| And whose fault is this? Posted: 05 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST 
So, no, whatever is happening in the country is not Umno's fault. It is not the fault of the Malays or the Muslims either. It is the fault of the non-Malays and the non-Muslims from West Malaysia and East Malaysia who collaborate with Umno to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what they think. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin (The Malaysian Insider) - Following attacks on Nurul Izzah Anwar for her statement that allegedly supports religious freedom, the PKR vice president today said she is ready to give her statement to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS). The Lembah Pantai MP also said she will take legal action on those who had hurled accusations against her, and will leave the issue to the country's legal system. "I'm ready (to be called by JAIS)...(but) on lawyer's advice, I will take legal action," she said. ***************************************** (The Star) - Police have re-arrested a 27-year-old man alleged to have posted insulting remarks on his Facebook page against the Johor Sultan. State police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff said the suspect was detained again after police failed to get an extension on the first remand order from the court. He added that police have opened two investigation papers against the suspect. ***************************************** (The Malaysian Insider) - The Johor police have started criminal defamation investigations against The Malaysian Insider and Malaysiakini for their coverage of last week's arrest of a man who allegedly insulted the Johor Sultan on his Facebook page. Johor CID deputy director Asst Comm Nor Azizan Anan said the probe was following two police reports lodged by state police on articles carried by the two news portals regarding the arrest, Berita Harian reported today. ***************************************** You have read the three news items above, right? Now, in case you do not yet understand what is going on in Malaysia, allow me to enlighten you a bit. I know that many Malaysians are brain-dead so unless I help walk you through the issue this whole thing would be lost on you. The issue is simple, really. When the mainstream media reports that you said something, you are in deep shit. Action will be taken against you super-fast. You might say that the mainstream media lies, it never tells the truth, it cannot be trusted, and so on. That will still not save you from the long arm of the law. Hell, I should know. When the mainstream media reported that I had made an allegation against 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor regarding her alleged involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, I was arrested and charged in court. The fact that I never made such an allegation but actually said that someone else (Lt. Kol. Azmi Zainal Abidin) had made that allegation did not save me. If the mainstream media said I said it then I said it. Plain and simple! Then when I gave an interview with the mainstream media to explain what happened and I stressed that I was arrested and charged for something that I did not do (meaning I did not make any allegation against Rosmah Mansor), the mainstream media reported that I had done a U-turn and that I now withdraw the allegation. And that got me into a heap of other problems. So, can we believe the mainstream media or can we not believe it? In my case the mainstream media report was to be believed. Then I suppose in all those other cases the mainstream media reports are to be believed as well. You have to make up your mind. Do you accept what the mainstream media says or do you not? One day you appear to accept what they say and the next day you reject what they say. In short, you accept and reject things at your convenience. It is no longer about the truth. It is about what fits in to your agenda. Okay, never mind, whether the mainstream media lied or not is not as important as the next issue. And the next issue is that Malaysia does not allow freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, etc. So that means you are not allowed to think and certainly not allowed to say what you think. Doing so is a crime and you can get arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail. And there are certain taboos or sacred cows that if you 'touch' you will get into trouble. The Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc., are at the top of this taboo list. You 'touch' these issues and you die. Okay, now tell me, whose fault is this? Yes, that's right, it's the fault of Umno. It's the fault of the Malays. It's the fault of the Muslims. Am I correct? Hmm…I can just imagine most of you reading this now jumping up and down excitedly like what the Malays would call 'kera kena belacan'. Actually, that is not right. No, it is not the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. How can it be Umno's fault, or the fault of the Malays or the Muslims? I mean, do you really think that Umno, the Malays, or the Muslims, have ABSOLUTE political power? They don't. And look at the four graphics below to see what I mean. The first graphic shows that out of 505 state seats contested in the 2008 General Election, BN won 307 and PR won 197. In the Sarawak State Election last year (graphic number 4), BN won 55 seats against only 15 by PR and one independent. Now, out of a total of 362 state seats won by BN, how many were won by Umno? In Sarawak, not a single seat was an Umno seat. Look at the pie chart (graphic number 2) and the third graphic. Umno controls only about one-third the seats in Parliament, which it won with less than 30% of the popular votes. How can Umno be in power with only one-third the seats and less than 30% of the votes? Okay, for the benefit of those of you who are brain-dead -- and there are a lot of those types of people reading Malaysia Today -- Umno DOES NOT have ABSOLUTE political power and it CANNOT form the government with only one-third the seats and less than 30% the votes. So, no, whatever is happening in the country is not Umno's fault. It is not the fault of the Malays or the Muslims either. It is the fault of the non-Malays and the non-Muslims from West Malaysia and East Malaysia who collaborate with Umno to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what they think. Am I angry with Umno? Of course I am not. Umno is a political party. It is the job of a political