Sabtu, 1 Disember 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

Posted: 30 Nov 2012 07:02 PM PST

I really did not care too much whether Anwar was going to spend the rest of his days in jail. I felt he deserved jail anyway, if not for sodomy at least for helping Dr Mahathir screw up the country and for making his friends and family rich. But Anwar had started something here, which could be useful to the cause of unseating Dr Mahathir and kicking Umno out. So why not ride on that Reformasi wave and take advantage of it?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

By mid-1990 I had already wound down most of my businesses or sold off those that could be sold. Fortunately, that was just two years or so before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The bankers I met told me I must be a genius to be able to anticipate this crisis two years before it happened and to get out of the market in time.

The truth is I just no longer had any interest in business. Business sickened me. I felt nauseous when I looked at my business.

Nevertheless, I did not correct this misperception by the bankers. I allowed them to continue to think that I am a genius who anticipated the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis two years before it happened when even the world's best economists could not see that -- or even Malaysia's greatest leaders such as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim.

A friend of mine told me that my enemies had got a bomoh (witch doctor) to charm me with black magic ('kena buat', as the Malays would say) so that my heart 'turned' and I felt 'sick' with business. And that is why I just write and write and neglect my business, my friend said.

That was quite true. I did feel sick with business and I was writing and writing, day in and day out. But I am not too sure whether this was because a bomoh had 'buat' me. Anyway, I have seen stranger things in my 62 years, some which defy explanation. I would like to believe, though, that there were no magic spells involved in my 'change of heart'.

Just to digress a bit, another friend told me that every time I came near him he felt that something was 'wrong' (ada tak kena). He said he suspected I 'kena buat orang'. He insisted he take me to meet a 'gifted' person who is known to have the ability to exorcise 'demons' from 'orang kena buat'.

I have always been a curious person who would not hesitate to try anything new, at least once. So I agreed to the exorcism. The 'exorcist' just touched my big toe lightly and I began sweating profusely and wailed like a banshee. My friend could not stand the sound of my screaming so he left the room. He later told me that the scream did not sound like me one bit. It was a most unusual scream that did not sound human at all, he told.

I am not one to believe in the supernatural. But there you are. Believe it or not, that happened, and I still do not know what to make of it. The church, however, believes in such things, as do the majority of Muslims. As far as I am concerned, though, I had found my new 'calling' -- a political activist cum political writer -- and I found this life more interesting than the life of a businessman, something I had been for 20 years.

I think, at 45, I just needed a change, that's all. Call it mid-life crisis if you wish. Or maybe it was because I was almost the same age as when both my parents died so I wanted to do something different before I died. Or call it possession by demons, if you also wish. Your choice!

Anyway, back to the issue of my businesses. For companies like Maroda Sdn Bhd, the Mercedes Benz dealership, I sold my interest to my partner. That was actually a very profitable company and what I regarded as my 'flagship', as I mentioned in the earlier episodes of this series of articles.

I did not make any profit on those shares I sold to my partner. In fact, I made a loss because I transferred my shares at RM1 per share even though I had held on to those shares for more than ten years and a Mercedes Benz dealership is worth at least a million or two in 'goodwill'. Nevertheless, I took a 'haircut' because my partner could not possibly have forked out RM1 million or RM2 million if I had asked him to pay me that.

I practically 'gave' that company to my partner, a result of my disgust regarding the state of affairs. Hmmm…or maybe it was my partner who had got the bomoh to buat me. Smile (Joke only lah).

Another factor that prompted me to sell off my shares in Maroda is the fact that my partner was an Umno man and he was facing a lot of problems from Umno for partnering with an opposition supporter, meaning me. In fact, Umno was lobbying Cycle and Carriage to terminate Maroda's dealership and to give the dealership to an Umno company. Hence, if I had stayed his partner, Maroda would have probably lost the agency anyway.

In fact, Umno had been trying to block Maroda from getting the Mercedes agency since 1980. Shahrir Samad, the then Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, can confirm this because he told my partner so. To be fair to Shahrir, though, he did not do what Umno asked him to do -- to deny Maroda the agency. So not all Umno people are scumbags -- at least not Shahrir Samad, whose brother, Khalid Samad, is the current PAS MP for Shah Alam.

By mid-1998 I was totally retired except for a bihun (fine noodles) factory that I still owned. But I was not involved in the running of that factory. I had a manager to take care of it.

The bihun manufacturing business was not too bad, although you can't become a millionaire in that business -- because it was very competitive and monopolised by the Chinese. Around 50% of our market was our own branding while the other 50% was contract manufacturing -- which means we manufacture for others.

You can't really make money in contract manufacturing because the selling price is too low. But it allowed you to cover your fixed costs such as salaries, etc. Hence you can make a decent profit from your own brand -- which you can sell at a higher price -- and since the fixed costs are already taken care of you only need to worry about the variable or material costs.

1998 was also the time that Anwar Ibrahim was sacked from Umno and the government -- 2nd December 1998 to be exact. And that was a day of celebration for me.

You see, over the three years before that, I had been whacking Anwar Ibrahim kau-kau. I condemned him and even exposed his wrongdoings and revealed details of how all his cronies and family members were getting rich. My 'flagship' article was called 'The Rise and Fall of Anwar Ibrahim', which was published in Harakah, the party organ of PAS.

Anwar's people were, understandably, furious.

In that article I had predicted Anwar's downfall. I also revealed why he was going to fall. I revealed that Anwar was plotting behind Dr Mahathir's back and that the old man took two months leave and appointed Anwar the Acting Prime Minister as a trap for Anwar to walk in to. I then predicted that Dr Mahathir would make his move on Anwar and would finish him off, once and for all, once he returns from his two months leave.

Hence, when it happened exactly as how I predicted it was going to happen, I felt that that was a cause for celebration. I was right and now I could tell everyone, "I told you so!" And when Anwar launched his Reformasi Movement on 2nd September 1998, culminating in the massive rally at Dataran Merdeka on 20th September 1998, I did not 'go to the ground'. I stayed home and watched Anwar get demolished by Dr Mahathir.

It was when I saw Anwar's black eye and we were told that he was handcuffed, blindfolded and beaten up by no less than the IGP himself that I became outraged. I was also quite surprised by the massive turnout at Dataran Merdeka on 20th September. It was then that I realised that Anwar had created a wave of dissent and that there was a strong likelihood the Reformasi Movement could be a platform for our opposition to Umno.

I really did not care too much whether Anwar was going to spend the rest of his days in jail. I felt he deserved jail anyway, if not for sodomy at least for helping Dr Mahathir screw up the country and for making his friends and family rich. But Anwar had started something here, which could be useful to the cause of unseating Dr Mahathir and kicking Umno out. So why not ride on that Reformasi wave and take advantage of it?

Okay, maybe my reasons for rallying to Anwar's side were less than noble. It was not so much to see justice for Anwar (who did not understand the meaning of the word anyway) but to 'use' Anwar, the new icon of dissent, to further our own cause, which I had personally been involved in since the 1970s. Anwar was using us anyway to fight the system that he was once part of and which he exploited for his own interests. Hence, since he was using us, it was not unfair if we too used him. It was a win-win situation, as they would say today.

So I decided to come out and become active in the Reformasi Movement. But then that triggered other problems for me. My bihun customers began cancelling their contracts. They were under pressure to kill our business.

I met up with the GM of our biggest customer, Anwar Ibrahim's schoolmate in the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK), and he advised me to remove my name from the company. As long as my name was still in the company they can't give me any more business.

I discussed this matter with another of Anwar's classmates, Lt Kol Yunos Othman, and he agreed to become one of my nominees. I would transfer 500,000 of my shares to him and another 500,000 to another person. He would also take over the running of the business and I was not to show my face at the factory to prove that I had 'sold' the business.

He then told me he needed RM500,000 working capital to finance the business and he brought me to meet someone high up in the bank, another classmate of Anwar. The banker agreed to give the company RM500,000 but they would need security. His bank would give loans based on 50% of the security value if it is vacant land. So the land must be at least RM1 million in value.

I agreed to lend the company my land and the company got the loan. The bihun contracts were reinstated and with a price increase on top of that. And every month I would receive a 'salary' of RM5,000 as agreed.

After a few months the RM5,000 stopped coming. I then found out that the 500,000 shares of the second nominee had been transferred to Lt Kol Yunos. I spoke to my second nominee and she denied that she had transferred the shares. I then went to meet the Company Secretary, Ong Keng Tong, and he said that my nominee had signed the transfer forms in front of him -- which she, again, denied.

Later, I received a letter from the land office informing me that the bank was auctioning off my land. I found out from the bank that not a single Sen of the loan had been paid.

By then I had other problems on my hand -- my detention under ISA -- so I decided to call it a day and just move on. I never spoke to Lt Kol Yunos again and till today I do not know what happened to my factory. I just did not care any more. To me that was my 'previous life' and I no longer wanted to be concerned about my previous life.

Or maybe it was the charm that the bomoh put on me that made me not care. Smile

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

Posted: 29 Nov 2012 06:57 PM PST

Ibak had been watching this mafia for quite some time and had decided that enough is enough. He opened up the meter business to the non-cartel members and we managed to squeeze in. Within three years we walked away with RM40 million in business. But I was the most hated supplier because I ignored the mafia and refused to join the cartel in the price rigging.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When I reflect on my corporate life, I can probably summarise it as 20 years of the 62 years that I have been walking the face of this earth. I became a businessman at age 24 and 'retired' at age 44. Considering that my father and mother died at ages 46 and 47 respectively, I regarded myself as almost reaching the end of my life.

Hence, maybe, a change of career was in order.

However, I have to admit that my retirement was not actually my choice but the point of frustration that I had reached. When I first started my business in 1974, you could make it with sheer hard work, ingenuity, and plenty of guts to venture into areas where angels fear to tread. However, by 1994, it was no longer about know-how but about know-who.

If you were not aligned to those who walk in the corridors of power then the doors would be closed to you. And mere 'alignment' was not enough. There were also the contributions you had to make to various political funds, all to be made in cash and not with traceable cheques.

I, too, was not exempted from having to 'buy' contracts. In the beginning it was not too bad. A RM500,000 donation to Umno for a RM30 million contract where you earn at least 8% or RM2.4 million was affordable. You still had some money left in your pocket. But when margins dropped to less than 5% and the commissions (or kickbacks) increased to 10%, it was pointless to continue with that type of business.

My wife, Marina, was actually the one who 'pulled the plug', so to speak. As I wrote in the earlier parts of this series, we became 'Born Again' Muslims in the late 1970s and by the early 1980s I was practically a radical Muslim who believed in the Iranian Islamic Revolution and dreamed of such a revolution in Malaysia.

I also became closer to PAS, although still very much a 'closet' supporter because of my business activities. I so very much wanted to come out into the open but I would first have to get out of business to do that. Hence it would have been just a matter of time before I made this switch.

One day, Marina asked me how we could consider ourselves as true Muslims and at the same time indulge in haram activities. When she said haram activities she meant indulging in bribes and giving money to Umno, the enemy of Islam.

What she said made sense but I needed a 'trigger' to spur me into doing the right thing. And that 'right thing' offered itself in the early 1990s. And that story goes as follows.

By 1990, I felt that a change of course was required. For the past 16 years we had been acting as a mere dealer, distributor or agent. No doubt not all our businesses were government business -- maybe about 20% or so -- but we were just selling 'other people's products' and, therefore, were at their mercy.

We needed a product of our own.

I spoke to a friend in TNB and, interestingly enough, he told me that a certain 'mafia' monopolised the electricity meter business and they had formed a cartel and was rigging the price. TNB, therefore, was at their mercy.

I then spoke to someone in GE Singapore who gave me a list of all the electricity meter manufacturers in the world. I found that one manufacturer, Schlumberger from France, was not marketing their meters in Malaysia. (There were many others, of course, but Schlumberger was the best amongst them).

I flew to Paris and met up with a man named Arman Carlier. I proposed a partnership with Schlumberger to manufacture their meters in Malaysia and to try to break into the TNB market.

Arman did not think it was viable. Even 'strong' companies like George Kent (M) Bhd (a company linked to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak) failed to break into the TNB market. And their meters are actually very good -- Landis and Gyr. So what makes me think we can succeed where others have failed?

I told Arman that our meters must be fully manufactured in ASEAN, with maybe 30% of the components locally manufactured in Malaysia -- and the local content to be increased as we go along. We must then 'dive' at least 20% below the prices of the cartel (they all tender at almost the same price with a couple of Sen price difference).

I was confident we could demolish the cartel and beat the 'mafia' that was merely importing their meters and doing a 'bolt-and-nut' operation. But Arman was still not sure. He knows the TBN market, as Schlumberger had done other business with them, so he knows the mafia has a strong hold on the meter business.

I told Arman that if Schlumberger agrees to set up a factory in Malaysia and they fail to get any business, I was prepared to underwrite the entire operation and reimburse them for all their expenses.

Arman finally agreed and said that he will give the Malaysian operation one year to get the business and that if we fail he will then close the factory down. We sealed the deal and then went to 'Le Crazy Horse' (SEE HERE) to celebrate our new partnership.

The factory was set up but after one year we got nothing. So much time and money spent with nothing to show for it. Arman told me it was time to close shop unless I could assure him we would be able to get at least some business.

I asked him for an extension of three months and he agreed. But that was it. Another three months and then they were going to close shop.

The mafia was determined to keep us out. In the meantime, the cartel was laughing all the way to the bank. I was bracing myself for bad news at the end of that three-month extension.

As I said earlier, a drowning man can come up only three times before he goes down for good. I had gone down twice so far, once in 1975 and again in 1985-1987. It looks like this time I was going to go down for good.

Then, suddenly, the unexpected happened. The General Manager, who was not supposed to retire yet, retired. He got a 'golden handshake' involving a large coal supply contract to prompt him to retire. His deputy, Datuk Ibak Abu Hussein, took over as the new number one.

Ibak had been watching this mafia for quite some time and had decided that enough is enough. He opened up the meter business to the non-cartel members and we managed to squeeze in. Within three years we walked away with RM40 million in business. But I was the most hated supplier because I ignored the mafia and refused to join the cartel in the price rigging.

What a stroke of luck! Schlumberger was just days away from closing down the operation. And that would have meant I would have lost my pants, for the third time. But fate decided it was not yet time for me to die.

Unfortunately, Ibak did not last long as the head honcho of TNB (the mafia hated him as well). He was 'pushed' into retirement and Ani Arope, a Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad-Anwar Ibrahim man, took over (the first time in history an 'outsider' was appointed as the head of TNB).

And that allowed the mafia to bounce back and go for me with a vengeance.

We soon began to lose tender after tender even though our price was the cheapest by far. By the third tender we lost, the TNB mafia approached Schlumberger and told them that as long as Raja Petra Kamarudin is their partner they are never going to get any business from TNB. We also lost the fourth tender and this convinced Schlumberger that the mafia was serious about it.

The second unfortunate thing was that Arman Carlier had been transferred to another division and was no longer heading the meter business in France. The new chap had no 'history' with me so there was no sentimental attachment. Hence he made the decision to 'file for a divorce'.

Schlumberger took on a new Malaysian partner who was 'highly recommended' by the TNB mafia. I found out later that his new partner was linked to Anwar Ibrahim. So it was an 'inside job' after all.

I was so furious I decided to get out of this whole 'rat race' once and for all. This was getting very stressful. Fighting your competitors is one thing. But when your 'own people' stab you in the back and grab what you painfully built up with a lot of risks involved, there was just no point in continuing.

I never forgave Anwar's people for taking away my last shot at making it in the business world. Anwar was the Finance Minister and TNB reported to him. But I never once walked into his office to ask for any help all that time he was Finance Minister (Anwar actually complained about this to one ABIM chap). But for his people to take away what I felt belonged to me was something so intolerable that I decided to throw in the towel and go for a career change.

