Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Do you get it now?
- So, what do you think now?
- Jaw, jaw rather than war, war
- History, not theology
- Deepak Jaikishan, the opposition’s secret weapon
- About withdrawing someone’s citizenship
- The problem with self-hypnosis
- The Pearl of the Orient not so pearly any more
- Been there, done that
- The approach
| Posted: 23 Feb 2013 03:38 PM PST
MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Subject: Nur Misuari Back On Jolo, Amid New Fighting Origin: US Embassy Manila (Philippines) Cable time: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:38 UTC Classified By: Pol/C Scott Bellard for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary: The Makati Regional Trial Court temporarily permitted detained Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) Chairman Nur Misuari to campaign for Sulu Governor in Jolo City May 11-14. Followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik clashed again May 8 with government security forces in Kalingang Caluang on Jolo Island. Pressure may be building on some MNLF commanders to support Malik, who remains on the run. Misuari apparently still harbors aspirations to "re-gain" Sabah from Malaysia. The Philippine government clearly hopes Misuari will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term -- but probably not as Sulu governor. End Summary. Court OKs Misuari to Jolo 2. (U) On May 9, Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Winlove Dumuyag issued written approval for detained MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari to return to Jolo City May 11-14 to campaign for Sulu Governor and to cast his votes. He intends to hold at least one political rally in Jolo City. The judge denied requests for him also to visit Luuk, Siasi, and Pangaturan May 10-20. The Court is also unlikely to approve a motion to allow Misuari to accept an invitation to the May 15-17 Organization of Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Islamabad, Pakistan. However, Judge Dumuyag scheduled Misuari's bail hearing for June 21. Exceptionally, the hearing will took place in the house where Misuari is serving his detention. 3. (C) Armed Forces of the Philippines National Capital Region Commander Major General Ben Dolorfino -- the most senior AFP Muslim and the chief of the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group with the Moro Islamic National Liberation Front -- told poloff that he had personally encouraged Misuari to run for governor and had advised him to attack incumbent Sulu Governor Benjamin Loong for engaging in "un-Islamic practices," including embezzlement of Internal Revenue Allotment funds, corruption, alcohol consumption, gambling, and absenteeism from official duties. MG Dolorfino said that he had also advised Misuari to criticize the other gubernatorial candidate -- former Sulu Governor Sakur Tan -- for engaging in many of the same "un-Islamic practices," in addition to drug trafficking. Fresh Fighting 4. (U) Renewed fighting erupted in Jolo on May 8 between AFP troops and followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik (reftels). AFP Western Mindanao Command Information Officer Eugenio Batara told the press that the fighting began during the early morning in Barangay Kambing of Kalinggalang Kaluang. 5. (C) MG Dolorfino, whom Malik briefly held captive in February (ref f), described the current political and security situation on Jolo as "very delicate." Dolorfino commented that, while Malik remains isolated and on the run, pressure is building among some MNLF commanders to support Malik in the face of mounting MNLF casualties. He commented that if Malik is "pushed to the wall," the potential exists that other MNLF elements on Jolo, Basilan, the Zamboanga Peninsula, and/or in central Mindanao will enter the fray. Dolorfino instead welcomed efforts by the Philippine National Police to bring Malik to justice based on a new arrest warrant for Malik. Attorney Jainal separately predicted that Malik would never allow himself to be captured alive by government security forces and that Malik's death would likely embolden other MNLF members to fight. Dreaming of Sabah...? 6. (C) MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. Misuari once commented to MG Dolorfino that when the timing was right, "the MNLF could invade Sabah at 5 a.m. and control it by 7 a.m." Misuari has also reportedly claimed that he personally was a legitimate claimant to Sabah by virtue of his "royal blood," and has blamed "Malaysia's agents" for stirring up trouble in Sulu. 7. (C) Self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Fuad Kiram granted Misuari the hereditary rank of "Datu" (Royal Prince) of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo (Sabah) at Misuari's detention house on March 14. Kiram attended the March 18 MNLF Freedom Day Anniversary Celebration at Malik's then-camp in Bitanag as guest of honor, where Malik called him the only "true and legitimate" Sultan of Sulu and Sabah, according to Kiram's chief advisor, Omar Kiram. 8. (C) MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's. Over the past several months, Malaysian officials have held at least three meetings with Misuari and/or Misuari's wives, according to Jainal and Dolorfino. During an April 10 meeting, a special envoy from Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told Misuari not to meddle in Malaysia's domestic politics, Dolorfino said. According to Jainal, Misuari promised Badawi's representative that he had no intention of getting involved in Malaysia's internal affairs. 9. (C) Dolorfino opined that Malaysia would likely seek stronger assurances that Misuari would not pursue the Sabah claim. He added that Malaysia had promised to facilitate an eventual power sharing agreement between the MNLF and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) after the GRP-MILF Peace Panels reached an ancestral domain agreement. Comment 10. (C) Despite his checked past, Nur Misuari retains considerable respect among the MNLF as its founder and long-time leader, despite his rather ignominious term as governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and his ongoing trial for sedition. The Philippine government clearly hopes he will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term, but probably not as Sulu governor, unlikely as that now seems. His two competitors, Loong and Tan, have even stronger ties to different elements in the Arroyo Administration, which must ultimately find a path to peace with the MILF without treading on too many MNLF toes. SOURCE: WIKILEAKS
|
| Posted: 21 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin The Russians, in response to the KAL 007 tragedy, said that the world has a memory of only 100 days. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad, in turn, said that 'Melayu mudah lupa'. And I have written a few times that actually most Malaysians, and not just Melayu, mudah lupa. You may first want to read what Haris Ibrahim (Sam) wrote in his Blog more than two years ago on 27th October 2010 (below). Basically, this refers to our plans -- and 'our' here meaning the Bloggers cum political activists -- for initiating a Third Force. This was what Sam said in his Blog posting of 27th October 2010: Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included. The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE. Maybe the very name, 'Third Force', conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case. Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM. However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force. Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR. The reason Sam felt he should clarify what is meant by the Third Force is because I had written about this matter earlier -- not long after the 2008 general election -- (as I also did regarding the Unity Government) and I got whacked good and proper by many people, Pakatan Rakyat leaders included. And because of that I backed off from talking about the Unity Government and the Third Force. Sam, therefore, knew he had to tread very careful when talking about this and hence he wanted to explain very clearly what we had in mind before everyone flies of the handle and goes off tangent. Anyway, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the launching of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in October 2010. Sam has since left, as have many others, and MCLM has been transferred into the hands of a new team, all Pakatan Rakyat supporters, may I add. I felt it is only right that this new team should take over since a vote of no confidence has been passed against me, so to speak. The only setback with this, though, is that MCLM will no longer be viewed as an independent movement or a Third Force since it is allied to Pakatan Rakyat. But I suppose this is unavoidable since it looks like most Malaysians do not want an independent Third Force but would rather you be aligned either to Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. Malaysia is not yet ready for a Third Force. In Thailand you are either red shirt of yellow shirt. In Malaysia it is blue shirt (BN) or yellow shirt (Bersih). In short, either black or white, no shades of grey. Okay, when the idea of a Third Force was mooted, which subsequently saw the creation of MCLM, there must have been certain concerns at the back of our minds to prompt us to make this move. Yes, there were. And I had, in fact, already detailed my 'Vision and Mission Statement'. And Sam agreed with this Vision and Mission Statement although he said he would rather called it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' to avoid any misunderstanding of what we had in mind. However, since Malaysians muda lupa, maybe I can take you for a walk down memory lane and we can explore whether these concerns that were driving us then were misplaced or warranted. One concern (but not in order of priority) was regarding absorbing politicians from Barisan Nasional into Pakatan Rakyat who were 'damaged goods' or 'expired goods'. These people join the opposition because their 'shelf-life' has expired and their political career in Barisan Nasional is going downhill. Hence they join the opposition not because they are committed to reforms or because they have repented but because they are trying to reinvent themselves and attempt a second bite of the cherry. One more concern was regarding the racial and religious politics being played by both sides of the divide, which is threatening to rip the country apart and send Malaysia back to the era of 1960s -- and which is regarded as the blackest period of Malaysia's post-war history. We felt that unless race and religion are kept out of politics then Malaysia can never progress and it may even one day trigger a second ethnic clash like what happened in 1969. Another issue was regarding the inter-party and intra-party quarrelling and squabbling. The members of Pakatan Rakyat are fighting with one another and even within the individual parties there is infighting. One reason for this is because there is no clear common platform, although all the parties in Pakatan Rakyat claim that there is. Each party still has its own individual objective and aspiration, which overrides the objective and aspiration of the coalition. And unless this was resolved, this may trigger a serious crisis closer to the next general election and more so after the general election in the event that Pakatan Rakyat wins the election. Furthermore, the fighting over seats and candidates threatens to add to this crisis if not resolved. Barisan Nasional did badly in 2008 partly because of internal sabotage due to unhappiness over seats and candidates. Pakatan Rakyat is in danger of suffering that same fate, which will jeopardise the opposition's chances of winning the election. Then there was the issue of election promises. In the past, voters would forget what you promised in the last general election. Hence you can make the same promises in every election and no one is going to remember that these were the old promises you made in the last election but never delivered. Today, because of the Internet and the information revolution, people can remember what was said even ten or 20 years ago. Hence delivering on your promises is crucial. And one promise that I raised was regarding The People's Declaration and which Anwar Ibrahim rejected back in 2010 after endorsing it in February 2008. Further to that, last year, the Selangor Menteri Besar made a statement saying that it is not mandatory to deliver promises made in Election Manifestos. If so then why even present an Election Manifesto if you do not intend to fulfil it and you feel that you are not compelled to make good your promises? Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat is going to present its new Election Manifesto this Monday. Let us see how much of that was from the last election's Manifesto and how much of it was fulfilled. We can also compare it with The People's Declaration and see how much of it has been adopted into Pakatan Rakyat's new Election Manifesto. I also raised the matter of good governance, transparency and accountability and how, after two-and-a-half years (as at end 2010), there are still incidences of mismanagement, abuse of power and corruption in the Pakatan Rakyat run states. The response to this was Barisan Nasional is worse. Pakatan Rakyat -- although it still happens in the opposition states -- is not that bad. But then you are comparing states like Selangor to the federal government. Of course Barisan Nasional is worse. Barisan Nasional is the federal government. You should compare Selangor to Barisan Nasional run states like Pahang, Johor, etc. Pick on someone your own size. It is like comparing Malaysia to Singapore when Singapore should be compared to Kuala Lumpur or Penang. Anyway, the Pakatan Rakyat leaders denied that there were 'problems' in their states and they challenged me to reveal the evidence to back up my allegation that there are incidences of corruption in Pakatan Rakyat run states. One issue, for example, was regarding sand mining in Selangor. Another was regarding the cronyism system in awarding legal work. Prove it, they said. Show us the evidence, they screamed. And I did, as what they wanted. I published the evidence. However, instead of admitting the problem, they still disputed my allegation and called it a lie. They even challenged me to return to Malaysia with all the evidence. The state was even prepared to pay my expenses to return to Malaysia. Well, those are but some of the issues I raised since late 2010. And because of that I was condemned, called a liar, accused of being bought, and much, much more. Nevertheless, the next general election will soon be upon us. Barisan Nasional claims it will win at least 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Pakatan Rakyat is going to win only 72-79 seats. Pakatan Rakyat, in turn, says it is going to win 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Barisan Nasional is going to win only 72-79 seats. Let us see who is right. In the meantime, more than 80% of the voters have already decided whom they will be voting for, with less than 20% undecided or on the fence. And this less than 20% are non-partisan. They do not belong to or support any political party. They just want a good government. And it is this less than 20% who will be deciding who is going to run Malaysia over the next five years. And many of this less than 20% are readers of Malaysia Today. And that is the Third Force I am talking about -- and have been talking about for more than three years now. And now do you understand what Malaysia Today is all about and has been doing since 2010? ******************************************** Can the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement give life to the much talked about 'Third Force'? Haris Ibrahim, 27 October 2010 Last Monday, RPK wrote in M-Today that he had, in 2004, "attended the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS)…That was six years ago and after six years nothing further has happened. This is because the MCLS is still awaiting the approval of its registration". I, too, was at that inaugural meeting and to this day I remain a protem committee of the MCLS that awaits registration. I have given up waiting on the registrar of societies. I was therefore excited to read in RPK's posting that this coming Saturday, 30th October, he will cause to be registered in the UK the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement. It's objectives, as disclosed by RPK in his post, are : 1. to promote and propagate the People's Voice & the People's Declaration to all political parties contesting the coming general election. 2. to 'offer' non-political party candidates from amongst the Malaysian professionals/lawyers and the civil society movements to ALL the political parties contesting the general election that may either be short of candidates or are not able to find 'quality' candidates to field in the elections In a post entitled 'Why the mad scramble' yesterday (READ HERE), RPK disclosed that the immediate focus of the MCLM is to engage the 3 Pakatan Rakyat parties in dialogues to try to convince them to change their system of candidate selection in the general and by-elections. This, RPK elaborates today in his 'When you don't trust your own people' post (READ HERE), spotlighting two issues: first, which party gets to contest which seat and, second, the practice by political parties of naming candidates at the eleventh hour. In three posts, RPK has summed up the concerns of so many of us about what is believed to be an imminent 13th GE that offers an opportunity displace BN from federal governance, and an opposition that does not look quite so ready to go to war and despatch BN to the Indian Ocean. I received an e-mail last Monday inquiring if I would be willing to serve as the interim spokesperson for MCLM until this Saturday when they will officially appoint office bearers. I replied in the affirmative, subject to getting clarification on one point. The first objective talks about making available civil society candidates to ALL parties. Did that include BN? The reply I got was reassuring. All non-BN parties. I agreed to that request, for one reason only. If you compare the objects of MCLM as disclosed by RPK with the much-discussed Third Force, I think you will find little difference between the two. Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included. The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE. Maybe the very name, 'Third Force' conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case. Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM. However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force. Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR. Or any other name that any of you would care to suggest. I agreed to serve as interim spokesperson in the hope that, in that capacity, I could try to get MCLM to serve as the platform by which we push forth IR or whatever name you want to call it, to make ready for the 13th GE. Should we try? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. |
| Posted: 20 Feb 2013 04:44 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Many people are screaming about the 'terrorist invasion' of Lahat Datu, Sabah, and they are upset that the Malaysian government has not taken drastic action against these infiltrators. What drastic action are you talking about? Do you want the army to shoot them all dead? The Muslim Bangsamoro come from the Philippines and they make up about 5% of the 95 million or so population of that Roman Catholic country. This means there are millions more from where these people came from. And many of the Moro are not only armed but are battle-seasoned as well after going through two generations of civil war since 1969. Shooting these infiltrators dead is not a problem. In fact, that is the easiest thing to do. The problem would be what then? Are we prepared to risk retaliation after that? We must remember that shooting a few hundred 'illegals' dead is not that difficult. All it takes is guns and bullets, and Malaysia has plenty of that. It is what comes next that we have to worry about. Sabah has always been a dicey issue in the Malaysia-Philippines relationship. It is also an issue for the Malaysian-Indonesian relationship as well for those like me who are old enough to remember the Konfrontasi of the early 1960s. Sure, in the early 1960s the Indonesians invaded parts of Malaysia such as Johor and North Borneo and, sure, we whacked them good and proper. But the 'we' at that time included soldiers from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many more -- the British Ghurkhas and British Special Forces included. Almost 30,000 military personnel were involved -- plus 80 ships from the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Malayan Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy. In North Borneo there was a secret and undeclared war going on along the Kalimantan border that the world did not know about. And it was more serious than many Malaysians are aware of. More than 1,100 people were killed and wounded (almost 100 of them civilians). But we were not told this because the government did not want the people to panic. I know many Malaysian are blaming Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian government, Barisan Nasional, Umno, and so on for what is happening. They say that this is the government's fault for not taking drastic action in shooting them all dead. What is the opposition view on this? Does the opposition, too, want the government to shoot these people dead? Is the opposition prepared to set aside politics and stand united with the government in asking the government to take drastic action? Has the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, in very clear terms, made a statement asking the government to shoot them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia in the next 24 hours? Is Anwar Ibrahim prepared to declare that he will support any drastic action taken by the Malaysian government, including shooting them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia? When push comes to shove, are Malaysians prepared to face the risk of retaliation in the event the action the government has to take triggers an armed conflict with our neighbours? There are about 350 million Indonesians and Filipinos in total as opposed to less than 30 million Malaysians. And about 3 million of these Indonesians and Filipinos live in Malaysia, all over the country, and some even possess Malaysian 'papers'. As a responsible Malaysian I would first like the government to explore a peaceful solution to this standoff. Only if that is not possible and only if they start shooting first should we fire our guns. And even then the guns should be fired as an act of defence and not as an act of aggression. Sure, infiltration itself is an act of aggression. Hence shooting them can be interpreted as an act of defence and not an act of aggression. But was that not also what they said in Lebanon, Bosnia, Rwanda, and many other places all over the world that saw bloodshed? The United Nations was formed so that we can avoid wars. And the United Nations is where we go to settle disputes. As what the late Tun Ghazali Shafie once said: as long as can continue to jaw, jaw we can avoid war, war. In other words, keep talking (jaw, jaw) until it is no longer possible to talk before we go to war. Starting a war is easy. Ending it is difficult. Nevertheless, a long-term solution needs to be found to settle this matter, which is a decades old problem. Now, assuming Pakatan Rakyat wins the coming general election in the next month or two and it gets to form the new federal government. And, say, this standoff has still not been settled by then (meaning the infiltrators are still in Sabah). How does Pakatan Rakyat propose to solve this issue? Will Anwar get sworn in as the new Prime Minister and then the very next day he sends in the army to shoot everyone dead? I doubt Anwar will do that. Anwar, too, will try to negotiate a peaceful end to this standoff. There is one thing we must remember. The creation of Malaysia was not exactly 'kosher', if you know what I mean. There is a lot of 'history' behind the creation of Malaysia. And some of that 'history' has now surfaced to bite us in the butt. According to the Americans, the South China Sea region is the most likely region for the outbreak of the Third World War in the event a Third World War does break out. So let us ponder on that before we ask the government to do a John Wayne and go in with our guns blazing. And now read that statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) below. *************************************** Statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) MILF to Sulu sultan's