Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- On the Eve of Nomination Day (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- Your slip is showing (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- 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)
| On the Eve of Nomination Day (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 18 Apr 2013 07:21 PM PDT
Marina could not explain what those rocket flags meant other than, "Itu bendera parti PAS Cina (those are the flags of the Chinese PAS party)'. 'PAS' here meaning 'opposition', of course, just like 'Colgate' means 'tooth paste', Lux means 'bathing soap' and 'Panadol means 'pain killers', etc. Never did Marina suspect 20 years ago that 'PAS Cina' would one day become a reality. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Kit Siang: RoS move may hamper DAP win in Gelang Patah (TMI) - DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang today admitted that his chances of winning in the Gelang Patah parliamentary seat may be affected by the Registrar of Societies' (RoS) move to block the DAP from using its party logo for the 13th general election. "My chances of winning in Gelang Patah from 50-50 before the announcement to field Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman, then 45-55 with Ghani's candidacy. "With the ban on using DAP's symbol, my chances are only 40, while Ghani's is 60 per cent," an emotional Lim said at a press conference at the DAP headquarters here, referring to his decreasing chances against his rival from the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition with the surprising turn of events just two days before tomorrow's Nomination Day. Lim, who was seen shedding tears during the press conference, said voters would be confused if the DAP is forced to borrow the symbols of its coalition partners in Pakatan Rakyat (PR). "If until 3pm this afternoon, RoS does not issue a retraction letter, we will use the logos of component parties," Lim said, referring to the DAP's two allies in PR, PAS and PKR. ************************************************* DAP to contest under PAS, PKR tickets (The Sun Daily) - DAP will not be able to use its rocket symbol in the coming general election, following two letters issued by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) on Wednesday – just three days before nomination – which in effect render the party's office-bearers impotent. As a consequence, the DAP at an emergency meeting last night had decided it will contest under the PAS logo in the peninsula and the PKR logo in East Malaysia unless the Registrar of Societies (ROS) revokes its April 17 letter which de-recognised the party's office-bearers by 3pm today. ************************************************* PAS VP welcomes usage of party logo by DAP (The Sun Daily) - PAS vice president Datuk Husam Musa welcomes the usage of the party's logo by DAP to contest in the upcoming general election. Husam said this move would also help increase votes for both the Islamic party and its partner DAP. "This I believe is the real unity for Malaysians," he said in a press conference at the party's media centre here today. He said PAS has also started preparing the surat watikah (authorisation letter) for DAP to use the Islamic party's logo for the election. ************************************************* (Bernama) - The People's Progressive Party (PPP) will come up with respective manifestos for each of the five seats allocated to the party in the 13th General Election. Its president, Datuk Seri M. Kayveas, said the pledges in each manifesto of a parliamentary constituency and four state seats would differ, according to the importance and needs of the people in the respective areas. "Each manifesto will have eight points on why they (the voters) should choose Barisan Nasional (BN), and also the promise to enhance their living standard," he said. ************************************************* We have less than 24 hours to go to know who is going to be contesting where and how many three-, four-, five-, six-, or more-corner fights we are going to see on 5th May 2103. Nevertheless, for sure this is NOT going to be a one-on-one general election as we had hoped for and had tried to fight for back in 2010. Yes, three years ago, back in 2010, just two years after what many regard as the 'historic' 2008 general election, some of us such as Haris Ibrahim and I already anticipated that we would be seeing what we are seeing today. And we discussed this with anxiety and decided to try to do something about it. No, I will not say 'I told you so' because many of you are going to get angry mainly because, as the Malays say, siapa makan cili dia rasa pedas -- and many of you rasa pedas for sure even without me having to say 'I told you so'. Hence I will not say 'I told you so'. Do you remember the various reasons why we launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in London back in 2010? And do you remember that one of these various reasons was to see a one-on-one contest and to avoid three-, four-, five-, six-, or more-corner fights? And do you also remember the meeting we from Friends of Pakatan Rakyat had with Anwar Ibrahim when he visited London around that same time and which we reported about? And do you remember, as well, the public dialogue session in London that we had with Anwar, Tian Chua and Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim, which you can see on YouTube (where I 'waved' in Anwar's face a copy of The People's Declaration that was signed with Pakatan Rakyat in February 2008)? No, I am not saying 'I told you so'. I am just reminding you of all these events because 'Melayu mudah lupa', as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is fond of saying. Then we who mooted the idea of MCLM were accused of attempting to trigger three-corner fights in the coming general election in spite of us explaining that our objective was to prevent and not to trigger three-corner fights. Whatever we said was not accepted and Pakatan Rakyat still insisted that our objective was sinister and aimed at triggering three-corner fights. That was when I decided to announce that we are abandoning the 'independent candidate initiative' since Pakatan Rakyat is opposed to it and is saying that this initiative is aimed at sabotaging Pakatan Rakyat. Then Haris Ibrahim turns around and whacks me and says that this was never discussed and agreed upon (which means the initiative was not abandoned) and then he subsequently resigned from MCLM. Anyway, as I always say, all I need to do is keep quiet and wait because eventually, even if it takes ten years, what I say will be proven. And, today, it has been proven. So there! But I am still not saying 'I told you so'. Next issue. In an emotional press conference yesterday, Lim Kit Siang said that if DAP can't contest under its own logo then this would cost the party some votes and maybe even some seats. This is actually quite true. And that was why Barisan Nasional was formed more than a year before the 1974 general election. The voters recognised the kapal layar logo of the old Alliance Party but not the dacing of the new Barisan Nasional so they needed enough time to promote the new logo. Hence if DAP contests under a 'new' logo this may confuse the voters. If this was 40 years ago back in 1973 I can understand that the voters might be confused and need more than a year of 'education' to understand that the dacing has replaced the kapal layar. I mean, back in 1973 the voters were not that educated. However, today, 40 years later in the era of the Internet and the information revolution, are you saying that this is still a problem? So you see, when I said that the Malaysian voters are still not that mature enough I meant it. The Malaysian voters are not the thinking type of voters. Even in the west or more advanced nations this is also true to a certain extent. In the UK the voters vote for Conservative, Labour, LibDem or any of the other parties. And they will still vote for these parties even if these parties contest without any logo. But not in Malaysia, it seems. I remember 20 years or so ago my wife, Marina, and I, together with our son and daughter, made a trip to Ipoh and the town was flooded with party flags and my son, Azmir, asked about those strange rocket flags. Being from Terengganu, he had never seen these flags before. Marina could not explain what those rocket flags meant other than, "Itu bendera parti PAS Cina (those are the flags of the Chinese PAS party)'. 'PAS' here meaning 'opposition', of course, just like 'Colgate' means 'tooth paste', Lux means 'bathing soap' and 'Panadol means 'pain killers', etc. Never did Marina suspect 20 years ago that 'PAS Cina' would one day become a reality. DAP's 'angry bird' logo for East Malaysia that I propose Next issue. It appears like we have the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat Election Manifestos plus each political party has its own separate manifesto plus separate manifestos for each state. Wow! It looks like we are going to end up with 350 different manifestos in the coming general election. This must certainly be a world record of sorts. Why can't they all make it simple and reduce it to just one 'universal' election manifesto and simply declare that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10th December 1948 is going to be adopted after the general election is over? Do you know that even after 56 years of Merdeka Malaysia is still not a signatory to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? And, may I ask, why not? Our neighbours such as Thailand and the Philippines are. Even 'rouge' nations such as Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, Burma, the Republic of China, etc., are. So why can't Malaysia adopt The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as our 'election manifesto'? It is no use presenting hundreds of different election manifestos when we refuse even to endorse a simple, complete and precise 'manifesto' such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And if you adopt The Universal Declaration of Human Rights then 90% of the problems facing the country would be automatically solved. And go read it here to understand what I am talking about. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ****************************************** 提名日前夕 |
| Your slip is showing (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 17 Apr 2013 06:35 PM PDT
That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin One reader sent me an email complaining that his comment was 'rejected'. He accused me of blocking his email address but when I tried posting the comment that he sent me I discovered that his comment is too long. And that was why he could not post the comment. He should have broken the comment into two parts. Nevertheless, he assumed that I had blocked or rejected his comment. The 2,000 character limit is to ensure that spammers do not copy and paste nonsense running into 20 pages or more and post them in Malaysia Today. They have done this before. Furthermore, the spammers post many copies of the same comment. Hence we have had to set a time gap of three minutes between postings. Another problem we face is DDOS attacks. Over the last month we have been under severe attack almost 24-7, as have many other websites and news portals. These attacks come from all over the world and I was told that hackers take control of millions of computers all over the world to launch these attacks. And that is why we find it so difficult to track them down and block them. They are using 'middlemen' to attack us. Your computer may be one of those millions of computers all over the world commandeered by the hackers to launch these DDOS attacks. Hence you may find your IP address blocked by our server. I suppose we shall have to treat that as collateral damage until the 5th May 2013 general election is over. According to our technical people, this mode of attack would cost a lot of money so whoever is financing these attacks must have very deep pockets indeed. Below is one comment from a reader regarding my two articles on principles. Sometimes, pragmatism trumps over principles. How many dinners does one need to organise to raise hundreds of millions for Nurul Izzah to counter Raja Nong Chik's hundreds of millions? The idea was dead from the start. That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese. I suppose 'pragmatic' is a better word than 'unprincipled' -- such as 'meticulous' rather than 'leceh (slow)', 'friendly fire' rather than 'oops', 'collateral damage' rather than 'kambing hitam (sacrificial lamb)', 'flexible' rather than 'wishy-washy', 'firm' rather than 'pig-headed', 'decisive' rather than 'uncompromising', 'faith' rather than 'lack of evidence', and so on. It is merely a choice of words and what people would call 'politically correct' rather than 'propaganda'. In short, what this reader is saying is matlamat menghalalkan cara (the ends justify the means). I actually like that doctrine. My doctor friend tells me that a glass of wine a day is very healthy and a glass of brandy helps cure your cough. Can I, therefore, drink a glass of wine a day and down a glass of brandy every time I cough (and I cough a lot as those who phone me can confirm)? My objective is to stay healthy and cure my cough so the wine and liquor that I drink would achieve that. And does not the ends justify the means or matlamat menghalalkan cara? So haram becomes halal just as long as your intentions are noble (matlamat yang mulia). Talking about noble intentions, Islam says that all Muslims are brothers/sisters. So, in the interest of noble intentions and for the sake of maintaining the Islamic brotherhood, if a Chinese candidate from the opposition contests against a Malay candidate from Umno, whom should we support? Remember, as the Chinese say, we need to be pragmatic and not idealistic or emotional. The pragmatic thing would be that if we support a Malay candidate against the Chinese candidate then we would be able to strengthen the Muslim brotherhood, as Islam wants us to do. So, do you really want to choose pragmatism over idealism? Now back to the issue of the fundraising exercise for Nurul Izzah. One reader posted a comment saying that people refuse to support the fundraising exercise not because they do not support Nurul Izzah but because they hate me. I like it when people get snared in my traps. Actually, there were two fundraising dinners. One was organised by Nurul Izzah's own team and the other by someone else but I sponsored the whole event. Hence I was not involved in the first and only a handful of people knew about my involvement in the other -- at least until the dinner was over. And both dinners managed to raise about the same amount of money. Hence how goes your theory that people did not support Nurul Izzah's fundraising exercise because they hate me? Even Nurul Izzah's own team could not do much better. Using that same logic, if you hate Azmin Ali then is it okay if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat Selangor? What if you hate Anwar Ibrahim? Is it okay then to not support PKR? Why do you people not want to admit your failings and shortcomings? Why always try to deflect and put the blame on someone else? Just admit that you are all talk and no action. The more you squirm the deeper you get snared. So now it is okay to not support the cause if you hate one person. That gives me the moral high ground to not support Pakatan Rakyat because I hate certain people in Pakatan Rakyat. These are your ground rules and we are just playing according to your ground rules. This is typical of Malaysians, in particular the Chinese, Indians and natives of East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir proudly said that in five general elections he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament and then you turn around and whack Dr Mahathir and blame the Malays and ask the Malays to 'wake up'. Dr Mahathir said he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament in 22 years but in 1990 Kelantan, which is in the Malay heartland that has more than 97% Malay voters, was lost to the opposition. In 1995, DAP garnered only 12% of the votes and won 9 Parliament seats while PAS-Semangat 46 garnered 15% of the votes and won 13 Parliament seats plus they retained Kelantan. In 1999, the opposition won Kelantan and Terengganu and Umno lost its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (after the Lunas by-election) plus Umno lost more than half the Parliament seats in that state. PAS also won the most number of seats and the PAS President became the Opposition Leader in Parliament while Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh lost their seats in the 'Chinese heartland'. So what do you have to say about that? What do you mean that the Malays have to wake up? Why try to deflect and not admit who is to blame for this? Why try to blame others for your failings and shortcomings? And Nurul Izzah can't raise enough money because people hate Raja Petra Kamarudin konon and not because you are all talk and no action. What utter bullshit! You are so full of shit I can smell it all the way from Manchester. So, nak cakap lagi? What is the word they use? Kiasu? ********************************** 你快站不住腳了 這只是其中一個留言。我發現華人很喜歡吹噓他們在5000年歷史的洗禮下變得如何的務實。就連敦馬哈迪也承認華人是很務實的而他為馬來人的情緒化與封建感嘆。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 譯文：方宙
一位讀者給我發了封郵件，向我投訴他的留言被'拒絕'了。他指責我'封'了他的郵址，但儅 我嘗試著要把他的留言放上網時我發現他的留言實在是太長了。這就是他放不上的原因，他應該把留言分成兩段。無論如何他假定這是我在阻止他發言。 那2000個字的上限是爲了防止那些垃圾邮件发送者在MT上拷貝和張貼那些可以長達20頁的胡言亂語，他們之前曾那樣做過。不止這樣，他們還會重復的張貼同樣的留言，所以我們設下了3分鐘才可以張貼第二段留言的設置。 另外一個問題是DDOS攻擊。在這個月裏我們受到很嚴重的，近乎24小時的攻擊。其他的新聞網站也一樣。這些攻擊的發源地來自全球各地，而我還被告知那些駭客同時閒操作著上百萬的電腦來進行這些攻擊。這就是爲什麽我們很難將他們定位和封鎖他們的原因。 你的電腦可能是這上百萬被駭客用來進行攻擊的其中只一，所以你可能發現你的IP地址會被我們的服务器封鎖。我猜想直到5月5號我們還是會遭到這大選的'附带损害'。根據我們的技術員，這類的攻擊是很耗錢的，背後操手的口袋肯定很深。 以下這段留言是一名讀者對我那兩篇有關原則的文章所發的： 有時候實用主義會勝過原則。你要舉辦多少個晚宴才能幫努魯湊獲上億元來對付 Raja Nong Chik's 呢？這個主意打從一早就失敗了。 這只是其中一個留言。我發現華人很喜歡吹噓他們在5000年歷史的洗禮下變得如何的務 實。就連敦馬哈迪也承認華人是很務實的而他為馬來人的情緒化與封建感嘆。 我想'務實'比起'沒原則'更好聽吧----就像是'細緻'對比'leceh（慢吞吞）'，'誤傷'對比'噢慘了'，'附帶損害'對比 'kambing hitam (代罪羔羊)'，'靈活'對比'左右搖擺'，'堅定'對比'固執'，'決定性的'對比'永不妥協'，'信念'對比'缺乏證據'等等。這只是名詞上的選擇而以，就像很多人會說'政治上是正確的'而不是'宣傳'。 簡短的說，這位讀者要表達的是matlamat menghalalkan cara（目標可以合理化方法）。我其實很喜歡這個講法。我的醫生朋友告訴我一天一杯紅酒對身體有益，而一杯白蘭地會幫你止咳。這是不是代表我每天就可以喝一杯紅酒和每儅我一咳嗽時我就應該來一杯白蘭地呢（那些曾打電話可我的人可以證明我會經常咳嗽）？ 我的目標是保持健康和醫好我的咳嗽而紅酒和白蘭地可以幫我做到。這不就是目標可以合理化方法嗎？所以Haram可以變成Halal，只要你的目標是高尚的 (matlamat yang mulia)。 講到高尚的目標，回教談到所有穆斯林都是兄弟姐妹。爲了維護這個高尚的目標，在大選裏儅一個華裔候選人對壘一個來自巫統的馬來裔候選人時，我們應該支持誰呢？ 記住，正如華人常講的，我們應該是務實的而不是情緒化或理想化的。而在此踏實的選擇將會是支持那個馬來候選人來鞏固穆斯林之間的手足關係，真如回教教義要我們如此做般。 所以你真的要放棄理想來選擇務實嗎？ 現在讓我們回到努魯的課題。另一位讀者指出人們不支持湊款活動不是因爲他們不支持努魯而是因爲他們討厭我。 儅有人被套入我的陷阱時我是很得瑟的。 其實湊款晚宴一共有兩場，一場是努魯的隊伍自己舉行，另一場的籌備者其實是另有其人而我只是負責出錢而已。所以說我並沒有參與第一場而只有少數人知道我參與第二場----大多數人是事後才知道的。這兩場晚宴湊到的款項都大概一樣多。 請問你那"人們不支持努魯是因爲他們討厭我"的理論要如何站得住腳呢？就連努魯的自己人也做得沒有比我好。用囘你的理論邏輯，那如果你不喜歡阿玆敏那是不是就等於你不支持雪州民聯？那如果你也不喜歡安華呢？你是不是就可以不用支持公正黨？ 爲什麽你們就不會承認你們的失敗和缺點呢？爲什麽就只會把錯怪在他人身上呢？你承認你是只講不做就好了嘛。你越蠕動，你就會被套得越深。 所以現在儅你討厭一個人時你是可以不用支持那個理念的。那好，我現在有了道德的注腳，可以不用支持民聯了，因爲我討厭民聯内的某些人。 這就是你的規則而我們只是遵照你的規則而已。 這就是典型的大馬人，特別是華人，印度人和東馬土著。馬哈迪很光榮地說在他期内5屆大選他從來沒喪失過2/3的多數席位，而你們就轉過來干屌馬哈迪和怪罪馬來人，要馬來人'醒過來'。 馬哈迪說他22年來在國會從沒輸過，但在1990年他輸了吉蘭丹的州權，一個97%都是馬來選民的馬來州屬。1995年，行動黨只贏了12%的選票而拿下了9個囯席，但精神黨-伊斯蘭黨贏了15%的選票和拿下了13個囯席。他們也成功地衛冕了吉蘭丹。 1999年，反對黨在吉蘭丹和登嘉樓獲勝和在吉打取得多於1/3的州席。巫統也在吉打州輸掉一半的囯席。伊斯蘭黨贏得了最多的議席，伊黨主席成了反對黨主席。當時林吉祥和加巴星在他們的華人區輸了。 你現在還想講什麽？馬來人必須醒起來是什麽意思？爲什麽要閃躲不願承認誰該爲此擔罪呢？爲什麽要把你的失敗和缺點全怪在其他人身上呢？還有，努魯湊不到錢是因爲人們都討厭Raja Petra Kamarudin而不是你只講不做。 真他媽的廢話！你全身都是用來裝屎的，臭得連我在曼徹斯特也嗅得到。所以，nak cakap lagi? 那個詞是什麽來著? Kiasu 驚輸！
|
| 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。 |
| 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