And this new career change was to become a political activist and political writer. I was part of the corrupt system. I worked within that system that eventually 'ate' me up as well. Now I was going to fight that very system I had operated in.

That was 18 years ago in 1994. Today, I am still doing what I started 18 years ago back in 1994. I now have very low tolerance for abuse of power and corruption, even when committed by those from Pakatan Rakyat. And trust me, it does happen in Pakatan Rakyat as well. After all, many of those Pakatan Rakyat people are the same people who 'makan' me back in the 1990s.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

Posted: 29 Nov 2012 03:49 PM PST

Actually, I blame the banks for all this. Back in the 1980s, around ten years after starting my business, bank managers were coming to see me to invite me to lunch. They would practically beg me to 'give them some business'. Over lunch they would confirm RM2 million or RM3 million without even asking me what I would do with the money.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

People assume that since I am Malay therefore all my business must have come from government contracts. That is stereotyping and as 'fair' as assuming that since you are Indian you are a drunkard who beats his wife or since you are a Chinese you are dishonest because you worship money.

I do not deny that I did do some government business. Even Chinese and Indians do government business whenever they can. So this is not really a crime. Nevertheless, over 20 years from 1974-1994, my companies did about RM300-350 million in turnover with maybe about 20% of that in government contracts.

And government contracts are really not that profitable, mind you. Sometimes we get away with a profit of only 2.5%. To make 10% or more from a government (supply) job was a rare thing indeed, especially in those 'early days'.

Government jobs are good when you need to go to the bank to raise funds. If you won, say, a RM30 million government contract, this would allow you to borrow RM6 million or even RM10 million.

In those days, even when I did not need the money (since the supplier gave us credit of 60-90 days anyway), I would still go to the bank to borrow. I would use the funds and then pay back what I used within the same month. This would impress the bank like hell -- although they are not too happy with this since they would earn very little when you pay back almost immediately.

The reason I did this was so that, next time, when you really do need funding, you can go back to the bank and get a loan. In the beginning I borrowed RM2 million. By the time I decided to call it a day, I was rolling with RM20 million, all borrowed funds.

Actually, I blame the banks for all this. Back in the 1980s, around ten years after starting my business, bank managers were coming to see me to invite me to lunch. They would practically beg me to 'give them some business'. Over lunch they would confirm RM2 million or RM3 million without even asking me what I would do with the money.

You see, branch managers had a quota to fill and they were trying to use me to fill their quota. So they would offer me facilities in the millions even though I did not need the money and would not have known what to do with it anyway.

Once I was even invited for lunch in the executive suite of HSBC in Kuala Lumpur. The Kwailo then asked whether his bank 'could be off assistance' to me. He then offered me RM3 million and instructed his Chinese officer to follow up on this 'application'.

The Chinese officer followed me back to my office and sat down with me to work out the details. But we had one problem. We could not justify the facilities. In other words, we could not show that I needed the money. After cracking our heads for an hour, I told the officer to just forget it. Actually I don't need the money.

I felt good to be able to tell HSBC that I don't need their money. That boosted my image and even more bank managers came a courting when they found out that I told the Kwailo from a Kwalio bank that I don't need their money.

Yes, bank managers get an orgasm when you tell a bank you don't need their money.

It came to a stage that all I needed to do was to phone the MD or GM of the bank and over the phone I could raise a million or two with no questions asked. Of course, I was not the only one enjoying this VIP treatment. All over town banks were throwing money our way.

Then, in mid-1980, the folly of this attitude hit us. Many of us were over-geared. No doubt our loans were 'backed by assets'. But these so-called assets were 'paper assets'. They were stocks and shares trading at ten or twenty times their value -- or worse.

No one cared about PE ratios. In the UK, you may be looking at PE ratios in the single digit. In Malaysia (plus Singapore and Hong Kong) the PE ratios of the 'darlings' of the stock market were sometimes in the triple digits.

That was crazy. Banks should not have touched such company shares with a ten-foot pole. But who thought that the bubble was going to burst? We were on a roller coaster ride and it was going up, up and up. Then, in 1985, it went down, down and down.

It was then that I understood the meaning of 'fair weather bankers'. They invite you to lunch and beg you to borrow from them when you do not need their money. However, when the market turns, they become your 'wakeup call' early in the morning when they phone you to inform you of the 'margin call'.

If you do not 'top up' by the time the market opens for the day, expect them to 'force-sell' your shares. And the more they force-sell the more depressed the market gets and the more depressed the market gets the lower your shares go and the lower your shares go the more margin you need to top up -- and so on and so forth. It basically becomes a vicious cycle.

Now that you need the money the banks no longer want to deal with you. The banks do not want to give you money because you need the money. They only want to give you money when you do not need it.

I was only 35 then and about ten years in business. But I was very rapidly finding out that another word for 'banker' is 'shark'. When they smell blood they go into a feeding frenzy. And when you are floundering in the water trying to keep your head up so that you do not drown, these sharks come up from behind you and bite off your balls.

Yes, we were greedy. I admit that. We may even have been inexperienced and were taking too many risks. But when you are still quite young and new to business, you tend to be like this. That is what being young is all about.

But the banks were also greedy. These banks that have been around for a long time and have seen many recessions come and go should have practiced prudent banking. They should have known that bubbles eventually burst. And they should not have been the ones to inflate the bubble and then, as soon as it shows sign of deflation, they prick the bubble by pulling the rug from under our feet.

Many suffered. Almost everyone, regardless of race, collapsed. Many saw their companies change hands. Some were even unfortunate enough to end up in jail. As I said, at 35 I could afford to pick up the pieces and start all over again. Those who no longer had the luxury of time chose the easy way out by ending their life.

We would have imagined that by 1985-1987 the banks would have learned their lesson. Apparently they did not -- as 1997 and now, 2012, have proven. Banks will still be banks and risk-takers will still be risk-takers.

I am just glad I am no longer in the game where we live day-to-day with the anxiety that when we wake up the following morning we are going to find out that the bottom has fallen out of the market.

As they say: let the borrower beware.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

Posted: 28 Nov 2012 09:56 PM PST

I had never tendered for fishing nets before so I was not too clear of the costing. I sought the advise of a friend who gave me the previous year's prices and asked me to drop my bid 7% below that price so that we can be the cheapest bidder. That was the most screwed up advice I ever received, as I would soon learn.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Most Malays are Ali Baba businessmen, said Chia Kim Peong a.k.a. Ah Piow. The Chinese use the Malays to get business. You, however, are a Baba Ali businessman. It is the other way around. You use the Chinese to do business. And you do all the work while I just sit back and collect my dividends. Ah Piow probably found that very amusing.

That quip was triggered by an episode involving the fishing net business that I started. I tried to get supplies from the Fusan fishing net manufacturer in Port Kelang but they told me that Nam Lee was their sole distributor.

I tried to meet up with Nam Lee but they refused to see me. They told me they were not interested in my business because they already had more than enough business to handle.

I spoke to Ah Piow who told me that he knows the Nam Lee people very well. He asked me to meet him at their office and he brought me in to meet the Managing Director although we had no prior appointment. I tried many times to meet them but failed and Ah Piow can just walk in unannounced. Clearly contacts are the key to business success.

Nam Lee agreed to supply me the fishing nets on condition that Ah Piow guaranteed my company's debts. Ah Piow told me not to make him 'lose face'. 'Face' is everything to the Chinese so I have to make good my debts to Nam Lee.

Once I had learned the ins and outs of the fishing net business I participated in my first public tender. The tender was for RM12 million and seven companies participated. Amongst the seven were Pernas and Nam Lee plus companies owned by Bank Pertanian and Shamelin, an Umno-linked company founded by Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, the one-time Agriculture Minister.

I had never tendered for fishing nets before so I was not too clear of the costing. I sought the advise of a friend who gave me the previous year's prices and asked me to drop my bid 7% below that price so that we can be the cheapest bidder. That was the most screwed up advice I ever received, as I would soon learn.

The buyer called the seven of us for a meeting and I was informed that our prices were 30% below everyone else. They said I had clearly made a mistake so they were giving me the opportunity to withdraw, leaving the remaining six in the race. The RM12 million contract would then be divided six ways, around RM2 million per bidder.

I refused to withdraw and insisted that we remain in the race. I noticed the others around the table, who had been in this game a number of years, whisper and snigger. I was furious. There was no way I was going to withdraw and 'lose face'. I was going to stay and fight even if I lost my pants. And if they were right that I had made a mistake then I stand to lose quite a bit of money. But then this is about 'face', not money.

Because our price was 30% lower than all the rest, they had no choice but to give us the entire contract. The rest got nothing. With variation orders and a two-year extension, the RM12 million contract became RM20 million.

As luck would have it, Korea, which had many fishing net factories (unlike Malaysia which had only one) saw an oversupply situation when the market for fishing nets coincidentally took a dive. Fishing nets have a short shelf life so they needed to dispose off these nets as fast as possible. So now many factories in Korea were scrambling and were trying to dump their nets at fire sale prices.

The Koreans came to see me to try and get me to buy from them. They told me that based on normal pricing I was going to lose money big time because I had made a mistake in my pricing. However, they were prepared to supply me and would allow me to make 2.5% over the contract price.

I told the Koreans that their price was not attractive enough and that I could get the nets cheaper elsewhere. They told me that that would be impossible because nowhere in the world could I get nets at that kind of pricing. I told them in that case they should sit back and watch me do it.

They went off after telling me they will remain in Kuala Lumpur in case I change my mind because they were still interested in doing business with me.

I never called them back. In the meantime, the clock was ticking. I was supposed to supply the nets within 60 days and now 30 days had passed. If I can't get my hands on the supply I would default and the contract would be cancelled plus I would lose the performance bond of RM600,000.

Five days later, the Koreans called again and said they agree to my terms. They will give me 30% and supply all my requirements. But they will require a Letter of Credit. I told them, "No Letter of Credit." They were the ones chasing me, not me chasing them. If they want me to buy from them then they will have to give me 60 days credit.

The deal was sealed and I made my first delivery after requesting a 30-day extension for the first delivery and then 60 days delivery thereafter.

Fusan and Nam Lee were taught a lesson of their lives. Pernas, which had about RM500,000 in unsold stocks had to write off their fishing nets because the rats and cockroaches had eaten all the nets in their store (nets are perishable items when left in the store).

My satisfaction was not in making around RM5 million on that three-year contract that eventually totalled RM20 million. It was in teaching the 'big boys' a lesson to not snigger at me during a meeting as if I did not know what I was doing.

Well, actually I did not know what I was doing. It was just luck and a game of poker with the Koreans that prevented me from losing my pants, yet again. Needless to say, I never tried that stunt again.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

Posted: 28 Nov 2012 03:28 PM PST

This was no longer about making money. We were already making plenty of money -- Johan's turnover was in the hundreds of millions a year and our business interests were spread out in all the continents of this world. This was about which of the Taikos can become the Taipan. It was a game of prestige. I suppose at that time we felt immortal and lost focus of the objectives of doing business.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

They say a drowning man surfaces only three times. On the third time he goes down he stays down for good. He will never surface again. He will die.

It is now 1991. I was already 17 years in business and had survived two economic recessions and had fought off two bankruptcies. Therefore I could afford only one more collapse before I go down for good and never rise again.

The first crisis I faced was in 1975, merely a few months after I started my business back in 1974. And that story is as follows.

My business partner, Zulkifly Mohd Nor, an ex-Pernas officer, had cleaned out our bank account and had absconded with the company's money. This could only be done with the collaboration of the branch manager of Bank Rakyat Kuala Terengganu.

I confronted the bank manager, Ghazi, and he confirmed he had released all the payments for the sales of the Yanmar engines that we had made to the fishermen. The arrangement was: Bank Rakyat would finance our buyers and would pay us for the cost of the engines. The money was supposed to have been paid directly to the company. However, instead of paying the money into the company's bank account, it had all been diverted to Zulkifly's personal bank account.

I spoke to Michael Toh Hong Hooi, the manager of Chong Lee Leong Seng, our Yanmar supplier, and told him that the money was all gone. Zulkifly had 'kebas' the money and there was nothing left. I only had a few hundred Ringgit in my pocket, and that was all.

Chong Lee Leong Seng can choose to sue us and get us declared bankrupt or they can allow us to 'live' and I will ensure that all the money will eventually be paid back in full. I would also need them to continue giving us credit so that we can continue to trade.

Michael Toh agreed to create two trading accounts for us. 'Account A' would be the old unpaid debt while 'Account B' would be the new credit line that Chong Lee Leong Seng would extend to us. 'Account B' would have a RM30,000 limit with a 90-day credit period. Once we reach 90 days, or we reach the RM30,000 limit, we would have to pay up before more supplies can be made. But each time we paid for 'Account B' we would also have to pay for part of 'Account A'.

In time, it was hoped, 'Account A' would be fully settled.

One more condition that Michael Toh imposed on us was that I would have to take a Chinese partner and give him 30% of the company. This Chinese businessman would offer Chong Lee Leong Seng the 'comfort' of continuing to do business with us.

I was introduced to this Chinese businessman, a man named Chia Kim Peong from Sabak Bernam. Chia gave me RM10,000 as working capital and he guaranteed the RM30,000 credit line from Chong Lee Leong Seng. I would have to 'roll' with this RM10,000 and the RM30,000 credit line from Chong Lee Leong Seng.

When Chia cashed out his 30% interest in my company in 1985, he made about RM300,000 on the RM10,000 he gave me in 1975, not a bad return for just ten years.

With this new 'lease of life' in 1975, it took me three years of hard work to rise again. I practically lived in my car with my daughter, my only child then, Raja Suraya, sleeping in the back seat of the car as I drove from Kelantan to Johor to Kedah to market my Yanmar engines. In 1975, we did only RM300,000 in sales. By 1976 and 1977, we touched RM1 million a year. In 1978, our sales touched RM6 million. And in 1979 and 1980 we did about RM10 million a year in sales.

It took me three years to make our first million. That was in 1978. They say the first million is the most difficult to make. Once you have made your first million then the second million is easier. That is quite true. It took me only two years to make our second million and by 1980 we had RM3 million in cash reserves and had done roughly RM30 million in sales over those five years or so.

We were now Chong Lee Leong Seng's number one Yanmar dealer.

It was now time to go big time. And 'big time' to us then was, of course, to 'go public'. Public listed companies was the measure of a person's success and a status symbol back in 1980.

Michael Toh introduced me to his uncle, Tan Kay Hock (now a 'Tan Sri') -- yes, the man currently in the middle of the George Kent (M) Bhd/Ampang LRT controversy -- who was about to take over a dormant public listed company, Johan Tin (now called Johan Holdings Berhad). I invested heavily in Johan, mainly through bank borrowings (and the main reason for my RM20 million debts which I wrote about earlier in parts 2 and 3 of this series).

From a 'bankrupt' in 1975 to a millionaire in 1980 and a multi-millionaire in 1985 -- I thought nothing was going to stop me. The sky was the limit. I was now in the ranks of the corporate chiefs like Tan Sri Ibrahim (Promet), Vincent Tan (Berjaya), and so on. We were all 'racing' to see whose shares could go the highest. Promet's and Johan's shares had both exceeded RM10 per share but Promet's shares were RM0.20 ahead of Johan's.

This was no longer about making money. We were already making plenty of money -- Johan's turnover was in the hundreds of millions a year and our business interests were spread out in all the continents of this world. This was about which of the Taikos can become the Taipan. It was a game of prestige. I suppose at that time we felt immortal and lost focus of the objectives of doing business.

And we would soon learn that we would pay a heavy price for that arrogance.

In 1985, the recession hit us, followed by the 1987 stock market collapse. What I had made over the last ten years was lost in a mere couple of months. Our RM10 shares dived to less than RM0.50. I was saddled with RM20 million in debts but with shares that could not even cover half that amount. I had no choice but to bail out and embark upon a 'fire sale' -- as related in parts 2 and 3 of this series.