heirs: We consulted you on peace talks (luwaran.com) -- "We have reached out to you as we did to other groups in Mindanao on the subject of resolving the conflict in Mindanao. We did this on several occasions particularly when the MILF peace panel had a sortie in Zamboanga City more than a year ago." This was the explanation of Khaled Musa, deputy chairman of the MILF Committee on Information, in response to allegation purportedly coming from one of the spokesmen of the Sultan of Sulu that they were not consulted on issues surrounding the GPH-MILF peace negotiation. Currently, followers of the Sulu sultan are reportedly involved in the standoff in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Malaysia. In the Zamboanga forum, one of the relatives of the Sulu sultan asked the policy of the MILF regarding the sultanate especially the Sulu sultanate and the answer was: "We want to preserve it but we will not revive it." "The sultanate is part of Moro history and heritage and it is one of the basis of the present Moro's assertion of its right to self-determination," Musa stressed. He, however, clarified that the MILF will not stand on the way if the various sultanates would want to revive themselves. "We respect their decisions," he added. In 1935, Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon abolished the sultanates and the datu system. In one of his meeting with them, he had this blunt message: "… The sultans have no more rights than the humblest Moro and that under my administration the humblest Moro will be given as much protection as any datu under the law, and that his rights will be recognized exactly as the rights of a datu will be, and that every datu will have to comply with his duties as citizen to same extent and in the same manner that the humblest Moro is obligated." In the sultanate or datu system, the people are generally divided into three categories: the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves. Some say correctly or wrongly this system has roots in the caste system in India. The only difference is that amongst Moros, slaves were at times given the chance to buy his or her freedom or were freed by benevolent nobles. Asked to comment on the Sabah standoff, Musa declined to make any statement, saying it is highly sensitive issue that the MILF Central Committee has not yet made the necessary guidelines. "It is better to remain silent," he confessed. *************************************** Sabah a sanctuary for the people of Bangsamoro (The Star) -- The Malaysian Government has done more for the displaced people in the former conflict zone of Southern Philippines than just brokering a peace agreement. Moro Islamic Liberation Front chairman Murad Ebrahim said the Malaysian Government as well as its people contributed much by opening their doors to the Bangsamoro people in Sabah when they had to flee from their homes because of the conflict since the 1970s. "At that time, there was no peace and order, and the economy was in tatters." "Sabah was near and I suppose the Bangsamoro found it better to seek opportunities there." "We are thankful for that because at the time there was no way for us to help our own people," he said. At the same time, he said he was appreciative of the Government for allowing qualified Bangsamoro people to apply for citizenship and identity cards after having stayed in the country for decades. The ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry heard a testimony by a former Moro National Liberation Front leader who slipped into Sandakan in 1975 and has since become a permanent resident. However, Murad said since the restoration of peace in the region, the doors were now open for the Bangsamoro people to return and rebuild their homeland. "Now many of them are well-off. If they choose to come back to the Bangsamoro area, they can help with development and investment in the Bangsamoro, like how we also welcome Malaysian investors." "But we give them a choice. If they choose to stay in Malaysia, we won't have objections," he said. *************************************** The term Bangsamoro refers to a people who are natives of the Sulu archipelago, parts of Mindanao, parts of Palawan in the Philippines, and parts of Sabah in neighbouring Malaysia at the time of conquest or colonisation. It comes from the Malay word bangsa, meaning nation or people, and the Spanish word Moro, from the Spanish word for Moor, the Reconquista-period term used for Muslims. Bangsamoro covers the provinces of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sarangani, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga Sibugay; and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga. Other interpretations may include territories that used to form North Borneo including Sabah, Labuan and the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. These areas are currently under the Sabah dispute. Historically, the island of Mactan plus the provinces of Manila and Cavite also formed part of Bangsamoro, as they were under Muslim rule. The Moro ethnic group comprises the following population located in the southern islands of the Philippines. Bajau Banguingui Illanun Kalagan Kalibugan Maranao people Maguindanao Tausug Samal people Sama Sangir Yakan |
| Posted: 19 Feb 2013 06:14 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin It is interesting to note that my article titled 'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter' attracted 167 comments at the time I am writing this. And it would have been more than 200 had I not deleted all those copy-and-paste comments of verses from the Bible. And do you know why it attracted so many comments? Well, because most readers took it as an article regarding religion and whenever we talk about religion all the loonies and weirdoes would crawl out of the woodwork to argue and defend their God. It never fails each and every time. However, what they fail to see is that I am talking about history, not theology. But these people just cannot grasp the spirit of my article. And these are the same people who try to interpret what I say and do and usually would misinterpret it and take the opposite of what I said (remember the TV3 interview in Perth that I did?) And these are the 'thinkers' of the Malaysian public who will be voting for the 'right' government come the next general election in the next month or two. Heaven help Malaysia when we put the lunatics in charge of the asylum. I have noticed that most Malaysian Christians (at least those who post comments in Malaysia Today) normally argue that there is a distinction between the Old and New Testaments and that Christians follow the New and not the Old Testament. In other words, the New Testament has abrogated the Old Testament. But this is not what I find in England, strangely enough. Anyway, let me emphasis, yet again, that today I am talking about history, not theology. And I will try to equate the history of Christianity in England (mainly the 1500-1600 period: which was a period of religious turmoil) with that of Islam so that you can better understand how both religions went down the same historical path. You see, in Islam, there are those who interpret the Qur'an literally and there are those who take it as allegorical. Then there are those who accept the 'Scriptures' (in this case the Hadith) as authentic and those who reject them completely. Then there are those who accept some Hadith but not all while others accept different versions of Hadith. Then, the most puzzling part of all (to those not schooled in the Qur'an, that is) would be the history of the Qur'an verses and which verse abrogates which verse. Then again, there are those who reject the 'science' of abrogation and argue that all verses still stand and none have been abrogated. And that is why when non-Muslims copy-and-paste verses of the Qur'an and then try to interpret it the way they see it (meaning literally) they are terribly off the mark. Which verses, if any, are taken as literal and which ones as allegorical? Even Muslims are divided and sometimes confused on the matter so what more the non-Muslims who think they know what they are reading but actually do not know a thing. Now, Christianity, too, suffers from this same ailment (such as literal versus allegorical). And that was what happened over more than 150 years from the early 1500s to the late 1600s in England. And because of this, England erupted into a Civil War from 1642 to 1651 and which resulted in the first time in English history that a monarch lost his head. To study the history of the English Civil War you need to also understand the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I, a prelude to the reign of Charles I. We all know that Henry broke from Rome and declared himself the head of the church, the Church of England. Soon after that he purged England of Catholics. Cathedrals and churches were burned to the ground, Catholics and their priests were executed, and all symbols of Catholicism (even the crucifix) were destroyed. When Henry and then Edward died, Mary took the throne and, being a Catholic, she reversed what her father did. This time, Protestant cathedrals and churches were burned plus Protestants and their priests were killed (even burned alive). In fact, she did worse than what her father did and for that she earned the title of Bloody Mary. Then Elizabeth took the throne and she, in turn, reversed what Mary did. This time Catholics were put to death and their houses of worship and symbols destroyed. They also passed a new law that prohibited Catholics from sitting on the throne of England. Now, we come to the reign of Charles I. Charles was not a Roman Catholic but he believed that the Church of England was more Catholic than the Church of Rome itself. And there were many Catholics within Charles' own family -- such as his mother, Anne of Denmark; his wife, Henrietta Maria; etc. In fact, later on, his eldest son Charles became a Roman Catholic on his deathbed while James II, who also became a Roman Catholic, lost his throne because of that. Hence England takes this 'No Catholic' rule very seriously. The problem with Charles was that he was surrounded by those suspected of being 'closet' Catholics plus known Catholics. Hence Parliament wanted Charles to remove his advisers whom many Members of Parliament suspected were misleading Charles and giving him the wrong advice in favour of Catholicism. Parliament, in fact, even forced Charles to sign death warrants for some of his close friends and although at first Charles resisted, he later had no choice but to sign these documents while crying as he did so. The quarrel between Charles and Parliament was about two issues. One was regarding money (Charles bypassed Parliament when he imposed new taxes: in fact, Charles suspended Parliament five times during his rule) and the other was regarding religion. The Puritans wanted England cleansed of Catholics, who they regarded as deviant heretics who should be put to death. Amongst others they also wanted Christmas banned and shops ordered by law to stay open on 25th December. Parliament was also not happy that Mass was being said in the Royal Court since Mass or Eucharist is the central act of worship for the Roman Catholic Church. Parliament suspected that there was a secret agenda to turn England into a Catholic state. Hence the Catholics needed to be destroyed and England retained as a Secular State with separation of State and Church. Charles, however, refused because he wanted to retain Episcopacy. And with that the Civil War broke out with the Puritans on one side and the Royalists on the other. Later, after Charles was defeated, a bloody war broke out between Parliament and the Catholics in Ireland, so bloody and brutal that until today the Irish have never forgotten or forgiven the English. Charles was eventually pronounced a traitor and executed. The English Catholic Church, however, has canonised Charles as a martyr, more or less confirming that Charles was Catholic 'at heart'. So you see, not all Christians regard Catholics as real Christians (just like not all Muslims regard Wahhabis and Shias as real Muslims). The Catholics even up to these modern times are viewed as deviant heretics who bring affront to the religion of Christ. No, I am not talking about theology here. I am talking about the history of England (at least of 500 years ago) and how many in England view the Catholics as sesat (misguided) Christians.