party to exploit any issue that can be exploited for political gain. That is what politics is all about. Umno does not hide the fact that it is a party that upholds Ketuanan Melayu and that it will not tolerate anyone who comments unfavourably on issues related to the Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc. Umno is honest about its 'struggle'. So why get angry with people who are honest about what they are and then demonstrate that they are honest about what they are? The people I am angry with are the dishonest hypocrites who say one thing and then do the opposite. These are the non-Malays and the non-Muslims who talk a lot and claim the moral high ground but help Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament and less than 30% votes to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what we think. What ABU! ABU bullshit! You make it appear like everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. Everything bad that happens in the country is the fault of Umno, the Malays and the Muslims. Yes, Umno all on its own and with merely a few seats in Parliament that cannot even give them a simple majority in Parliament is to blame for everything that is wrong with Malaysia. Blame Umno. Blame the Malays. Blame the Muslims. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims are not to blame. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims have nothing to do with this. It sometimes puzzles me that Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament can form a government and end up controlling almost two-third the seats in Parliament. Magical, don't you think so? I think what is even more magical is how the non-Malays and the non-Muslims can shift the blame entirely on Umno, the Malays and the Muslims as if they are not equally guilty of denying Malaysians freedom of thought and freedom of expression. The Malays-Muslims, in particular those from Umno, are very open about what they stand for. The non-Malays/non-Muslims, however, pretend a lot. They pretend they are not to blame whereas without them Umno would be an opposition party and not the ruling government. The non-Malays/non-Muslims are so full of shit. 
|
| Same difference Posted: 04 Nov 2012 06:20 PM PST "I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles. I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya was quoted in Berita Harian today. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Malaysia Today's readers have a serious problem in trying to understand the difference between partisan, non-partisan, bipartisan, etc. And that is why many of them fall into the 'either you are with me or you are against me' rut made 'popular' by US President Bush. How would you take it if a Muslim who propagates the concept of an Islamic State says to you that 'either you are with me or you are against me'? If you do not support the concept of an Islamic State then you are the enemy of Islam and being an enemy of Islam that can be regarded as a declaration of war and anyone who declares war against Islam can be lawfully killed. According to the doctrine of 'either you are with me or you are against me' that would certainly make sense. It may not make sense to non-Muslims or to those who are opposed to an Islamic State but then these people are the enemies of Islam anyway so who the hell cares what they think? Yes, if we support President Bush then we support the concept of a powerful nation having the right to invade another country just because the US does not like its politics. Basically, might is right. Those who control the guns control the world and dictates what the world can and cannot do. Brunei refuses to hold democratic parliamentary elections and refuses to abolish its outdated system of absolute monarchy. Should Singapore bomb and invade Brunei so that democracy can be installed in that Sultanate? Indonesia discriminates against the Chinese and murdered 500,000 Maoist Communist supporters. Should China send a few nuclear bombs to Indonesia to teach it a lesson even though those Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians and not Chinese citizens or of Chinese ethnicity? What about Saudi Arabia and all those other kingdoms, sheikhdoms, emirates, etc? They too do not practice democracy a la the west. Should the US bomb and invade those countries so that the citizens of those countries can hold free and fair elections and elect the government of their choice? If democracy can be forced down Iraq's throat surely the same should be done to those other autocratic monarchies in the Middle East as well. Okay, so we do not support the idea of a powerful nation being allowed to bomb and invade another nation just because the US does not like its politics. If we support that idea then no country is safe. Anyone who is not pro-US (or worse, anti-US) can get bombed into the Dark Ages with a great loss to property and lives. Who appointed the US the policeman of the world anyway? Must the world do things only the American way? Is the US the trustee of morality and anything considered immoral by US standards must be solved by military action? If we do not support America's action then does that mean we are pro-Saddam Hussein? Saddam just did what Hitler did and if we do not support what Hitler did then surely we cannot support what Saddam did, especially what he did to his own citizens of Kurdish ethnicity. Saddam embarked on ethnic cleansing just like what Hitler did. So how can Hitler be wrong and Saddam be right? Okay, so we do not support Saddam. But then we do not support what the US did either. So what is our stand then? We must either be pro-Saddam or pro-Bush. We can be against both. Either Saddam is right or Bush is right. Both cannot be wrong. Hence it is our duty to support one and oppose the other. My stand is clear. I do not support both. While I do not support what Saddam did to his own people I also do not support the idea that might is right and a powerful nation can legitimately bomb and invade another country. There are many evil regimes in this world. Iraq is not the only one. But why bomb and invade only those evil regimes that are anti-American and then support, uphold and defend other evil regimes that are pro-American? (And this is the basis of America's foreign policy). Is it possible to be opposed to both? Are you obligated to support one above the other? Well, it all depends on whether you are sincere in your 'struggle' and whether your struggle is based on principles or you