So there you are. I was now, again, broke, and would have to start from the bottom all over again. The dream of becoming the Taipan had now turned into a nightmare. But how do I bounce back with the economy and my personal finances in tatters?

I found out that many companies were still listing their shares but there were no takers. No one wanted to invest in the stock market. Everyone was still licking his/her wounds from the last disaster and it appeared like full recovery may take some years yet.

One company, Hexza Corporation Berhad, was facing this same dilemma. They had issued a few million shares, which the Ministry of Trade and Industry was holding on to but with no investors wanting to pick them up.

I approached the Ministry to enquire into these shares and they told me that they could let me have ten million shares at RM0.65 per share if I wanted them. The Ministry was happy to get rid of these shares that no one wanted. I told them I only wanted a million shares and they told to come back with a bank draft for RM650,000.

I went home and told my wife, Marina, about the offer. She phoned her stockbroker who told her that Hexza was trading at RM0.95 per share. She said it was a good deal and that we should pick up those shares. But let's not be too greedy, Marina said. Let's pick up just one million shares, in case.

Marina dug into her cookie jar and pulled out RM150,000. So we were still short of RM500,000. I went to Kwong Yik Bank and they agreed to give me a loan of RM500,000 -- if we hand over the RM150,000 to the bank and ask the Ministry to issue the shares in the name of Kwong Yik Nominees.

We completed the transaction over the next few days and then lodged the one million Hexza Corporation Berhad shares with the bank. I then told Marina to do what she wanted with them. By the time Marina unloaded the shares a few months later, the shares had climbed to more than RM2 per share. After paying back the bank the RM500,000 we owed them, we managed to walk away with about RM1.5 million in cash.

It was time to reinvest this money and make that RM1.5 million grow to RM15 million.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 07:10 PM PST

Tan Sri Basir Ismail, the Chairman of BBMB, was very angry about what I said. He cancelled my facilities with the bank and gave me 14 days to make full settlement on my loans. According to the manager of BBMB Kuala Terengganu, the interest they earn on my loans covers the entire operating cost for the branch. In fact, we were the second biggest account after the Terengganu State Economic Development Corporation -- or the biggest non-government client.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It took me a year or so to settle all my debts with the various financial institutions. BBMB (Bank Bumiputra) was the first bank I had to pay off because they gave me only 14 days to do so. That cost me around RM6 million. MBF was another RM3 million, followed by Amanah Chase, also another RM3 million. Kwong Yik, D&C, and Bank Islam totalled RM5 million. By the time I finished with this 'cleaning up' exercise, including those smaller loans here and there, about RM20 million had been settled and that got the banks off my back.

To achieve this, I had to unload all my shares while at the same time not dump too much, too fast, lest that depress the share price. My wife, Marina, handled that part of the exercise, as she was the market 'wizard' in the family. However, we managed to raise only about RM12 million or so due to the selling frenzy at that time.

To cover the shortage, I had to sell off the four shop lots that we owned plus two condos in Kuala Lumpur, one in Bangsar and the other in Subang Jaya. The part that hurt the most was when I had to sell of my 'flagship', my 30% interest in a Mercedes Benz dealership, which was actually quite profitable.

Basically, I was forced to embark upon a 'fire sale' to clean up my debts and then try to restart from the bottom.

The RM6 million that I had to pay off BBMB within 14 days is a story by itself. Around that time, the Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry organised a seminar, which was officiated by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and I was selected as one of the presenters.

In my presentation, I whacked BBMB and said that it had deviated from the objectives of its creation, which was to assist Malays who needed help to get into business. I talked about the BMF scandal in Hong Kong, which resulted in the tragic murder of Jalil Ibrahim, as one example of how it had deviated from its 'charter'.

Just to digress a bit, the man arrested and jailed for Jalil's murder was Dax Mark, a close friend of mine. I am still not sure whether he did murder Jalil but if the court says he did then it must be true. I suppose it is very difficult to accept the possibility that a close friend of yours could be involved in such a high profile murder. There were a few other deaths as well, although some were said to be suicides -- although you can never tell when someone is found drowned in his swimming pool whether it was a suicide or a murder.

I always found Dax quite fascinating. He was married to a MAS stewardess while at the same time he was keeping a SIA stewardess as a mistress. His wife and mistress worked different shifts so both would not be in town at the same time. I asked Dax what would happen if suddenly their shifts were changed and they both landed in town at the same time. How was he going to handle that situation? He shuddered and told me not to tempt fate.

Anyway, back to the issue of the seminar and BBMB. I went on to say that Malaysia is going through a serious economic crisis that is affecting everyone -- Malays, Chinese, Indians and all. The Chinese cooperatives are collapsing and need RM3 billion to bail them out. We are talking in terms of mid-1980s money value, mind you.

The Chinese threatened to abandon MCA and vote DAP if the government does not bail them out. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad instructed the banks to form a consortium to bail out the Chinese cooperatives, which they did (after all, who can say 'no' to Dr Mahathir).

The Malays, too, I said, need bailing out, just like the Chinese. If the government can bail out the Chinese cooperatives to the tune of RM3 billion (even though it was 'under duress' because of the Chinese threat to abandon MCA and vote DAP), why can't the government also bail out the Malays? Instead of bailing out the Malays, BBMB is taking legal action against defaulters and is filing bankruptcy against them, I explained.

I then quipped that BBMB now stands for 'Basir buat Melayu bankrup'. What do we have to do to get the government's attention? Do we also need to make threats like the Chinese -- threaten to abandon Umno and vote opposition?

Tan Sri Basir Ismail, the Chairman of BBMB, was very angry about what I said. He cancelled my facilities with the bank and gave me 14 days to make full settlement on my loans. According to the manager of BBMB Kuala Terengganu, the interest they earn on my loans covers the entire operating cost for the branch. In fact, we were the second biggest account after the Terengganu State Economic Development Corporation -- or the biggest non-government client.

I related this story to an old friend of my father, Chai Fook Loong. Uncle Chai was surprised. "Basir knows your late father very well," he said. "Why would he do this to you?" I replied that I did not know why (and at that time I really did not know -- I did not realise it was related to what I had said about Basir).

Uncle Chai phoned Basir and spoke to him. "Kam's son, Raja Petra, is sitting in front of me," Uncle Chai told Basir (my father's close friends used to call him Kam -- pronounced Kem and short for Kamarudin). Before Uncle Chai could say more, Basir replied, "I know who Raja Petra is. His file is on my table and I am looking at it now."

I do not know what else Basir told Uncle Chai because he refused to tell me. He looked extremely perturbed when he put the phone down and just said, "What did you do to the old man? I know him very well and I have never seen him so angry. He is actually a very nice man but today I am seeing another side of him."

I just told Uncle Chai, "Never mind. I think I know why." I did not want to say anything more about the matter. I knew I was in deep shit with Basir.

The seminar was not a total waste, though. Dr Mahathir agreed to the setting up of the Tabung Pemulihan Usahawan (TPU). Bank Negara was to be put in charge of that fund but the Malay Chamber can form its own committee to recommend those businessmen who needed help.

During the many meetings that we held to sieve through the deserving cases to assist, the Chairman told us that certain names on the list would have to be removed from the list. We were furious and demanded to know why. (My name was not one of those on the list, though, because I was not one of those who the banks were suing for bankruptcy).

There was a lot of shouting and table banging and finally the Chairman revealed that the names that are to be removed from the list are those who have been 'blacklisted' by the government. We told the Chairman that Dr Mahathir had promised us that the TPU would be 'politically blind' and that help would be given to Malays in trouble based on their eligibility and not based on their political affiliations.

We told the Chairman that we demand a meeting with Dr Mahathir to clear this matter up. Dr Mahathir had promised us RM500 million and that if RM500 million was not enough he was prepared to increase it to RM1 billion. But start with RM500 million first and see how far that goes, Dr Mahathir said. And Dr Mahathir had also promised that while Bank Negara would be the trustee of the fund, there would be no political interference from Umno.

It was then that the Chairman told us that the instruction to remove certain names from the list did not come from Dr Mahathir but from Anwar Ibrahim. And one of the people who Anwar insisted should not get any assistance was Marina Yusoff.

Imagine my surprise when around ten years or so later, when Dr Mahathir sacked Anwar, Marina Yusoff came out to support Anwar and even joined PKR (then called PKN) and became one of the Vice Presidents of the party.

I later asked marina Yusoff whether she knew that Anwar had tied to 'kill' her back in the late 1980s and she confirmed that she did. In fact, she had to request an audience with Anwar to make peace with him and he agreed to help Marina but would give her only one-third of what she needed.

One-third was far from sufficient to bail her out and eventually her business collapsed. Yet, in spite of that, she still stood by Anwar in his hour of need. And when she joined PKR and opposed Umno in 1999, the government finished her off for good and buried her.

Many say she is stupid for sacrificing herself for Anwar, a man who tried to destroy her ten years earlier. I suppose that stupidity is in most of us.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

Posted: 26 Nov 2012 10:02 PM PST

I was in dire straights with RM20 million in debts. In today's money value, that would probably be about RM100 million. RM20 million is a lot of money to pay back. However, when my shares were worth RM10.40 and I was sitting on a couple of million shares that was not an issue. Now my shares were trading at only RM0.42.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My initial response to Anwar Ibrahim's betrayal to the cause was that of hostility. None of us could accept his reason for deserting ABIM to join the very party he had condemned and which we called a party of infidels (parti kafir). We considered Umno a parti kafir not only because they opposed Hudud and the Islamic State but also because they collaborated with non-Muslim parties like MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, etc.

There was no compromise on this issue. Malaysia has to follow the example of Iran. There were no two ways about it. During the Iran-Iraq War, some of the ABIM members made a trip to Iran and visited the battlefront (their bus was riddled with bullets and they all had to 'hit the floor' to avoid getting shot).

When the Iranians visited Malaysia they gave a talk. And I have to admit that their talk inspired me. "Malaysia, today, is like what Iran was 30 years ago. In 30 years time, Malaysia will become just like what Iran is today. We are here to export the Iranian Revolution to Malaysia."

I had goose pimples and my hair stood on end. I wished I were at the frontline with gun in hand fighting for the Iranians against the American lackey, Iraq. Yes, we need a Malaysian Islamic Revolution. And I would have to support PAS to be able to see that happen.

But why is PAS involved in the general election? Imam Khomeini did not participate in general elections. He brought down the Shah through an armed revolution, through violence. After all, general elections are a kafir creation so why are we bothering with that?

We had no choice. We did not have guns or military strength. So we had to participate in general elections as the route to power. Once we are in power we can then abolish general elections and get rid of all the vestiges of British colonialism.

I hated Anwar. He used to dress in Arab gear and would condemn those dressed in coat and tie. Those who dress like kafir become kafir, was what we were told. Now, Anwar is dressed in Savile Row suits. He not only sold out to the kafir. He was aping the kafir. He had become just like the kafir. Once the Malaysian Islamic Revolution starts Anwar must be the first we execute.

Then, one day, Utsaz Fadzil Mohd Noor bumped into Anwar at the airport and he went up to Anwar and hugged him. They then spent half an hour chatting. The PAS diehards, however, stood at one end of the airport and the Umno diehards at the opposite end.

We were puzzled. Did not the Ustaz say that Anwar's excuse for joining Umno was to change Umno from the inside and that Anwar will not only fail to change Umno but instead Umno will change him? And has not Umno changed him into the very animal that we all despise and oppose, at one time Anwar included?

Of course Ustaz Fadzil was hurt and disappointed when Anwar left ABIM to join Umno. But he did not hate Anwar. He still loved Anwar. And he still had hope that Anwar may one day return to the opposition or at least succeed in changing Umno from the inside. Most of us, however, were not that bullish.

When Anwar decided to contest the Umno Youth leadership he called upon his old comrades in ABIM to help him. The ABIM boys in Terengganu spoke to me and asked me to join the team. We are not helping Umno, they said, we are helping Anwar. We still oppose Umno and pray for its destruction. But that should not stop us from supporting Anwar and help him in his climb up the Umno ladder.

I took leave from my business and toured the country to campaign for Anwar. We also sank in quite a bit of money to hold feasts and functions for Anwar to speak at. Invariably, he won. And he won the next two rounds as well. So the effort bore results.

But that began to open up a whole new lot of problems for many of us. We were now hated by both sides of the political divide. Those in the opposition hated us for working for Umno. And those in Umno who saw us as enemies of Umno and the 'private army' of Anwar also hated us.

One of Anwar's diehards, a senior man in the Terengganu Education Department, was 'promoted' as the new Political Secretary to the Terengganu Menteri Besar. Every one knew that the MB hated Anwar like hell. We were not sure whether this 'promotion' was actually a 'buy-over' or a coincidence. Eventually it was proven that he had sold us out.

This was a man who was part of our conspiracy to promote Anwar using the Education Department as the vehicle. He knew all our most confidential plans. Worst of all, he knew all our strengths and weaknesses. So they began attacking us where it hurt most, our business activities. If they can hurt us financially then they can cripple us. And they succeeded in hurting us financially.

It was then that I realised you cannot be a businessman and oppose those who walk in the corridors of power at the same time. It must be one or the other. And I paid that heavy price when I became one of the targets that must be destroyed. In 1985, the economy took a beating and in 1987 the stock market collapsed. I lost everything and now had to start all over again.

I was in dire straights with RM20 million in debts. In today's money value, that would probably be about RM100 million. RM20 million is a lot of money to pay back. However, when my shares were worth RM10.40 and I was sitting on a couple of million shares that was not an issue. Now my shares were trading at only RM0.42.

I went to see Anwar to ask for help. "Inilah Melayu. Nawaitu kontrek. Why can't you be like the Chinese and stand on your own two feet? The Chinese do not ask for government help when they get into financial trouble."

I walked off and never looked back. I refused to beg. I got out of politics and focused on rebuilding my business. But I first had RM20 million in debts to pay off.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

Posted: 26 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

I delved deeply into religion and two years later, in 1982, I went to Mekah to perform my Haj (pilgrimage). There I met up with the late Haji Fadzil Mohd Noor (the PAS President who died in office in June 2002). I also linked up with Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, Mustafa Ali and a couple of other top PAS leaders from Terengganu.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When I was in my teens I never suspected that life is actually quite complicated. Then, I would live day-to-day. I lived by the motto 'tomorrow never comes', which is quite true because once tomorrow comes it would be today, if you get what I mean.

Life was all about enjoying yourself -- eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die. And, if you can't avoid dying, then go with a smile on your face because once you die you die, that would be the end of everything. Hence have fun while you still breath.

Then my world, as I knew it, came to an end. My father -- the only breadwinner in the family -- died. And we were all still in school -- all four siblings. That was probably the first greatest shock of my life -- other than the 13 motorcycle accidents that I had prior to my father's death.

My father was only 46. Surely that was too young an age to die, especially when my mother was only 38 and the four of us kids were still at school. That could be considered as the first 'injury' in my life. And, to add insult to this injury, the hundreds of friends and family members that my father had suddenly 'disappeared'.

You see; my father was a 'big man'. That was why I could afford the devil-may-care lifestyle. However, once the 'big man' had gone, no one wanted to know us any more.

I remember the first Hari Raya after my father died. When my father was still alive, the road outside our house would be jam-packed with cars. The place would be almost like the venue of an opposition ceramah -- crowded with people. That first Hari Raya after my father's death, however, not a single person came to our house.

My mother stood looking out the window and cried. I did not know what to do so I phone my father's 'best friend' -- a man I call Uncle Cedric and who now lives in Australia. Uncle Cedric came over to console my mother. Thereafter our days of the Hari Raya 'open house' ended. We realised that now our father had died we no longer have any friends or family members.

It hit me then that we would have to pick up what was left of our lives and get on with it. I got a job that paid RM250 a month and got married soon after that. I was forced to 'restart' my life (or 'reboot' in today's terminology) from the bottom. And it was a long and hard battle to get back to the top, the position I had always known until my father died.

Then the second blow of my life hit me nine years later. My mother, who was only 47, died. She had earlier left Malaysia and had gone back to England. She could no longer live in Malaysia, which was giving her so much 'pain'.

That was in 1980 when I was 30.

My father had died age 46 and my mother at age 47. I was 30. How much longer would I live before I too would die? What was the purpose of life if all it means is you are going to leave this world and cause your family so much pain by your death?

I needed to console myself with the fact that life was not a total waste and that we are all here for a purpose. And to find that answer I turned to Islam. No doubt I was born a Muslim but I was never really a Muslim. I 'became' a Muslim much later in life.

I delved deeply into religion and two years later, in 1982, I went to Mekah to perform my Haj (pilgrimage). There I met up with the late Haji Fadzil Mohd Noor (the PAS President who died in office in June 2002). I also linked up with Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, Mustafa Ali and a couple of other top PAS leaders from Terengganu.

I spent almost a month in Mekah and Medina where I also mingled with the Iranians (who had just had their Islamic Revolution three years before that in 1979). I even joined the Iranians in their anti-Saudi/anti-US demonstration in Mekah that attracted about 100,000 protestors.

A year before that, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had taken over as the Prime Minister of Malaysia and that same year I did my Haj (1982), Anwar Ibrahim had joined Umno. So this was the 'hot' discussion in Mekah and Medina.

Part of the reason I became a 'radical' Muslim was because of Anwar Ibrahim. Before he joined Umno in 1982 he was the President of ABIM and I attended a few of his ceramah, all organised by PAS, of course. It was in a way Anwar who made me 'see the light' that the future lay with Islam.

Umno was evil. Umno was unIslamic. Umno was a creation of the 'kafir' British. We must oppose Umno and 'turn' to Islam. And turn to Islam I did, in a very big way, even believing that the future was in an Islamic Revolution in Malaysia a la Iran.

Killing and dying in the name of Islam was an acceptable option. This was what I learned during my Haj trip and in my association with the Iranians. This was also what the President of ABIM, Anwar Ibrahim, had been telling us.

But now Anwar had abandoned the Islamic cause to join Umno -- the very organisation he had condemned and had told us to oppose to the death. Anwar was now with the 'infidels' in Umno. Is it, therefore, also halal (kosher) to kill Anwar?

TO BE CONTINUED

 

The Dome of the Rock: an academic study

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 07:22 PM PST

This is certainly a very interesting hypothesis and quite difficult to dismiss without further examination. The fact that the inscription talks about Jesus and the "Muhammad" in the inscription, if translated to "the praised one", can also be talking about Jesus gives credence to this hypothesis.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Dome of the Rock is a shrine or memorial located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. It was built by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik and was completed in AD 691.

The Temple Mount, known in Hebrew (and in Judaism) as Har haBáyith and in Arabic (and in Islam) as the Haram Ash-Sharif (al-haram al-qudsī ash-sharīf means Noble Sanctuary), is one of the most important religious sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. It has been used as a religious site for thousands of years. At least four religions are known to have used the Temple Mount as their holy site: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Roman paganism.

The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock can be seen below. The two 'key words' in those inscriptions would be "Islam" and "Muhammad". Hence, going by these two key words, the Dome of the Rock is believed to have been built by a Muslim -- the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik -- and it is further believed to have been built as a shrine or memorial to the Prophet Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.

In Arabic, the word "Islam" means "submission" or "surrender", which is derived from the root word "salam". From this root word, you can also derive the words "peace" and "safety". Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of "enslavement to Allah", but others find it more viable to define the word "Islam" as "surrender".

The word "Muhammad" is derived from the Arabic root word "hamd" or "praise". It is the emphatic passive participle of that root and can be translated as "the Oft-Praised One". As for "Ahmad", it is the superlative form of the same root word "hamd", which means "the Highly Praised One".

If you were to interpret the word "Islam" as "submission" or "surrender" and the word "Muhammad" as "the praised one", then the inscriptions will take on an entirely different meaning.

Western scholars are beginning to question whether the Dome of the Rock is a memorial to the Prophet Muhammad or a memorial to Jesus Christ. For example, "Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him" can also be interpreted to mean: "The praised one is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him". "Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger" can also be interpreted to mean: "The praised one is the servant of God and His Messenger".

Now, assuming that the "Muhammad" in the inscription does not refer to Muhammad the person (the proper noun) but refers to "the praised one" (an adjective), whom, therefore, are they referring to? If you were to look at the other parts of the inscription, it talks about "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God". Then it goes on to say: "It befitteth not God that He should take unto Himself a son" and "There is no god but God".

Scholars believe that this is evidence that the inscription is not talking about Prophet Muhammad but about Jesus Christ and that this 'doctrine of faith' is meant to counter or dispute the Christian dogma that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord (Jesus) -- and that Jesus was merely a messenger or prophet of God.

If these scholars are correct in their assumptions, this throws a whole new light on the more than 1,000-year-old conflict as to who owns this holy site. Was this structure built as a memorial to Prophet Muhammad or to Jesus Christ? And if it is a memorial to Jesus Christ, was it built to counter the Christian dogma of the Holy Trinity and present Jesus as a mere mortal and messenger/prophet of God rather than the Lord and Son of God?

This is certainly a very interesting hypothesis and quite difficult to dismiss without further examination. The fact that the inscription talks about Jesus and the "Muhammad" in the inscription, if translated to "the praised one", can also be referring to Jesus gives credence to this hypothesis.

Nevertheless, it will be very difficult for most people to accept this hypothesis as a possibility considering that for more than 1,000 years people have held on to a certain belief and now you are asking them to rethink this whole thing. You are also telling them that for more than 1,000 years what they believed may not have been correct after all.

One more 'troubling' thing about this hypothesis is that Caliph Abd al-Malik was supposed to be a Muslim. Therefore, if he had built this as a shrine for Jesus Christ rather than Prophet Muhammad, does this mean the Caliph was not a Muslim but a Christian? This would be the most difficult question facing Muslims who may choose to consider this hypothesis as a possibility.

I suppose this is why the Muslim ulama' say you must not think too much because too much thinking may confuse you and lead you astray. Hmm…maybe I should stop thinking about this then.

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

INSCIPTIONS ON THE DOME OF THE ROCK

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE INSIDE OF THE OCTAGONAL ARCADE

S: In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

SE: Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion

E: nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' – Cease!

NE: better for you! – God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a

N: servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him. Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus

NW: son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!

W: When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God is witness that there is no God save Him. And the angels and the men of learning. Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,

SW: the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God Islam. Those who received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God lo! God is swift at reckoning!

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE OCTAGONAL ARCADE

S: In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him. Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

SW: In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.

W: O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. Praise be to

NW: God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. Muhammad is the Messenger of

N: God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy. In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate.

NE: Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth. And He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people.

E: In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. The dome was built by servant of God 'Abd

SE: of the Faithful, in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God.

 

A game of chance

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 01:23 AM PST

Hence, since we are the ones who are going to pay for this mistake, should we not be the ones to decide what is true and what is false? Hence, also, should we not be allowed to decide what we wish to believe in since at the end of the day we are the ones who will suffer the consequences?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let's say, before your parents got married, your father was a Muslim and your mother a Christian. Then, when they got married, your mother converted to Islam and a year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Let's say, before your parents got married, your father was a Christian and your mother a Muslim. Then, when they got married, your mother converted to Christianity and a year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Let's say both your father and mother were Christians. Then, after they got married, they went to Tibet for their honeymoon where they visited a monastery. They were so impressed with how the Buddhist monks lived their lives that your parents converted to Buddhism. One year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Today, there is more than a 99% chance you would be following the religion of your parents. There would be less than a 1% chance you would leave the religion of your parents to follow a new religion.

So are you 100% absolutely sure the religion you are following today is the correct religion? It is 'correct' only because you have been brought up in the religion of your parents. What if your parents never cared much for any religion and brought you up in an environment where there was no religion. Would you not probably be an atheist today?

How many of you have pondered on this question? Are you not what you are or who you are because of your parents? What if your parents had made a mistake and left the 'true' religion they were born into to embrace a 'false' religion? The religion you were brought up in would now become the 'true' religion while the earlier religion that your parents abandoned would be the 'false' religion.

Hence which is 'true' and which is 'false'? Is 'true' the new religion of your parents that you were brought up in or their old religion which they abandoned?

Hence, also, is true and false subjective and merely an opinion based on what you have been raised to believe? Or is true and false real and tangible?

Today we fight and argue about what we perceive as true and false. We uphold what we believe to be true and oppose what we believe to be false. However, if our parents had 'changed course' some time in their life by abandoning their old religion in favour of a new one, and they had exposed us to what they believe to be true, then our interpretation of true and false would be what we have been taught to believe to be true and false.

So are we really fighting for the truth or are we fighting for what we have been taught to believe to be true? And are we really confident that God has blessed us with the truth or has Satan misled us into believing that we are following the truth when actually we are following something false?

I suppose one day we will all know the answer to that question. But we will first have to die to get the answer to that question. In the meantime, while we are still alive, we want as many people as possible to follow us down this path of the truth.

But what happens if we are not on the path of truth and we end up leading others down a false path? While we will pay for this error of our ways, are we also going to pay for the error of the others we misled down this same false path? Or will each person pay for their own errors even if that error was made because others misled us?

Yes, there are those who would like to force their beliefs upon us and compel us to follow what they believe to be the right path. But if that so-called right path is actually the wrong path then we who followed them down this wrong path would end up paying for this mistake.

Hence, since we are the ones who are going to pay for this mistake, should we not be the ones to decide what is true and what is false? Hence, also, should we not be allowed to decide what we wish to believe in since at the end of the day we are the ones who will suffer the consequences?

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Now can you see the light?

Posted: 28 Nov 2012 05:55 PM PST

 

No, I am not going to write about this matter. I just want you to read what the news portals reported (below) and for you to form your own opinion and come to your own conclusion. What I want you to take special note about, though, is to compare what was reported below to what I have been saying for more than five years since early 2007.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

'Criminal elements present in police, politics'

(FMT) - Criminal elements have infiltrated the police force and even politics, the former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan suggested when he kick-started a new anti-crime NGO, MyWatch. "Looking at the present situation, where there is a lot of illegal activities, do you think there is no links? You can answer yourself," he told a press conference where he was named patron and advisor to MyWatch yesterday.

He revealed that there are cases where the links are too high up and "nobody dares talk about it". He cited a case of a high-ranking police officer he did not name who was brought overseas for golfing by a "shady businessman".

"Sometimes I feel they can even dictate officers, sometimes even spend [money] on police officers," he said. "It is very bad now. Later on the Mafia will be ruling this country, we don't want that to happen, it took 30 years to clean up the Mafia in America," he said.

Musa himself has been accused of such links, especially in the case of Johor kingpin Goh Cheng Poh a.k.a. 'Tengku' Goh but has repeatedly dismissed the claims as attempts to bring him down. "During my time, there was a professional way of doing things if we needed to get close to underworld characters. That is undercover work. When I was in narcotics, my relationship would be to purely gather evidence. There must be a line drawn," he explained.

Musa named Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and his deputy as the people who would usually try to give instructions to the force, and that this bad trend was still occurring. "During my time whenever I arrested some crooks, there will be phone calls from top people. They even ask us to release. I will ask for an instruction in black and white," he said, adding that the politicians would usually back off after being asked for a written order.

He also said that aside from ministers and deputy ministers, there were also "others" who attempt to give orders to the police, including opposition politicians.

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

'Bala's U-turn foiled Anwar-Umno's Altantuya expose'

(Malaysiakini) - Because there was a concentrated effort. There were two factions here - you had Bala sitting down with (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) and you had another faction (in Umno) that didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power.

They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this and both had the power to do so. Hence the absolute concern.

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

Deepak to reveal more dirt from under the carpet

(FMT) - "The SD was not just about the opposition. There was a concentrated effort of two factions here. You had Bala sitting down with Anwar and you had another faction who didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power. They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this. Both had the power to do this," he said, adding that the other side came from Umno itself.

He said that the side that wanted to push for the second SD and overturn the original SD was the one that protected or ensured that Najib became prime minister. "I got involved in the second SD to protect the interest of Najib. There is no other logical reason, is there?" he said.

 

No, it is not over yet

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 10:06 PM PST

 

AG Gani Patail has seen Rosli's witness statement and he is worried. It is explosive. It tells the real story behind why they brutally arrested and charged him one day before Hari Raya in 2007. Why else would AG Gani Patail ask the Judge, Hue Siew Kheng, to not allow Rosli to give his witness testimony if Gani was not afraid of Rosli's tell-all evidence? Gani is afraid. That is very clear.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why is the Attorney General so afraid of allowing lawyer Rosli Dahlan have his say in court? Well, maybe the previous reports on the issue can enlighten you as to why.

Ahah! Did we not say so?

According to Tajudin Ramli: "At all material times, I was acting as a nominee and agent of the Government and in the performance of a public duty and I was bound to act under the instructions and directions from the government."

Malaysia Today, 12 August 2011 (READ MORE HERE)

10th episode: Now let's see how else MAS was plundered

Since 15th August 2010, Malaysia Today published nine reports on how Tajudin Ramli plundered MAS and reduced this airline company from a surplus of more than RM600 million to a deficit in excess of RM8 billion. Malaysia Today also showed documents to not only prove this but also to prove that there was collusion between the AG Chambers, MACC and PRDM to sweep this entire episode under the carpet. But that is not the whole story. Today, we are going to show you how else MAS was plundered.

Malaysia Today, 27 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The police and AG Chambers colluded to cover up the fraud in MAS

On 20th May 2009, Shahari Sulaiman, the Managing Director of MASKargo, lodged a report with the MACC alleging, amongst others, that when Tajuddin Ramli took over MAS it had more than RM600 million in cash reserves and when he left seven years later the national airline company had accumulated losses of more than RM8 billion. He also gives details of Tajuddin's various fraudulent dealings plus he raises allegations of collusion between the Malaysian police (PDRM) and the AG Chambers.

Malaysia Today, 23 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The web of deceit

Datuk Ramli Yusuff, the head of the CCID, managed to untangle the web of deceit and presented to the prime minister the corporate and organisation chart of Tajuddin Ramli's holdings and cross-holdings plus that of his family, his cronies and his mistress, Wan Aishah Wan Hamid. The prime minister decided to do nothing. Was this because his own family would also be implicated if the shit were to hit the fan?

Malaysia Today, 22 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

How the RM9 billion 'hole' was left to the taxpayers

In seven years, Tajuddin Ramli turned a profitable airline company that had more than half a billion ringgit in cash reserves into a company that was RM8 billion in deficit. In March 2007, the head of the CCID, Ramli Yusuff, wrote to the Prime Minister, going into great detail about what happened. But it was Ramli and not Tajuddin who was dragged before the courts on various fabricated charges -- where he was acquitted without his defence being called.

Malaysia Today, 21 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Tajuddin Ramli enters into a contract with himself

In May 2005, Dato' Ong Jyh Jong, the Senior General Manager Cargo of MAS, made a police report (12532/05) at the Dang Wangi Police Station alleging that Tajuddin Ramli entered into many fraudulent contracts. The police report was made on the instructions of MAS's Board of Directors. One such contract involves Advanced Cargo Logistics of Germany, which is a company owned by Tajuddin himself.

Malaysia Today, 20 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Eight years and still counting

On 4th January 2002, Mohamadon Abdullah, the Senior General Manager Corporate Services of MAS made a police report (number 347/02) at the Dang Wangi Police Station about a crime committed in 2000. That was eight years ago and the crime was committed ten years ago -- but then who's counting? Even the MACC has stopped counting.

