Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The Islamic concept of niat
- I love it when I can say, “I told you so” (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- Should Tun Dr Mahathir be put to death? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- The question of cowardice (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- The consistency of change (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- The great political debate (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- What me worry? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
| Posted: 15 Apr 2013 08:48 PM PDT
In Islam, your niat is more important that the act itself. Hence the niat determines whether one receives blessings (pahala) for one's act or whether one should be condemned for the (dosa or sinful) act. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Niat (Bahasa Malaysia and نیّة in Arabic) is an Islamic concept referring to the intention one evokes in one's heart to do an act for the sake of God (Allah). 'Umar b. al-Khattab narrated that the Prophet (S) said: "Deeds are [a result] only of the intentions [of the actor], and an individual is [rewarded] only according to that which he intends. Therefore, whosoever has emigrated (hijrah) for the sake of Allah and His messenger, then his emigration was for Allah and His messenger. Whosoever emigrated for the sake of worldly gain, or a woman [whom he desires] to marry, then his emigration is for the sake of that which [moved him] to emigrate." -- Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim. Scholars of Islam give two meanings to niat. The first refers to the intent (matlamat) while the second refers to the sincerity (ikhlas) of the act. In Islam, your niat is more important that the act itself. Hence the niat determines whether one receives blessings (pahala) for one's act or whether one should be condemned for the (dosa or sinful) act. For example, if you are driving and your car skids and you accidentally kill someone that is not murder in Islam because there was no niat to commit murder. However, if you spot your enemy crossing the road and you intentionally knock him/her down and kill him/her, then that is murder because the niat was to kill (or hurt) that person. Hence the same act of killing someone with your car can be considered either an accident or murder depending on your niat. But then how would others know your niat and whether you intended to kill that person you knocked down? Well, that is why Islam says only you and God will know your niat. Others will not know what is in your heart. So, in Islam, a niat must precede your act, as an act without a niat is not counted. And a good niat even without any action is still counted (your receive pahala) whereas a bad niat without any action is not counted (you don't suffer dosa). For example, say you leave your home with RM1,000 in your pocket with a niat to donate that money to an orphanage. Along the way you bump into a friend who is in dire need of financial help. You then give that RM1,000 to your friend instead. You will still receive blessings (pahala) for the niat of donating that money to the orphanage although you did not in the end give the orphanage the money. Further to that, you also receive blessings for helping out a friend in need. Hence your niat is even more important than your actual action. Everything in Islam is about niat. The same applies to your niat of becoming a wakil rakyat (member of parliament or state assemblyperson). If your niat is purely to serve your community and your country, then it is a sincere (ikhlas) act and you will receive blessings for that. But if you have other niat behind wanting to become a wakil rakyat then you will not receive any blessings. But then, as I said, only you and God know what is in your heart. And Islam says unless we can prove that a person's niat is not sincere then we must assume the niat is sincere and not doubt that person -- in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Islam is actually quite simple is it not? But humankind makes it complicated whereas in actual fact it is not. Hence I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not suspect your niat behind your intention to become a wakil rakyat unless and until it is proven otherwise. Now, what is your niat for voting for a certain person or a certain party? Well, only you and God will know that niat, which is in your heart. Whatever it may be, if your niat is ikhlas, then you would not go wrong. However, if you have a bad niat in your heart then most likely you would end up suffering disappointment in the end. That is how it works in Islam. So let your act be preceded with a noble niat and not a self-interest niat. |
| I love it when I can say, “I told you so” (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 14 Apr 2013 06:02 PM PDT
I think two submarines failing to prevent 100 illegal immigrants from entering Sabah is a pretty good track record considering that the US has 71 nuclear-class submarines and they still can't stop 11 million illegal immigrants from entering the country. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Bishop Paul Tan said that despite the government knowing that Sunday is a holy day where Christians must go to Church and worship God, EC has fixed May 5th for polling. "This disrespect of the government of the Christian rights is to be denounced. It just proves that the government is not sincere in its 1Malaysia slogan." ***************************************** "That is not democracy, that is communism," said Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat. "If you want to vote, go vote. But don't force people into choosing a party." ***************************************** "Even I never worked that hard. But I must admit that the support (for BN) was very obvious (when I was PM). That's why I won five elections, each one with a two-thirds majority (in Parliament)," said former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. ***************************************** So far it has been, as a friend remarked the other day, "a very American election". With its mobilising and symbolic focus on PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the GE13 "pre-campaign" has been nothing if not "presidential". When an election is focused, through one key initiative, upon the fate of the national leader who is uniquely identified with that measure, we may well characterise the campaign as presidential. -- Clive Kessler. ***************************************** As I write this, 87 comments have been posted in my article Should Tun Dr Mahathir be put to death? The comments would have been more than 100 had I not deleted about 20 or 30 comments that were so out of topic. Those 20 or 30 comments I deleted talked about the reason and manner that Tun Dr Mahathir should be killed. Others debated Christianity and the New and Old Testaments and so on. If you are a student of English literature and if you had read George Orwell's Animal Farm then you will know that the book is not about animals or farms. It is about Communism. Can you imagine Malaysia Today's readers reading that book and then debating as to why pork is haram in Islam (and Judaism) and therefore pigs should not be elected the leader of the animals? Nevertheless, that would be exactly what Malaysia Today's readers would do. One reader said that I should go to Oxford and take an English language course so that I can learn how to write properly and, therefore, people can better understand what I am saying in my articles. Sivarasa Rasiah, the 'caretaker' Member of Parliament for Subang, gave a talk in Kota Damansara two nights ago (with Bersih Chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan in tow) and he commented that Malaysia wasted so much money buying two submarines and yet they could not stop the Filipinos from sneaking into Sabah. The United States has 71 submarines and yet they too can't seem to stop the 11 million illegal immigrants from entering the country. I think two submarines failing to prevent 100 illegal immigrants from entering Sabah is a pretty good track record considering that the US has 71 nuclear-class submarines and they still can't stop 11 million illegal immigrants from entering the country. Anyway, why is Ambiga escorting Sivarasa to a PKR ceramah when she said she is not campaigning for PKR? As they say in the legal fraternity (and Sivarasa and Ambiga are both lawyers): justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Hence, being impartial is not good enough. Should you not also be seen to be impartial? Bishop Paul Tan is angry that the government has fixed Polling Day on a Sunday. This, he appears to believe, is disrespectful to the Christians. In some Malaysian states, people have to work on a Sunday -- while the day off is Friday. And this has been going on since long before Merdeka in August 1957. Should now all the states in Malaysia fix Sunday as the day off while Friday be declared a working day? And will the Pakatan Rakyat run states make these necessary changes to show more respect to the Christians seeing that this is very important to the Christians? Anyway, polling is from 8.00am to 6.00pm. Do Christians sit in church for 12 hours from 7.00am to 7.00pm? Would there not be at least 30 minutes free time in between church on Sunday when Christian voters can run out to cast their vote? And what about when the elections and by-elections are held on a Saturday (which has happened before)? Is this not disrespectful to the Jews (and there are some Jews in Malaysia)? Would fixing elections on a Saturday be considered anti-Semitism? Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has classified those who force people into choosing a party as Communists. That is very interesting. That would mean many of you who post comments in Malaysia Today forcing others to support Pakatan Rakyat are Communists. And, as many of you said, Nik Aziz would never lie. Hence you people are definitely Communists and not Democrats as you pretend to be. An even more interesting comment was the one by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. "I won five elections, each one with a two-thirds majority," said Dr Mahathir. So, if 50% of the Malays voted opposition (PAS and Semangat 46 at that time) and yet Barisan Nasional won all the elections with a two-thirds majority, is it the Malays who are the culprits? I love it when I can say, "I told you so". Finally, Clive Kessler said that the 13th General Election has been transformed into a US Presidential election. That is what I said last month and now Clive Kessler is saying the same thing. I love it when I can say, "I told you so". ******************************************** 儅我有機會說"我已經告訴過你了"時，我是很得瑟的。 |
| Should Tun Dr Mahathir be put to death? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 13 Apr 2013 10:48 PM PDT
Now, let us assume that the person who asked this question happens to be a Christian. How would I answer the question without being accused of insulting Christianity? Considering that the Christians are as sensitive to perceived insults to their religion as Muslims are, we need to be very careful that I am not perceived as insulting Christianity. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Someone posted a comment in Malaysia Today asking me my opinion on whether Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad should be put to death. The way this person asked me that question sounded like he or she agreed that Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death and this person was just testing me and was trying to extricate a response from me. Now, first of all, which crime are you referring to? Did Tun Dr Mahathir murder someone? Which murder case was this? We need to first know the details of the crime. Or are you talking about the crime of treason, which carries a death penalty? Now, not all cases of treason carry the death penalty. There are many types of treasonous acts. Selling secrets to a foreign power. Spying for a foreign power. Sabotaging our security and national defence to weaken Malaysia so that a foreign power can invade Malaysia and occupy the country. We need specifics. We also need to know whether you are talking from a legal/law point of view or a moral/religious point of view. Which section of the law are you talking about and does that section of the law carry the death penalty? Then the issue of evidence comes into play. What is the evidence you are talking about that a crime has been committed under that section of the law that carries the death penalty? I fear that some people talk about the law but have very limited knowledge of the law. For example, they ask why the Malaysian government does not extradite me. They do not seem to know that the first issue to be considered in an extradition application is dual criminality. Do they even know what dual criminality means? Hence if there is no dual criminality then Malaysia cannot extradite me. Secondly, they need to convince the UK court that a crime has been committed (after first establishing dual criminality). And that would mean they need evidence to do this. To just tell the UK court that I have insulted Islam is not good enough because in the UK insulting Islam is not a crime. To the Malaysian government, my crime of insulting Islam is because I whacked the religious department for saying that non-Muslims are the enemy of Islam. The UK government will not only reject the argument that condemning the religious department for saying that non-Muslims are the enemy of Islam is a crime, they would probably give me the key to the city for opposing what the UK would regard as a hate crime. I may even be given 24-hour protection and be listed alongside Salman Rushdie as a protected species. So you see, before I can even comment as to whether Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death, we need to go through the long and tedious process of the indictment, the trial, the appeals or counter appeals, the pardon, and only after the process has been completed and all avenues exhausted can the death sentence be carried out. And considering Tun Dr Mahathir's age, he would most likely leave this world long before you can complete the process. Hence the process and my comment would be purely academic. Now, let us assume that the person who asked this question happens to be a Christian. How would I answer the question without being accused of insulting Christianity? Considering that the Christians are as sensitive to perceived insults to their religion as Muslims are, we need to be very careful that I am not perceived as insulting Christianity. Christianity says 'thou shalt not kill'. Hence if I say that Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death that would mean I am saying that Christianity is wrong. How would the Christians react to my statement that says 'thou shalt kill' Tun Dr Mahathir when Christianity says 'thou shalt not kill'? Can you see my dilemma I am facing here? As it is, people like Keith Pereira are already accusing me of being a Christian hater. Do I want to risk contradicting the Ten Commandments by suggesting that you kill Tun Dr Mahathir? Okay, you may say that the Bible says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But the Bible also asks you to turn the other cheek. Hence which version of the Bible should I use? And if I were to say that I am confused because there appears to be contradicting versions of the Bible, again, the Christians would whack me and preach to me about the Old Testament and the New Testament, as if I am ignorant about the religion when in fact I probably know more about Christianity than Christians themselves. So you see, your question is a difficult question to reply to. Maybe if you can be more specific then I may be able to give you a reply to that question. Until then I await your more detailed response so that I can offer you the reply that you seek. Meanwhile, take care and don't worry too much about putting people to death. Eventually we are all going to die anyway. It is only a matter of when. And there is always a chance that you may die before Tun Dr Mahathir does. After all, 10,000 Malaysians die every year due to traffic and other accidents so you never know when your time is up. ******************************* 敦馬哈迪應該被處死嗎？ 現在，讓我們假設提出上述這個問題的人是個基督徒。那我應該怎樣回答他才能不被講説我是在侮辱基督教呢？基督徒們和囘教徒一樣都是很敏感的，他們很容易會把別人的動作看成是侮辱他們的宗教，所以我必須格外小心才不被儅成是侮辱基督教。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 譯文：方宙 有人在MT上留言問我敦馬哈迪應不應該被處死。從那個人的問法我看得出他或她很贊同敦馬哈迪應該被處死，而這個人只是想測試我，要從我的口中得到一個答復。 那好，首先請問你指的是哪宗罪？敦馬殺了人嗎？這是哪宗謀殺罪呢？我們必須先知道犯罪的内容。 還是你指的足以判死刑的叛國罪？並不是所有的叛國都帶死刑的。這世界存在很多种叛國的行爲：販賣國家機密，為其他國家進行間諜活動，破壞國防來削弱國家實力以讓其他勢力更容易地侵犯我國等。 我們需要具體的説明。 我們也有必要知道你是從法律觀點出發還是從道德/宗教觀點出發。你是從哪一條法律來看而那條法律是否又帶死刑呢？然後我們要談到證據。你能夠為那條帶有死刑的法律提供證據嗎？ 我擔心的是有些人大談法律但他們根本就不懂法律。給你個例子，很多人都問爲什麽大馬政府不要引渡我。他們看起來並不知道引渡嫌犯的首要條件是'兩國共認罪行'（dual criminality）。他們到底懂什麽是'兩國共認罪行'嗎？ 如果'兩國共認罪行'這個條件不成立的話那馬來西亞是不能引渡我的。 其二，他們必須説服英國法庭我的確有犯罪（當然'兩國共認罪行'條件必須先成立）。爲此他們必須提出證據。只是告訴英國法庭我污辱回教是不夠的，因爲在英國污辱回教不是罪行。 對大馬政府而言，我污辱回教是因爲我就宗教侷發表'非穆斯林是回教敵人'的談論而幹屌宗教侷。然而，英國政府不止不會接受我譴責宗教侷發表'非穆斯林是回教敵人'言論是個犯罪，他們還會因我做出了以上的行爲而保護我（宗教侷的以上言論在英國是件仇恨罪）。我甚至還能像Salman Rushdie 般申請24小時貼身保護。 所以你看，在我能發表敦馬是否應該被處死之前，我們必須經過起訴，審訊，上訴，赦免等等繁重複雜的程序。只有在經過這些程序和和沒有其他上訴途徑以後一個人才會被判死刑。想想敦馬現在的年齡，在走完這些程序以前他可能就不于人世了。所以說這些程序和我的評論可以說只是學術爭論而已。 現在，讓我們假設提出上述這個問題的人是個基督徒。那我應該怎樣回答他才能不被講説我是在侮辱基督教呢？基督徒們和囘教徒一樣都是很敏感的，他們很容易會把別人的動作看成是侮辱他們的宗教，所以我必須格外小心才不被儅成是侮辱基督教。 基督教義很清楚的説明'汝不可杀戮'。如果我說敦馬應該被處死的話那就代表我認爲基督教義是錯的。試想，基督徒提倡'汝不可杀戮'而我講的是'汝可杀戮'，他們對我的'褻瀆'會有什麽反應呢？ 你看到我正在進退兩難了嗎？已經有人，就像是Keith Pereira，指控我是個仇恨基督徒者了；我還敢低觸基督教的十誡，跟你說敦馬應被處死嗎？ 好，你可以講說聖經有提到可以以牙還牙。但聖經也提到'有人打你这边的脸，连那边的脸也由他打'，那我到底應該應用哪個版本呢？如果我現在跟你說我對聖經的矛盾感到困惑，那肯定會有基督徒跳出來幹屌我，然後再把我當成很無知般的用舊約和新約跟我講道。事實上，我對基督教的認知應該比大多數的基督徒來得多。 你現在應該知道你的問題有多難回答了吧。如果你能夠更加具體的話我或許能夠回答你的問題。我會等待你的詳細答復，然後再給你你要的答案。 與此同時，我希望你能珍重和不要太過擔心別人被處死的問題。 我們最終都會死掉的，問題是什麽時候而已。你有可能比敦馬還要早去世；畢竟，大馬每天有1万個人因車禍和其他意外而死亡，所以你永遠也不會知道你的限期究竟是幾時。 |