have other personal and ulterior motives in mind. Most times our struggle is not based on sincerity or principles but is motivated by personal gain (parochial, ethnic, racial, religious, etc., included). And this is what we are seeing in Malaysian politics. The Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar, has just attracted some controversy regarding her statement about freedom of choice -- which can also be said to be about freedom of religion. (Read the news report by Malaysian Digest below). The issue is: do we have freedom of choice or do we not have the freedom to choose? In short: is Malaysia a democracy or is Malaysia a theocracy? It is either one or the other. It cannot be both at the same time. This faux pas, as some view it, (or misquote, as Nurul Izzah explains it) is going to be used against her. Trust me on that. Was she misquoted? Was she misunderstood? Did Nurul Izzah do a U-turn? Or are Malaysians not prepared to allow freedom of choice? Now, this is not about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. Just for purposes of this article let's not be partisan. Let's look at things as if we are not supporters of either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. I know most Malaysian brains have not developed to the level where you can do that. But try anyway, sort of like hypothetically speaking. I say this is not about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat because there are Muslims in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, as there are non-Muslims. Malays, Chinese, Indians, and 'lain-lain' are in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. So this cannot be about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. Now, I have been talking about change for quite some time now. Hence our struggle, at least as far as I am concerned, is about change. But are you also talking about change? I hear some of you screaming ABU (Anything But Umno). I hear some of you screaming that we must vote for Pakatan Rakyat. I hear some of you screaming that 55 years of BN is enough. Okay, whatever it may be, those are merely the means to an end. We change the government because we seek change. We are not changing the government just for the sake of changing the government. There must be an endgame and changing the government is just the means to that end. But are we going to see that end? Will changing the government achieve the change that we seek? That is the fundamental question and the question we must address before we take this to the next level, which is the change that we are looking for. Nurul Izzah talked about freedom of choice. And now she is getting whacked for that. So now she has to explain herself or even do a U-turn and retract that statement. The issue is not whether she did say it or she did not say it or whether she was misquoted or misunderstood. To me that is not important. What is important is even if she did say it what is wrong about her saying it? Nurul Izzah was talking about freedom of choice. Was she wrong? Does Pakatan Rakyat or PKR, the party she represents, not support freedom of choice? It appears like Nurul Izzah is going to have to fight this controversy all on her own. No other opposition leader is going to come to her defence. PKR, DAP and PAS are not going to get involved. Let me be clear on this. Pakatan Rakyat is not supporting or is opposing freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat is going to remain neutral. Pakatan Rakyat is not taking sides in this issue. Pakatan Rakyat is not for or against freedom of choice, which means that Pakatan Rakyat does not have a stand. Okay, back to the issue of change. I am talking about change. Change means to deviate from what is. Change means to discard the old ways in favour of the new ways. Change means you have freedom of choice. Change means not being forced to do something that you do not wish to do. Change means to be allowed the freedom you do not currently have. So why is Pakatan Rakyat keeping mum? We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat supports change. We want to know whether this change includes freedom of choice. We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat's policies are opposite to Barisan Nasional's or exactly the same as Barisan Nasional's? Currently it appears like there is no difference between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional share the same policy. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat, just like Barisan Nsional, does not support freedom of choice. In that case are we really talking about change? Explain to me what you mean by change because I do not quite understand what you mean by it when both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat do not support freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional appear very united on this issue. That would mean we will not be seeing change never mind who we vote for. ******************************** Fathul Bari Claims Nurul Izzah 'Ignorant', Lacks Religious Knowledge (Malaysian Digest) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president Nurul Izzah Anwar has come under fire over her statement allegedly supportive of freedom of choice for Muslims in selecting their religion. The statement, made at a forum on Saturday, has since drawn heavy criticism from certain quarters, including Muslim scholars. Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya said ignorance was to blame for her statement. "I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles." "I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," he was quoted in Berita Harian today. Fathul Bari, who is also Umno Young Ulama (Ilmu) working committee secretariat chairman, said her statement goes against what has been repeated by Nurul Izzah's father, Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on maqasid syari'yyah or the key reasons why the Al-Quran was passed down, which are religion, mind, life, property and dignity. "Nurul Izzah should have referred to PAS ulama first. Even the Opposition leader himself always spoke about maqasid syari'yyah," he said. Fathul Bari said Nurul Izzah's statement could have implications on Muslims in the future, resulting in Muslims not placing religion as the most important subject, and steer towards pluralism ideology. "How can we say religion is free and open, or place Islam on the same level as other religions. If this happens, think of why Islam is enshrined in the constitution