TIMELINE Henry VIII: 21 April 1509 to 28 January 1547 Edward VI: 28 January 1547 to 6 July 1553 Mary I: 19 Jul 1553 to 17 November 1558 (a.k.a. Bloody Mary) Elizabeth I: 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603 (a.k.a. the Virgin Queen) James I: to 24 March 1603 to 27 March 1625 Charles I: 27 March 1625 to 30 January 1649 England then temporarily became a Republic upon the death (execution) of Charles I until Charles II took the throne on 29 May 1660.
|
| Deepak Jaikishan, the opposition’s secret weapon Posted: 18 Feb 2013 06:31 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Two years ago, Deepak Jaikishan did a series of interviews and issued a few press releases calling me a liar and alleging that he had nothing to do with private investigator Perumal Balasubramaniam and/or the First Family. Deepak then challenged me to return to Malaysia to repeat those allegations that I made against him, if I dare. Of late, Deepak has, again, been doing a series of interviews and has been issuing press release after press release contradicting everything he said two years ago. The only thing he did not say was, "Raja Petra Kamarudin did not lie two years ago, as I had alleged. Instead, I was the one who lied. Raja Petra, in fact, told the truth." So now Deepak is saying the same thing as what I had said two years ago. But two years ago the pro-opposition alternative media carried Deepak's interviews and press releases denying what I had said and calling me a liar. Today, Deepak has done a U-turn and has contradicted everything he said two years ago while more or less confirming what I had said. But what does the opposition do? Instead of chiding Deepak for slandering me, they adopt Deepak as their poster boy. Deepak is now the opposition's new mascot to help them march into Putrajaya. No doubt the opposition seeks only one thing: to grab power. All politicians want to grab power -- that is the only thing they are interested in. And they will do anything just to get into power -- even sell their own mother if necessary. But we are fighting for change. We are talking about reforms. We are propagating politik baru (new politics). Hence should we not then adopt certain codes of ethics in our pursuit of power? Barisan Nasional is not fighting for change. Umno is not talking about reforms or propagating politik baru. They just want to retain 'old values'. Hence I do not really care what those in government say and do. I expect them to say and do the wrong thing. That is the nature of the beast. But the opposition is supposed to be different. The opposition says it is offering us something different and something new. In that case why is the opposition playing the same game as Barisan Nasional? The opposition and the pro-opposition alternative media are very quick to jump onto the bandwagon and repeat, again and again, all the negative things they have so say about people who criticise the opposition. But when those allegations are later proven false, they maintain a deafening silence and pretend all this did not happen. There are two types of lies. One type of lie is to tell an untruth. The other type of lie is to hide the truth. The government uses one method while the opposition uses the other. At the end of the day, it is merely a difference between the glass being half-full and the glass being half-empty. The Malays call this dua kali lima. I do not expect anything from those who walk in the corridors of power. In fact, I expect the worst from them. But for the same to come from the opposition is intolerable because the opposition is talking about raising the bar. Hence let us see the opposition raise that bar. Barisan Nasional, understandably, is not capable of doing the right thing. That is to be expected. Pakatan Rakyat, however, should be aiming to uphold the truth. However, if Pakatan Rakyat also plays the same lying game as Barisan Nasional, is this not what the English call old wine in a new bottle? I expect when the US financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight Iran and created the Taliban to fight Russia, and while Malaysia armed and trained the Muslim Moro to fight the Christians, it is also kosher for Pakatan Rakyat to work with slime-balls and scumbags just to win the election. And what else would you label a person like Deepak Jaikishan who admits that he is up in arms against the First Family because he is not going to make the hundreds of millions after all that he had expected to make -- money that, in the first place, belongs to the taxpayers? ********************************************* Is Deepak's quest real, or political? Jimmy Chia, The Malaysian Insider Businessman Deepak Jaikishan seems to have a major grudge against the government, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor. Apart from his revelations and an e-book, the carpet dealer is now suing the prime minister's wife for RM 3 billion. That is an astronomical sum, to say the least. But if his cause is real and he is an aggrieved party in a business tiff, why consort with the opposition in his case against the government? If this is a business dispute, why bring in the politicians? Why write an open letter to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and say he is a nationalist like the former prime minister? That appears to be a political move. That appears to be part of a move to unseat the prime minister by creating stories about him and his family, rather than a straight-forward business partnership gone sour. Deepak has already admitted he has done business deals for eight years and profited from it. Now that they have fallen out, he wants to sue them, and work with the opposition to bring Najib down. Can he please make up his mind? Is this about business or about politics? One can't pretend to have an attack of the conscience after working together for so long. If the partnership was still good, would he have come out and said what he has revealed these past few months? Or is this just another case of a disgruntled businessman who is no longer in the circle of power? Deepak has shown an insight into a different world but his actions now reveal a bitter man who is seeking to bring down the people he used to do business with, one way or another. To the extent of using whatever means, legal or political, to get his way. You're no saint, Deepak. You would do your cause better if you crusade alone rather than get in bed with politicians again. ********************************************* "May I suggest that you (Najib) as our 'sitting PM' to explain the truth on SD2 to the Malaysian public and not just sit on the PM's chair like a 'sitting duck'," Deepak said today. "What is most important is that both you and your wife come forward now to specifically reveal the truth to the entire Malaysian public on why she (Rosmah) instructed me (to get Balasubramaniam) to reverse the SD2," he added. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/01/18/deepak-come-clean-on-altantuya-najib/ ********************************************* Deepak, who once said he was close enough to Rosmah to call her his "big sister," has continued to cause embarrassment to the prime minister and his wife, who so far have maintained an awkward silence in the face of his charges. He has vowed to detail - or re-detail, since he has already made the information public to a flock of internet sites over recent weeks - RM3 million in payments to a private investigator, Perumal Balasubramaniam, in 2008 in an effort to shut up the investigator. http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5079&Itemid=178 ********************************************* In the video he allegedly links PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and his fellow counterparts such as lawyer R Sivarasa, PKR vice president N Surendran and Anwar's daughter Nurul Izzah to his decision to 'tell the truth'. In the video, he allegedly mentions that Anwar was the one who offered legal help to him but 'obviously' expected a favour in return. Anwar has however denied all links to Deepak while Sivarasa and Surendran are now Deepak's lawyers. Sivarasa claims he warned Anwar of the risks before taking up Deepak's case. Anwar it appears saw no adverse political implications. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/09/who-is-deepak-jaikishan/ ********************************************* Deepak and his allies are expected to inject an oil and gas project worth as much as US$500 million (RM1.51 billion) into Envair. The project is believed to be located in Eastern Europe, and the Envair board expected to announce a name change for the company to Raya Energy Bhd soon. Famous for his denial of being Rosmah's 'toy boy', Deepak first made the headlines when he was accused of having bribed private investigator P Balasubramaniam into reneging on an explosive statutory declaration implicating both Najib and Rosmah in the 2006 Altantuya Shaaribuu murder case. Against such a controversial background, Deepak will have to work extra hard to prove his business integrity and reliability to established and serious investors. To the retail crowd, who see him as Rosmah's proxy, his larger-than-life persona, due to the Altantuya connection, actually makes him Pied Piper of sorts. But win or lose, at the end of the day, Envair's profitability will hinge on the oil contracts it receives, most of which can reasonably be expected to come from Petronas. It must be stated that Deepak has previously refuted that his Envair dealings were connected to the Najibs. "I want to make it clear. I stand on my own two feet. Please keep me out from your vicious cycle," Deepak told Malaysia Chronicle in December. http://www.bonology.com/2012/03/business-is-now-where-action-is-rosmah.html ********************************************* Controversial carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan failed to turn up at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) here for the fourth time today despite confirming that he would attend the scheduled meeting earlier. MACC Investigation Division director, Datuk Mustafar Ali, said Deepak had agreed to appear at the MACC headquarters to give his statement regarding the second Statutory Declaration (SD) by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam about the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu but he seems to be "making empty promises". http://news.abnxcess.com/2013/01/macc-stood-up-by-deepak-for-fourth-time/ ********************************************* Deepak had recently admitted that he helped to get Balasubramaniam, a private investigator, to repudiate his earlier statutory declaration on the matter, including finding two lawyers to draft the new statement. The Bar Council is investigating the identity of lawyers and possible misconduct in the drafting of Balasubramaniam's second sworn statement about the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. A cloud of mystery has hung over the identity of the lawyer who drew up Balasubramaniam's second SD, dated a day after his first on July 3, 2008, regarding Altantuya's 2006 murder, for which two elite police commandos have been convicted and are facing death sentences. ********************************************* PKR today alleged that businessman Deepak Jaikishan spent about RM13 million in 2009 to purchase jewellery for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's wife, Rosmah Mansor. Speaking at a press conference at the party headquarters here, PKR director of strategy Rafizi Ramli said that the purchases involved 19 different types of jewellery from Hong Kong, ranging from necklaces to rings and bracelets. ********************************************* Carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan today claimed that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's wife Rosmah Mansor told him to look for private investigator P Balasubramaniam on the day the latter's statutory declaration (SD) was made public. Revealing the identity of "the female friend" whom he mentioned at his recent press conferences, Deepak claimed that Rosmah called up many people for favours on the day Balasubramaniam disclosed his first SD, which linked Najib to the murder of Mongolian national Altantuyaa Shaariibuu. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/12/rosmah-told-me-to-look-for-bala/
NOW WATCH THESE VIDEOS xBTN7eHhLos SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBTN7eHhLos
Sc5Yzc50Nnc SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc5Yzc50Nnc
YzoLOmQ8whU SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzoLOmQ8whU
Q2o7lIVH1Dg SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o7lIVH1Dg
mIlZmm4JdjQ SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIlZmm4JdjQ
QJaAcBA_E5g SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJaAcBA_E5g |
| About withdrawing someone’s citizenship Posted: 14 Feb 2013 05:16 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin There have been many calls for this person's or that person's citizenship to be withdrawn. I think before we ask for that to be done we should first of all familiarise ourselves with Malaysia's Constitution (which you can read below) to make sure we know what we are talking about -- especially the lawmakers who should know the Constitution by heart (or else they do not qualify to be a lawmaker). I suppose if we want to consider withdrawing someone's citizenship then we would have to look at Article 25(1)(a) of the Constitution: The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation. Now, first of all, who or which is the authority that is empowered to define whether someone's act or speech is disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation? Is it the Minister under whom Internal Security and/or the National Registration Department comes under? Or would that person first have to be charged in court and only after the court pronounces this person guilty can that person's citizenship be withdrawn? And which section of the law would this charge come under? Next, what are the acts and statements that would be considered disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation? Is this subject to the Minister's or the Attorney General's interpretation? For example, if I give a talk in the UK and I make a statement saying that Malaysia is not a democracy, can the Minister or AG say that this can be interpreted as economic sabotage since my statement will discourage foreigners from investing in Malaysia and hence I am ruining Malaysia's economy (which means that this is an act of disloyalty)? Thirdly, once someone's citizenship has been withdrawn, what do we do with that person? That person is no longer a Malaysian citizen and will no longer possess a Malaysian identity card, which means that that person cannot be allowed to remain in Malaysia any longer. That person must leave the country. However, that person will also not possess a Malaysian passport (the Malaysian passport will be cancelled since that person is no longer a Malaysian citizen). Hence that person cannot leave the country since that person will not be allowed to travel or will not be allowed into another country without a passport. In short, that person is now stateless. So what do we do? That person cannot remain in Malaysia and at the same time that person cannot leave Malaysia. It would be good, therefore, if before we talk about withdrawing anyone's Malaysian citizenship we clarify how it is going to be done and what happens after it is done. If not it might give the impression that we do not really know what we are talking about. ************************************ CONSTITUTION OF MALAYSIA PART III - CITIZENSHIP Chapter 2 - Termination of Citizenship
Article number: 23 23. • Any citizen of or over the age of twenty-one years and of sound mind who is also or is about to become a citizen of another country may renounce his citizenship of the Federation by declaration registered by the Federal Government, and shall thereupon cease to be a citizen. • (2) A declaration made under this Article during any war in which the Federation is engaged shall not be registered except with the approval of the Federal Government. • (3) This Article applies to a woman under the age of twenty-one years who has been married as it applies to a person of or over that age.