Malaysia Today, 19 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MACC says thanks but no thanks

On 6th July 2010, the lawyers for Malaysian Airlines (MAS) wrote to the MACC. A copy of that letter was also sent to the MACC Chief. On 22nd July 2010, the MACC replied that since two police reports about the same matter had already been made (back in 2002 and 2004), then the MACC will not get involved and will let the police investigate the matter instead. This means the MACC is 'washing its hands' over the matter.

Malaysia Today, 18 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MACC Chief can't plead ignorance

Thus far we have come out with two reports on the MAS scandal. Just in case the MACC Chief tries to plead ignorance, we are going to show you a copy of the letter that he received from the lawyers acting on behalf of MAS. This letter was smuggled out of the MACC office. You can see the 'pointing finger' stamp plus the acknowledged receipt chop and signature.

Malaysia Today, 17 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

The MAS scandal: what the MACC swept under the carpet and marked NFA

On 20th May 2009, Malaysian Airlines (MAS) wrote to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and lodged a report (no. 119/2009) with regards to an act of corruption by its previous Executive Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, which MAS asked the MACC to investigate.  The MACC report also refers to two previous police reports made on 4th January 2002 and 4th May 2004.

Malaysia Today, 16 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Abu Kassim Mohamed, are you now going to resign?

On Saturday, 31st July 2010, the MACC Chief, Abu Kassim Mohamed, pledged to resign if any graft reports were not investigated by his agency. Tomorrow, Malaysia Today is going to reveal reports, letters and documents of one such corruption case that has been swept under the carpet. Malaysia Today's question to Abu Kassim is: will you now resign?

Malaysia Today, 15 August 2010 (READ MORE HERE)

Long before Dato' Ramli Yusuff, the former Director of the CCID, and his lawyer, Rosli Dahlan, got into trouble with the authorities in 2007, Malaysia Today had already revealed the connection between the then IGP, Musa Hassan, and the loan shark (a.k.a. ahlong) syndicate of Goh Cheng Poh @ 'Tengku' Goh.

Malaysia Today had warned Rosli to distance himself from Dato' Ramli and the then Home Minister, Johari Baharom. However, Rosli not only did not listen, he even volunteered to act for Dato' Ramli as the latter's lawyer when the IGP tried to fix him (Dato' Ramli) up on fabricated corruption, abuse of power, and failure to declare assets charges.

Malaysia Today had known all along that IGP Musa Hassan is the underworld boss who was giving protection to the BK Tan/Tengku Goh crime syndicate. That was why AG Gani Patail refused to prepare the CCID's affidavits and subsequently released 'Tengku' Goh on what was rumoured for a payment of a few million Ringgit. (Later they tried to pin a RM5.5 million bribe charge on Johari Baharom on the allegation that he had released a few underworld bosses).

Other than his 'crime' of acting as a lawyer for Dato' Ramli, the IGP's sworn enemy, Rosli was representing MAS in its suit against Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli, the airline's ex-Chairman who had plundered the company to the tune of billions. It was actually a national project to enrich certain people who walked in the corridors of power -- a sort of 'backdoor' Malay Affirmative Action Plan but only for the Umnoputeras.

That was the reason why no action was taken against Tajudin and also why last year Nazri Aziz publicly announced that the Government will make an out-of-court settlement with Tajudin. And that, too, was was why AG Gani Patail plus his wife and son were 'hosted' for a Hajj trip with Tajudin's proxy, Shahidan Shafie, the former Officer-in-Charge of Secret Societies in Johor -- BK Tan's and 'Tengku' Goh's home state -- who was charged for corruption in 1990.

Because of his recalcitrancy, on 11 October 2007, Rosli was brutally arrested in his office by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) -- now called the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) -- in full view of his staff. He was then locked up overnight like an animal in the MACC underground cell and then, the following day, was paraded through the Jalan Duta Court corridors to face a trumped-up charge of 'not replying to ACA's letter' (although he did reply to that letter).

However, Rosli was acquitted of this frivolous charge in 2011 and the AG, who had initially wanted to appeal the acquittal, made a last minute withdrawal of the appeal application.

Rosli then launched a RM50 million law suit for criminal conspiracy, wrongful arrest, assault and defamation against the most powerful Umno-owned newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, the MACC, the Government and various MACC officers.

The AG Chambers, however, is blocking Rosli from being allowed to take the witness stand and tell his side of the story (see the Malaysiakini report below).

AG Gani Patail has seen Rosli's witness statement and he is worried. It is explosive. It tells the real story behind why they brutally arrested and charged him one day before Hari Raya in 2007. Why else would AG Gani Patail ask the Judge, Hue Siew Kheng, to not allow Rosli to give his witness testimony if Gani was not afraid of Rosli's tell-all evidence? Gani is afraid. That is very clear.

So the predictable thing would happen. They will tire Rosli down, make him spend astronomical legal costs, drag the case, make technical objections to delay the case, as they are doing now, and, after all that, they will still not allow Rosli to take the witness stand and tell his story. And Malaysians will never know what Rosli was going to say in court.

But no worries. If that happens on 28 December 2012, Malaysia Today will fill in the gaps for you. You see, the Malaysian Courts now has a new e-filing system. What most people do not realise is that this e-filing system is created by friends of Malaysia Today. As documents are filed in court using this e-filing system, they are routed to Malaysia Today's secret server.

So, if what Malaysia Today says is going to happen and they do block Rosli from telling his story, we will post all the evidence regarding this case. Malaysians will then understand what a screwed-up country Malaysia is. Did I not say that Malaysia Today has eyes and ears in Bukit Aman, the AG's Chambers and the judiciary? If not, how we would know who is bonking whom in the AG's Chambers and how the boardroom has been turned into a bedroom?

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

AG moves to silence Rosli on roles of Gani, Musa

(Malaysiakini) - In a bid to silence lawyer Rosli Dahlan, the Attorney-General's Chambers today objected to him giving evidence on matters pertaining to the 'Copgate affair' involving attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan.

Rosli applied to Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Hue Siew Kheng, in chambers, to allow him to read his witness statement in open court, which the judge allowed.

However, Rosli's lawyer Chethan Jethwani said, senior federal counsel Azizan Md Arshad, representing the officers from the (then) Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the government, objected to certain portions of Rosli's testimony.

Following this, Justice Hue fixed Dec 28 to hear submissions on the matter and ordered Azizan to file a formal application to expunge those portions before the application is heard on that day. The judge also fixed Jan 25 for to hear Rosli's testimony.

Azizan argued that third parties were named in the statement of the witness, which was why the AG's Chambers was objecting.

It is learnt that the objection arose because Rosli's testimony would touch on the role of Musa and Gani in Rosli's charge of not complying with the ACA's procedures to declare his assets, before the sessions court in 2007, on which he was acquitted without his defence called.

Rosli, 51, had named several officers in the ACA, the precursor to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, including present chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed and deputy head of prosecution Anthony Kevin Morais, as defendants in his RM50 million defamation suit.

He had also named Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia and its senior editor Mohd Zaini Hassan.

The lawyer, who had represented former Commercial Crime Investigations Department director Ramli Yusuff, in is seeking damages over defamatory statements made, the injury to his reputation, assault and false imprisonment.

Ramli, who was later charged by the ACA, was also acquitted of the five charges against him and the decision was further upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, Justice Hue had called on the parties to try and settle the case and to take into account the decisions made by the other courts.

'Arrest of Goh an act of disloyalty'

Rosli in his writ described the acrimonious relationship between Ramli and Musa and how the IGP had used the ACA and the AG's Chambers to implicate him and Ramli following the arrest of an underworld kingpin, Goh Cheng Poh or 'Tengku Goh'.

Rosli said he acted for Ramli and the then deputy home minister Johari Baharom against Goh's habeas corpus application in 2007, after the AG's Chambers refused to draw up their affidavits.

He said Musa saw the arrest of Goh as disloyalty on the part of Ramli, resulting in the IGP initiating further ACA investigations against Ramli. This resulted in a strained relationship between Musa and Ramli and Johari.

Rosli further claimed that he earned the wrath of Musa and the attorney-general when he drew up the affidavits for Ramli and Johari, and this led to the ACA investigations against him and his subsequent arrest.

He said an ACA officer kicked his leg, twisted his arms and handcuffed him tightly, resulting in lacerations and swelling of his wrists.

He gave his statement at the ACA headquarters, but was held overnight and taken to court and charged on the eve of Hari Raya, on Oct 27, 2007. These were malicious actions out to tarnish his image, he added in his writ.

 

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 04:02 PM PST

 

First of all, I don't think that the next general election is going to be held in December this year. It would most likely be around February-March next year. And the timing of the general election would all depend on whether Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is able to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are four very interesting news reports that I would like to comment on today. (Maybe you can read those four news reports below before you read what I am going to say).

First of all, I don't think that the next general election is going to be held in December this year. It would most likely be around February-March next year. And the timing of the general election would all depend on whether Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is able to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

Assuming Najib fails to perform his magic trick and things more or less remain the same, then this is what I forecast we may see.

Umno will sail through with about 70-75 parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia. MCA will not win more than ten seats. MIC, Gerakan and PPP will get wiped out. Barisan Nasional Sabah and Sarawak will pull through with 30-35 seats while 20-25 seats will go to Pakatan Rakyat plus some 'independent' parties.

This would mean Pakatan Rakyat could win 100-110 parliament seats while Barisan Nasional would win 110-120 seats.

If Pakatan Rakyat wins 110 parliament seats this will mean Malaysia will see a hung parliament with Barisan Nasional winning only 112 seats. Then about 5-10 Barisan Nasional MPs will cross over to help Pakatan Rakyat form the new federal government. And the majority of these crossovers will be from East Malaysia.

However, it can also work the other way. In the event of a hung parliament, 5-10 MPs from Pakatan Rakyat can cross over to Barisan Nasional to help Barisan Nasional increase its majority in Parliament.

Hence both sides need to be very careful in their choice of candidates because 'negotiations' are ongoing by both sides of the political divide for potential crossover candidates.

Kelantan, Penang and Selangor are safe states for Pakatan Rakyat. Sabah, Sarawak, Perlis, Terengganu, Pahang and Johor are safe states for Barisan Nasional. Kedah, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka can go either way. For the 13 Federal Territory seats, five can go to Barisan Nasional and eight to Pakatan Rakyat.

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

Najib: GE could be in Dec, or next year

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said the 13th general election can be held in December, even though the country will be facing the monsoon at that time.

He was confident that despite the monsoon season, the machinery of the political parties contesting in the election could face any eventuality.

"If it rains or a flood occurs, (then we) can use the boat," he said in jest when asked whether the GE would be held in the near future or Parliament would dissolve on its own on the expiry of the current mandate.

He said this in an interview with editors of Bernama and Utusan Group in conjunction with the Umno General Assembly 2012 at his office in Parliament House, recently.

Najib, who is also Umno president, however, did not rule out the possibility that the election would be held next year if it is not held next month.

"If there is no election in December, then it will be held next year," he said.

Najib has up to April 28 next year to dissolve Parliament to make way for the 13th general election before the Parliament dissolves on its own, and the Election Commission is compelled to set a date for the general election within two months of the dissolution of Parliament.

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

Dr M: Barisan can retain power with two-thirds majority

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has predicted that Barisan Nasional will keep Putrajaya and that regaining a two-thirds majority in Parliament is not an impossible target.

He said Kedah, Selangor and Penang were winnable on condition that Umno did not indulge in the politics of sabotage and members supported the selected candidates.

Dr Mahathir has been driving home the "no sabotage" message at a string of meetings he has had with Umno leaders and groups from all over the country.

He also made it crystal clear that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has his unreserved support, slamming pro-Pakatan Rakyat news portals which keep claiming that he wanted Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to take over.

"That is their propaganda. Have they ever heard me promoting Muhyiddin? During Pak Lah's time, yes, I did try to promote Muhyiddin. But Muhyiddin told me he is fully behind Najib and would not go against Najib. They are harping on this because they want to make Umno weak.

"I have spoken to Umno all over the country. I told them they have to support Najib to win the election," he said.

"Najib has done a lot of good, maybe there are things which could be improved but we can tackle that after the general election."

He was confident that Johor and Negri Sembilan would stay with Barisan despite the Opposition's ambitions in these two states.

He said that although Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was so powerful that he was known as tokong (deity), there were people who were not happy with him.

Dr Mahathir also said it was time Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat kept his promise to retire.

"He promised to step down when I stepped down. These people never keep their word. They are supposed to be religious people but religious people who don't keep their word are not very religious," he added.

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

Professor: Barisan can win 120 seats if polls are held now

(The Star) - Barisan Nasional can win 120 seats if the general election were to be held now, said National Council of Professors deputy chairman Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin.

However, he told Sinar Harian that 24 seats were still considered "grey areas" while Pakatan was expected to win 70.

He predicted that Barisan would still be able to form the Federal Government in spite of a comparatively slimmer majority than in 2008.

"They will win no fewer than 120 seats. Now, Barisan has 140 seats, 24 are "grey areas" while the remaining are taken up by Pakatan Rakyat. Overall, the majority is narrow," he said in a pre-Umno annual general assembly interview.

Currently, Barisan has 137 seats in Parliament while Pakatan holds 72. Seven seats are held by independents, PSM has one while SAPP has two.

Dr Shamsul Amri said his prediction was based on research conducted in September by his team.

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

BN confident of recapturing Selangor

(Bernama) -- Barisan Nasional (BN) is confident of re-capturing Selangor from the opposition pact in the 13th general election, said Selangor BN Coordinator Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed today.

"The momentum is with us now. Based on the response and support shown by the Selangor people the advantage is on our side.

"Therefore, we should build up the momentum and not do anything that can weaken it," he said when opening the Selangor People's Progressive Party Convention at SJK (C) Yuk Chyun, Jalan Klang Lama near here.

Towards this end, he said, members of all BN component parties should move in one group and made decisions collectively so that BN would remain strong.

He also told members of BN component parties in Selangor to unite and not to sabotage one another or the parties in BN.

 

The mark of a mature leadership

Posted: 23 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

 

And unless Malaysian politicians are able to make statements that can prove to us that they know what Malaysians need, then it really does not matter whom you vote for. At the end of the day, whether women are or are not allowed to cut men's hair, your life is not going to be any better other than you will not suffer the indignation of a Bad Hair Day.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

While our top political leaders in Malaysia -- from both sides of the political divide -- talk about whether Muslims should be allowed to leave Islam, whether the Prime Minister should be from PAS or PKR, whether women barbers should be allowed to cut men's hair, and all those other issues that are not going to change our life one bit anyway, the top leaders in the UK are discussing issues more important to the British man-on-the-street.

Read the letter below, which I received from my party leader, Nick Clegg.

Yes, I know, I may be too idealistic and should not expect the same level of maturity from Malaysian leaders. Maybe I have been living in the UK too long (actually it has been only less than four years since March 2009) and have lost touch with what is happening in Malaysia. Maybe I am getting old and senile now that I am 62 years old.

Whatever it may be, there are certain things we need in life and we should make it known to the aspirants in the coming general election that these are what we are looking for.

No, this article is not about whom you should vote for. Voting is the right of every Malaysian who has come of age. So vote whosoever you want to vote for, be it Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. Just make sure you do come out to vote. I suspect, however, only 50% or so of eligible voters will be voting in the coming general election. And more than half of these 50% are not even registered to vote.

Nevertheless, whether you do or do not vote and regardless of whom you vote for, Malaysians must be assured of three basic things -- a roof over our heads, a good education, and good healthcare.  

Of course, there are many other things we need as well. We need an assurance of our safety and security, a job so that we can put food on the table and clothes on our backs, and so on -- all basic needs for humankind and to ensure that we can not only live but also can enjoy a certain quality of life as well.

Is there corruption and abuse of power in the UK? Of course there is. Even as you read this more cases of abuse of power are being dug up all over the UK. When we talk about corruption and abuse of power, the UK and Malaysia are no different. We even have racism here in the UK, though not 'institutionalised racism' like in Malaysia.