and what is the purpose of the Malay rulers," he said. Meanwhile, Puteri Umno chief Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said Nurul Izzah's statement can create unease within the Muslim community. "Imagine, even with enforcement, there are Muslims who become murtad. The situation will be worse if there is absolute freedom," she said. She said, in matters of faith, it is clearly stated that Muslims should do all they can to preserve Islam and not place it in a vulnerable position. Nurul Izzah, however, has since denied that she had trivialized the issue of Islamic faith and that she supported apostasy. The Lembah Pantai MP said she was disappointed that certain quarters were twisting her statements on the subject of religion being forced onto Muslims in Malaysia. She said she had attended a forum titled 'Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?' as a panellist on Saturday. In the question and answer session, one of the questions posed to her was on the issue of Islam being imposed on Muslims. "My answer stressed on the phrase 'there is no compulsion in Islam'. This was taken from verse 256 of the Surah Al-Baqarah in the Al-Quran. The phrase applies to all mankind," she said. Nurul Izzah added that she holds firm to the belief that after embracing Islam, a Muslim is bound by Syariah law, just as how a citizen is bound by the Federal Constitution. "I am disappointed that there are efforts to twist my statement as if I had trivialised faith or easily accepted how Muslims can become apostates," she said, adding that she has always been supportive of educational programmes to strengthen one's faith and increase understanding of the religion. Malaysiakini had on Saturday quoted Nurul Izzah as saying that people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion, with the same applying to Malays. "If you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion... how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying. The report also quoted her as saying that her secondary school education, set amidst a Catholic school backdrop, did not influence her. "Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in the hall and an active singing Catholic society did not influence me," she was quoted as saying. However, the report said she stopped short of saying that Malays should be legally granted religious freedom, saying: "I am, of course, tied to the prevailing views." |
| The al-Bukhary story: how it all began Posted: 29 Oct 2012 08:50 PM PDT Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of USNO and the third Chief Minister of Sabah. Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Tun Datu Mustapha and the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Mustapha. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin An embarrassment of business opportunities, political patronage and debts. The Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary story. CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary is like a king? First it was FLOM and now it is SMIK? (Syed Mokhtar is King). What will our king have to say about this pretender to his throne who also happens to be a tycoon – something which our king is not. All this came from that MP from Kinabatangan, Bung Mokhtar Radin. The first question I want to ask of this Sabah Umno leader is why has he got his beady eyes trained on this Syed Mokhtar guy? I am no fan of Syed Mokhtar but why is Bung Mokhtar breaking ranks with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak in the same way he did with Shahrizat Abdul Jalil – and you know what happened to Shahrizat after that. Or is Bung Mokhtar taking a position to the rear of Najib's unprotected left flank ready to do battle against Najib? Or has Syed Mokhtar done an Abdul Razak Baginda on Bung Mokhtar? 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad Remember what Razak Baginda did to Altantuya Shaariibuu? He did a runner on her once he was in the money! Did Syed Mokhtar not deliver on what he promised Bung Mokhtar? There may be loyalty amongst thieves but amongst politicians it is a scarce commodity. Today Najib, tomorrow Muhyiddin Yassin. Today one wife tomorrow two. This is the stuff Barisan Nasional MPs are made of… deceit, duplicity, greed, arrogance, large doses of libido and a misplaced self worth. But Bung Mokhtar's life is just a little sandiwara as opposed to the operatic saga that is Syed Mokhtar's. Is Syed Mokhtar too big to fail? I think the adage that when you owe the banks billions, your continued success in business is as much the banks' interest as it is yours rings true with Syed Mokhtar. READ MORE HERE: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/special-reports/52437-the-al-bukhary-story (READ Umno's chief crony HERE) (READ The timber mafia is larger than you suspect HERE) ****************************************** 
Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of the United Sabah National Organisation (USNO) and the third Chief Minister of Sabah from 12th May 1967 to 1st November 1975. He is considered by some as one of the founding leaders of Sabah and was an important party in the negotiations leading to the formation of Malaysia on 16th September 1963. In the first state election of 1967, USNO won 14 seats against UPKO's 12 and SCA's four. USNO then set up a state coalition government with SCA where combined they controlled 18 of the 30 seats. ****************************************** 
Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Sabah Chief Minister Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun. On 15th June 1967, Syed Kechik was appointed the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth. That was more or less the beginning of Sabah's 'timber politics' that prevails until today. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Haji Mustapha. The rest of the story is self-explanatory. ****************************************** Muhyiddin Visits Tan Sri Syed Kechik's Grave (Bernama) — Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin on Saturday visited the grave of Syed Kechik Foundation chairman, Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed, who died of old age and was buried at the Al-Bukhary Mosque graveyard yesterday. Muhyiddin was accompanied by wife, Puan Sri Norainee Abdul Rahman Seri, and Al-Bukhary Foundation executive chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and his wife, Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah Al-Bukhary. 
Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary Syed Mokhtar, who is the late Syed Kechik's son-in-law, said his father-in-law, who was also his uncle, died at the age of 81 at 3.41pm in his house at Jalan Sultanah here yesterday. He said Syed Kechik served as legal adviser to then Sabah Chief Minister from 1968 until 1975 and was political secretary to then Information and Broadcasting Minister Datuk Senu Abdul Rahman from 1964 to 1965. Syed Kechik left behind a wife, Puan Sri Sofiah Abdullah, three children and 12 grand-children. ****************************************** Feud over Syed Kechik's millions goes to High Court (The Star) - The children of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary have gone to court to fight over the RM400mil estate he left behind. The High Court granted an injunction applied by his two daughters – Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira – to prevent their half-brother Syed Gamal from interfering in Syed Kechik Holdings Sdn Bhd's affairs yesterday. Syed Gamal, 45, who is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage, is not allowed to intervene in the administration, enter the premises and access the records and accounts of the company. 
Syed Gamal, the only male heir to the late Syed Kechik He is also barred from interfering in the duties of the company directors. The sisters, who are directors of the company, were not present but were represented by laywer Datuk Vijay Kumar. This is the second injunction granted by a court in the family saga that started after Syed Kechik's death last year. Syed Gamal had obtained an ex-parte injunction at the Syariah Court on Sept 14 to stop his 44% stake in the company from being sold or liquidated. Justice K. Anantham, who presided over the High Court case in his chambers at the Jalan Duta court complex here, ruled that the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction over the company because it is a corporate entity. Syed Gamal, who was with his cousin Syed Azman Syed Mansor Al-Bukhary, said his lawyers would appeal against the decision. "I will continue with my struggle to pursue my rights according to Faraid law. My rights have been denied almost all my life. This is not a struggle for myself but also for my family," he said when met outside the courtroom. Syed Gamal was represented by his three lawyers – Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad, Az-mi Tan Sri Dr Mohd Rais and Zulkifli B.C. Yong. Syed Kechik died at the age of 81 on April 10 last year. His son-in-law is Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary. ****************************************** Syed Kechik's second wife, daughters lose appeal (Bernama) - The wife and two daughters of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary failed in their appeal today to stop his (Syed Kechik's) son from his first marriage to be joint administrator of his RM400 million estate. Justice Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, leading a three-man Court of Appeal panel, ruled that the High Court had correctly given due regard to Syed Gamal's right to be co-administrator of his father's estate. He said it was the court's view that the acrimony between Syed Gamal and his stepmother Puan Sri Sofiah Moo Abdullah, 67, and his half-sisters Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah, 42, and Sharifah Munira, 44, was not a good ground to exclude Syed Gamal from being co-administrator of his father's estate. Low said allegations made by Sofiah and her daughters that Syed Gamal lacked knowledge of the father's business, that he (Syed Gamal) was a failed businessman in a T-shirt business and the subsequent sale of a Mercedes car by Syed Gamal were not valid grounds to remove his (Syed Gamal's) right to be considered for appointment as co-administrator. "Success and failure in life, business or any other activity is purely a matter of subjective judgment. Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts," he said. The panel, which also comprised Court of Appeal judge Datuk Wira Abu Samah Nordin and High Court judge Datuk Azahar Mohamed, unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Sofiah and her two daughters and upheld Judicial Commissioner Lee Swee Seng's decision given on July 30 last year that the late Syed Kechik's estate be jointly administered by his wife and three children. "In our view, section 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 provides for the entitlement of all persons who are interested in the estate to be appointed administrators of deceased's estate. "We are unable to identify any error on the part of the Judicial Commissioner in appointing all