Article number: 24 • (1) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any citizen has acquired by registration, naturalization or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country outside the Federation, the Federal Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship. • (2) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any citizen has voluntarily claimed and exercised in any country, being rights accorded exclusively to its citizens, the Federal Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship. • (3) (Repealed) • (3A) Without prejudice to the generality of Clause (2), the exercise of a vote in any political election in a place outside the Federation shall be deemed to be the voluntary claim and exercise of a right available under the law of that place; and for the purposes of Clause (2), a person who, after such date as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order appoint for the purposes of this Clause - • (a) applies to the authorities of a place outside the Federation for the issue or renewal of a passport; or • (b) uses a passport issued by such authorities as a travel document, • shall be deemed voluntarily to claim and exercise a right available under the law of that place, being a right accorded exclusively to the citizens of that place. • (4) If the Federal Government is satisfied that any woman who is a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15 has acquired the citizenship of any country outside the Federation by virtue of her marriage to a person who is not a citizen, the Federal Government may by order deprive her of her citizenship.
Article number: 25 (1) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied - • (a) that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation; • (b) that he has, during any war in which the Federation is or was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business which to his knowledge was carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or • (c) that he has, within the period of five years beginning with the date of the registration or the grant of the certificate, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit or the equivalent in currency of that country, and has not received a free pardon in respect of the offence for which he was so sentenced. • (1A) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalisation if satisfied that without the Federal Government's approval, he has accepted, served in, or performed the duties of any office, post or employment under the Government of any country outside the Federation or any political sub-division thereof, or under any agency of such a Government, in any case where an oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance is required in respect of the office, post or employment: Provided that a person shall not be deprived of citizenship under this Clause by reason of anything done before the beginning of October 1962, in relation to a foreign country, and before the beginning of January 1977, in relation to a Commonwealth country, notwithstanding that he was at the time a citizen. • (2) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any person who is a citizen by registration under Article 16A or 17 or a citizen by naturalization if satisfied that he has been ordinarily resident in countries outside the Federation for a continuous period of five years and during that period has neither - • (a) been at any time in the service of the Federation or of an international organization of which the Federal Government was a member; nor • (b) registered annually at a consulate of the Federation his intention to retain his citizenship: provided that this Clause shall not apply to any period of residence in any Commonwealth country before the beginning of January 1977. • (3) (Repealed)
Article number: 26 • (1) The Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any citizen by registration or by naturalization if satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalization - • (a) was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; or • (b) was effected or granted by mistake. • (2) The Federal Government may by order deprive of her citizenship any woman who is a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15 if satisfied that the marriage by virtue of which she was registered has been dissolved, otherwise than by death, within the period of two years beginning with the date of the marriage. • (3) (Repealed). • (4) (Repealed).
Article number: 26a Where a person has renounced his citizenship or been deprived thereof under Clause (1) of Article 24 or paragraph (a) of Clause (1) of Article 26, the Federal Government may by order deprive of his citizenship any child of that person under the age of twenty-one who has ben registered as a citizen pursuant to this Constitution and was so registered as being the child of that person or of that person's wife or husband.
Article number: 26b • (1) Renunciation or deprivation of citizenship shall not discharge a person from liability in respect of anything done or omitted before he ceased to be a citizen. • (2) No person shall be deprived of citizenship under Article 25, 26 or 26A unless the Federal Government is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that he should continue to be a citizen: and no person shall be deprived of citizenship under Article 25, paragraph (b) of Clause (1) of Article 26, or Article 26A if the Federal Government is satisfied that as a result of the deprivation he would not be a citizen of any country.
Article number: 27 • (1) Before making an order under Article 24, 25 or 26, the Federal Government shall give to the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which the order is proposed to be made and of his right to have the case referred to a committee of inquiry under this Article. • (2) If any person to whom such notice is given applies to have the case referred as aforesaid the Federal Government may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman (being a person possessing judicial experience) and two other members appointed by that Government for the purpose. • (3) In the case of any such reference, the committee shall hold an inquiry in such manner as the Federal Government may direct, and submit its report to that Government: and the Federal Government shall have regard to the report in determining whether to make the order.
Article number: 28 • (1) For the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter - • (a) any person who before Merdeka Day became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation by registration as a citizen or in consequence of his registration as a citizen or in consequence of his registration as the subject of the Ruler, or by the grant of a certificate of citizenship, under any provision of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, or of any State law shall be treated as a citizen by registration and, if he was not born within the Federation, as a citizen by registration under Article 17; • (b) a woman who before that day became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation by registration as a citizen, or in consequence of her registration as the subject of the Ruler, under any provision of the said Agreement or any State law authorizing the registration of women married to citizens of the Federation or to subjects of the Ruler shall be treated as a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15; • (c) any person who before that day was naturalised as a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation under the said Agreement of became a federal citizen or a citizen of the Federation in consequence of his naturalization as the subject of a Ruler under any State law shall (subject to Clause (2)) be treated as a citizen by naturalization. and references in those provisions to the registration or naturalization of a citizen shall be construed accordingly. • (2) No person born within the Federation shall be liable by virtue of this Article to be deprived of citizenship under Article 25. • (3) A person who on Merdeka Day became a citizen by operation of law as having been citizen of the Federation immediately before that day shall not be deprived of citizenship under Clause (1) or (2) of Article 24 by reason of anything done on or before that day, but in the case of any such person Clause (2) of Article 25 shall apply equally in relation to a period of residence in foreign countries beginning before Merdeka Day and in relation to such a period beginning on or after that day.