The only difference between the UK and Malaysia is that in the UK the press is allowed to korek as deep as they want all these cases of corruption and abuse of power. And once they are exposed, all hell will break loose. In Malaysia…well, need I say more?

I don't blame the politicians. I don't blame those in power. I blame the voters who do not know what they should be asking for and what (not who) they should be voting for.

As what Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan of Bersih said last week. She is not concerned whether you vote for Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. She is just concerned that the general elections are clean and fair.

I can also say the same thing as what Ambiga said. I am not concerned whether you vote for Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional. I am just concerned whether Malaysia can offer Malaysians a decent quality of life.

And unless Malaysian politicians are able to make statements that can prove to us that they know what Malaysians need, then it really does not matter whom you vote for. At the end of the day, whether women are or are not allowed to cut men's hair, your life is not going to be any better other than you will not suffer the indignation of a Bad Hair Day.

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

Dear Petra,

I'm writing this as we come to the end of an incredibly hectic week in politics.

The negotiations over the budget in Europe, securing of a much needed ceasefire in Gaza, rising speculation about the upcoming Leveson report, and Ed Davey's important announcement of a landmark coalition deal on low carbon energy that will deliver billions of pounds of investment in clean technology and create thousands of jobs.

But in this letter I want to focus on an issue that wasn't so high on the radar screen, but matters enormously to me: housing. I gave a speech to the National House Building Council (the people who issue guarantees for new homes) on Thursday, which brought the numbers into focus for me and made me determined to step up our efforts.

As a country, we have built too few homes for far too long - and the economic and social consequences are massive. Prices out of reach of too many young families. Our economy vulnerable to boom and bust in the housing market. The housing benefit bill spiralling. Homelessness and overcrowding.

All these problems are solvable but only if we think big.

We've been talking about housing in the coalition for well over two years. At every budget and autumn statement we've brought forward new measures. We've reduced red tape and regulation for house builders. We've supported mortgage lending with products to help first time buyers. We're backing housing associations with £10 billion of treasury guarantees.

And yet it isn't enough. This year we will probably build just 110,000 homes. If that sounds like a lot to you let me put you straight: it's one of the worst years since the Second World War. When you realise that the population grew by about 270,000 households it's clear it's nowhere near enough.

No wonder prices are out of reach for so many families. The average first time buyer is now 35, and home ownership is falling for the first time in a generation.

The only way out of this crisis is to build our way out.

This week I announced funding of £225 million to kickstart development at eight sites, each with plans for over 5,000 new homes. But I want to think bigger - much bigger. We can't go on building a home here and a home there and hoping it's enough.

I want us to go back to some of Britain's proud heritage of urban development and build a new generation of "garden cities" - places that will grow, thrive and become part of the fabric of the nation.

Of course, development is always controversial. It's right to protect our precious rural landscape and not let England be concreted over. But the point I've been making in government (and there have been some lively debates) is that planning big new settlements is the best way to protect our countryside because the alternative is endless urban sprawl.

Instead of eating away at the green belt, we can build big and even designate new green belt around new towns and cities. I think that's why even the Telegraph was supportive of the plans I outlined this week (READ HERE).

We could easily build new garden cities totalling a million new homes in the next ten years without building on any green belt, National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And by doing it we could deliver homes people can afford in places they want to live.

We can't do this overnight. Scale and ambition take time. But I believe if we put aside partisan politics and think collectively about the housing needs of the next generation, we could set Britain on track for a major wave of new development, new jobs, and new hope.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg

 

You must only be seen, not heard

Posted: 21 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

 

Take the recent freedom of religion and apostasy issue as another example. Everyone has something to say about that, mostly the non-Malays and non-Muslims. You hide behind freedom of speech to attack Islam. You, the non-Malays and non-Muslims, demand that Malays-Muslims be allowed the right to leave Islam. You say that Islam is an outdated religion from the Dark Ages and any religion that does not allow its proponents to leave is a bad religion.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hmm…now PAS and Umno are calling each other the party of devils. Actually, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed quoted the saying 'better the devil you know'. I think what he said was: 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't know'. The correct idiom is 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

Nevertheless, whichever it may be, what it means is: you take your chances with the known rather than take your chances with the unknown. In short, both are risks. But one risk is a known risk while the other is an unknown risk.

I suppose if you know for sure then you just go with the proven thing. You need not dabble in the unknown. However, when you are not sure, then you stick with what you know.

No doubt this latest round of name-calling is about whether Barisan Nasional is a better devil than Pakatan Rakyat or whether Umno is a better devil than PAS. If we go by the adage of 'better the devil you know', that would mean you know one of the devils but you are not really quite sure of the other. Hence choose the one that you know.

This 'ideology' probably makes sense in some situations. This, however, does not apply to everything. It all depends on what you hope to achieve.

Are you talking about the economy? Are you talking about abuse of power and corruption? Are you talking about civil liberties and human rights? Are you talking about racism and political persecution? Are you talking about freedom of religion? Are you talking about transparency and good governance? Are you talking about public perception and investor confidence?

You would be idealistic to expect a package deal. You must compromise on some things in the interest of others. For example, PAS would offer a more honest and corrupt-free government compared to Umno. But PAS would be less tolerant of apostasy and proselytising compared to Umno. You gain on one but you must be prepared to lose on the other.

I have been accused of being too idealistic for expecting the perfect form of government. Actually, I am more realistic than many of you give me credit for. No, I do not aspire for perfection. I am realistic enough to know that perfection is quite impossible to achieve. What I aspire for is the perfect balance where we can see a compromise of sorts. There are certain things that are priorities and certain things that may have to be sacrificed for the sake of these priorities.

So what are our priorities and what are we prepared to sacrifice for these priorities?

During the Siege of Leningrad in the Second World War, the Russians adopted the same strategy that they used to defeat the French 130 years or so earlier. Basically, they let hunger and the cold defeat the Germans. However, this meant that Russia had to sacrifice millions of its own citizens as well. The objective and priority was to defeat the Germans. Russian civilians would have to be the collateral damage. Russia could not have both. They could not defeat the Germans plus save their own people.

We, too, the Malaysian citizens, have certain objectives and aspirations. But are we prepared to place these objectives and aspirations as our priority and accept the downside to whatever action we need to take?

Malaysians want everything. We want an end to Barisan Nasional/Umno rule. We know we can't do that unless the second largest party in Malaysia (and a Malay party, too, on top of that), PAS, supports us to do that. But we want PAS on our terms, not on their terms.

When one delegate to the PAS annual general assembly stands up to propose his own party president as Prime Minister, we go berserk. We hurl insults at the entire one million members of PAS, call them Talibans, call them backward village bumpkins, question their educational background, question their level of intelligence, and so much more. We even hurl insults at Islam and suggest that Islam is the cause of the backwardness of Muslims in general and PAS people in particular.

In other words, we are telling the one million PAS members that they are not suited to become our leaders. We only want them to kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. But we do not want them as our leaders.

Okay, I have read what you said about the one million PAS people. It is like a white man telling a non-white woman: you are only good enough for me to have sex with but you are not good enough to become my wife because of your 'colour'.

I bet none of you looked at it in this manner. Well, that is because you are looking at things from only your perspective. You are not looking at things from the perspective of those on the receiving end of your vilification and insults.

PAS is only good enough to help us change the government. PAS is not good enough to head that government. That is your message to the one million PAS members. Even if that is not your real message, your words certainly give the impression that that is your message.

Do you all not stop to think before you say something? And now that you have said it how are you going to unsay it?

For more than a decade since the mid-1990s (when the Internet first emerged in Malaysia), I have had to endure the Malay- and Islam-bashing, by mainly the DAP Chinese supporters. And when I spoke up in defence of PAS back in the 1990s, I was whacked to kingdom come. Those who were on the late MGG Pillai's chat group would know what I am talking about.

I eventually left that chat group because I realised I would never be able to convince those hard-core DAP supporters that we need PAS if we are going to see a change of government. It is not that I, too, had not been critical of PAS. In fact, some of the articles I wrote criticising PAS were even published in Harakah. At least PAS is democratic enough to allow articles that criticise them to be published in their party organ, Harakah.

But I criticised PAS regarding some of its stands or regarding its strategies. I did not insult Islam or Prophet Muhammad like those DAP hard-core supporters in MGG Pillai's chat group.

I admit that I did criticise the conduct of Muslims, which got me into a heap of trouble with the authorities. But my criticism was only about the conduct of Muslims who deviate from Islamic teachings. I did not blame Islam for this conduct and say things like this proves that Islam is a bad religion -- like what those DAP hard-core supporters commented in MGG Pillai's chat group.

Many of you have probably noticed that of late I have written articles uncomplimentary of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. I have even written some articles uncomplimentary of the Christians. And I know many of you just hate this. And you call me a racist. Some even say that, because I am now 62, I am trying to 'get closer' to Islam (since I am about to die) and I do this by whacking Christianity.

If you really believe this then you are even dumber than I thought.

It is good that you hate this. I want you to hate this. I was hoping that you would hate this. I wanted you to feel what the Malays have had to endure these last many years since the 1990s when the Internet first came to Malaysia.

I write just a few articles and you get so hot and bothered. The Malays have had to take what you dish out for almost 20 years. You, however, feel that you are justified in what you do and that you have every right to do what you do because the non-Malays and non-Muslims have suffered persecution in Malaysia for 55 years since Merdeka.

Take the recent freedom of religion and apostasy issue as another example. Everyone has something to say about that, mostly the non-Malays and non-Muslims. You hide behind freedom of speech to attack Islam. You, the non-Malays and non-Muslims, demand that Malays-Muslims be allowed the right to leave Islam. You say that Islam is an outdated religion from the Dark Ages and any religion that does not allow its proponents to leave is a bad religion.

There is nothing good about Islam. Everything about Islam is bad. PAS is an Islamic party. We want PAS to help us kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. After that the one million uneducated PAS people can return to their villages and not interfere in the running of the country. And for sure we want none of them as our top leaders.

Do you think you have just won the support of the more than one million PAS members and supporters?

You don't like me whacking the non-Malays and the non-Muslims? I am glad that you feel that way. I am glad you don't like being whacked. Let me share a secret with you: the Malays-Muslims also do not like the way you whack them and Islam. And they have had to endure this much longer than you have.

Now that you know what it feels like, maybe you can reassess the situation and tell me where we go from here. Your comments regarding Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, apostasy, freedom for Muslims to leave Islam, etc., have caused a lot of damage.

These comments were uncalled for. Worse of all, it shows that you will not even allow PAS members the freedom of speech in their own annual general assembly where members are supposed to be free to tell their leaders what they want for their party. And you say that you are fighting for liberalism? Your liberalism means only the freedom for Muslims to leave Islam but not the freedom for Muslims to express what they want or don't want.

 

There is change and there is change

Posted: 20 Nov 2012 07:21 PM PST

 

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let's not be carried away just because some unknown young politicians wanted to be recognised as candidates for the coming general elections got emotional and raised some issues, which will need the approval of the three component parties in Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for. They have a common leader in Anwar who has gone through trials and tribulations that no other leader has been through. He may not be perfect but the question is who is?

He has held this coalition together that it has become a formidable force that has woken up the political minds of the public. Today, it is where it is because of this one leader. So suddenly there are some ungrateful young politicians who have not made any sacrifices raise issues, which in the first place should not have been raised at all.

Are they for real or Trojan horses put to create a rift within the coalition. We have a long way to go put this country at level and there is much work to be done rather than create a division at this crucial stage. We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life. – Comment posted by 'bobby brown'

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

That was a comment by a reader going by the name of 'bobby brown' posted in Malaysia Today. I have only slightly edited the bad grammar but other than that no changes have been made to that comment -- other than the editing of the grammatical mistakes.

That is one example of many similar comments made over the last few days. Even Oon Yeoh said in The Sun today, "The answer quite simply, is that PAS has a tendency to become too big for its britches. It exhibited such behaviour after the 1999 General Election, where it did quite well, and now it's exhibiting such tendencies again."

Before I comment on that issue, however, I would like to touch on the following news report: Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M. Manoharan's call to fellow DAP assemblyman Ronnie Liu (DAP-Pandamaran) to resign if he failed to address the condominium project in Batu Caves shows all is not well in Selangor DAP.

I am actually quite surprised that Manoharan wants Ronnie Liu's head. I thought Pakatan Rakyat said that Barisan Nasional was the one who approved that housing project in Batu Caves. Is Manoharan saying that it was not Barisan Nasional but Pakatan Rakyat that is the culprit -- and Ronnie Liu in particular?

This would mean Manoharan is contradicting what his party said and I was made to understand that DAP does not allow its leaders to contradict their own party -- as the Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim episode has proven. So who approved the Batu Caves project? Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? And if it was Barisan Nasional then why must Ronnie Liu resign?

I remember relating a story a couple of years ago about Ronnie Liu, 'Bangsar' Bala, my wife Marina, I, and a fifth person, going to Manoharan's house to meet his wife when he was in Kamunting under ISA detention. The purpose of that visit was to ask Manoharan's wife to send a message to the five Hindraf ISA detainees that we want them to contest the March 2008 general election.

We suggested that they contest parliament seats because the Indian cause is a national issue and it would be better that the problems facing the Indians be raised in Parliament. Ronnie even indicated that he was prepared to 'vacate' his seat if Manoharan or any of the other four Hindraf detainees wanted that seat.

In other words, Ronnie was prepared to give way to Manoharan if need be. Not many politicians would be prepared to sacrifice their own political career for the benefit of someone else. Ronnie, however, was prepared to do that and that is why I am his loyal friend. He has shown that he is not in politics for personal gain and is prepared to sacrifice himself for the sake of the party.

Anyway, back to the posting by 'bobby brown'. "We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life," said 'bobby brown'. I suppose what he means by that statement is we should be focusing on how to make Malaysia a better country.

And I would agree with that. However, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of 'better'. 'Better' can mean different things to different people.

For example, a company that was 'in the red' last year to the tune of RM250 million can be said to have done better this year when it reduces these loses to just RM150 million. Next year it does even better when the losses get reduced to just RM80 million. By the fifth year it does even better (the best performance in five years) when it breaks even, although it still does not make any money.

So what does 'better' mean? And how would we translate that to a better Malaysia?

Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant corruption and abuse of power but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant racism, discrimination and political persecution but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean only 5,000 Malaysians died in traffic accidents this year compared to 6,000 Malaysians the year before? Does 'better' mean now only 100 people die in police custody compared to 180 people in the past?

Let me put it another way: does 'better' mean now your spouse commits adultery only once a month compared to every week before this? Why should you tolerate your spouse committing adultery even once a year? How can you consider your spouse committing adultery once a month as 'better' than once a week?

What is 'better' for you may not be 'better' for me. If all you mean by 'better' is the degree of transgressions, and you are prepared to accept lesser incidences over larger incidences as 'better', then we clearly do not share the same ideals. Would someone who murdered just one person be better than someone who murdered ten people? Would not even one murder make that person a murderer? There is no such thing as a 'worse' murderer and a 'better' murderer. Either way you still hang.

And herein lies the problem. You are looking at how bad Barisan Nasional or Umno are and anything lesser than that you are prepared to compromise and accept.

We all talk about change. We all aspire for change. We all fight for change. But we are yet to agree on that definition of change. And this is why we are always in disagreement. While we agree that change is required, we cannot agree on what is meant by 'change'.

This next paragraph is aimed at just Muslims so non-Muslims can skip this paragraph if they wish to.

Let's say that a Muslim never prays or fasts and lives a life of sin that includes drinking, gambling and adultery. Then, one day, this Muslim starts praying once in a while on Fridays and fasts a couple of days a year during the month of Ramadhan. However, this person still drinks, gambles and indulges in adultery. Does this make that person a 'better ' Muslim or is that person still a bad Muslim?