| The question of cowardice (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 11 Apr 2013 07:08 PM PDT
The problem is: they disparage me for refusing to return to Malaysia. However, if I do return to Malaysia and nothing happens, they will say I have made a deal with Umno. And if I return to Malaysia and I get arrested, they will say that it is merely wayang to stop people from saying I have made a deal with Umno. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin According to Haris Ibrahim's blog, I am a coward for living in exile in the UK. It is interesting that Haris came out with this anti-RPK campaign at the same time that I published my article 'The consistency of change'. It looks like Haris, too, has changed his stance. He now feels I should be in jail rather than in Manchester. I suppose he is of the opinion that if I support Pakatan Rakyat then I should be in Manchester but if I do not support Pakatan Rakyat then I should instead be in jail. I thought justice was about getting a fair trial and about being spared selective prosecution cum political persecution and not about you should be free only if you are anti-government but behind bars if you are not anti-government. Anyway, laws are always subject to one's interpretation and most times people twist laws to conveniently suit their political agenda. The government does it and so does, it appears, the opposition as well. I remember that Haris was one of those who disagreed with my plan to stay in Malaysia and risk a third detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA). He was also one of those who disagreed with my plan to refuse bail and instead serve time in the Sungai Buloh Prison while awaiting trial. He, together with my wife who was in tears, pleaded with me to accept bail because, according to Haris, I would be more useful as a free man running Malaysia Today rather than behind bars with no one to manage the website. Haris was also the one who almost had a punch-up in Bangkok with the police officers from Malaysia because they wanted me to follow them to the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok. Haris felt that it may be a trap to arrest me and smuggle me back to Malaysia and he was adamant that I stay in the hotel than risk getting trapped in the Malaysian Embassy where the Thai government would be powerless to help me. I was prepared to take that risk but Haris told my wife to lock me in the hotel room and not allow me to leave while he and another lawyer, Amarjit Sidhu, follow the police officers to the Embassy to establish what was going on. Later that night they returned to the hotel and told me that they smelled a rat and that I should not go to the Embassy. I am not blaming Haris for me being here in Manchester but he made it very clear, and even publicly stated so, that he was dead opposed to me spending my days in jail. Now he has changed his mind and feels that I am a coward for refusing to go to jail. So what I wrote in my article 'The consistency of change' that people do change has been proven right after all. Anyway, I think it is an insult to Sun Yat-sen to say that those who choose exile over jail are cowards. Sun Yat-sen, too, spent time in exile in Japan and was financially supported by a democratic revolutionary named Miyazaki Toten. Sun Yat-sen also spent time in exile in Europe, the United States, and Canada where he raised money for his revolutionary party and to support uprisings in China. Sun Yat-sen is definitely not considered a coward for refusing to go back to China to spend the rest of his days in jail. In fact, in 1896, Sun Yat-sen was detained at the Chinese Legation in London. He was released after 12 days through the efforts of James Cantlie, The Times, and the British Foreign Office, resulting in him becoming a hero (not a coward) in Britain. Sayyid Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini, too, spent 14 years in exile and only returned to Iran in 1979 after the Shah had been toppled. Joseph Stalin was also in exile and only returned to Russia in 1917 when the Russian Revolution succeeded, as did Vladimir Lenin -- both heroes, and not cowards, of the Russian Revolution. I do not like to use Prophet Muhammad as another example lest people misinterpret this as me comparing myself to the Prophet but he too spent eight years in exile until he had a large enough army to return to Mekah unmolested in 630. In fact, history is rife with political exiles -- Englishmen exiled in France and Frenchmen exiled in England. Voltaire, Norodom Sihanouk, Bahadur Shah II, Alberto Fujimori, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Erich Honecker, Alan García, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, King Zog, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew Louis-Napoléon, and many, many more all spent time in exile -- the list is just too long. Anyway, what I had commented on was the call for Malaysians to kill and/or die to prevent phantom voters from casting their votes on 5th May 2013. My contention is that Malaysians would be the last one to put their life on the line when even getting them to register to post comments in Malaysia Today is impossible. Hardly 1% would dare do that because they fear that their identity may be known. If they do not even dare reveal their identity how can we expect these people to kill and/or die to prevent phantom voters from casting their votes? Do you know that many people do not even dare vote because they are worried that their vote is not secret and the government or police would know whom they voted for? There is even a protest because the ballot papers are marked with serial numbers. So what if people know who you vote for? What is wrong with that? Whenever I vote I proudly hold up my ballot paper for all and sundry to see and to make sure that they can see that I voted for the opposition before I put it into the ballot box. And here people refuse to vote in case others get to know whom they voted for. And these same people call me a coward? If I am a coward for showing everyone my ballot paper then what do we call those who refuse to vote because they fear people will find out who they voted for? Malaysians are real strange creatures indeed. And they don't realise that when they insult me they also insult Prophet Muhammad, Sun Yat-sen, Khomeini and thousands of other people whom history has labelled as great people and heroes because they went into exile. The problem is: they disparage me for refusing to return to Malaysia. However, if I do return to Malaysia and nothing happens, they will say I have made a deal with Umno. And if I return to Malaysia and I get arrested, they will say that it is merely wayang to stop people from saying I have made a deal with Umno. And the question is: why do they now want me to return to Malaysia and go to jail whereas in the beginning they were adamant that I stay free and out of jail? Only an idiot would require me to answer that question. *************************************** 懦夫的問題
|
| The consistency of change (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 11 Apr 2013 06:17 AM PDT
Today, I oppose everything I propagated back in the 1990s. Today, I believe in sexual freedom and your right to a gay lifestyle. Today, I believe in your right to atheism and your right to turn your back on religion. Today, I no longer believe in many things I used to believe in even as recent as when I first stated Malaysia Today back in 2004. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin 'The consistency of change' is itself an oxymoron. It is like military intelligence. Since when is killing an intelligent thing? Or new politics! The 'struggle' between Cain and Abel was a political thing. Hence politics is so old how can there be such a thing as new politics when politics itself is about power that resulted in humankind's first act of murder? But that is what I want to call my piece today -- The consistency of change -- mainly because if you change then you would not be perceived as consistent. And that is what I want to talk about today, that I am consistent about change. And I want to talk about that issue because of the comments posted in Malaysia Today about how inconsistent I am for having changed since pre-2008. You may have known me only since 2007, as most of you would have. If you had known me in 1963 when I first entered MCKK you would have known a different Raja Petra Kamarudin. In 1963 I was reserved and aloof. I never spoke much and remained very silent. I never mixed and did not have any friends. I eventually left MCKK three years later because I was so lonely and unhappy and could not fit in to the all-Malay environment. I cried like a baby and begged my father to allow me to go home. I lived in a world of my own. I walked around with a radio in my hand and slept with my headphones long before such a thing became fashionable more than 20 years later. I surrounded myself with music from The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. That was in 1963 and I was just 13 at that time. Then, three years later, I broke out of my shell and 'ran' with the bad boys of the Long Fu Tong of Petaling Street. I learned how to fight and carried a knife in my pocket. I even got arrested at 17 for my gang activities. I was never charged for any crime, though, but that woke me up. I realised I did not want to spend the rest of my life in jail. I then started dating and went steady with the girl who is now my wife, Marina. Nevertheless, Marina had to share me with my other love, my motorcycle. Marina did not like motorcycles but she knew she had to accept my motorcycle as part of her life if she wanted to be with me. And soon after that she climbed onto the back of my motorcycle and we became the terror of Kuala Lumpur. Then, in August 1971, my father died. I was just 20 going on 21 and the world that I had known shattered. Less than two years later Marina and I got married and soon after that we got our first child, a daughter. Within a short space of two years I saw the death of my father, got married, and got a child. And, yet again, my life changed. By then, of course, I had sold off the motorcycle that I loved so much and had 'settled down' to what I would consider a stable life. Soon after our daughter was born, we migrated to Kuala Terengganu and started a business. That was during the 1974 recession and life was very difficult then. Three years later, I made my first million and, yet again, my life changed. I now had only one interest in life, which can be summed up in three words -- money, money, money. I just wanted to make more millions, and I did, though not necessarily the moral or legal way. I discovered the world of corruption and how you can make plenty of money by bribing your way through life. But the euphoria of making money did not last. I suppose once you make it then it is not that enchanting any longer. I drank, I gambled, I partied -- and I made even more money by 'donating' large sums to Umno to win huge government contracts. At least five million flowed through my hands into Umno's coffers in exchange for RM120 million in contracts over 20 years -- which I already wrote about in my 20-series episode about my journey in life not being a straight line. Along the way I got infected with a serious case of conscience. That was in the days of Anwar Ibrahim and ABIM and the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 -- which I have also written about in my 20-series episode. My drinking, gambling and partying ended abruptly. I studied the Qur'an, the entire collection of Hadith Sahih Al Bukhari and the whole series of Tafsiran Al Qur'an by Haji Abdul Malik Karim Amrullah a.k.a. Hamka, who died in 1981 at age 73. In 1981 I did my first of ten trips to Mekah to do my Haj and became a Muslim fundamentalist in love with the Islamic Revolution. I wanted the same Islamic Revolution to happen in Malaysia and for Malaysia to be turned into the Islamic Republic of Malaysia. I wanted to see the end of Western-style democracy and the English Westminster system of Parliament and for the corrupt Monarchy to be abolished. That journey did not last as well. I soon gave up business because I could not be a successful businessman in Malaysia without also indulging in corruption. But I did not find solace in the aspirations of the Islamic Revolution either. I began to see the Revolution not as the saviour of the people but the enemy of free will. I began to hold to the ideals of free will and could no longer accept the doctrine of enforcement. Heaven and hell may exist. Maybe even God does exist. But you should have free will as to whether to accept the existence of God and, if you do, whether you wish to choose heaven or hell as your final resting place. Free will means free will and religion denies you this free will. In 1995, if you had asked me whether I believed in the Islamic State and the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud, I would have said yes. Those of you who have read what I wrote back then would know this, especially those DAP people who used to whack me in Sang Kancil back in the mid-1990s. Today, I oppose everything I propagated back in the 1990s. Today, I believe in sexual freedom and your right to a gay lifestyle. Today, I believe in your right to atheism and your right to turn your back on religion. Today, I no longer believe in many things I used to believe in even as recent as when I first stated Malaysia Today back in 2004. So, yes, the Raja Petra Kamarudin of today is different from the Raja Petra Kamarudin of 2004 or of 1994 or of 1984 or of 1974 or of 1964. And if you can't accept that then that is your problem, not mine. So stop posting comments in Malaysia Today about how I have changed. I have changed. So what? I change all the time. I have changed many times. Change is the only thing consistent about me. Change is called hijrah. In Islam, hijrah is the most important thing. Prophet Muhammad also did his hijrah. Hijrah is so important in Islam that the Islamic calendar is called the Hijrah calendar and starts from the date of the hijrah. And hijrah means change. You hijrah from one lifestyle to another and from one doctrine to another. And you hijrah with your conscience as your guide. And my conscience is clear. My conscience guides me as to what is right and what is wrong. And I know what is right and what is wrong. And just because you want to do the wrong thing because you think it is the right thing does not make you right and me wrong. ******************************************* 不變的改變 |
| The great political debate (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 06 Apr 2013 06:35 PM PDT
The estimated one million (or 700,000, according to the official statistics) Malaysians living and working outside Malaysia should be allowed to vote by postal voting. The estimated one million (or 700,000, according to the official statistics) Malaysians living and working outside Malaysia should not register to vote in case the EC uses these names to stuff the ballot boxes with 'phantom' votes. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin I have detected some interesting arguments being posted in the Blogs that you can probably use to convince people why they should vote opposition. These arguments come from Malaysia Today's readers and I present them here not necessarily in order of priority. We should vote for Pakatan Rakyat even if they field monkeys and donkeys as candidates as long as Umno and its stooges are kicked out. (This gem came from Li Xiang Lan). Barisan Nasional's Election Manifesto will bankrupt the country if implemented. Barisan Nasional's Election Manifesto is not original -- it is a copycat Election Manifesto that was stolen from Pakatan Rakyat. Hindraf will not support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional unless both agree to Hindraf's demands. Pakatan Rakyat's Election Manifesto is stolen from Hindraf, which Barisan Nasional then stole from Pakatan Rakyat. Senile old men like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is in his 80s and ruled Malaysia for 22 years, should just retire and no longer talk about politics. Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who is also in his 80s and has ruled Kelantan for 23 years, should serve at least another term. Dr Chandra Muzaffar is being punished by God for opposing the opposition and that is why he is condemned to a wheelchair. Karpal Singh who supports the opposition and is also confined to a wheelchair is not being punished by God. Those who used to be in the opposition and have now left the opposition are traitors who should shut up and not criticise the opposition. Those who used to be in the government and have now joined the opposition are patriots who should go all over the country and whack the government. Non-Muslims must be allowed their democratic right to criticise Islam, as this is considered freedom of speech. Non-Christians must not be allowed to pass comments regarding Christianity, as this is considered mocking Christianity. If Pakatan Rakyat takes over there will not be any witch-hunt. However, jobs and contracts given out under the Barisan Nasional government will be terminated wherever possible. If Pakatan Rakyat takes over, all those who have committed misdeeds will be hounded and punished for their crimes. However, those who have committed misdeeds but cross over and join the opposition will not be hounded and punished for their crimes. If Barisan Nasional wins the general election, Pakatan Rakyat will not accept the result because of the rampant and blatant election fraud and gerrymandering. If Pakatan Rakyat wins the general election then Barisan Nasional must respect the wishes of the voters although the general election is rife with election fraud and gerrymandering. Bersih is non-partisan and just wants to see a clean and fair election, never mind which party may end up winning the election. Bersih wants the voters to vote for Pakatan Rakyat and kick out Barisan Nasional. Pakatan Rakyat guarantees the people of Sabah and Sarawak full autonomy. Pakatan Rakyat will determine who gets to contest in Sabah and Sarawak. The local Sabahans and Sarawakians have no say in the matter. The estimated one million (or 700,000, according to the official statistics) Malaysians living and working outside Malaysia should be allowed to vote by postal voting. The estimated one million (or 700,000, according to the official statistics) Malaysians living and working outside Malaysia should not register to vote in case the EC uses these names to stuff the ballot boxes with 'phantom' votes. Why is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak delaying the general election? Why is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak rushing the general election by allowing a short campaign period? Why is Barisan Nasional putting up flags and banners before Nomination Day, in breach of the election rules? Why is the government removing the flags and banners that the opposition has put up? This general election is about whom you want as Prime Minister -- Anwar Ibrahim or Najib Tun Razak. This general election is not about personalities but about change. This general election is not about mere promises but about track record, and Barisan Nasional's track record is dismal. This general election is about what Pakatan Rakyat promises to do for you if you allow the opposition to form the federal government. Lim Kit Siang is scared of losing his seat in Perak. That is why he is cowardly leaving Perak to contest in a safe seat in Johor. Lim Kit Siang is brave. That is why he is leaving his safe seat in Perak to contest in an unsafe seat in Johor. Anwar Ibrahim is a coward. He does not dare contest in a seat in Perak. Anwar Ibrahim is loyal to his supporters. That is why he is staying in his seat in Penang. I think those are enough arguments that you can use to campaign in the coming general election. Happy campaigning! ************************************************ 重大的政治辯論
|
| What me worry? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 05 Apr 2013 11:37 PM PDT
Alfred E. Neumann then talks about my loyalty. He did not, however, talk about loyalty to whom. In Judas' case it was loyalty to Jesus that came into question. Hence, again, who is the 'Jesus' meant in Alfred E. Neumann's analogy? Loyalty has to be to a person, country, cause, organisation, etc. And if I have been disloyal then Alfred E. Neumann has to make clear to whom or to what I have been disloyal. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Everyone has a price, eh Pete? — Alfred E. Neumann Thirty pieces of silver was all it took for Judas to betray Jesus Christ. One can only wonder the price for Raja Petra Kamarudin's loyalty. Or is he priceless and can't be bought? The blogger-on-the-run who delighted us with many tales has published links to a video-clip, ostensibly showing how famed jewellers Jacob & Co have denied that they sold a RM24 million ring to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor. The First Lady has already denied the allegations in her book. So why the need to reinforce that denial? Pro-Umno bloggers and cybertroopers have been doing the denial for the past two years and now the famous or is it infamous RPK has joined that bandwagon. One can only wonder why it took Jacob & Co almost two years to actually deny this tale. Or that someone took great pains to get their representative on camera to deny the allegations that have been swirling the past couple of years. One has to be careful with Jacob & Co. They were linked to the Detroit Black Mafia in 2006 for suspected money laundering, according to Vanity Fair. Can we take their word then that there wasn't a sale? Why even bother unless it is an issue for the general elections. So much an issue of the haves and have-nots that the Barisan Nasional (BN) thinks are eager for another round of cash handouts. So much an issue that RPK had to show us the links to the Jacob & Co video-clip that was only uploaded yesterday showing a man clearly ill at ease about denying a sale. So much an issue that a lot of energy, effort and money has gone into denying the sale. Fine, there was no sale and a denial was issued two years later. We believe you, Jacob & Co. And thank you, RPK, for reporting the video-clip. The issue has been settled then, no pricy diamond rings bought by VIPs at a time when we were told to tighten our belts. No sirree, no. We'll take your word for it then, while others take their share of pieces of silver. Alfred E. Neumann reads The Malaysian Insider. ********************************************* Alfred E. Neuman is my favourite Mad character -- famous for his saying 'What me worry?' The Mad Alfred E. Neuman, however, has only one 'n' in his name, while the other Alfred E. Neumann -- who wrote the letter above to The Malaysian Insider -- has two 'n's in his name. Alfred E. Neumann of The Malaysian Insider started off by saying that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. I don't know where Alfred E. Neumann got that story from, which some may regard as folklore. In the first place, did Judas and Jesus even exist? Alfred E. Neumann did not offer any evidence of their existence so we have to assume that he is the propagator of folklore and fairy tales. In fact, some even say that Judas did not betray Jesus but that it was a conspiracy between Judas and Jesus. It seems Jesus was meant to die for the sins of mankind. That was part of God's grand design. And it seems, also, Judas, being one of the conspirators, was informed of this. Hence Judas played along with the wayang and 'sold out' Jesus so that Jesus could die, as what God had planned from the very beginning. Hence did Judas really betray Jesus or was Judas one of the actors in the wayang that God had planned? Were Judas and Jesus both fellow conspirators in this little conspiracy hatched by God? We must understand that Christianity was founded on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Without the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ Christianity would not exist. Hence Jesus had to die and Judas had to 'betray' Jesus for that plan to succeed. Anyway, if Alfred E. Neumann is using the analogy of Judas to describe me, who is 'Jesus' supposed to be? Is it Anwar Ibrahim? For there to be a Judas, there must also be a Jesus. So I am very curious to know who this 'Jesus' is. I can only assume that Alfred E. Neumann means that Anwar Ibrahim is Jesus, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and all that nonsense. Alfred E. Neumann then talks about my loyalty. He did not, however, talk about loyalty to whom. In Judas' case it was loyalty to Jesus that came into question. Hence, again, who is the 'Jesus' meant in Alfred E. Neumann's analogy? Loyalty has to be to a person, country, cause, organisation, etc. And if I have been disloyal then Alfred E. Neumann has to make clear to whom or to what I have been disloyal. I used to be a member of PKR. I never became a member of DAP or PAS because you cannot be a member of two political parties. I also used to work for PKR's newspaper until 2004, after which I left to manage Malaysia Today fulltime. I never renewed my membership in PKR since 2001. Hence Alfred E. Neumann cannot mean I am disloyal to PKR, DAP or PAS. I am not a member of any of those parties. I am, however, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK and I voted for them in the last general election (I became a LibDem member before the general election). And I am still a LibDem member until today. Now, LibDem is a coalition member in the present ruling government. In the most recent by-election in Eastleigh, LibDem competed against its coalition partner, Conservative, and won that by-election. In fact, 14 political parties in total contested in that by-election. Hence LibDem and its coalition partner, Conservative, fought against each other. And LibDem defeated its coalition partner. But that is not seen as a betrayal. It is considered quite normal and acceptable. It is just like PKR and PAS or PKR and DAP competing against each other in the elections. So you see, your interpretation of betrayal is not the same as my interpretation of betrayal. To you, PKR and PAS or PKR and DAP contesting against each other is considered a betrayal. To me, LibDem competing against Conservative is not a betrayal but democracy being practiced. My loyalty would be to the voters, not to Anwar Ibrahim, PKR, DAP or PAS. If I were to lie to the voters, that would be a betrayal. Hence when I received a video that explained what really happened regarding the diamond ring controversy, it is my duty to reveal this to the voters. The thing is, I may not personally like Rosmah Mansor. However, booklets are being distributed alleging that Rosmah bought a diamond ring when actually she did not. In fact, the story of her buying the ring came out after the ring had been sent back to the US. My loyalty is to the truth. And the truth is the ring was sent to Malaysia and was later sent back to the US. Then, after it was sent back, the story emerged. My job is merely to reveal what the people who had sent the ring to Malaysia have to say about the whole episode. And this I have done. Hence I have not betrayed the voters or the truth. Of course, many people are not going to believe this story. That is to be expected -- as many people too do not believe the story of the 30 pieces of silver and of Judas betraying Jesus or even the story of the existence of Judas and Jesus. In the end, you believe what you want to believe if you think that believing so will guarantee you a place in heaven. If I had revealed a video of Jacob and Co. confirming that the ring had been sent to Rosmah because she wanted to buy it would Alfred E. Neumann call me a Judas and question my loyalty? Of course not! Instead he would call me Jesus rather than Judas. That is what this whole thing is really about. ********************************************** 什麽，我在擔心？ Alfred E. Neumann 之後談及的是我的忠誠，但他沒有講到是我對誰的忠誠。我們知道猶大效忠的人是耶穌， Alfred E. Neumann 把我當成猶大的話，那就必須得有個耶穌。忠誠是對個人，國家，理念，社團。。。。等等的，Alfred E. Neumann必需闡明我所效忠的對象。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 译文：方宙 Alfred E. Neuman 是我在 Mad 裏最喜歡角色。他的經典口頭禪是"什麽，我在擔心？" 'What me worry?' 。Mad 的Alfred E. Neuman在他名字裏只有一個'n' 而寫了以上這封信的Alfred E. Neumann 則有兩個'n'。 這個Alfred E. Neumann 在信中提到了猶大因30塊銀片而出賣了耶穌，而很多人都認爲這只是個傳説故事。到底歷史上猶大和耶穌是否存在呢？而既然Alfred E. Neumann沒有提出他們存在的證據我們只能設想他是個相信傳説的'講古人'。 事實上，有人認爲猶大根本沒有背叛耶穌而是耶穌的同謀。耶穌必須為世人的罪而死，這是上帝的指使，而猶大這個同謀他是知道的。所以，猶大他配合演出了這場wayang來背叛耶穌以便耶穌正如上帝所策劃般地死去。 那猶大真的背叛了耶穌嗎還是猶大是上帝計劃中的一員呢？猶大和耶穌是否又有合作執行了上帝的計劃呢？我們必須了解基督教是在耶穌受罪和復活后才建立的。若耶穌沒有被釘在十字架上和復活的話那基督教根本就不會存在。所以說耶穌必須死亡而猶大必須反叛才能讓計劃成功。 話説回來，如果Alfred E. Neumann 把我比喻成猶大的話，那誰是耶穌呢？安華嗎？有猶大就必須要有耶穌，而我真的很好奇他指的耶穌到底是誰。我現在只能猜想Alfred E. Neumann 的耶穌指的正是安華。 Alfred E. Neumann 之後談及的是我的忠誠，但他沒有講到是我對誰的忠誠。我們知道猶大效忠的人是耶穌， Alfred E. Neumann 把我當成猶大的話，那就必須得有個耶穌。忠誠是對個人，國家，理念，社團。。。。等等的，Alfred E. Neumann必需闡明我所效忠的對象。 我曾經是公正黨黨員，但我從來沒參與過行動黨和伊斯蘭黨，因爲沒有人可以成爲兩個黨的黨員。我也曾經為公正黨的黨報工作直到2004年，之後我就辭職為MT全職工作。而自從2001年起我就再沒更新我的公正黨黨籍。 所以 Alfred E. Neumann 不能講我背叛民聯三黨，因爲我根本就不是他們的黨員。無論如何，我是英國自由民主黨員，且在上個大選中有投票（我在大選前就入黨了）。到今天我還是自由民主黨員。 自由民主黨是現今英國執政聯盟政府中的其中一個聯盟黨。在最近Eastleigh的補選中（有14個黨參選），自由民主黨和它的聯盟黨友保守黨相互競爭。而在這次的補選中，自由民主黨打敗了它的盟友保守黨。但沒有人把這看成是背叛，他們都把這看得很正常且被允許的。在馬來西亞的話，我們可以把它看成是公正黨在大選中對壘伊黨或行動黨。 在這我們就能看出你和我就'背叛'上的不同看法。對你來説，民聯三黨自相競爭就是背叛彼此，但對我來講，自由民主黨和保守黨相互競爭並不是背叛彼此而是在展現民主精神。 我效忠的是廣大的選民，而不是安華或民聯。如果我欺騙選民的話，那我就犯了背叛罪。所以儅我把影片公諸於世以解釋'鑽石案'的背後真相時，我其實是正在執行著我對選民的義務。 我自己本身可能很不喜歡儸斯瑪，但那些小冊子指控的是儸斯瑪買了那枚鑽石戒指，而現實裏儸斯瑪根本就沒那麽做。事實上，那個故事是在那鑽戒被送囘美國才散播出來的。 我的忠誠是在於陳述事實的理念。而事實是，那枚鑽戒是在被送來馬來西亞后就被送囘美國，而那個故事是在以後才傳出的。我的義務是把那位送鑽戒到大馬的人要解釋的東西公諸於世，而我所做的正是如此。所以說，我並沒有背叛選民和我對陳述事實的理念。 當然，很多人都不會相信我所揭開的那個故事。這是很正常的----就如會有人不相信猶大和30銀片的故事，或猶大背叛耶穌的故事，甚至是猶大和耶穌存在的事情。 總歸而言，你會相信那些你要相信，那些可以讓你死後上天堂的事情。 如果說我發佈的影片是指認儸斯瑪想買那枚鑽戒的，那Alfred E. Neumann 還會稱我為猶大進而猜疑我的忠誠嗎？當然不會！他有很大可能會把我捧為耶穌呢！ 而 這就是所有事情的根基所在。 |
| 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