Article number: 28a • (1) (Repealed) • (2) For the purposes of Articles 24, 25, 26 and 26A a person who on Malaysia Day becomes a citizen by operation of law because immediately before that day he has the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be treated - • (a) as a citizen by registration if he acquired that status by registration; and • (b) as a citizen by naturalisation if he acquired that status by or in consequence of naturalisation; and references in those Articles to the registration or naturalisation of a citizen shall be construed accordingly. • (3) Where a woman is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by registration, and the status consequence of which she is to be treated was acquired by her virtue of marriage, then for purposes of Clause (4) of Article 24 and Clause (2) of Article 26 she shall be treated as a citizen by registration under Clause (1) of Article 15. • (4) Where a person born before Malaysia Day is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by registration by virtue of a connection with the State of Sabah or Sarawak and he was not born in the territories comprised in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, Article 25 shall apply to him as if he were a citizen by registration under Article 16a or 17. • (5) Notwithstanding that a person is under this Article to be treated as a citizen by naturalisation,he shall not be deprived of his citizenship under Article 25 if he was born before Malaysia Day in the territories comprised in the States of Sabah and Sarawak and is to be treated by virtue of a status acquired by or in consequence of naturalisation in those territories. • (6) Without prejudice to the forgoing Clauses, where on Malaysia Day a person becomes a citizen by operation of law in virtue of any status possessed by him immediately before that day to be deprived of that status under the law relating thereto, then the Federal Government may by order deprive him of his citizenship, ir proceedings for that purpose are begun before September 1965: but Clause (2) of Article 26b and, subject to Clause (7), Article 27 shall apply to an order under this Clause as they apply to an order under Article 25. • (7) Where a person is liable to be deprived of citizenship under Clause (6) and proceedings had before Malaysia Day begun to deprive him of the status of virtue of which he acquired his citizenship, those proceedings shall be treated as proceedings to deprive him of citizenship under that Clause, and shall be continued in accordance with the law relating to that status immediately before Malaysia Day, and the functions the Federal Government in relation thereto shall be delegated to such authority of the State in question as the Federal Government may determine. |
| The problem with self-hypnosis Posted: 12 Feb 2013 07:57 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Penang has more Malays than Chinese (The Star) - The number of Malays in Penang is increasing, and they now outnumber the Chinese by 0.7%. In 2009, the population of Malays was at 654,300, just ahead of 651,600 Chinese or just a 0.1% difference. In 2010, it widened to 0.7% with 41.6% or 670,100 of the estimated 1.6mil Penang population being Malays while 658,700 or 40.9% were Chinese. According to statistics, the two races were followed by 9.7% Indians (155,600), 7% non-Malaysians (112,200) and 0.8% others and other bumiputras (13,300). The statistics, obtained from Department of Statistics, is part of a 32-page Penang Statistics (Quarter 1, 2010) report submitted to the state government by the Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute (Seri), which is the state government's think-tank. The report can be viewed at Seri's website at www.seri.com.my. Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong of DAP (picture above) said the trend was not surprising or unusual. "It's a national trend. It is not that the Chinese population didn't grow but the Malay population is growing faster." "We have been expecting this to happen since the 1980s because of the 70 million population policy announced by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad," he said yesterday. However, Liew, who is Seri executive director and DAP strategist, said the trend was a good opportunity for DAP. "To me, it's not about the declining number of people from a certain race, but more about quality of life," he said. ************************************************ The most often heard remark since the aftermath of the March 2008 general election is that 80-90% of the Chinese all over Malaysia -- even in Sabah and Sarawak -- will be voting opposition in the coming general election while the Indians and Malays are split 50-50. The second most often heard remark being bandied about is that Penang will, without a doubt, remain with Pakatan Rakyat because Penang is majority Chinese. Mainly, the assumption is, in March 2008, Malaysia saw a political Tsunami and in the coming general election this Tsunami is going to get even bigger. Hence, while Pakatan Rakyat managed to sweep five states and 82 Parliament seats in March 2008 -- and in that same process denied Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament -- this time around Pakatan Rakyat is going to do even better and will send Barisan Nasional into retirement. The issue is: is this an educated guess, a conclusion based on research, or mere wishful thinking and self-hypnosis into seeing what is not there? There are some who consider my articles on history boring and a total waste of time. "Why talk about the past?" they ask me, "the past is not important." That depends, of course, on what your purpose of learning history is. If Hitler had learned from the past, then he would not have made the same mistake that Napoleon made and hence Germany might not have lost the war, or maybe would not have lost the war so fast. And while on the subject of Napoleon, some historians say that Napoleon was a military genius. Now, this is merely their opinion. What is the basis of classifying someone as a military genius? If it is on the basis that he moved his army across Europe so fast (Blitzkrieg) that he caught the enemy sleeping, then probably he is a military genius. But if based on the estimated 5 million-6.5 million people who were killed in the Napoleonic Wars, would one still consider Napoleon a genius? How can someone who resulted in 5 million or more deaths be a genius? Hence, how you perceive things would influence your conclusions. And history is certainly not an exact science because history is not merely about reporting the events but about interpreting the events as well. Hence, also, Osama Bin Ladin can be both hero and murderer depending on what yardstick you apply. Statistics normally do not lie -- unless you doctor those statistics. But how you interpret those statistics can differ depending on what colour lenses you are using to look at them. For example, no one will dispute the existence of the Qur'an. But whether you regard the Qur'an as God's word or not would depend on how you look at things. The bottom line is: one fact, but two different interpretations of that one fact. Okay, let's get back to the March 2008 Tsunami being bigger in the coming general election. For someone like me who wants to see a strong two-party system where we give one group the government for, say, two terms, and then switch to the other group for, say, another two terms, the strong Tsunami that everyone says we will see is certainly a most welcome scenario. The adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely is certainly true and you need not be a student of history to understand that. Hence we need a balance, and that balance can only be achieved when we have two strong political parties (and not one strong one and one weak one). Nevertheless, is this even bigger Tsunami than the one in March 2008 for real? And what do we base our conclusions on? Let us look at the Kuala Terengganu Parliamentary by-election (P036) that was held in January 2009, about ten months after the March 2008 Tsunami. You can look at the details or statistics below. The turnout in that by-election was slightly lower than in the general election ten months before that. And this was because the turnout for Chinese voters was greatly reduced. I spent that entire period in Kuala Terengganu together with a few other Bloggers such as Haris Ibrahim (Sam), Bernard Khoo (Zorro), etc. Even Zaid Ibrahim, who was not in PKR yet at that time, came up to join us for three days. And we campaigned door-to-door, not once, but three rounds in all -- even Zaid Ibrahim. We even went to all the pubs and clubs to meet the Chinese voters. Hence, we obtained feedback from the 'horses' mouths', so to speak. And what we were told was this. Many of the Chinese voters (mainly the younger ones who work outside Kuala Terengganu) would not be coming home to vote because they want to reserve their leave for Chinese New Year. (That's what I call 'commitment'). Most Chinese would be voting Barisan Nasional because they worry that if they vote PAS they may get punished by Umno (especially those from Kampong Cina whose homes sit on TOL land). The Chinese feel that the majority of the Malays would be voting PAS so it does not matter if the Chinese vote Barisan Nasional. (PAS can still win even though with a reduced majority). Sam and Bernard can tell you about this 'survey' that we did because they too were there and they too heard what the Chinese had to say. Understandably, this upset us and we were worried that if the Chinese did what they said they were going to do, and if the Malays do not swing to PAS like we hoped, then Umno was going to win that by-election. (It was, after all, an Umno seat, which they won in March 2008). And that was when I decided to change tactics. Initially, I only campaigned amongst the Chinese voters. But when I discovered that the Chinese would not all be voting opposition, I started campaigning amongst the Malay voters as well (who I had 'ignored' in the beginning). Come Polling Day and what we were told was going to happen really did happen. Many younger Chinese who work outside Kuala Terengganu did not come home to vote. The fact that we were monitoring the polling stations and we saw mostly senior citizen Chinese coming out to vote confirmed this. Next, the areas or UPU that were predominantly Malay went to the opposition while the areas that had a fair number of Chinese voters went to Umno. And the voter turnout was lower than for the GE, in particular amongst the Chinese voters. Plus, also, the majority that PAS won was 2,000 less than we had hoped. (And note the high 'spoilt' votes -- considering that the voters were urban and not rural). Pakatan Rakyat is supposed to win the coming general election on the strength of the Chinese support. And the Chinese support this time around is supposed to be bigger than in March 2008. I did not see that happen in Kuala Terengganu. In fact, the reverse happened. In areas where there are a high percentage of Chinese voters, the opposition did better in March 2008 than it did in January 2009. And in January 2009, the Tsunami was supposed to have been bigger than in March 2008, as what we are being told. Is the story that, today, more Chinese have swung to the opposition compared to March 2008 a fallacy? What evidence are we using to come to this conclusion? I worry that we are merely fooling ourselves and are subjecting ourselves to self-hypnosis. The statistics do not appear to support what we say. Another point of importance is: if we depend on just Chinese votes for the opposition to win the election, then we are going to create a situation where 'opposition' means 'Chinese' and 'government' means 'Malay'. Now, do I need to spell out in graphic details the danger of such a thing happening? And if you still do not get what I am driving at then you should not be reading Malaysia Today because you are not clever enough for Malaysia Today. Oh, and yes, I know, those of you who find what I just wrote extremely unsettling are now going to accuse me of spinning for Barisan Nasional. Well, that is called denial syndrome, an ailment of people who refuse to accept reality. If I was helping Barisan Nasional then I would just keep quiet instead of warning you that you need to do your maths again. ************************************************ Kuala Terengganu Parliament Seat (P036) 80,229 registered voters 63,993 came out to vote 32,883 voted for PAS 30,252 voted for Umno 665 spoilt votes
The four State Assembly seats under Kuala Terengganu 1. Wakaf Mempelam (Umno) 2. Bandar (MCA) 3. Ladang (PAS) 4. Batu Buruk (PAS)
Voter breakdown according to ethnicity Malays: 88.14% Chinese: 10.94% Indians: 0.65% Others: 0.27%
In the Kuala Terengganu by-election on 7th January 2009, PAS did well in the Malay-majority seats of Wakaf Mempelam and Batu Buruk while it did badly in Ladang and Bandar, which has a higher percentage of Chinese voters. |
| The Pearl of the Orient not so pearly any more Posted: 10 Feb 2013 06:13 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Reinstate free port status to Penang Port, government told (Bernama) - Reinstating free port status to Penang Port will stimulate economic activity in diverse sectors in the state, said Penang Chinese Assembly Hall chairman Datuk Lam Wu Chong. He said many sectors, particularly the tourism sector, would benefit immensely if the free port status was reinstated. "Economic activities will flourish if Penang was granted the status. Penang will emerge as a shopping haven and a tourist paradise. "I believe Penangites are looking forward to the reinstatement of the status," he said at the Chinese New Year open house hosted by the assembly. Yang Dipertua Negeri Tun Abdul Rahman Abbas, his wife, Toh Puan Majimor Shariff, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng attended the open house. Lam said the state economy needed injection of fresh economic elements to provide the impetus for a vibrant economy. He said reports from professionals showed Penang's economy, which relied heavily on the industrial sector, was losing its competitive edge and this has caused the economy to slow down. Penang has been a free port since the colonial days until the status was revoked in 1969. On another matter, Lam said Penangites supported the plan to introduce monorail services as the move would considerably ease traffic congestion which has become a major problem in the state. "Traffic woes have become a major concern to Penangites. A permanent solution has to be found for this problem. This must be addressed soon. "If we look at major cities around the world, the cities have adequate traffic systems, subways or underground train services to help ease traffic congestion," he added. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had recently promised a monorail service for Penang if the Barisan Nasional (BN) was given the mandate to govern the state in the soon-to-be-held 13th general election. ********************************* What the Penang Chinese Assembly Hall chairman, Lam Wu Chong, said is a subject close to my heart because I have been saying the same thing since way back in the 1970s. Now, after 40 years, someone else is saying the same thing. I always tell my friends that I love Penang of the 1950s and 1960s but not the Penang of today. In fact, the same applies to Port Dickson, Cameron Highlands, Frasers Hill, and so on. All these places have lost their charm. They no longer have 'character'. They are nothing like what I remember them to be before and soon after Merdeka. When we were kids -- soon after Merdeka when my grandfather was the Governor of Penang -- we would spend two weeks every December holidaying in Penang. One week would be spent on the beach and another week in Bel Retiro up on Penang Hill (the house where Tunku Abdul Rahman would stay when he was in Penang). Bel Retiro, Penang Hill It was paradise and we would look forward to our year-end holidays in Penang. I wished we could have lived in Penang and not have to go back to Kuala Lumpur. The beach was superb. Penang Hill was lovely. And you can't beat the shopping in Penang. We would never go to Singapore because Singapore could never beat the shopping in Penang. Then, in 1969, Penang fell to the opposition. And then Penang's free port status was terminated. Penang was no longer the shoppers' paradise like it used to be. And what a shame indeed! This was also what happened when Terengganu fell to the opposition 30 years later in 1999. The federal government withdrew the oil royalty and brought the state to its knees. What I can't understand is, while the federal government terminated Penang's free port status in 1969 and withdrew Terengganu's oil royalty in 1999 (or rather in 2000, a few months after the state fell in November 1999) because the opposition had won those states, when these two states went back to the ruling party Penang's free port status and Terengganu's oil royalty were never reinstated. And why was this? Penang had been established as a free port back when Captain Francis Light first conned the island from the Sultan of Kedah. If you read the (Malaysian) history books, they will tell you that Penang was a deserted island that was founded in 1790 after Captain Francis Light of the East India Company leased it from Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah of Kedah. That is as true as the story that Yap Ah Loy founded Kuala Lumpur in 1873 or that Umno fought the British in 1946 to gain Merdeka for Malaya in 1957. Actually, Admiral Cheng Ho of the Ming Dynasty, who went to Malacca in the 1400s, reported the existence of an island called Penang in "The Nautical Charts of Zheng He". At that time China and Penang were already engaged in trade. (Does this surprise you? -- because you did not learn about this in Malaysian schools). Hence Penang already existed since the 1400s and was not 'founded' 300-400 years later, as what we are told. Furthermore, in April 1591, privateer (the politically-correct word for 'pirate') Sir James Lancaster sailed the Edward Bonadventure from Plymouth and reached Penang in June 1592. He returned to England in May 1594 after two years of plundering the island and all the ships that sailed nearby (not called 'piracy' though, since Lancaster was a 'privateer' and not a 'pirate' -- now do you know why 'privatisation' is called 'piratisation'?). And all this happened hundreds of years before Francis Light was supposed to have founded Penang. Anyway, what may be noteworthy about Francis Light is he gave Penang free port status (as if it was his kuasa to do that). Then, almost 180 years later, when Penang fell to the opposition, the island's free port status was removed and, soon after that, Singapore became the new shoppers' paradise. By the mid-1970s, we no longer bothered to go to Penang. Instead, we went to Singapore to shop. I first knew Dr Ibrahim Saad when he was Anwar Ibrahim's Political Secretary at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. In 1990, Ibrahim Saad contested the Bukit Gelugor state seat in Penang and won. He was then appointed the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang. Soon after that I made a trip to Penang and met Ibrahim Saad and his wife for dinner. I then asked him why don't the federal government re-establish Penang as a free port and give Singapore a run for its money, like how it used to be before the 1970s. And this was what Ibrahim Saad told me. He said he had in fact raised this matter with his boss, Anwar Ibrahim, but Anwar told him: what for? It will only make the Chinese rich. All the businesses in Penang are owned by the Chinese, not by the Malays. So the Malays are not going to benefit from Penang's free port status. Might as well the government tax all imports and earn some revenue. When politics overrides economic decisions then over the long term the country will suffer. Do you know that over the last five years about 12 million tourists a year visit Singapore? More than two million of these tourists are from Indonesia while roughly a million each are from China, Malaysia, Australia and India. Hence about half the tourists are from just five countries with the other half from Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong, the UK, the US and other countries from Europe and Asia. And shopping is the main attraction of Singapore, like what Penang was once before politics overtook common sense. And don't tell me that this is why we need to change the government because some of these 'decision-makers' who once were in the government are now in the opposition. |
| Posted: 08 Feb 2013 04:49 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Hindraf has laid out six conditions for both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional to agree to before it decides which of the two coalitions it will support in the coming general election. Five of those six conditions were actually addressed in The People's Declaration exactly five years ago in February 2008. In fact, The People's Declaration is in even more detail because it comes to almost 20 pages. The problem is most people did not read it because, according to them, The People's Declaration is too lengthy. If less than 20 pages is 'too lengthy' then I really do not know what to say. They should be reading at least 100 to 150 pages a day or go through a 300-page book in two or three days. Some PhD students here in the UK, Malaysians of course, told me that they hardly read a book a year save for their text books. That is pathetic. And these are the same people who whack Umno and blame Umno for the 'poorly educated' Malaysians. I just don't get it how you can blame Umno for your low-level education when you refuse to read a book a year and you declare that 20 pages are too lengthy to read. Anyway, save for item 2 in Hindraf's list of six demands, five of these demands have actually been addressed in The People's Declaration, as you can see below. I admit that The People's Declaration is not specific to 'Indian issues', as it tries to address policies to make things more equitable, and so that the beneficiaries of these policies would be on a need basis rather than race-based. Nevertheless, if there were any particular ethnic group that is in need, then it would automatically become that beneficiary. For example, if you build houses for the needy, and if the Indians are in need of houses, then the Indians become the beneficiary of those houses since the spirit of The People's Declaration is to do away with race-based policies in favour of need-based policies.
Many people have asked me what is the source of what they view as my 'falling out' with Anwar Ibrahim in late 2010 and why two months later I started 'whacking' Anwar Ibrahim. Well, if they were to view that video of our meeting in London in 2010 on Youtube then they need not ask this question. In that meeting I stressed that Pakatan Rakyat had signed an agreement that they will adopt The People's Declaration and later, in Australia, Anwar did a U-turn and rejected it. Basically, what Hindraf is asking for has already been laid out and agreed by Pakatan Rakyat (plus PSM, mind you) five years ago in February 2008. And The People's Declaration has more details. Will Pakatan Rakyat now say yes to Hindraf when it has said no to The People's Declaration -- after saying yes earlier? Anyway, while we await a reply from Pakatan Rakyat, maybe in the meantime you can compare what Hindraf wants to what was agreed back in February 2008.
Hindraf: 1) Stop displacing Indian plantation workers and provide reasonable compensation as well as offer skills training to them. The People's Declaration: Form a framework of tripartite consultation that is effective, just and democratic, and amend laws relating to labour, trade unions and industrial relations consistent with it; fix a reasonable monthly wage for estate workers and seriously implement a housing scheme for estate workers; and introduce re-training programmes for retrenched workers.
Hindraf: 2) Resolve Indian stateless issue. The People's Declaration: None.
Hindraf: 3) Provide equal education opportunities to all Indian students via meritocracy; The People's Declaration: Establish a National Education Consultative Council to ensure that the practice and implementation of the national education policy and philosophy is both effective and just; allocate the education budget in a fair and equitable fashion, without neglecting any group; provide more scholarships and other financial assistance on the basis of need; and increase the number of mother tongue schools and upgrade their facilities according to need and demand.
Hindraf: 4) Provide equal job and business opportunities to Indians; The People's Declaration: Establish an investment fund, under-written by the government, for the development of small and medium enterprises and allocated according to performance and not political favouritism.
Hindraf: 5) Stop police brutality and death in custody, and set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). The People's Declaration: Sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; restore the image and status of the Royal Malaysian Police by means of a permanent committee as the Police Commission to receive and consider petitions by the people on police behaviour; improve the quality and effectiveness of human rights education at all levels of education and institutions of higher learning as well as training centres for public servants; and improve prison administration and conditions in line with international standards.
Hindraf: 6) Stop institutionalised racism and ratify United Nations convention against racial discrimination. The People's Declaration: Immediately dismantle any and all remaining practices of "divide and rule" in public administration from the days of the BN administration; put in place an affirmative action programme at Federal and all State levels to eradicate poverty and marginalization from amongst the weak and backward groups irrespective of race, social background and religion; and establish an independent Ethnic Relations Council, reporting directly to Parliament to help in building a united Bangsa Malaysia.
|
| Posted: 05 Feb 2013 08:21 PM PST
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin About 15 years or so ago I joined a bike ride up north (north of Malaysia, that is) and we stopped to spend a night at some old colonial chalets at the foot of Cameron Highlands. The next day we visited an Orang Asli settlement not far from there and spent half a day with them. We also brought some handouts to distribute to the Orang Asli -- a sort of community service thing. The Orang Asli had probably been living at the foot of Cameron Highlands for thousands of years and it was most interesting to see that many of their old ways were still almost intact. I found out that both the Christian as well as Muslim missionaries visit them from time to time and although some of the Orang Asli have converted to Christianity not too many want to become Muslims. This bike trip I am talking about took place back in the days when I was still a fundamentalist Muslim who subscribed to the ideals of an Islamic State and the Shariah as the law of the land, the criminal laws of Hudud included. Hence it was of great interest when I was told that for many decades both the Christian as well as Muslim missionaries visited these Orang Asli and while some did leave their 'old faith' to adopt the Abrahamic faith they had no problems becoming Christians but had no attraction to Islam. This matter warranted further investigation. Our local friend, a Malay-Muslim, who had lived there for some years and who was our guide for the day explained that it all boils down to approach. The Christians go there not to preach Christianity although ultimately that is their mission, to spread Christianity. They go there to offer community service and in that same process they demonstrate to the Orang Asli what good people the Christians are. Hence Christianity must be a good religion if Christians are so good. The spreading of Christianity is never projected as the main motive. The main motive is to see how we can help you and serve you. If at all Christianity is mentioned, it is merely as a by-the-way thing, sort of: oh, by the way, before I take my leave, I just want you to know that we are Christians. The Muslim missionaries, however, have a different approach. They go there specifically to talk about Islam and how Islam is the only true religion while all other religions are false religions and under Islam this is forbidden and that is forbidden while this is mandatory and that is mandatory. In short, only Islam is good while all the others are bad and Islam is about a long list of dos and don'ts and if you breach these rules you will get punished both by God and by the Malaysian government. My conclusion was that the Christians adopted the soft approach while the Muslims adopted the hard approach and while the Christians talk about love and freewill the Muslims talk about hate and you have no freewill. If I were from the 'old ways' and two new religions were being presented to me, which do you think I will adopt, Christianity or Islam? And I saw as many pigs running around that Orang Asli settlement as I did children. They were like house pets. If the first thing I had to do to become a Muslim was to get rid of all my pigs while the Christians were quite happy to let you keep your pigs and almost the same number of dogs that I saw, do you think I would prefer Islam to Christianity? Now, before you all start your Islam-bashing, which will just send more Malays over to Umno, let me assure you that this article is not about Islam-bashing. It is about approach. It is about how you must approach people to convince them to join you, follow you, or support you, and not turn them off with your hate sermon. My story about my bike ride to an Orang Asli settlement around 15 years ago is merely to demonstrate my point. There are two things you do not discuss at a party. One is religion and the other is politics. And this is because both those subjects are very sensitive and extremely volatile. Hence the approach you adopt for both religion and politics is about the same. And while my story above concerns religion, the example could easily enough be applied to politics. If I talk to you about Islam and I condemn the Christians and tell you that the Bible is a fake, which was written by shamans and is not a book of God, and that it is compulsory that you become a Muslim because this is what God commanded, and if you refuse to become a Muslim then you are condemned and your blood is halal, will this attract you to Islam? It may not convince you to become a Christian but for sure Islam will disgust you -- or at least Muslims will disgust you. And is this not exactly the reason why many of you who are non-Muslims are disgusted with Islam or at the very least you are disgusted with Muslims? Concerts cannot. Sexy shows where women reveal too much flesh cannot. Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia cannot. Bibles using the Allah word cannot. Celebrate Valentine's Day cannot. Celebrate Christmas cannot. Build churches higher than mosques cannot. Build churches where there are Muslims living in the neighbourhood cannot. Build churches not far from mosques cannot. Ring church bells too loudly cannot. Christians talking about Christianity to Muslims cannot. Inviting Muslims to church functions cannot. And so on and so forth, the list is endless. However, Muslims can do everything that the Christians are forbidden from doing. Now, let us look at this whole thing from the perspective of politics and apply the above argument to politics. We who are Pakatan Rakyat people can do all sorts of things because we are doing a noble thing. Barisan Nasional people, however, are not doing the noble thing so we must condemn them if they do what we do. Can you not see that your attitude is no different from those inconsiderate and unreasonable Muslims that you condemn? The Muslims, too, feel that they are doing the noble thing just like how you Pakatan Rakyat people feel. And these inconsiderate and unreasonable Muslims feel that they are justified in doing what they are doing because they are doing the right thing and are opposing the wrong thing just like how you Pakatan Rakyat people feel. You condemn the Barisan Nasional people for not respecting freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc., while you resent and vilify those who speak out against what you believe in, meaning Pakatan Rakyat. You condemn those who change sides when Pakatan Rakyat people join Barisan Nasional and you call them traitors and many other nasty names but you hail those Barisan Nasional people who join Pakatan Rakyat and you call them angels and patriots. You say that all those who used to be in power and who have committed transgressions must be hunted down and severely punished without mercy while those who used to be in power and who have committed transgressions but have joined the opposition must be forgiven and pardoned. You can call the Hindraf people 'Pariah Indians' and the Indian Muslims 'stinking Mamaks' but Ibrahim Ali can't say anything bad about the Chinese. (And don't let me even start on what you call the Malays). And, yet again, the list can go on and on. The issue is not about the cause. The cause may be noble but if the approach stinks then the message will be drowned in that sea of hatred. And this is what many see in the Pakatan Rakyat approach just like how we see the same in the approach the Muslims adopt in trying to 'sell' Islam. Why have I changed? Why is it once I was a fundamentalist Muslim and today I am disgusted with the attitude of Muslims and have become one of the greatest critics of the conduct of Muslims? Have I left Islam to become a Christian? No! Am I still a Muslim? Yes! Then why am I so critical of Muslims when once I cheered the Talibans of Afghanistan? Why do I share the view of the Christians that Muslims are hypocritical, unreasonable, inconsiderate and downright oppressive when I am a Muslim and not a Christian? Okay, let me rephrase the two paragraphs above. Why have I changed? Why is it once I was a diehard Reformasi activist and today I am disgusted with the attitude of the Pakatan Rakyat supporters and have become one of the greatest critics of the conduct of the Pakatan Rakyat people? Have I left the opposition to become a government supporter? No! Am I still a Pakatan Rakyat supporter? Yes! Then why am I so critical of Pakatan Rakyat when once I cheered the Reformists? Why do I share the view that opposition supporters are hypocritical, unreasonable, inconsiderate and downright oppressive when I am an opposition supporter who propagates reforms? Yes, you who are disgusted with the mindset of Muslims equally disgust me with your mindset regarding politics. You and those small-minded Muslims are the reverse side of the same coin. The only small difference is while those 'others' apply this attitude to Islam you apply the same attitude when it comes to politics. You have no right to condemn the Islamists because you are no different when it comes to your 'religion' called Pakatan Rakyat. I may be a Muslim but that does not take away my right to condemn the conduct of Muslims, as they should rightly be condemned. And in the same spirit I may be a Pakatan Rakyat supporter but that, too, does not take away my right to condemn the conduct of Pakatan Rakyat supporters, whenever they warrant condemning. Okay, I know what some of you are now going to say. Why only criticise Pakatan Rakyat? Why not also condemn Barisan Nasional? Pakatan Rakyat may not be perfect but Barisan Nasional is worse. First of all, have I ever not whacked Barisan Nasional? What more do you want me to say about Barisan Nasional that you do not already know? Is there anything more I can say about Barisan Nasional to convince you that we need change? Are you saying you are not yet convinced enough? Do you need me to reveal more dirt on Barisan Nasional to convince you who to vote for? Let me put it another way. Do I need to preach Islam to Muslims to convince them to become Muslims? How do I convert the already converted? Secondly, I am not a Christian. Hence I refrain from criticising Christians although not all Christians are sincere and noble and there are many hypocritical Christians. In fact, the Christians and Muslims are really not much different. Many from both religions are slime-balls and scumbags. I want people to love Islam, not to hate Islam, like what is happening now all over the world, Malaysia not exempted. Hence I criticise Muslims and condemn their conduct. And if Muslims do things that are damaging to Islam I will speak up. I really do not care about priests raping choirboys and so on. If many people end up hating the Christians, that is not my concern. That is not my problem and the more the Christians leave Christianity to become Muslims the better. But I am concerned if it is the other way around. And this same argument would apply to Pakatan Rakyat as well. My job is not to convince you that Barisan Nasional is beyond redemption. That you already know. My worry is that many who voted Pakatan Rakyat back in 2008 are having second thoughts about whether to do the same in the coming general election. Hence I am not going to stop criticising the Muslims, as I will not stop criticising Pakatan Rakyat supporters. And if the Muslims do not like that then stop doing and saying silly things that makes me ashamed to call myself a Muslim. And in that same spirit, the Pakatan Rakyat supporters can also avoid criticism by stopping from doing and saying silly things. Sometimes I feel like I am speaking to a bunch of school children…sigh. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan