nurul Izzah's wedding was used to raise a lot of money. Of course, Anwar's family never saw this money. But will they tell the truth once this issue explodes or will they act dumb and pretend they know nothing about what Azmin and gang did and the millions they raised and pocketed in the name of the FAC? I suppose, for the sake of the party, they might have to keep their mouths shut. But those who donated all this money are now talking. And they are revealing that they paid a lot of money, which they thought had gone to the party and to the FAC. Hence it is not that easy to keep the lid on this issue. And Azmin knows this so he is going to hit back even harder. But then that is a story for tomorrow, so stay tuned. |
| The problem with Umno Posted: 14 Oct 2012 04:55 PM PDT The trouble with Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah is that he thinks he is serving the rakyat or voters. He forgot that it was his party that selected him to contest the election and it was his party that appointed him a deputy minister. Hence his loyalty is supposed to be to the party and not to the rakyat or voters. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin (The Malaysian Insider, 14 Oct 2012) - Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah has denied that he has any problems in Umno, saying the issues he raises that appear to conflict with the party's line are purely coincidental as they were based on current affairs. (FMT, 30 Aug 2012) - As the government copes with accusations of political persecution on whistleblowers, Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah today gave his endorsement to an opposition initiative to encourage informants to expose power abuse. (Malaysiakini, 11 Aug 2012) - Deputy Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah will rally BN parliamentarians against the recent Evidence Act amendments, he told a forum on the law in Kuala Lumpur today. (Din Merican, 5 Jul 2012) - He insists that UMNO is a lot more inclusive and tolerant of diverse voices than people give it credit for, and cites himself as testament of that. Yet, he admits that at times, he finds himself alone among his colleagues, in advocating the progressive views that he holds. (The Nut Graph, 6 Feb 2012) - His openness in engaging students has drawn fire from certain groups. Last year, a pro-establishment student group demanded that Saifuddin resign after a student protester momentarily lowered a flag bearing the Umno president's image outside the party headquarters. *************************************** Those are but some of the 'negative' news reports regarding Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. If you were to Google his name you will find pages and pages of items about him, all mostly about him taking the opposite stance to his party or the government. And because of that he may not be selected to contest the coming general election. The fact that he has not been sacked or suspended yet is already a surprise. In the past, any Barisan Nasional leader or Minister who takes the opposite stance would suffer the wrath of his party. Is this because Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is a bit more liberal or is it because he is weak and does not have the guts to come down hard on dissidents like his predecessors would have done? Even during the 'weaker' Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's era there was little tolerance for those who broke ranks or did not toe the party line. Anyway, Saifuddin may soon discover the folly of his ways. Umno does not tolerate those who speak the same language as the opposition, especially if you are amongst the top leadership and a cabinet member. You cannot just argue that it is purely coincidental that you happen to sing the same tune as the opposition. You are supposed to know what the opposition is saying and then say the opposite to what the opposition says. Was it not Nazri Aziz who said that the duty of a government Member of Parliament is to oppose anything and everything that the opposition Member of Parliament says? Technically, if an opposition Member of Parliament were to stand up in Parliament and hold up a white piece of paper and declare, "This paper is white," you are supposed to disagree with him or her and say, "No! That paper is black." You cannot later give an excuse that you agreed that the paper is white because it really is white. Your job is to oppose what the opposition says even if what that person said is the truth. This, Nazri made very clear. The trouble with Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah is that he thinks he is serving the rakyat or voters. He forgot that it was his party that selected him to contest the election and it was his party that appointed him a deputy minister. Hence his loyalty is supposed to be to the party and not to the rakyat or voters. You cannot win the election on your party ticket and then demonstrate independence. That is the mark of a loose cannon. Loose cannons are those who break ranks, do not toe the party line, oppose the party stand, agree with the 'other side', and so on. You will be viewed as a traitor, a Trojan horse, a mole, a Benedict Arnold, a Brutus, etc. They will say you have been bought, have sold out, are planning to jump to the other side, and much more. Barisan Nasional, in particular Umno, is very intolerant and very uncompromising with those who do not toe the party line. What you say may be true. Your cause may be noble. You may even be having the rakyat's interest in mind. But that is not going to save you from the wrath of your party. The overriding factor would be whether what you say and do is complementary or uncomplimentary to the party. That will be the deciding factor. Saifuddin, of course, will not