I know the answer to that so no need to reply to my question. In short, there is no such thing as a better Muslim. There are no degrees of Muslims. A Muslim is someone who abides to and follows the rules laid down in Islam. You just cannot be a little bit pregnant.

So what is my interpretation of a better Malaysia? My interpretation of a better Malaysia is a society that can tolerate dissenting or opposing views. And that is my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno.

No, my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno is not the arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc., that they perpetuate Those, to me, are merely the symptoms of another disease. Those are not the causes of the disease. Those are signs that there is a disease.

And this 'disease' is we do not have freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on. And because of all these lacks of freedoms, we end up with rampant and blatant arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc.

And this is what many of you do not understand. You look at the symptoms of the disease and you try to cure the symptoms. I look at the cause of the disease and attack the cause of that disease. And if we can eliminate the cause then the symptoms will automatically disappear.

I have written about this next point before but allow me to repeat what I said.

200 years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte attacked the 'disease' that was plaguing Europe. Around 35 years after that, society began to change. Then, roughly another 35 years later, the whole of Europe changed and what we see today in Europe is the result of that change.

So Napoleon did not try to cure the symptoms of the disease. He attacked the cause of that disease. In time, changes happened and the symptoms of the disease disappeared.

I know I am repeating what I have written many times before. But how do I not keep repeating myself when after saying it so many times you still do not get it?

Even people like Haris Ibrahim (Sam) cannot understand what I am saying. And he is a lawyer, too, mind you. Yet even he cannot understand what I am trying to say. He, too, like many of you, go by the adage that a duck swims, you swim, so you must be a duck. You do not support ABU. So, if you do not support ABU, then you must be supporting Umno.

In the first place, did I ever say I do not support ABU? What I did say is that just shouting ABU is not enough. It has to be more than just that. Kicking out Umno will do no bloody good if the problem is not Umno but the culture that breed organisations like Umno. We can get rid of Umno but that will not get rid of the problem. And the problem is the way we think and do things.

Let me go back to what 'bobby brown' and Oon Yeoh commented. One delegate during the PAS general assembly last week said that he felt Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang should become the prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. And then all hell broke loose.

This was the opinion of just ONE delegate from amongst more than one million PAS members. One man from ONE MILLION said this and the party DID NOT adopt that proposal as one of its Resolutions. In other words, PAS allowed that delegate to speak but they did not adopt what he said.

And in spite of that everyone whacks the whole party as if the party had committed a cardinal sin. Are you saying that the party should not have allowed him to speak? Are you saying that they should have switched off the microphone and shout at him to sit down? Are you saying that they should do what MIC does -- get the security guards to drag him outside and beat him up?

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

And that is why we don't want Umno. They do not respect freedom of thought and freedom of opinion/expression. But then you want PAS to do the same thing. So what ABU are you talking about when you want to be just like Umno?

We have to be better than that. If we are going to be just like Umno then why would the voters want to kick Umno out? We have to make it clear that we will not compromise on violations of our freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

Currently, I find that many, if not most, of the opposition leaders and supporters do not respect freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

And this is my beef with the ABU-screamers. My interpretation of ABU is CHANGE. Your interpretation of ABU is Anwar Ibrahim and only Anwar Ibrahim must become the prime minister. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh thinks like this. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh does not tolerate freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

So, yes, I support ABU. But my ABU is politik baru, budaya baru, Malaysia baru, Melayu baru, etc. Your ABU is old wine in a new bottle. So you can fight for your ABU your way and I will fight for my ABU my way. You can walk if you want. I will swim. But we are both going the same direction. And just because a duck also swims does not make me a duck -- just like just because a monkey also walks does not make you a monkey. Or does it?

By the way, 'bobby brown', PAS is the second largest party in Malaysia in terms of membership. There are more PAS members than DAP and PKR members combined. Pakatan Rakyat needs PAS more than PAS needs Pakatan Rakyat. So stop being pompous and condescending.

"PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for," konon. You sound just like Umno. This is how Umno normally talks. So what ABU are you talking about when you ape Umno in everything that it does and say?

East Coast Malays will call this gong telajak. Go find out what this means from your Malay friends, if you happen to have any.

 

Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM?

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

 

We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PAS wings' support for Hadi as future PM continues to put Opposition partners in a spot

(The Star) - The PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings' support for party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to be made prime minister should Pakatan Rakyat come to power continues to put other Opposition coalition members in a spot.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, widely seen as the premier-in-waiting, was evasive when reporters asked for his response.

"It's okay. No problem. We will discuss in a nice manner", he said as he walked briskly to his car after launching a convention on national education at Universiti Selangor (Unisel) in Shah Alam on Sunday.

He said he had to rush off to another function in Kuantan.

However, DAP was characteristically vocal.

Its deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said bluntly on Sunday that Anwar would be prime minister should Pakatan win the 13th general election and hudud law would not be implemented.

"All of us have agreed that Anwar will be the PM should we take over Putrajaya."

"In a democracy, we, of course, allow for differing opinions, but the consensus in Pakatan that Anwar remains the PM-in-waiting is final, so even if the PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings say otherwise, it makes no difference," he said.

He said that the Pakatan Rakyat leadership would only implement policies that have the consensus of all three-component parties, and reject those which have yet to obtain it.

At the same time, it was the lack of consensus that has stopped the implementation of hudud law from becoming part of Pakatan's common framework policy.

"If there is consensus, we will enforce it. If not, we won't. And the decision from the leadership is final," he told reporters after a DAP ceramah in Kepong Baru on Sunday morning, reiterating the DAP's position on the matter.

He also said that it was "pure politicking" by Barisan National to imply that the Islamic penal code could be so easily implemented.

He said that it required an amendment to the Federal Constitution to implement hudud and any amendment to the constitution required consent from two-thirds of the members of parliament.

At the 58th PAS muktamar in Kota Baru on Saturday Dewan Ulama representative Hairun Nizam had said Hadi was the best candidate for the job if the coalition took over Putrajaya, a sentiment echoed by PAS Muslimat on Sunday. When pressed for a reaction, Hadi had earlier dodged responding directly, saying instead, that he would rather be a "servant" to the people and country.

"Whoever becomes the prime minister needs the support of the party and people. I would rather be a khadam (servant) to the people," he had said.

Meanwhile, in Ipoh, Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said Sunday the Opposition's inability to agree on a common platform and contest under a common flag in the upcoming general elections showed that they could not govern the country.

"PAS will definitely want to implement their Islamic ways if Pakatan comes into power and if it is not done, it will destroy the Opposition."

"Intellectually, if they cannot even be united in contesting as a single party, then they are incapable of being united to rule the country," he said in a press conference in Manjoi here on Sunday.

"As such, I do not see that they have any hope of winning in the upcoming elections," he said.

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

The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) was launched two years ago in London with a specific agenda in mind -- to try to reform Malaysian politics and introduce what back in 1999 PKR (then PKN) called 'Politik Baru' or 'New Politics'. This basically means to discard race/religion-based politics in favour of a more mature form of politics and to try to end 'money politics', or the practice of voting based on financial considerations.

It was certainly a tall order indeed and not a journey that we imagined we would achieve in our lifetime. Europe took two generations for the seed that was planted by Napoleon Bonaparte over 12 years from 1803 to finally germinate with the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Even then it took another 22/23 years (or one more generation) until 1870/1871 before real change finally came to Europe.

In short, Europe took 60-70 years for change to happen. And it only happened through an armed and bloody revolution, which proves what Mao Zedong said: power comes from the barrel of the gun. Hence, short of embarking upon a Chin Peng sort of armed insurgency, how long do you think it is going to take for change to come to Malaysia?

Those were the issues troubling us back in 2010. And those were the issues MCLM was supposed to address, or try to address. But many things would need to be done to even come close to what we were seeking. Amongst those many things would be to seek out at least 30 Malaysians suitable to be fielded as Member of Parliament candidates in the coming general election.

Haris Ibrahim (Sam) then began to approach a few likely candidates -- some who had earlier been approached by the opposition back in 1999, 2004 and/or 2008 -- to explore the possibility of them standing as candidates in the coming general election. Almost all said 'no'. However, due to Sam's power of persuasion, eventually five relented and said 'yes' while another two said they would seriously consider the proposal.

So we had five yeses and two tentatives. And then it stopped. We could not move beyond those seven. And we were not even close to the 30 that we had targeted.

The rut we found ourselves in was due to the hostile reaction from Pakatan Rakyat. While we made it clear we were seeking these candidates to offer them to Pakatan Rakyat, Pakatan Rakyat in turn said that MCLM itself was planning to contest the election to trigger three-corner contests. Hence we are going to jeopardise the opposition's chances of forming the new federal government. Hence, also, we are Barisan Nasional's 'Trojan horse' whose job is to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat.

It was apparent that Pakatan Rakyat was not going to welcome these independent candidates. Pakatan Rakyat was only going to field party members and if MCLM's independent candidates wanted to contest the elections then they would have to join one of the three parties first. Even then there was no guarantee they would be fielded as candidates.

With that very negative reaction from Pakatan Rakyat, the two tentative candidates backed off. From the balance five, another four also decided to withdraw, leaving only one still prepared to go the distance. However, this last candidate would have to contest the Kapar seat on the basis of a three-corner contest, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.

MLCM is not a political party so it does not intend to contest the general election. It was seeking candidates on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, not to contest against Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat does not want these candidates then the whole exercise would need to be aborted.

It was agreed that the candidates who wished to withdraw would say nothing for the time being. We had to first seek an exit strategy so that they can gracefully bail out without losing face. And that exit plan offered itself on 1st January this year when I did my second interview with the mainstream media. Because of that interview, the candidates were able to announce that they were distancing themselves from MCLM. Sam, too, was able to bail out gracefully by resigning from MCLM and embark upon his ABU agenda outside MCLM.

In the meeting we had in Chiengmai in late January this year, three weeks after my 'explosive' 1st January 2012 interview, it was agreed that I, too, would withdraw from MCLM and a new committee would take over. My continued involvement in MCLM would 'taint' the movement. Hence we would need to call for an AGM, which we did soon after, and I left the scene and the new committee took over. It was also agreed in that Chiengmai meeting that MCLM would now focus purely on matters involving civil liberties and it would no longer be involved in politics.

A month before that Chiengmai meeting, a meeting was held in Phuket to discuss many issues regarding not only MCLM but also about Malaysian politics in general. And one of the issues of concern was the information that Sam received from his contacts in Umno that Anwar Ibrahim would be acquitted from the 'Sodomy 2' charge. The information that Sam received was that Najib had made a deal with Anwar. However, it was not too clear what type of deal it was.

This was definitely troubling news indeed. Sam was convinced that the information was accurate because it came from 'high-ups' in Umno and they have never been wrong before. My response to that was we would have to wait another one and a half months or so to see if it was true that Anwar was going to be acquitted and if so, why.

Nevertheless, we would need to pre-empt this, in case, so one week later I did that interview with the mainstream media where I whacked Anwar. Basically, as what Sam and I discussed in Phuket, we needed to launch a 'Get Anwar Campaign', or GAC for short. We needed to neutralise Anwar in case he had turned Umno Trojan horse. And his acquittal would more or less confirm this.

We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government.

In fact, Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2' would have been 'good politics'. The sympathy factor would be high and Anwar could be 'marketed' as a martyr and a victim of injustice. Having Anwar in jail would benefit the opposition a great deal. Plus it would solve the additional problem of not having him as the Prime Minister in the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government.

Maybe Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak realised this. Maybe he realised that acquitting Anwar works better for Barisan Nasional than putting him in jail. Najib, too, knew that PAS did not want Anwar as Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister would be doing PAS a favour by putting Anwar in jail. But if Anwar were to be acquitted, then PAS would face a dilemma. Do they keep quiet and accept Anwar as Prime Minister or do they openly declare that they cannot accept Anwar as Prime Minister?

Was Anwar's acquittal an independent decision by the judge or was the judge's decision to acquit Anwar a brilliant political move by Najib to drive a wedge between PAS and PKR (plus also now between PAS and DAP it seems)?

The issue here is, ABU or 'anything but Umno' is about rejecting Umno, which invariably means rejecting Barisan Nasional as well. However, as Sam and I discussed in Phuket, ABU does not translate to 'Anwar for PM'. But then the judge (with or without Najib's instructions) threw a spanner in the works by acquitting Anwar of the Sodomy 2 charge. So now ABU also means Anwar for PM.

And herein lies the problem for many people, those in PAS included.

Many in PAS are not convinced about Anwar's innocence. They are convinced that Anwar is guilty. But they do not want to be the ones to say so. They want the court to say so by convicting Anwar. But when the court did not do that, PAS either has to accept that as an indication that Anwar is innocent or else they would have to come out and say that they do not want Anwar as Prime Minister -- without explaining why and leaving it unsaid that the reason is because they think Anwar is guilty.

Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 120 seats in Parliament (to be safe, although 112 seats gives it a simple majority with a two-seat margin) to form the federal government. PAS says it plans/hopes to win at least 60 seats. If it does, that would mean DAP and PKR combined would have won only 60 seats. And this would also mean PAS would become the Prime Minister.

Hence it is not impossible for Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister if PAS wins more seats that PKR and DAP -- unless DAP wins the most number of seats and they nominate Anwar for Prime Minister.

 

The meeting in Phuket a year ago and one year after the birth of MCLM

 

The excitement of the chase

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

 

Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have friends who like to go fishing. (A couple of people I know also like to go hunting). I asked them as to why they bother to waste so much time fishing. It is also not cheap, mind you. The tackle costs quite a bit of money, especially when you lose the lures (which cost more than the fish). Would it not be easier and cheaper to just go buy the fish at the market? It would be faster too -- fishing 'expeditions' can take a whole day.

One day they invited me to join them in their fishing trip. In an hour we caught 56 fish. That is almost a fish a minute amongst the five of us. I must say it was quite exciting. I proudly brought the fish I caught home to show my wife. I did not tell her that that was the only fish I caught, though.

You see, for the first half hour or so, I was flat out on the deck of the boat due to an attack of seasickness (which I suffer from if the boat is not moving and rolls from side to side). I was vomiting my guts out and polluting the sea. Only when my fishing mates carried me over the side of the boat and threatened to drop me into the sea did I stop vomiting. It seems the fastest way to end your seasickness is to get dumped into the sea. I must say it worked. The threat was good enough.

It was then that I understood that the excitement was not in the cooking and the eating of the fish. After all, how could five of us eat 56 fish anyway? It was the excitement of the hunt or the chase, as they say. And that goes for 'people hunting' as well. Friends who go 'hunting' in the clubs on Saturday night tell me the same thing. It is not about getting the women into bed. If not then they just need to go visit a brothel. It is the excitement of the 'hunt' -- to see whether you can 'nail' your 'prey'.

What would you think of that woman if you smile at her and she immediately walks up to you and says 'you can poke your pecker into my pussy any time'? That would be a turn off. You need to sweet-talk her first -- such as 'what's a nice woman like you doing in a place like this?' or 'what's a woman like you doing in a nice place like this?', etc. Then you offer to buy her a drink, ask her if she would like to dance, and then ask her if she would like to adjourn to somewhere 'quieter'.

In that same context, we need to make the politicians and political parties 'hunt' or 'fish' for our votes. They need to 'court' us to get us to vote for them. If we tell them that they are guaranteed our votes and come hell or high water we would still vote for them that will make them complacent.

They must not take us for granted. We are not prostitutes. They can't just throw some money onto the bed and expect us to strip and lie down on our backs so that they can screw us. If they want us then they will need to work hard at wooing us.