appellants (Sofiah, Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira) and respondent (Syed Gamal) as co-administrators of the deceased's estate," Low said. The panel ordered Sofiah and her daughters to pay legal costs of RM40,000 to Syed Gamal. Syed Gamal, 46, a cyber-cafe owner, is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage to Zainab alias Eshah Abdullah. The feud over the estate began after Syed Kechik died of heart disease on April 10, 2009 at the age of 80 without leaving a will. Syed Kechik was the father-in-law of Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, a billionaire listed as one of the richest people in the country. On September 15, 2009, Sofiah and her daughters petitioned the court for a letter of administration to the estate. On April 14 last year, Syed Gamal filed a caveat to stop his stepmother and half-sisters from being appointed sole administrators of his late father's estate. ****************************************** 
Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad is the flagship corporation of the Kumpulan Syed Kechik Group of Companies with diverse interests in multifarious industries incubated and nurtured by Tan Sri Syed Kechik Bin Syed Mohamed Rahmat Al-Bukhary over the past three decades and more. 1. Nira Sendirian Berhad owns and manages its signature corporate address, the Syed Kechik Foundation Building (picture above). 2. Budiman Sendirian Berhad owns and manages Wisma Budiman. 3. Pasar Borong Development Sendirian Berhad holds vast prime lands situated along busy Jalan Ipoh. It also owns and manages a complete block of dual frontage four storey shop offices comprising thirteen (13) units at Block 28, Jalan 6/3A, Bandar Utara. 4. Castlefield Development Sendirian Berhad owns a choice plot of over two acres of commercial land in Puchong, Selangor. 5. Tenaga Minyak Corporation Sendirian Berhad owns and manages five adjoining premium dual frontage four-storey shop offices at Block 7, Jalan 2/3A, Bandar Utara. 6. Taman Melanti Sendirian Berhad owns fully refurbished units of Double Storey Shop Houses, Double Storey Terrace Houses and Single Storey Terrace Houses in the developed, mature and vibrant neighbourhood of Taman Seri Kluang. http://www.kskgroup.com.my/ |
| The timber mafia is larger than you suspect Posted: 28 Oct 2012 01:00 AM PDT Gani and Hishammmuddin told the ICAC that the money actually belongs to Umno and that Michael Chia was only the courier or bagman for Umno. The ICAC told the 'official Malaysian delegation' that they (the ICAC) were going to 'freeze' the money, but for only three years. After the three years 'time bar' (or by 2011), the money would be released and thereafter allowed to leave Hong Kong. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin If you have not yet read Friday's report by Sarawak Report, Million Dollar Bribes Disguised As 'Donations' – UMNO's Ever Changing Stories!, you can do so HERE. Then read the three reports below. Basically, Malaysia Today first exposed this timber 'commission' scandal involving Umno Sabah back in 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched. That was eight years ago. However, no one appeared concerned about the matter then. Today, the issue has met with much brouhaha -- as if this is something that has just surfaced very recently rather than something that has been going on for decades since Sabah first became part of Malaysia back in 1963. East Malaysian politics is the politics of timber. Any idiot or dimwit knows this. A Sabah warlord is not a Sabah warlord unless he has at least RM200 million or RM300 million to his name. And that is why Sabah politics is big money. If you want to buy someone worth RM200-RM300 million, the price definitely has got to be huge. RM1 million or RM2 million does not even come close. The Sabah warlords are known to spend RM3 million to RM6 million a night at the casino. So what is RM1 million or RM2 million? RM1 million or RM2 million is pittance. It is not enough for even a few hours at the roulette table. Musa Aman, the Sabah Chief Minister, was already worth RM600 million when he took office, according to his official asset declaration. Today, he is estimated to be worth not less than RM1.5 billion, second only to the Sarawak Chief Minister in wealth -- who also made his pile from timber. And trust me, even those Barisan Nasional turncoats who have joined Pakatan Rakyat recently, or are about to join Pakatan Rakyat soon, are also worth millions. And they, too, made their money the same way. If these are the people Pakatan Rakyat is attracting then it makes no difference whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat rules Sabah. 
This is how Sabah's dignitaries travel around the State, in pomp and style
Anyway, as usual, Malaysia Today does not like to repeat what others are already reporting. Malaysia Today only wants to focus on The Untold Story. That is why we do not talk about the Shahrizat Jalil RM250 million cow scandal. As it is, we are already suffering from over-exposure from that story that is close to giving us indigestion. So let me fill in the blanks regarding this Umno Sabah 'donation' scandal instead and tell you The Untold Story of this episode. Umno Sabah gives out timber concessions to its cronies and warlords at way below market price (or underpriced like hell) and it collects a commission (or kickbacks) on the export of logs, mainly to Japan. The money, however, is paid in Hong Kong. And note that there is no open tender for giving out timber concessions. It is all done on a 'negotiated' basis and awarded to the lowest bidder that offers the highest under-the-table 'commission'. 
And this was why Michael Chia -- a man Musa Aman says he does not know but photographs of the two show that they know each other -- was caught in Hong Kong. But what most do not know is that Michael Chia and Musa Aman are not the only ones involved. There are many other people involved as well -- such as a lawyer by the name of Richard Barnes. When this matter first 'exploded' in 2008 (four years after Malaysia Today had revealed the scandal), Attorney-General Gani Patail and Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Hussein went to Hong Kong to try to 'settle' the matter with the Chinese authorities (an act known as kowtim in Malaysia). Gani and Hishammmuddin told the ICAC that the money actually belongs to Umno and that Michael Chia was only the courier or bagman for Umno. The ICAC told the 'official Malaysian delegation' that they (the ICAC) were going to 'freeze' the money, but for only three years. After the three years 'time bar' (or by 2011), the money would be released and thereafter allowed to leave Hong Kong. Then we have the Rural and Regional Development Minister, Mohd Shafie Apdal, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's buddy, who was then the Deputy Chief of Umno Sabah. However, he told Najib that he was totally in the dark about what was going on. Yes, that's right, every man and his dog in Sabah knew about this Hong Kong drama except the Deputy Chief of Umno Sabah. The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Nazri Abdul Aziz, who said, "Opposition receives political donations too, not just Sabah Umno", (read that report here), is also involved. Michael Chia met Nazri in Parliament House to hand over RM3 million in cash as the 'fee' for the latter to help the former resolve this matter. And that flashy car that Nazri's son drives (see picture below) actually belongs to Michael Chia. 
Further to that, AG Gani Patail and CM Musa Aman's brother, Foreign Minister Anifah Aman, are related by marriage. Anifah's wife is sister to Dr Johan Samad, the Deputy Director of Yayasan Sabah, who is in turn married to Fazar Arif, the sister of AG Gani Patail's wife. Hence what we are seeing here is an all-in-the-family mafia. And where there are no blood ties, money ties make up for it. This scandal, if not properly resolved, may result in Barisan Nasional losing at least 10 of the 25 Parliamentary seats in Sabah. Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan, Tawau, Sipanggar, Penampang, Beaufort, Keningau, Pensiangan, Tuaran and Kota Marudu can most likely fall to the opposition. Nine of those ten seats are Chinese-Kadazan-Dusun seats, except Beaufort, which is a Malay seat. Three other seats -- Kota Belud, Ranau and Papar -- would also be close fights and could go either way. Hence the likelihood of half the Parliamentary seats in Sabah falling to the opposition is not an impossible scenario. And if that happens then the state can fall as well. That is how serious this matter has become. It seems, according to the financial audit done by Price Waterhouse, about RM3 billion from Yayayan Sabah has mysteriously 'evaporated', mainly timber revenue. So this is no small issue and the voters are terribly upset about the whole thing. If Pakatan Rakyat is clever and if they know the correct way in playing up this issue, Sabah may fall and they might even win enough Parliamentary seats to march into Putrajaya. My concern is that Pakatan Rakyat will instead fight amongst themselves over seat allocations, which will allow Barisan Nasional to retain Sabah. If this state of affairs continues, Umno may have to replace the head of Umno Sabah as soon as the State Assembly is dissolved and general elections are called. The voters will then have to be told that Musa Aman will not continue as Chief Minister if Barisan Nasional retains the state. Then, most likely, only two seats will fall to the opposition -- Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan -- and Barisan Nasional will sail through with enough seats to form the state government and at least 23 Parliamentary seats in Sabah to deny Pakatan Rakyat the federal government. ********************************************* 
Sabah Umno official: 'We have nothing to hide' (The Star, 17 December 2004) - KOTA KINABALU: Sabah Umno is of the view that everything is in the clear for its new RM35mil, 11-storey headquarters now under construction in the city. "As far as Sabah Umno is concerned, I can assure you that everything is above board," state Umno information chief Datuk Rahim Ismail said, when contacted over a letter that appeared in the website of a local newspaper on Dec 3. A similar letter was posted on an online newspaper on Wednesday. The letter insinuated that something was amiss in the deal for the construction of the Sabah Umno building on a 0.48ha site in Karamunsing. Among the questions raised were why Umno did not use its own 2ha land in Sembulan to construct its headquarters and who was overseeing the construction. The letter purportedly written by someone known as Haniffa, raised various questions on who was the real owner of the new building and if there was any relationship be-tween Sabah Umno and the company developing it. Rahim, who is a member of the building committee, declined to say anything else other than stressing that everything about the project was above board. It is learnt that Sabah Umno would let the matter rest although the party discussed it at a meeting a few days ago. The explanation given was that the building, for which the groundbreaking ceremony was held on May 16 last year, had the blessing of the Umno headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Umno officials said yesterday that the land was donated by a private company, with the full knowledge of the party leadership. They said they decided not to construct their building on their own 2ha land at Sembulan because the party wanted to keep it as a prime city property. "There is nothing secret about this deal," said a senior Sabah Umno official. The new Sabah Umno headquarters, which is expected to be completed next year, would not only house the party's offices but also banks, shops and a hall with a seating capacity for 2,000 people. ********************************************* 
HK anti-graft probe widens (Malaysia Today, 8 November 2008) - KOTA KINABALU: Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has widened its investigations to Sabah over a money-laundering case involving millions of ringgit. Three of the officers arrived here on Wednesday seeking information on a Sandakan businessman, a lawyer and a top state politician as well. They left yesterday after securing details and documents on the trio to help them in a probe into a Hong Kong bank account believed to be holding more than RM100mil. The account has been frozen. It is understood that the ICAC has been probing allegations of money laundering in Sabah for more than three years. They had briefly detained the businessman in Hong Kong in mid-August in connection with the money-laundering allegations. He was released on bail pending the completion of the probe. At a press conference yesterday, Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigations chief Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull confirmed that the ICAC had sought its assistance. "We cannot reveal details as it is their investigations," said Shukri, who declined to state the specific nature of the ICAC probe. He said the ACA was not conducting an investigation into the matter but was helping the ICAC under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. Shukri was in Sabah to witness the official handing-over of duties from Sabah ACA director Deputy Comm Latifah Md Yatim to the new director, Deputy Comm Jalil Jaaffar. Latifah has been promoted as the new Penang ACA director. ********************************************* 
Musa denies business links with Michael Chia (Free Malaysia Today, 12 April 2012) - Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman today said corruption allegations made against him by whistleblower website Sarawak Report was an act of defamation and conspiracy by certain quarters with the agenda to topple the Barisan Nasional government. "I deny all these allegations. I wish to put it on record once again that I have no business association whatsoever with an individual named Michael Chia," he said today. Musa said these allegations were trumped up by his political opponents dan desperate individuals who would resort to anything to gain political mileage. "It is unfortunate that there are people out there who will keep using recycled allegations to get to the top when election is near. "The people of Sabah can decide for themselves based on my track record. Not faceless and nameless people who use blogs to serve their political interest," he added. Musa said he would give full cooperation to the authorities if needed but in the meantime his responsibility was to ensure the wellbeing and development of Sabah. He said he did not wish to waste his time entertaining these frivolous allegations, adding that his main priority was to serve the people of Sabah and to administer the state. Caught with money Last week Sarawak Report published leaked Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) documents that revealed Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail allegedly shelving files and refusing to prosecute Musa and his brother Anifah over allegations that the Sabah chief minister had corruptly issued timber licences to his brother worth tens of millions of ringgit. Investigations were prompted after Musa's "agent" Michael Chia was arrested in Hong Kong in 2008 and MACC investigations later unearthed details of the secret timber concessions within the family and Gani's close ties to the Aman family. Chia was detained by the Hong Kong authorities at the Hong Kong International Airport for alleged money trafficking. He was caught trying to smuggle out of Hong Kong some S$16 million (RM40 million). Apparently when he was caught, Chia told the Hong Kong authorities that the money was for Musa. |
| 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. |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