be the first person to fall because he felt he was defending his principles. Others before him have suffered this same fate and many more after him will also suffer the same in time to come. Politics is not about principles. Politics is about attaining power. And how can you attain power if you do not close ranks and all sing the same tune? If you are more concerned about the rakyat and about serving the rakyat then you should not be in politics. Politics is the wrong arena for all this. You should form an NGO or become an NGI (non-governmental individual) and fight outside the political arena. Then you can express your independent views without worrying about rubbing anyone the wrong way. I can't understand why people join Umno, or remain in Umno, and then say that they wish to represent the rakyat and speak up for the rakyat. Do they not know that the two are not compatible? It is like joining a gang of bank robbers with the excuse that you are trying to reduce crime. What a ridiculous excuse. How can the problem become the solution? Saifuddin realises that you need to be the solution rather than the problem if you want to solve the problems facing Malaysia. Most people who talk about finding solutions into solving Malaysia's problem are actually contributing to the problem. It is like what the Umno leaders said last week: Malaysian politics is too race and religion driven. That is absolutely true. I, for one, will agree with this. In fact, I have been saying this myself for a long time. But for the Umno leaders to say this when Umno is the one doing all this sounds very weird. They are the problem. And they have the gall to speak about the problem as if someone else is the one guilty of this. Many readers who posted comments in Malaysia Today were quite spot on when they said that the problem facing Malaysia is a problem regarding the mentality of society at large. And they have also correctly pointed out that the cause to all this is our education system. Hence we need to reform Malaysia's education system and to do this we need a progressive and liberal education minister and deputy minister. Hence, also, much of what Saifuddin says is very true. But then what Saifuddin says, although may be very true, is not in the interest of his party. So I doubt he would be allowed to continue to say the things he is saying. And that would mean his party might have to get rid of him and replace him with someone who is more compliant, obedient, and less of a loose cannon. This would be good for Umno, no doubt, because then they would be able to control their people. But that will not be good for the country. We need to see a reformation of the education system. That is very, very crucial. And to see that we need a reform minded minister/deputy minister in charge. If we have someone who is more concerned about toeing the party line and serving his/her party's interest, then Malaysia is doomed. Umno is the problem. Yet it is offering itself as the solution. How can it be the solution when it cannot even tolerate a minister who is mildly independent? Yes, I would classify Saifuddin as mildly independent. He is not even 10% of what I would like him to be. He is not saying even 10% of what I am saying. Najib and Umno have to understand one thing. If we want to see changes then we must respect freedom of expression and freedom of association. Malaysia's current education system does not allow this. This has to change. And we need ministers and deputy ministers who dare call a spade a spade. Saifuddin is almost there. He is not quite there yet. He is merely playing around the fringes and not even getting to the core yet. But even that Umno cannot tolerate. So how can we expect to see reforms? Speak without fear or favour is an empty slogan. Umno says it, no doubt, just to impress us and to make us vote for them. But until they allow their own people to contradict the party, Umno has a long way to go to convince us that they are what the country needs. My fear is that there will be too much pressure put on the party to drop Saifuddin. My other fear is that Saifuddin will be so vilified that he might just throw in the towel and leave Umno to join the opposition. I do not want Saifuddin to resign and join the opposition. We need him in Umno. We need him in Umno and heading the education ministry so that he can push for reforms. We do not want yes-men in the government. That will only make things worse. We need people within Umno who are committed to reforms and who dare stand up to tell their party and their party leaders that what they are doing is wrong and what they should do to put things right. I have always said this and I am going to say it again. It is no use preaching in the mosque, church or temple. Those people who go to the 'House of God' have already been 'saved'. You need to tour the back lanes, alleys and brothels to reach out to the drug addicts and prostitutes. They are the ones who need saving, not those who go to the mosque, church or temple. In that same spirit, it is no use having all the reform minded people in the opposition and the scumbags and slime-balls in Umno. We need some 'saints' in Umno as well so that they can try to 'turn' the 'devils' in Umno. Only then will we see changes in Malaysia. And that is how I view Saifuddin -- a saint walking amongst a bunch of devils trying to do 'God's work'. My appeal to Najib is not only to retain Saifuddin but also to promote him to a full minister. And then give him a free hand to reform Malaysia's education system. Then maybe, still maybe, we will be able to see changes in 20-30 years to come. Yes, even then it is going to take 20-30 years. God help Malaysia because we certainly do need plenty of help. |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