As what we told Anwar Ibrahim in London in 2010, in the 2008 general election many of us would have voted for a donkey or a monkey as long as they stood on the platform of Pakatan Rakyat. However, we have since seen what these monkeys and donkeys have turned out to become. Some have deserted the opposition. Some are not performing as we had hoped. Some proved to be as corrupt as the Barisan Nasional people we kicked out. Some are making silly statements that do not help the opposition cause and actually helps Barisan Nasional. Some have demonstrated arrogance. Some are pompous and condescending and talk to us as if they are our betters rather than our 'servants'.

At this point of my article some of you 'apologists' are going to scream that we can't expect perfection. We can't expect Pakatan Rakyat to achieve everything in a mere five years. If we can give Barisan Nasional 55 years then why can't we also give Pakatan Rakyat 55 years before we judge them?

These apologists tend to forget that the leaders and politicians from DAP, PKR, and PAS are not five-year-old politicians. The opposition politicians have been around a long time, as long or longer than those from Barisan Nasional. Some have served as Cabinet Ministers (even some from PAS during the time that PAS joined Barisan Nasional 40 years ago). Some have been Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar). Nik Aziz is probably the second-longest serving Menteri Besar after the Sarawak Chief Minister.

So the opposition leaders and politicians are not 'new'. Why must we give them 55 years? We must not forget, when they campaigned for our support and our votes, they told us what was wrong with Barisan Nasional and they told us what they were going to do to right all these wrongs. Hence they knew what was not right and they knew what to do to put it right.

They promised us, not we promised them. So it is their job to deliver on these promises.

The other excuse the apologists offer is that Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government so we can't expect them to achieve much until they take over the federal government. Granted in some cases this is true. But this is not true for everything.

Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy?

Not everything requires you to be the federal government before you can do it. Many things are party matters. Many things are coalition matters. Many things are state government matters. Many things are council matters. Some things, of course, are federal matters. But not everything is a federal matter.

Is the selection of candidates a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of seats a federal government matter? That is a coalition matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the election or selection of council members a federal government matter? That is a state government matter (and decided by the party, mind you) and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the declaration of assets a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the distribution of tithes (zakat and fitrah) a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the building of low-cost homes for the homeless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of state land to the landless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the abolishing of negotiated tenders and the implementation of an open tender system for state contracts a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

There are many things that are party matters, coalition matters and/or state government matters. You do not need to wait until you form the federal government before you can do something about them.

Take the Islamic State and Hudud matter as another example. Do you need to be the federal government before DAP, PKR and PAS can come to an agreement on that issue? You do not even need to be the state government before you can come to an agreement on this.

Barisan Nasional would not dare announce their candidates until the morning of Nomination Day. This is because Barisan Nasional does not trust its own members and they know that if they announce their candidates too early then there would be a genuine danger of internal sabotage. Hence they wait until the eleventh hour to announce their candidates to reduce the danger of internal sabotage. Even then it still happens, as Barisan Nasional recently confessed.

But why does Pakatan Rakyat not announce its candidates early so that these candidates can start working the ground and the voters can get to know them early instead of finding out who they are at the last minute on the morning of Nomination Day? Well, for the same reason why Barisan Nasional does not dare announce its candidates early, plus for an added reason -- to avoid Barisan Nasional buying them off.

Hence Pakatan Rakyat does not trust its own candidates plus it does not trust its own party members. Pakatan Rakyat is worried that if the candidates are announced too early then it may suffer internal sabotage and/or the candidates may get bought over.

What, therefore, does this say about the candidates? Are these the people we want? If 'A' is chosen to contest instead of' B', then 'B may sabotage 'A' or Barisan Nasional may buy off 'A'. And if 'B' is chosen instead, the same thing may happen as well. Hence do not announce yet whether it is 'A' or 'B'. Wait until the last minute to make the announcement.

Is this because Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government? Would none of this happen once Pakatan Rakyat is already the federal government?

Pakatan Rakyat needs to convince us that it is worthy of our vote. Pakatan Rakyat must work for our vote. If we tell Pakatan Rakyat that we are definitely going to vote opposition never mind what they do or do not do, then we are going to have a very complacent and very lazy Pakatan Rakyat.

There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that every one of you reading this article is going to still be alive tomorrow. If you do die tonight, there is no guarantee that you are going to go to heaven or to hell. In fact, no one can give you a money-back guarantee that heaven and hell even exist.

So how can we guarantee Pakatan Rakyat our votes? In the first place, should we even be giving anyone this guarantee?

If you want me then come and court me. Bring me flowers and chocolates. Take me out to dinner. Come meet my parents and bring me to visit your parents. Then I will decide whether you are going to get into my pants. If you merely want a wham bam, thank you ma'am, then go visit a brothel.

And if you are a prostitute and are prepared to prostitute yourself, well and fine. But don't expect me to do the same just because you are doing that. If you can't convince me to vote for you that is your problem, not mine. If you don't know how to win my vote then you do not deserve my vote. That is the long and short of it all.

I am not here to serve the politicians. It is the politicians who must serve me. So serve me. And convince me that you are worthy of being my servant. I need not convince you of anything because the vote is in my hand, not yours.

As the boy said to the girl when he dropped his pants to show her his dick: I have this, which you need. And the girl dropped her knickers to show the boy her pussy: ah yes, but with one of these I can get ten of those.

 

Sending mixed signals

Posted: 14 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

 

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Don't mix Islam with politics: Selangor Sultan

(Bernama, 14 Nov 2012) -- The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has warned against an inclination of mixing Islam with politics for it could confuse and divide the Malays.

He said confusion arose when people who were not qualified to interpret Qur'anic verses began elucidating them based on their own understanding and desire or it could go against the actual meaning.

"Qur'anic verses are not like poetry verses that can be interpreted according to one own taste and belief."

"I want the Malays to defend the sanctity of Islam through their might and wisdom as had been done by Prophet Muhammad, his companions, mujahid (warriors), and Islamic leaders."

"The Malay leaders of yesteryears had used their wisdom to define the characteristics of the Malays in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution that they should adopt the Malay culture, speak Bahasa Melayu and being Muslims," he said at the state-level Maal Hijrah celebration at the Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque here, tonight.

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

That was what His Highness the Sultan said last night, as reported by Bernama. As what His Highness has titah (royal decree), I will not quote and interpret any verses from the Qur'an. After all, I am not taking Qur'anic studies in Oxford. I am just taking history, plus philosophy of religion thrown in. Hence I shall restrict my comments to only the historical aspects of the subject.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are what we call the Abrahamic faiths. And note the word 'faiths', which means you need to believe in the absence of evidence. Now, they are called 'Abrahamic' faiths because all three have their roots in the Prophet Abraham (or Ibrahim, to the Muslims). In fact, the Muslims believe that Abraham and his son Ismail (Ishmael) built the Ka'bah in Mekah, the direction Muslims face when they pray.

The Jews are a race. You need to be born a Jew. You cannot 'become' a Jew like you can become a Christian or a Muslim -- although some people have converted to Judaism. Followers of Christianity and Islam, however, are not a race. Christians regard Christianity as a faith (of the Christian faith) while Muslims regard Islam as an adeen (a way of life).

And that was why the Jews wanted a 'homeland', which they now have. So the Jews went on to create a nation called Israel. The Christians went on to separate the church from the state. And the Muslims went on to form governments and conquered new territories to extend their system of government to these territories.

If you were to ask a Muslim as to why Islam 'interferes' in the lives of the people, why they 'police' behaviour/morality, why they want to impose an Islamic system of administration and laws, etc., they will reply that this is because Islam is not a religion but a system of governance -- meaning a complete way of life (adeen, as mentioned in the Qur'an).

Using the Muslims' own arguments, Islam is a total/complete political system that determines the administration and laws of the country. And that is why Muslims talk about an 'Islamic State' -- or, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, Malaysia is a Muslim country.

Hence, Islam is not merely a religion where you pray, fast, pay tithes, etc., and then go on and lead your own life without any interference from the government. Islam is a form of government -- it governs what you can and cannot do very strictly, even in the privacy of your bedroom.

So how can His Highness the Sultan of Selangor decree that Islam and politics should not mix, or that you should separate politics from religion? Islam is politics!

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

Now, 'nation' does not necessarily mean 'country'. For example, the 'Indian Nation' is a collection of various Native American tribes within the United States of America. So it can, in a way, be called a nation within a nation.

If you were to trace the history of the three Abrahamic faiths, you can see that the Jews started, from the very beginning, as a race or tribe -- for example, Moses led his people out of Egypt to cross the Red Sea. The 'religion' came later. (If Moses had been smart enough to lead his people a bit farther east they would have ended up in Saudi Arabia and today they would own all the oil).

Christianity and Islam, however, started as cults. It was much later that Christianity became a religion (with a doctrine or dogma) and Islam became a political system (or way of life, adeen, government, etc.).

Hence the Jews emerged immediately as a Nation the day Moses led his people out of Egypt and settled in the 'Promised Land'. The Christians and Muslims, however, evolved over time and transformed into what Christianity and Islam is today by 'reinventing' itself through a clearly defined doctrine.

Christianity began to lose its cult status after the time of Jesus and during the time of Paul (see the timeline below). However, it was not until more than 300 years later that Christianity was 'defined' with a clear doctrine and almost 800 years before Catholicism took root.

As for Islam, as early as during the time of Prophet Muhammad it established itself as a system of government and the Battle of Badr in 624 defined what Islam was going to become -- a political force.

Now, since His Highness the Sultan is Malay, and hence will be from the Shafi'i school of Islam, let us talk about Mazhab Shafi'i or the Shafi'i school of Islam.

The Shafi'i school of Islam was established around 200 years or so after the time of Prophet Muhammad during the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (the Caliph of the One Thousand and One Nights fame). Hence Malays are following a branch of Islam that was established long after the death of the Prophet and during the time of 'liberalisation'. This can be said to be the beginning of the 'separation of church and state', when power over religion was transferred into the hands of the scholars (ulama') who were not too happy with the 'liberal' lifestyle of the Caliph.

Let me conclude this piece as follows. Islam says it is not a religion but a way of life. Prophet Muhammad embarked upon setting up a system of government based on an Islamic system of administration. Malays follow the Shafi'i school of Islam, which was established 180-200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad and when the Hadith began to emerge (and that is why Malay Muslims talk more about the Hadith than the Qur'an).

In short, just like what happened in Christianity, Islam was defined (or redefined) later and what Malays practice today is the 'reinvented' version of Islam, just like what the Christians are doing. Hence His Highness the Sultan's Royal Decree is not in line with the Medina version of Islam but follows a later form of Islam where religion and state are separated. If you follow Prophet Muhammad's Medina version of Islam then Islam is the state.

Of course, I am analysing things from the historical point of view and not from the theological point of view -- so certainly theologians will disagree with my hypothesis. But then that is their view (based on theology) while I have my own view (based on history).

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

TIMELINE

Paul the Apostle's (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67) leadership, influence and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped the God of Israel, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses, that these laws and rituals had either been fulfilled in the life of Christ or were symbolic precursors of Christ, all on the basis of Paul's teachings of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant (or "new testament") established through Jesus' death and resurrection.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, 13 March (AD) 624.

The Second Council of Nicaea met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.

Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (17 March 763 or February 766 – 24 March 809) was the fifth Arab Abbasid Caliph that encompassed modern Iraq.

Imam Shafi'i a.k.a. Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (AD 767-820) or 150-204 years after Prophet Muhammad's hijrah/migration from Mekah to Medina.

 

How information and knowledge changed the world

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

 

So the government must make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

William Caxton (ca. 1415~1422 – ca. March 1492) was an English merchant, diplomat, writer and printer. He is considered the first Englishman to work as a printer and the first to introduce a printing press into England. He was also the first English retailer of printed books.

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, priest, professor of theology, and a prime mover of the Protestant Reformation. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521, resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

In 1534, King Henry VIII separated the English Church from Rome and the Church of England became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy, which triggered a series of events known as the English Reformation.

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

No, this is not an article about religion or Christianity. This article is about Reformasi (reformation), which started in Malaysia in 1998 and in Europe 500 years or so earlier.

Back in the old days, when we talk about political domination this also means religious domination. And that is why Umno cannot allow Malays to be too independent-minded when it comes to religion, and for sure Umno cannot allow Malays to leave Islam. If the Malays cannot be enslaved religiously then they cannot be enslaved politically as well.

This was proven in Europe 500 years ago. When the Europeans removed the shackles of religion they invariably also removed the shackles of politics.

In the old days, the Bible was written in Latin. But very few people were proficient in that 'dead language'. Only the learned priests spoke Latin. Hence the priests interpreted what the 'Holy Books' said and the ignorant people had to accept the word of these priests, many who were corrupt and exploited their position to manipulate the people.

People like Martin Luther challenged this and soon Bibles were translated into various 'mother tongues'. People now began to understand what they read and they no longer needed 'intermediaries' to interpret the word of God.

Nevertheless, Bibles were still handwritten and it could take up to one year for the scribes to complete one copy of the Bible. And that would mean there would not be too many copies to go around so only the privileged could get their hands on one.

Then people like William Caxton introduced the printing press and what used to take one year could now be completed in a mere days, with many copies produced at the same time. Furthermore, they were not printed in Latin but in English. So the priests and the church structure suddenly became irrelevant.

Then King Henry VIII challenged the authority of the Pope and broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Now no longer was the Pope considered God's representative on earth.

England basically reformed thereafter while Europe remained in the 'Dark Ages' until another 300 years or so when Napoleon Bonaparte conquered and occupied almost the whole of Europe.

But England's reformation came with a heavy price, which we shall talk about in a while.

Napoleon then separated the church from the state (which the English had done 300 years earlier). Before that, education was provided by the church and even then reserved only for the elite. Napoleon built public schools and opened up education for anyone who wanted an education.

In short, religion was sidelined and the people were educated outside the influence of the church. Within 30 years, Europe suffered a series of revolutions, which eventually saw the end of the monarchies and empires and the emergence of independent republics. (France also saw its second revolution then).

Now, what happened 500 years ago in England and in Europe around 300 years later? Well, basically what happened at that time in England and Europe was what is happening in Malaysia today.

The only difference is, in England and Europe, it was education (knowledge) and the availability of books (information) that triggered these changes. Today, in Malaysia, it is the Internet and the Information Revolution that the Internet spawned.

Malaysia is walking down the same path that Britain and Europe once did. Information is easily available to Malaysians and the Internet is that catalyst for the spread of this information.

So change is going to come to Malaysia.

Now, back to that 'heavy price' that England paid for its reformation, which I mentioned earlier.

Two generations later, in the early 1600s, England 'exploded' when the people challenged Charles I. Civil War soon broke out and that totally changed England forever. 250 years later, this 'disease' spread to Europe when the Europeans too challenged their absolute monarchies and its 'running dogs', the church.

Education and information are dangerous things. It changed England and, later, Europe. And it was the printing press and books that achieved this. It made the people literate. And once the people become literate they no longer accept the system and will challenge the system.

The only way Umno can extend its shelf-life is to ensure that Malaysians remain illiterate. But it is too late for that. Malaysians are now educated and can think for themselves.

So the government must instead make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think.

England and Europe made a huge mistake. They educated their people. They provided information to their people. They allowed their people to think. And this resulted in the people throwing off the shackles of slavery by removing the dictators and autocratic leaders.

Malaysia must not make that same mistake. And the only way to avoid that mistake is to keep the people ignorant. And one way to keep the people ignorant is to shackle their minds and use religion as that tool.

So now do you know what this whole issue of freedom of religion is all about? It is about perpetuating power and to not lose power. It is about not allowing what happened in England and Europe to also happen in Malaysia.

And that is what Malaysia Today is all about. It is about making you think. It is about making you challenge the system. It is about rejecting bullshit. And even if that bullshit is religion we must also reject it because there are no borders, boundaries or sacred cows here.

Oh, and part of this education process is provocation. So trust Malaysia Today to provoke you. Only through provocation can your brain work overtime. If not most of you will just go to sleep and continue slumbering right into 2020.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved