Khamis, 3 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 05:44 PM PST

I was totally sold on the idea, so much so that a couple of years later I joined the Iranians in Mekah to protest against America and the Saudi government, the stooge of the Americans. My commitment to Islam, PAS and the Islamic State was absolute. And Anwar was going to lead this Islamic Revolution of Malaysia and turn Malaysia into the Islamic Republic of Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some say that Anwar Ibrahim and I have a love-hate relationship. I suppose this is true in some ways. It is probably because after 'travelling the same road' for 50 years since 1963, so to speak, there are many things about each other that we can no longer tolerate.

Back in the 1960s, when we were in the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK), Anwar demonstrated strong anti-British tendencies. This, of course, irritated me like hell because I always felt more British than Malay. Hence I took very personal his anti-British rhetoric.

You see; I was the only 'Mat Salleh' in MCKK at that time so I considered Anwar's anti-British stand as a personal attack. And the fact that Anwar's classmates (who were three years my senior) threw stale bread at me and shouted "Hoi, Mat Salleh sesat!" made it even worse, even though Anwar did tell them, "Janganlah kacau dia."

And that is one reason why just two and half years later, halfway through form three, I left MCKK to join the Victoria Institution (VI). I felt I had no place in a 'Malay school'. I hated the MCKK and was very happy when, in form three, I transferred to the VI and was able to surround myself with non-Malay friends.

That ended my relationship with the MCKK and hence with Anwar Ibrahim as well.

In 1974, my family moved to Kuala Terengganu. Family then meant my wife and one-year-old daughter, Suraya. Later my mother-in-law joined us and stayed with us till the day she died. She converted to Islam just before she died and was buried in Masjid Kolam, Kuala Ibai, Kuala Terengganu.

1974 was the same year that Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). We talked about it, of course, but his detention never bothered me. In fact, I felt that they should not only detain him but they should throw away the key as well. After all, Anwar was the one who used to whack the British ten years before that back in 1964 when we were in the MCKK (I was in 'The Big School' in form 2 and he was in form 5 when I first heard him speak).

We must remember that Anwar was the President of the Muslim students association or Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM). He was also the President of University Malaya's Malay language association or Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Furthermore, he was one of the founding members of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia or Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM).

I used to live in Bangsar, not far from the University Malaya, and I would go to see the demonstrations that they organised. I would take photographs of these demonstrations (I still have the photos, all black and white, though). I also saw all the English language signboards and road signs that they vandalised by painting them over with red paint.

Therefore, as far as I was concerned, Anwar was an anti-British, Malay supremacist racist. I heard him talk and I saw him in action at those demonstrations. He deserved what he got and the government should keep him locked up for a very, very long time.

About 20 months later, Anwar was released from detention. He then took over the leadership of ABIM and started campaigning against Umno and the government. A year or so later, as I had written many times, I 'discovered' Islam and became a 'Born Again' Muslim.

I soon began to attend the ceramah or rallies organised by PAS. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution of Iran rocked the world and I got dragged in to 'political Islam'. I strongly believed that Islam is not a religion but a way of life or adeen. And this adeen involves the setting up of an Islamic system of government a la Iran.

Anwar attended some of those PAS ceramah as a guest speaker and I was mesmerised by what he said. Man, could he talk! Back in the early 1960s he would 'talk bad' about the British. By the late 1970s he was whacking Umno and Barisan Nasional and was espousing the virtues of Islam and an Islamic State.

I was totally sold on the idea, so much so that a couple of years later I joined the Iranians in Mekah to protest against America and the Saudi government, the stooge of the Americans. My commitment to Islam, PAS and the Islamic State was absolute. And Anwar was going to lead this Islamic Revolution of Malaysia and turn Malaysia into the Islamic Republic of Malaysia.

And this cannot be achieved by mere rhetoric. It has to be a bloody revolution. People must die, thousands of people, like in Iran.

I was so bold as to even declare to an Umno man, Dr Zakaria, in a gathering at the Sultan of Terengganu's palace, that we must line up all the Umno people against a wall and shoot them dead.

Dr Zakaria was flabbergasted. He shook his head and walked away. The head of ITM Dungun, Ibrahim, who was standing beside us, pulled me away and whispered to me that I should be careful with what I say. That type of talk can get me sent to Kamunting.

What is Kamunting? Nothing! We are talking about blood flowing on the streets. We are talking about shooting dead 20,000 corrupt people like they did in Iran. We will burn down Kamunting together with the Prime Minister's house, then Hussein Onn, of course.

Then, in 1981, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister. Soon after that Anwar 'abandoned the cause' and joined Umno. We were walking around in a daze like a cucaracha sprayed with Shelltox or, as the Malays would say, macam anak ayam hilang emak ayam.

Not long after that I went to Mekah to find peace with myself. I needed to contemplate where our so-called Islamic Revolution was now heading with the loss of our 'Imam Khomeini of Malaysia'. I now felt only hatred for Anwar and my new perjuangan was to see the destruction of this traitor to our cause named Anwar Ibrahim, and his boss, Dr Mahathir.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)  

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18) 

 

Seeing is believing

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ...

Perception.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation.

Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now.

And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month.

Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime?

How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts?

And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound.

It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering.

Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines.

To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented.

And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day.

The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference.

There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs.

Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception.

Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider

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

Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception.

The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down.

My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts.

Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God.

Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class.

To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you.

There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more.

Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place.  It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place.

A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic.

Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change.

And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said.

And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault.

This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault.

Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah.

But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad.

However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault.

So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point.

We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others?

Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages?

Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor.

Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter?

In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians.

The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this.

Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good.

What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be?

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted.

And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause?

Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?

 

My response to Alan Yeap of Taiwan

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 12:06 AM PST

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

EDITOR: Many of you were not born yet in 1957 and yet you make so much noise about Article 153. Why apply different standards for different people?

RPK, do you realize how consistently inconsistent you really are? By the way, May 13 tragedy happened in 1969 and not 1957.

I remember reading your article on this tragedy and that you yourself interviewed Tunku Abdul Rahman in person. You got your article published in Harakah and this was repeated in your blog not too long ago when you were the RPK that people looked up to.

I have to honestly say that I don't know what Article 153 is. I assume it to be the May 13 tragedy.

EDITOR: You can't simply sue The Edge. You need locus standi and must prove you have been personally injured. Why are Pakatan supporters so stupid? Janganlah buka mulut kalau jahil. Malulah!

RPK, you were once an avid supporter of Pakatan and even risked your own safety canvassing and helping them win handsomely. You even got sent to Kamunting for that cause. I won't repeat your last two phrases. It sounds too …… demeaning.

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

That was Alan Yeap's comment, which he posted from the Shangri La Far Eastern Plaza Hotel in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.

First of all, when someone accuses me of being consistently inconsistent, he or she has to be specific and offer some examples. I may be accused of being cheong hei (longwinded), but at least there is no confusion as to what I am trying to say.

If I were to say that the DAP leaders are not sincere, that would be a sweeping and very vague statement. Such an allegation would need examples to support what I say. In what way are they insincere and what is it they have done and/or said to give me the impression that they are insincere? To make a sweeping and vague statement is just not acceptable. That, sometimes, is the advantage of being cheong hei. You go into details and throw in a lot of examples to support whatever statement you make.

Thus, where is my inconsistency? Did I say yesterday that Islam is the best religion and today I say that Islam is the worse religion? That would be inconsistent for sure. So give me your examples.

Alan Yeap said that May 13 occurred in 1969 and not in 1957. I don't know why Alan Yeap is telling me something that I already know. The whole of Malaysia knows it was in 1969. After all, I am not only a student of history but I have written many articles about May 13. Hence I know that May 13 was in 1969 and not in 1957. And I never said that May 13 was in 1957. So I do not know what gave Alan Yeap the impression that I said it was in 1957 and not in 1969.

As for the second part of Alan Yeap's comment, I said something else and he responded with something totally unrelated to what I said. What has what he said got to do with what I said?

Alan Yeap challenged Khairy Jamaluddin to sue The Edge. Why are the Pakatan Rakyat supporters asking this person and that person to sue this, that or the other? You scream about freedom of speech and how Barisan Nasional and the government do not respect freedom of speech. And then you ask people to sue other people to stifle freedom of speech.

You have to decide whether you do want freedom of speech or not. You can't keep asking people to sue other people every time they give their opinion. Now, if they slander you that is another thing. If they say you cheated your company or you had an affair with your secretary and this is not true then you have every right to sue them. But you can't sue people for expressing their opinion.

I don't think that giving out ang paus in white envelopes during Chinese New Year is bad luck or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That is my opinion. But do you sue me just because that is my opinion and because I expressed my opinion?

I can even say that I think you are silly for believing in such things but that is still not grounds to sue me. What if I were to say that I do not believe that God exists and I am of the opinion that all those people who believe in such nonsense are silly people? Can you sue me for that?

Slander is one thing. That hurts you and you can sue me if I lied. But my opinion is my opinion and you can't sue me for that. Can I sue you because you said that all those who do not accept Christ will never go to heaven and only those who accept Christ will be saved and will get to see heaven? You have just insinuated that I will be going to hell and you have hurt my feelings. But is that grounds enough for me to sue you?

You cannot scream about wanting freedom of speech/opinion/expression and at the same time threaten to sue everyone when they express any opinion that differ from yours. And to sue someone you must have locus standi and whatever was said must have hurt you personally. This has nothing to do with whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional.

Can you sue me if I were to say that the Japanese committed a lot of atrocities in Nanjing during WWII? First of all, it was true. Secondly, are you Japanese and are you personally hurt by my statement? Has your reputation suffered or did you suffer financial loss because of my statement regarding the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing?

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

Finally, I do not know how long Alan Yeap has been living in Taiwan but it must have been for quite some time since he does not know what Article 153 is. Or is Alan Yeap Taiwanese rather than Malaysian and that is why he does not know what Article 153 is?

Anyway, my response was specifically regarding those people who say that Khairy should not talk about May 13 since it happened in 1969 and he was not born yet then (he was born in 1976). In that case can I comment about things that happened during WWII since I was born in 1950? And what about those who were born after Merdeka in 1957 and yet make comments about Article 153? Do they have a right to talk about a matter that happened before they were born?

Those are the issues. The first issue is about suing someone who gives his or her opinion and the second issue is about telling someone not to comment about something that happened before he or she was born. Tony Pua was born in 1972 and Hannah Yeoh in 1979. Going by the standards we apply for Khairy, Tony and Hannah also have to stop talking about a lot of things. After all, all these things they are talking about happened before they were born.

But then this 'don't talk about something that happened before you were born' is only a rule for Umno people and does not apply to opposition people. And when I point this out they respond with: do you no longer support the opposition? What shallow thinking and narrow-minded mentality?

Wrong is wrong and should not be only wrong for those who are pro-government but right for those who are anti-government. Why can't these people understand something so simple and so basic?

 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Posted: 23 Dec 2012 05:02 PM PST

If Syed Hamid had accepted the court's decision and had left me alone then my move to the UK would have been delayed, at least by more than a year or even two years. But because he wanted me back in Kamunting he left me no choice but to leave the country earlier than planned. And because of that Marina's cancer had been detected probably two years earlier than it would have.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We would like to believe that we are masters of our own destiny. Sure, there is such a thing called fate. But we would like to believe that we decide our own fate. Man proposes but God disposes is seldom a concept that we think about until after the event. And even then we always look at external events that influenced these changes to blame for that failure.

Are there such things called silver linings in dark clouds? I suppose those who believe in blessings would categorise it as a blessing in disguise. But why must blessings come in disguise? Why can't blessings come dressed in labels so that we can recognise them when they arrive rather than much later down the road long after the event?

We all have dreams. Those who no longer dream are those who have died, said the late Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba, one time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. As long as we breathe we will still dream, explained the Tun. Hence to dream is what spurs us. The day we stop dreaming is the day we stop living, figure of speech, of course.

My dream was to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. That never happened. I plotted and I planned, but God is the greatest plotter of all, as the Qur'an says. Hence whatever we say must always be tempered with the phrase Insha Allah (God willing or if God wills it) lest we tempt fate. Don't the English always say 'touch wood' to avoid the mischief by the devil of the trees that humankind worshipped in the days before 'Holy Books and 'Abrahamic Faiths'?

My father died, I had to seek employment to support myself, I got married, my first child Raja Suraya arrived, all within a space of two years to make that bike ride from Kuala Lumpur to London a dream that would never come true. Maybe I would still do it one day. Maybe I will still live my dream. But that would have to wait. It would now no longer be what I do before I begin my life. It would have to be something I do before I end my life. It would be what I do once I retire.

And so my wife, Marina, and I planned that retirement. But how would I interpret 'retirement'? I suppose retirement would be something that I stop doing. It would be a change of lifestyle of sorts. I would no longer do what I am doing now. I would stop doing what I am doing and do nothing. And then I would fill that empty space with something new.

But when should I retire and what do I do to fill in that time of retirement? Marina and I discussed it many times and for quite some time. This was during the height of the Reformasi days. Retirement would be when I reached 60. And that would, therefore, be after 2010. And when I retire we would move to England, buy a second hand Mini Cooper, and then tour Europe.

Okay, this is not quite riding my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. But that was my dream when I was still just 20. At 60, dreams have to be modified slightly. It was no longer just about me but would include Marina as well. And at 60 my bones were no longer what they used to be when I was 20. Hence driving my Mini Cooper all over Europe may be less taxing on my body than riding a motorcycle from Kuala Lumpur to London. And I doubt sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle for almost 10,000 miles would have been Marina's idea of fun.

The groundwork for our eventual move to the UK was laid in December 2001 soon after my first ISA detention that same year when we relocated two of our sons to Manchester. Three years later, in November 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched, Marina and I made a trip to Manchester together with our youngest, Raja Sara, to see how the boys were getting on. Were they happy in the UK? Would they like to stay on or would they like to return to Malaysia? Could our youngest join them later to continue her education in the UK?

It was decided that the move to the UK was viable after all. The children were okay with living in the UK and we found that life in Manchester was tolerable enough as a life of retirement. Another three years later, in 2007, we bought a family home in Manchester. There was no turning back now. Come 2010, when I reach 60, we would pack our bags and build a new life for ourselves in Manchester.

The following year, in 2008, I was detained under the ISA a second time. My sons wanted to return to Malaysia but Marina told them to stay on. The detention will not be forever. Probably in two years time, by 2010, I would be released. We would then join the family in Manchester.

I was, however, released earlier. After only two months the court declared my detention illegal and ordered my release. The Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, an old friend of 30 years, was outraged. They tried appealing my release and when that appeared to go awry Syed Hamid signed a new Detention Order and wanted to detain me a third time.

This time I was not going to get off so easily. Syed Hamid realised his mistake and he was not going to make that same mistake again. He was going to make sure that the new Detention Order was airtight so that no court would find any loopholes to order my release. And that was when Marina decided that enough is enough and demanded that I leave the country.

It was a week of confrontation and negotiation. Marina finally gave me an ultimatum. Either I leave the country or else she was going to leave me. She had had enough of driving up to Kamunting every Saturday to visit me. She was going to leave Malaysia with or without me.

Finally I relented. We were going to leave in or soon after 2010 anyway. 2009 was only a year or two earlier than planned. What difference does one year make? We left on a Saturday night and by Sunday we were across the border. On Monday, the police arrived at my house to detain me. We had made it with just 24 hours to spare. Our information was spot on and we got out in the nick of time.

It took a month to sort out our papers so that we could travel to the UK. Finally, in March 2009, we arrived in Manchester. It was now time to settle down into a British way of life. We registered with the NI and NHS and also registered as a voter. We needed an identity, as we were still a non-entity.

The NHS sent us letters to go in for a medical examination. For women of a certain age they also offer to do a test for breast cancer. Marina ignored the first letter she received, as she did the second letter. By the third letter I persuaded her to go in for the test since it is free anyway. If not they might keep sending her letters until she responded.

We drove to the place and they did the test. They then sent Marina another letter asking her to go in for a more thorough test. They suspected she might have breast cancer after all. My blood ran cold. I knew what breast cancer can do to a woman. I have lost enough friends and family members to that scourge to know.

Further tests proved that Marina did, in fact, have breast cancer. But it was still within stage one-stage two. Hence the chance for recovery was good. They would need to remove the cancer through surgery and thereafter put her under radiotherapy treatment. She would also require five years of medication, which would cost a bomb in Malaysia but was free in the UK.

We met the surgeon who told us that it was lucky that they had detected the cancer early. Hence Marina's chances of recovery were greatly enhanced. It was still stage one-stage two. If it had gone to stage three, or worse, then the chances of recovery reduces drastically.

If Syed Hamid had accepted the court's decision and had left me alone then my move to the UK would have been delayed, at least by more than a year or even two years. But because he wanted me back in Kamunting he left me no choice but to leave the country earlier than planned. And because of that Marina's cancer had been detected probably two years earlier than it would have.

Cancer is about early detection. If you must get cancer then better you know early because it increases your chances of survival. As fate would have it, Marina's cancer was detected early because we were forced to bring forward our plan to retire more than a year or two years earlier than planned.

Yes, man proposes but God disposes. We can dream but not always do our dreams come true. My first dream to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK never came true. My second dream to retire in or soon after 2010 and then move to the UK once I am 60 also did not come true. Instead, it happened earlier, soon after I turned 58. But it was not one of choice. It was what I was forced to do.

On hindsight, Syed Hamid did me a favour. If he had left me alone I would have done nothing. But if I had done nothing would that have meant by the time they detected Marina's cancer two years later it would have been too late? I suppose that is what fate is all about. You never know. You can only talk about blessings in disguise. You can only talk about silver linings in dark clouds. As they say: the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)  

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16) 

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17) 

 

Screw you, Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim

Posted: 18 Dec 2012 09:33 PM PST

"As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue," National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim said.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You can read the full news item from Free Malaysia Today below. I just want to talk about this part:

National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied the family, said he sympathised with the family's loss. "As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue," he said.

Why must these idiots always say 'according to Islam', or 'according to the Qur'an', or 'as a Muslim', and so on? Is Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim trying to say that murder is only a sin in Islam but for all the other religions murder is allowed? Is murder wrong only according to the Qura'n whereas all the other 'holy books' condone murder?

Muslims just love to say something and then equate it to their faith or religious teachings. They try to impress us as to how noble and sincere Islam is -- meaning that since they are followers of Islam then this would also mean that they too are noble and sincere.

People can see what type of religion Islam is. You do not need to try to impress people by foaming at the mouth telling us what Islam allows and forbids. People will not judge you by the foam spitting out of your mouth. People will judge you by your actions.

If you keep reminding people that you do this good thing or that good thing because you are a Muslim and that this is what Islam or the Qur'an tells you to do, then when you do something bad people will also be reminded that you are a Muslim.

Why not Muslims stop telling us that they are Muslims? Stop telling us that we must do this or must do that because this is what Islam or the Qur'an tells us we must do. Stop boasting about Islam and about how good the teachings of Islam are and hence since I am a Muslim that means I am a good person.

If you stop doing all that then maybe when Muslims do bad things people will stop blaming Islam for it.

Murder is wrong. You do not need a holy book like the Qur'an or a religion like Islam to teach us that it is wrong. Can't you just as a human being oppose murder? Why must you oppose murder because you are a Muslim? So why bring Islam into this? If you bring Islam into everything then corrupted people will be identified as corrupted Muslims.

But when that happens you do not like it. You do not like Islam being associated with bad deeds. It is the person and not Islam that is at fault, you will say. But then who is the one associating everything with Islam if not the Muslims themselves?

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

'Police killed my brother'

(FMT) - The family of a man who died in custody wants to know why the police did not investigate the cause of his death some three weeks ago. 

Sixty-year-old M Supamma broke down in tears in front of the Bukit Aman police headquarters today, demanding an explanation over her son's sudden death while in police custody on Nov 22.

"They did not let me see him. When I saw him in court, he could barely speak. He could only raise his hand to wave at me. I asked them [the police], why isn't my son talking to me?" she said.

She said a police officer, on duty to watch over her son in court, told her that S Krishnan had a head injury and was weak.

"I fainted after seeing my son like that," a sobbing Supamma told reporters. She was at Bukit Aman to hand over a memorandum asking the police to set up a task force to investigate her son's death in custody.

Supamma is a mother of three and Krishnan was her youngest. Suppama said she was devastated and was unable to accept that her son had died.

Krishnan, 34, worked at a sanitary company at Taman Tun Dr Ismail with his brother Palanisamy, 39.

Palanisamy said his brother was first arrested on Nov 8 in front of Block A PPRT Section 8, Kota Damansara. He was on his way back from work when he was asked to perform a urine test for suspected drug use.

"He tried to loosen his pants following orders from plainclothes policemen, but accidentally dropped his pants. He was assaulted and beaten up by the policeman for this.

"According to witnesses, his shirt was drenched in blood as a result of the beating," he added.

Palanisamy claimed the policemen gave him a different shirt before he was brought to the police station. He was then remanded at the Shah Alam police station.

On Nov 20, Krishnan was produced at the Petaling Jaya magistrate's court where he was ordered to be sent to Hospital Bahagia in Tanjung Rambutan, Perak, for observation.

However, Krishnan was only sent to the hospital on Nov 22, lifeless.

'Can you give me my brother back?'

According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was septicemia. Septicemia is bacteria in the blood caused by infections; in Krishnan's case, it was caused by open wounds to both his wrists.

"In the last few months, Krishnan was regularly tested for drugs. At least three to four times each month, but all of the tests proved negative. Also, he has had no previous records of drug abuse," said Palanisamy.

He said a police report on Krishnan's death was lodged by the family on Nov 22, urging the authorities to investigate the cause of his brother's death.

At this point, Palanisamy started crying hysterically screaming: "The police have killed my brother. Can you give me my brother back? Who is going to take care of my mother now?"

National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied the family, said he sympathised with the family's loss.

"As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue," he said.

Krishnan's family lawyer, G Sivamalar, said the police can only use reasonable force if the suspect resists arrest.

"But in this case witnesses say Krishnan did not resist arrest but was beaten up when he accidentally dropped his pants during the urine test. This is not fair and just," she added.

Supamma handed over the memorandum to ACP Jahangir who represented the police force at the gates of the police headquarters. Also present with the family today was PKR leader R Sivarasa.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Seeing things from the right perspective

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 07:42 PM PST

 

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last few days I have read a few comments calling Rafizi Ramli a liar and accusing him of politicising the Deepak Jaikishan issue. First of all, so what if Rafizi is politicising issues? Is that not what politicians are supposed to do? You mean all those others in Pakatan Rakyat are not also politicising issues? You mean all those Umno and Barisan Nasional people are not also politicising issues?

Accusing Rafizi of politicising issues is so stupid. It is like accusing a fox that is hanging around the chicken run of trying to whack the chickens. That is why God made foxes, to whack chickens. Whacking chickens is in the job specification of foxes. Why else do you think God made foxes? Do you think God made foxes so that sugar daddies can buy a fox fur coat for their mistresses?

Foxes were created so that they can whack chickens. And politicians were created so that they can politicise issues. And all this talk that politicians are the result of anal sex is utter bullshit and very unfair because you cannot get pregnant from anal sex and for sure no one can get born through the arsehole.

Politicians are born just like you and me, the normal way, and politics is a career just like any other career.

In fact, politics allows postmen and railway crossing guards attain career heights that postmen and railway crossing guards could never attain if they did not become politicians. It is like going to America, the land of opportunity. Where else can simple farmers or descendants of slaves become 'big people' if not in America? And if you can't migrate to America to become a 'big person' then you become a politician and get called Yang Berhormat or The Respected One.

We must remember that everything in Malaysia is politicised. Even the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, etc., God is politicised. Even with all that power that God possesses He cannot prevent his name from being politicised. And if the all-powerful God cannot stop his name from being politicised do you think Deepak Jaikishan can prevent his name from being politicised even if he imagines himself as a Sex God?

Now, why do you say that Rafizi Ramli lied? What did he say that makes you come to a conclusion that he lied? Did Rafizi say he was there, say, when Deepak Jaikishan was alleged to have bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for First Lady Rosmah Mansor? Did Rafizi say he personally saw the jewellery and/or held them in his hand?

He never said that. What he said was he has seen the documents and the documents were handed to him by someone he personally knows. He apparently trusts this person and probably has a relationship of sorts with this person. And this person handed him some documents that were supposed to be evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah. So, based on this, he held a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and that these documents are evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah.

And the purpose Rafizi held that press conference to reveal the existence of these documents is so that the MACC or PDRM can investigate the matter and find out whether all this is true or false. It could be true or it could be false. But Rafizi would not know whether it is true or false. He can only hold a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and leave it to the authorities to authenticate the documents and tell us whether the allegations are true or not.

Some of you ask: why hold a press conference? Why not make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration instead? If you are really sincere about seeing justice done then you should make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration. Holding a press conference makes it appear like all you want to do is to politicise the issue.

True, a police report or Statutory Declaration would be better than a press conference. A police report or Statutory Declaration looks less political than a press conference. But maybe you have forgotten that back in 1998 Anwar Ibrahim made a police report and he ended up getting arrested and was sent to jail for a long time. Ten years later, in 2008, I signed a Statutory Declaration and I too was arrested and charged for that. I was also detained without trial.

So, do you really think a police report or Statutory Declaration is wise? So far no one has been arrested and sent to jail for holding a press conference. At worse you may be subjected to a civil suit. However, since the press conference is a party press conference, then when you get sued the party will come out with the money to pay for a lawyer to represent you in court.

Can you remember that I was sued by many people -- UUM V.C. Nordin Kardi, Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Lt Col Abdul Aziz Buyong and Lt Col Norhayati Hassan, etc. And I was sued because I made allegations against them.

Now I have been declared bankrupt and yet still more civil suits are piling up against me. Has any Malaysian from 28 million Malaysians offered to help me out financially?

When you write bad things about the government or about those who walk in the corridors of power everyone will clap and cheer you on. But when you get sued you have to carry that problem all by yourself. No one from all those people who clapped and cheered you on is going to come forward to volunteer to help you out financially.

I am fortunate that I have some friends who are lawyers who volunteered to help represent me free of charge. In the Nordin Kardi case, however, no one came forward to help me out. So the court awarded him an uncontested win and I now have to pay Nordin Kardi RM2.5 million. But I do not have RM2.5 million and can't pay that amount. So I have to be declared a bankrupt, as I was in the earlier case involving an Umno Minister where the court asked me to pay RM1.3 million.

Actually, it is now no longer worth anything to help me out unless you can afford to pay RM60 million, which is what I have hanging over my head -- and which is increasing every time I lose a case.

Do you know I recently had to pay the government RM215,000 to get my house released? In the end, with tax and legal fees included, I had to pay about RM250,000 or else I would lose my house.

And none of those people who clapped and cheered when I whacked the government came forward to help me settle that RM250,000. So my daughter had to go to the bank to borrow the money to help me out. Luckily I have a daughter who can qualify for a bank loan of RM250,000 or else my house would be gone.

So you face a great risk when you whack the government. No doubt people will clap and cheer when you whack the government. But that is all you receive -- claps and cheers. If you make a police report, sign a Statutory Declaration, or write an article in your Blog, you will get arrested and will get sent to jail. And you not only get arrested but will get sued as well and then will be hit with millions in damages. Hence the safest thing to do would be to do what Rafizi Ramli did -- hold a press conference in the party's name.

So I think you have to be a bit fair with Rafizi. He has no choice but to politicise the issues so that he can get the protection of the party when people sue him. If not Rafizi would end up like me if he does things outside the party. And he did not lie. He never said he was there or that he saw everything. What he said was that he was reliably informed, like what I said on my Statutory Declaration.

And I know it appears like Rafizi has done a U-turn. Yesterday he never said that the information or documents he received came from a third party. But now that Deepak has denied meeting him and/or denied giving him any documents, Rafizi turns around and says that the evidence came from a third party.

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

Maybe Rafizi is worried that if he declares that he was not actually a witness but that the evidence was given to him by a third party then people will accuse him of doing a U-turn. Rafizi knows that that happened to me when I explained during my TV3 interview that I was not a witness but was informed about the matter by a third party. Everyone accused me of doing a U-turn even though I did not. Hence, understandably, Rafizi needs to be very careful here or else he will suffer the same fate that befell me.

Rafizi is not only a product of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK). He is also a product of a UK university education. That makes him very clever. Most MCKK cum UK educated people are very clever. And, being very clever, he would most certainly be aware that most Malaysians are not very bright. In fact, some Malaysians -- those not from MCKK and a UK education -- can sometimes be downright stupid. Hence Rafizi has to be very careful with what he says. People will even accuse him of saying what he never said -- unless you are from MCKK and armed with a UK education (then you will not be stupid enough to accuse people of saying what they did not say).

I am sorry if I sound like I am defending Rafizi. Even if I am defending Rafizi so what? Is it a crime to defend someone from your alma mater? Yes, I am defending Rafizi. I do not deny that and I am not apologetic or embarrassed about it. When someone deserves defending then you must defend that person.

And if you are not happy with that then sue me. It is, after all, a free country. Anyone can sue anyone.

Even the Christians are free to sue the government for not allowing them to use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat comes out with a statement next week also agreeing that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible then the Christians should sue Pakatan Rakyat as well.

But wait first until next week and see what Pakatan Rakyat has to say because they will be meeting only next week to make a decision as to whether Christians can use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat were to agree with the government that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible only then sue them. But I am confident Pakatan Rakyat will not agree with the government.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Local tabloid marks Bieber as a country

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 12:16 PM PST

http://sin.stb.s-msn.com/i/52/305B5D59CDFB5A578CE65AE226A3.jpg 

(MSN News) - A tabloid pullout called Mega from the local Malay newspaper Utusan even quoted Justin Bieber as the ninth biggest country in the world.

http://sin.stb.s-msn.com/i/52/305B5D59CDFB5A578CE65AE226A3.jpg 

Reader Firdaus Hassan captured a snapshot of a column that ran in a tabloid pullout named Mega from local Malay newspaper Utusan, which carried a short write-up entitled 'Interesting facts about Justin Bieber'. The write-up was published today. The snapshot went viral on Facebook today as the column showcased eight 'facts' about Bieber, as a country. The first 'fact' read as Bieber was 'freed from the ruling of Communist Party of the Soviet Union on 16 December 1991', whilst the second 'fact' listed Bieber as 'the ninth biggest country in the world with a population of 16.6 million (as of the year 2011)'.

Another 'fact' read as there were 130 ethnic groups in Bieber country, including Kazakh, Russia, German and Ukraine.

Many users find the error as amusing, calling it an 'epic typo' and that the editor must have been a 'Belieber'. 

Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 12:08 PM PST

http://fz.com/sites/default/files/styles/mainbanner_645x435/public/Sabah-Sarawak-040113-fzgraphics_1.jpg 

If Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)? 

Arnold Puyok, fz.com

TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation.
 
It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.
 
In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally.
 
A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.
 
The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia.
 
Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional's (BN) "fixed deposits". The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.
 
These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN's slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics.
 
Sabah and Sarawak's fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.
 
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet.
 
Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.
 
Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label.
 
They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?
 
When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy.
 
This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia's marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.
 
It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore.
 
Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to "bad politics" played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different.
 
Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.
 
If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other's political and cultural differences.
 
In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia's 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages.
 
Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.
 
While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the "Allah" issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word "Allah", including the Muslim chief minister. The same with Sarawak and its chief minister too.

Read more at: http://fz.com/content/role-sabah-and-sarawak-nation-building  

Will the Indian Muslim wish come true?

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 11:59 AM PST

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kimma.jpg 

Since the inception of Malaysia, the Indian Muslim community has been in search of an identity that will associate it with BN and the Malay-Muslim community.

Ali Cordoba, FMT 

The rumour mill is spinning fast in Kuala Lumpur, with the business circle among the Indian Muslim community gearing for a massive Barisan Nasional victory in an apparent late January polls.

Will this 13th general election be the one that will grant the Indian Muslims, lost in Malaysia's political doldrums, their silent wishes?

These rumours, which are spreading like wild fires in Masjid India, for example, put the Indian Muslim community in perspective while several of the community leaders are said to be campaigning in favour of BN.

Pro-BN banners are seen along the overcrowded Masjid India street. Some of the leading business outlets in the area have showed their preference for BN, with large banners erected on some buildings.

Since the inception of Malaysia, the Indian Muslim community has been in search of an identity that would associate it with BN and the Malay-Muslim community.

The formation of the Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) in the mid-1970s – a group to represent the Indian Muslims in the political scene – had little impact in the community's quest for recognition.

A recent flurry of activities by Kimma and its very recent association with BN did not altogether help the cause of the Indian Muslims.

Although left in the lurch, a majority of the community would probably stick to the rule of supporting BN in order to maintain the favours and prevent a backlash against its businesses.

With Kimma unable to press BN for the granting of the "Bumiputera" status to the Indian Muslims, the latter group is said to have fallen in a dilemma.

From an Umno-BN point of view, not granting the demands of Kimma and sidelining the Indian Muslims as "others" in the Muslim community actually secures their blind support for the ruling coalition.

The ruling government is aware that Kimma would never abandon BN or force the Indian Muslims to vote for Pakatan Rakyat. They would have too much to lose if they dropped BN for Pakatan at the last moment, thus the delaying tactics in the "talks" between Umno and Kimma on the fate of the "Mamak".

Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/01/04/will-the-indian-muslim-wish-come-true/ 

Non-Muslims can use ‘Allah’, Mat Sabu insists

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 11:53 AM PST

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/mugshots/matsabu400px.jpg 

(The Malaysian Insider) - PAS maintains that non-Muslims are allowed to use the word "Allah" to describe their gods, says PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, in a bid to allay fears among the religious minority that the Islamist party may be reversing its president's stand ahead of polls.

He insisted that the latest polemic over the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims was limited to peninsular Malaysia and was never an issue among Muslims and Christians in Sabah, Sarawak and the Middle East.

"The PAS' president had issued the statement in 2010 to not forbid any religious adherent apart from Muslims to use the word 'Allah'.

"PAS maintains that stand," the 58-year-old told The Malaysian Insider, weighing in on the religious row after the party information chief Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man issued a statement last month seemingly contradicting his president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang's previous remarks on the hot-button topic in mainly Muslim Malaysia.

The leader popularly known as Mat Sabu (picture) noted that Abdul Hadi had already spoken out on the matter three years ago, when the debate first raged.

Abdul Hadi, a respected Islamic scholar, had in a statement dated January 7, 2010 said: "In conclusion, we cannot forbid them from using the word 'Allah' among themselves, in their worship and practice, even though the meaning deviates from the original according to our language."

Many Muslim Malaysians, who form 60 per cent of the 28 million population, argue that the Arabic word is a proper noun that refers exclusively to their god despite a December 31, 2009 High Court judgment saying otherwise, and ruled to allow the Catholic Church to publish the word to describe the Christian god in the Malay section of its weekly newspaper, Herald, which caters to its Bahasa Malaysia-reading congregation who mostly hail from Borneo.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/non-muslims-can-use-allah-mat-sabu-insists/ 

 

Despite Raja Ropiaah’s land deal, Puspahanas not in sight

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 11:44 AM PST

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/2013/january2013/m_carpark31.jpgThe carpark near the Health and Higher Education ministries in Precinct 1 of Putrajaya, which is the only known point on a map for the Puspahanas project. 

(The Malaysian Insider) - Senator Datuk Seri Raja Ropiaah Abdullah might have settled her legal suit and sold hotly-contested land to Boustead Holdings Bhd (BHB) but questions remain whether the Selangor Wanita Umno chief's firm has delivered a RM100 million defence education building to the government.

The National Defence Education Centre or Puspahanas project ground breaking was done on November 21, 2008 but the exact location of the building is a mystery, with the only known point on a map shown to be a carpark near the Health and Higher Education ministries in Precinct 1 of Putrajaya.

The unfinished Puspahanas is akin to an earlier scandal that engulfed Raja Ropiaah's Wanita Umno chief, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, when her family was accused of using a RM250 million government soft loan for personal investment instead of the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) project.

There are no street signages in Putrajaya for the project, which her development company Awan Megah Sdn Bhd agreed to build in 2005 in exchange for some 80 hectares of land in Bukit Raja, Selangor and RM27 million.

The other mystery is how BHB could buy the Bukit Raja land as the government had stipulated the land couldn't be sold by Awan Megah, which had earlier worked out a complicated deal with carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan to finance the Puspahanas construction.

The controversial businessman had taken Raja Ropiaah to court when the deal fell through and she instead went into a joint-venture development with a plasticware maker.

His revelations before the civil suit, which was heard at the same time as the last Umno annual general assembly, later led to a settlement where his company, Astacanggih Sdn Bhd had its 80 per cent majority stake sold to a BHB unit for RM30 million.

Astacanggih has also proposed to buy Raja Ropiaah's land for RM130 million, although the deal could not be secured earlier due to restrictions from the government, which had yet to receive the Puspahanas facility.

BHB yesterday cited expanding its landbank as the reason to buy into Astacanggih, adding today it was purely a commercial decision.

In a filing to Bursa Malaysia, BHB said economies of scale can be achieved by combining the land with the adjacent 283.28ha land held under Jendela Hikmat Sdn Bhd, which the Boustead Group and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) jointly hold a 60 per cent equity interest.

Based on its experience, BHB said it is confident the acquisition of the development land will be able to generate a return on development cost of 25 per cent from the RM160 million investment.

 

An artist's impression of the Puspahanas project.

 

Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latif Ahmad declined to comment yesterday on the project, saying he did not have any information about the project that was first mooted in 1971.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/despite-raja-ropiaahs-land-deal-puspahanas-not-in-sight/ 

 

Embassy confirms huge compensation paid to Malaysian govt

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 11:38 AM PST

qSdxYDRFmy0 

(Harakah Daily) - The Embassy of Japan has today confirmed that it had paid money to the Malaysian government being compensation for families of victims of the so-called 'Death Railway' project in the 1940s.

 

http://en.harakahdaily.net/images/stories/newslocal/deathrailway.jpg

 

Jejak, the PAS-backed secretariat led by Bukit Gantang member of parliament Nizar Jamaluddin, visited the embassy today in a bid to unravel truth over some RM207 billion in unpaid compensation. Also present were PAS Youth vice  chief Raja Iskandar Al-Hiss and Jejak operation chief Safarizal Saleh.

The secretariat was formed to track down next-of-kins of those forced to work in the 'Death Railway'.

Jejak quoted the embassy's second secretary Takaharu Suegami as saying that the money was transfered in the 1990s, but added that his office would have to consult Tokyo to get further details. 

Suegami however said Japan had no details about how the money was distributed by the Malaysian government.

Nizar had claimed that he had received documents proving that the RM207 billion from Tokyo was received as far back as 2004.

The money was meant to be distributed to some 30,000 Malaysians who had been recruited as forced labourers. The RM207 billion in compensation means each affected family is entitled to receive between RM2.8 and RM3 million.

Nizar meanwhile urged the Japanese government to provide names of Malaysians who worked in the 'Death Railway' project.

Or watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSdxYDRFmy0 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kedutaan Jepun sahkan serah wang pampasan

Kedutaan Jepun di Malaysia mengesahkan kerajaan negara itu telah menyerahkan sejumlah wang pampasan kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk diserahkan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan landasan keretapi Thailand Myanmar.

Setiausaha Kedua Kedutaan Jepun ke Malaysia, Takaharu Suegami, ketika mengesahkan penyerahan wang itu berkata,

"Berdasarkan maklumat yang dikaji, kami dapati wang tersebut diserahkan sekitar tahun 1990an.

"Kami akan merujuk kepada Tokyo selepas ini (untuk maklumat lanjut)," kata beliau.

Ketika ditanya, siapa penerima pampasan ini, pegawai kedutaan Jepun itu berkata, "Kami tidak tahu macam mana kerajaan Malaysia mengagihkan wang pampasan itu." 

Bagaimanapun, Takaharu berjanji akan merujuk balik dengan Tokyo berdasarkan dokumen yang diberikan hari ini.

Sekretariat Jejak mencari bekas buruh paksa dan waris landasan maut Siam Burma  yang diketuai oleh Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin mengunjungi Kedutaan Jepun di Kuala Lumpur hari ini bagi mendapatkan maklumat lebih mendalam tentang pampasan itu.

Turut bersama dalam kunjungan itu, Naib Ketua Pemuda PAS Dr Raja Iskandar Al-Hiss, Ketua Operasi Jejak Safarizal Saleh, Penolong Pengerusi Persatuan Kebajikan Bekas dan Warisan Binaan Landasan Kereta Api Siam Burma 1942-1946 dan beberapa orang lagi wakil dari Jejak. 

Dalam sidang Dewan Rakyat sebelum ini, Nizar mendakwa, kerajaan Jepun telah membayar RM207 bilion kepada kerajaan Malaysia sebagai pampasan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan keretapi itu.

Namun sehingga kini, tidak ada sebarang wang diberikan oleh kerajaan Malaysia kepada mangsa atau waris mereka.

 

(Rombongan bergambar di perkarangan kedutaan selepas berjumpa pegawai kedutaan)

 

Dalam kunjungan hari ini, Sekretariat Jejak juga meminta pihak negara Jepun memberi maklumat bila dan berapa jumlah pampasan kepada buruh binaan itu di hantar ke negara  ini dan siapa yang mengesahkan penerimaan itu.

Dalam pertemuan sejam itu, Nizar turut meminta pihak Jepun menyerahkan senarai nama rakyat Malaysia yang menjadi buruh binaan landasan kereta api Siam-Burma 1942 hingga 1946 itu.

"Kita jumpa dengan pihak kedutaan Jepun petang ini, untuk mengesahkan maklumat yang kita perolehi itu benar atau sebaliknya.

"Sekiranya pihak Jepun masih menyimpan senarai buruh atau mangsa-mangsa dari Malaysia ini sila majukan kepada kami," katanya ketika ditemui. 

Nizar yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bukit Gantang turut mendedahkan beberapa surat pengesahan dan dokumen rasmi kepada wakil Kedutaan Jepu berkenaan.

Salah satu surat tersebut dari Kementerian Kewangan bertarikh 29 Mac 2011 menjelaskan,  "kertas pertimbangan bagi kelulusan pengeluaran wang pampasan kepada buruk paksa  ke Burma 1942 hingga 1946. Sukacita dimaklumkan peruntukan sejumlah RM207 billion telah diangkat oleh kelulusan kerajaan di mana prosesnya dimaklumkan kepada pejabat Peguam Negara dan di peringkat Kementerian Sumber Manusia".

Menurut Nizar, pihaknya sehingga kini tidak tahu di mana pampasan itu berada sama ada masih disimpan di dalam Perbendaharaan Negara atau Amanah Raya kerana tidak ada sebarang penjelasan dibuat kerajaan sehingga kini.

"Kita tidak tahu. Kalau wang itu masih ada dalam simpanan kerajaan kenapa tidak diberi balik kepada mangsa. Mangsa ada 30,000 yang boleh balik semula ke Malaysia walaupun ada yang meninggal dunia tetapi mereka masih ada waris melalui Persatuan Kebajikan Bekas dan Warisan Buruh Binaan Landasan Kereta Api Siam Burma 1942-1946".

Mengikut rekod persatuan bekas buruh paksa ini, jumlah 30,000 buruh ini melibatkan 60 peratus bangsa Melayu, 20 peratus India, 15 peratus Cina dan 5 peratus bangsa lain.

Nizar yang juga Ajk PAS Pusat berkata, dengan jumlah RM207 bilion itu setiap keluarga dianggarkan layak menerima sehingga RM3 juta wang pampasan.

"Banyak! pemberian pampasan ini kepada mangsa lebih baik dari ETP yang dibuat oleh kerajaan, sekurang-kurangnya dapat mengatasi sedikit masalah ekonomi orang Melayu," katanya.

Sejak didaftarkan secara rasmi pada 11 Januari 2011, persatuan terbabit telah memohon beberapa kali untuk mendapatkan wang pampasan dari kerajaan Malaysia tetapi hingga kini masih gagal. 

 

B-D, the new G-D of 'Truth'

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 08:30 PM PST

KTemoc Konsiders

'Tis the season of faith, but 'tis also the season for realizing that faith is not based on evidence or logic, and wherein, truth is subjective, which is precisely why religion requires faith.

RPK tells us this in his guest column at Free Malaysia Today, in an article titled Standards of evidence.

RPK wrote: Beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, are called faiths — religious faith. The reason they are called religious faiths is because you need to believe based on faith, not based on evidence.

Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable. [...]

... because faith does not need proof. And I will just have to take your word for it and believe that without question.

And they tell me that slavery has been abolished. Actually religion is slavery.

Joining him on the topic of 'faith' but in a separate article has been Adelyn Yeoh, an undergraduate student in Mount Holyoke College, USA, who also writes for CEKU at http://www.ceku.org. Her article poignantly titled Leaving god informed us:

Faith is the act of believing and religion is the institution through which faith sometimes operates through. Faith can operate without religion. [...]

There were numerous things that did not sit right with me; things that did not seem just or fair, despite what religion claimed. Teachers would often use God as their trump card to get students to do their bidding. [...]

... Religion is used as an additional divisive tool, not just by politicians but also by the average Joe. Overeager evangelical actions carried out by the average person working in the name of faith, despite having good intentions, often upset other parties. The reason for this is often because the evangelist has a presupposed notion of superiority.

I too posted my views more than a month ago in Faith & salvation, a kaytee special wakakaka on the subject of 'leaps of faith', those of gi-normous Grand Canyon-ish dimensions as required particularly by the Abrahamic religions and those of teeny weeny longkang-size lompat for Buddhist and Jainist beliefs, ...

... while the tricky Chinese (non Abrahamic) religionists have their even more trickier religions, tap-dancing around the issue of faith, wakakaka.

From the above discussions, I think we have four words to consider in religions (except those tricky Chinese religions), faith, evidence, logic, truth - or indeed, the absence of the latter three.

Whatever, if any blame needs to be apportioned, well, let's blame it on those ancient Egyptians. Note I stated 'ancient' Egyptians, not the current Egyptians who are Arabs. The ancient Egyptians were not Arabs.

An aside, once I had toyed around with a series of posts questioning mainstream biblical narrations, titled 'who was Abrahim?'. I went up to 21 posts but wearied of the amount of reading and cross referencing I had to do, decided to switch to and focus on socio-politics in this blog. But if you like to read them, provided you won't be offended by the liberal discussions of Old Testament biblical characters, you will find all 21 posts filed in Back to Abraham soon! (which I may, that is, return to finish/complete the series)

angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac to god

alan yeap at Malaysia Today should note this was another case of an angel talking to a prophet

and the angel was not even an archangel, wakakaka

Anyway, why should we blame those ancient Egyptians for the issue of faith versus evidence (proof), logic or truth in religions?

That's because the Hebrews (supposedly the patriarch Abraham) started the Abrahamic religions, with the Hebrews-Israelites-Judeans-Jews inheriting from the ancient Egyptians four things (4 only since we're into stuff of 4 like the above-mentioned faith, evidence, logic, truth), which were:

(a) circumcision - yes, the royalty in ancient Egypt started this, not the Hebrews;

I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)

(b) a matriarchal lineage - the Pharaoh's daughter inherits the throne of ancient Egypt which was why the royal brother incestuously married the royal sister in order to keep the kingdom under his rule, as did daddy Pharaoh. Whether they did you-know-what has never been specifically mentioned.

The Hebrews,-Israelites-Judeans-Jews followed/follow the ancient Egyptian system, thus orthodox Judaism practises matrilineal descent for more than 2000 years, where anyone with a Jewish mother has irrevocable Jewish status, regardless of whether mum has converted to another religion. Despite it being under orthodox Judaism, the lineage was obviously more of a racial rather than a religious consideration.

Some reforms occurred in the early 1980's to include patrilineal descent, but by 1986, the Conservative Movement's Rabbinical Assembly rejected patrilineal descent and even warned that any rabbi who does so would be expelled from the Rabbinical Assembly.

Maybe one of the 'lost 10 tribes of Israel' migrated to and took up residence in Negeri Sembilan (or perhaps Padang)? wakakaka.

(c) monotheism - again yes, it was the heretic Pharaoh, Akhenaten (formerly Amenhotep IV) who was the first person to worship only one creator god, way way before the Hebrews knew about YVWH.

Pharaoh Akhenaten was called 'heretic' because in polytheistic ancient Egypt, one was considered a heretic for crazily worshipping only one god, wakakaka;

Pharaoh Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti and daughters

praying to their One G-D, Aten

(d) while the general scholarly position thus far has been that the Hebrew script came from the Phoenicians, some have asserted that it was from the ancient Egyptians, who possessed three types of scripts, namely hieroglyphs, hieratic and demotic. Whichever, the ancient Egyptian script doesn't have vowels which the Hebrew Torah (bible) seems to follow, where a striking example would be the Tetragrammaton YVWH.

hieroglyphs

The story has it that when Moses was instructed by his god to see the Pharaoh, he asked who should he say sent him? His god then revealed his name as Yahweh. But the Jews didn't want to take the name of their god in vain, so they refused to say aloud Yahweh, but instead Adonai (Lord). Subsequently when the Jews introduced vowels into their script, they used those from the Adonai word, a, o and again a, in YVWH, giving them Yahowah (Jehovah). The Torah remains vowel-less.

 

hieratic script

 

Thus the Hebraic vowel-less script for god sometimes is seen in English as G-D, probably the work of Hebrew wannabes.

demotic script

... which brings us to my post title of B-D.

Okay lah, I am t'ng k'oui (chong hei), meandering like a lazy willow & bamboo-lined Karnafuli* river across the Plains of Chitchat-tagong (no, not the one in Bangladesh), wakakaka.

* polite mispronunciation, wakakaka

Now, what does B-D stand for or tell us?

Firstly, we may assume that the vowel-less letters has god-like qualities because of their resemblance to the Hebraical G-D. Please have a bit of faith here lah, wakakaka;

faith as taught by the church

Secondly, remember that having faith obviates the need for evidence, proof, logic etc, including the truth, wakakaka;

Thirdly, B-D has assumed a disproportionate significance in the politics of Malaysia right at this moment and we should pay heed to it;

Fourthly (the final of our four thingy's), sceptical kaytee as usual wishes to examine the political evangelism that's promoting the new 'god' B-D, wakakaka.

Okay, let's start off with the D of B-D where D, placed second, is more recent that B.

D = Deepak or Deepak Jaikishan, the carpet bagger seller who was once a figure meeting up covertly and furtively with B = Balasubramaniam, and allegedly also doing various 'odd jobs' for Rosmah and Najib, and at times variously Rosmah's toy boy, godson, best friend, confidante, aide, Mr Fix-it, gifts giver, confidential-private majordomo, etc.

READ MORE HERE

 

Seeing things from the right perspective

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 07:42 PM PST

 

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last few days I have read a few comments calling Rafizi Ramli a liar and accusing him of politicising the Deepak Jaikishan issue. First of all, so what if Rafizi is politicising issues? Is that not what politicians are supposed to do? You mean all those others in Pakatan Rakyat are not also politicising issues? You mean all those Umno and Barisan Nasional people are not also politicising issues?

Accusing Rafizi of politicising issues is so stupid. It is like accusing a fox that is hanging around the chicken run of trying to whack the chickens. That is why God made foxes, to whack chickens. Whacking chickens is in the job specification of foxes. Why else do you think God made foxes? Do you think God made foxes so that sugar daddies can buy a fox fur coat for their mistresses?

Foxes were created so that they can whack chickens. And politicians were created so that they can politicise issues. And all this talk that politicians are the result of anal sex is utter bullshit and very unfair because you cannot get pregnant from anal sex and for sure no one can get born through the arsehole.

Politicians are born just like you and me, the normal way, and politics is a career just like any other career.

In fact, politics allows postmen and railway crossing guards attain career heights that postmen and railway crossing guards could never attain if they did not become politicians. It is like going to America, the land of opportunity. Where else can simple farmers or descendants of slaves become 'big people' if not in America? And if you can't migrate to America to become a 'big person' then you become a politician and get called Yang Berhormat or The Respected One.

We must remember that everything in Malaysia is politicised. Even the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, etc., God is politicised. Even with all that power that God possesses He cannot prevent his name from being politicised. And if the all-powerful God cannot stop his name from being politicised do you think Deepak Jaikishan can prevent his name from being politicised even if he imagines himself as a Sex God?

Now, why do you say that Rafizi Ramli lied? What did he say that makes you come to a conclusion that he lied? Did Rafizi say he was there, say, when Deepak Jaikishan was alleged to have bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for First Lady Rosmah Mansor? Did Rafizi say he personally saw the jewellery and/or held them in his hand?

He never said that. What he said was he has seen the documents and the documents were handed to him by someone he personally knows. He apparently trusts this person and probably has a relationship of sorts with this person. And this person handed him some documents that were supposed to be evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah. So, based on this, he held a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and that these documents are evidence that Deepak had bought RM13 million worth of jewellery for Rosmah.

And the purpose Rafizi held that press conference to reveal the existence of these documents is so that the MACC or PDRM can investigate the matter and find out whether all this is true or false. It could be true or it could be false. But Rafizi would not know whether it is true or false. He can only hold a press conference to reveal the existence of these documents and leave it to the authorities to authenticate the documents and tell us whether the allegations are true or not.

Some of you ask: why hold a press conference? Why not make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration instead? If you are really sincere about seeing justice done then you should make a police report or sign a Statutory Declaration. Holding a press conference makes it appear like all you want to do is to politicise the issue.

True, a police report or Statutory Declaration would be better than a press conference. A police report or Statutory Declaration looks less political than a press conference. But maybe you have forgotten that back in 1998 Anwar Ibrahim made a police report and he ended up getting arrested and was sent to jail for a long time. Ten years later, in 2008, I signed a Statutory Declaration and I too was arrested and charged for that. I was also detained without trial.

So, do you really think a police report or Statutory Declaration is wise? So far no one has been arrested and sent to jail for holding a press conference. At worse you may be subjected to a civil suit. However, since the press conference is a party press conference, then when you get sued the party will come out with the money to pay for a lawyer to represent you in court.

Can you remember that I was sued by many people -- UUM V.C. Nordin Kardi, Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Lt Col Abdul Aziz Buyong and Lt Col Norhayati Hassan, etc. And I was sued because I made allegations against them.

Now I have been declared bankrupt and yet still more civil suits are piling up against me. Has any Malaysian from 28 million Malaysians offered to help me out financially?

When you write bad things about the government or about those who walk in the corridors of power everyone will clap and cheer you on. But when you get sued you have to carry that problem all by yourself. No one from all those people who clapped and cheered you on is going to come forward to volunteer to help you out financially.

I am fortunate that I have some friends who are lawyers who volunteered to help represent me free of charge. In the Nordin Kardi case, however, no one came forward to help me out. So the court awarded him an uncontested win and I now have to pay Nordin Kardi RM2.5 million. But I do not have RM2.5 million and can't pay that amount. So I have to be declared a bankrupt, as I was in the earlier case involving an Umno Minister where the court asked me to pay RM1.3 million.

Actually, it is now no longer worth anything to help me out unless you can afford to pay RM60 million, which is what I have hanging over my head -- and which is increasing every time I lose a case.

Do you know I recently had to pay the government RM215,000 to get my house released? In the end, with tax and legal fees included, I had to pay about RM250,000 or else I would lose my house.

And none of those people who clapped and cheered when I whacked the government came forward to help me settle that RM250,000. So my daughter had to go to the bank to borrow the money to help me out. Luckily I have a daughter who can qualify for a bank loan of RM250,000 or else my house would be gone.

So you face a great risk when you whack the government. No doubt people will clap and cheer when you whack the government. But that is all you receive -- claps and cheers. If you make a police report, sign a Statutory Declaration, or write an article in your Blog, you will get arrested and will get sent to jail. And you not only get arrested but will get sued as well and then will be hit with millions in damages. Hence the safest thing to do would be to do what Rafizi Ramli did -- hold a press conference in the party's name.

So I think you have to be a bit fair with Rafizi. He has no choice but to politicise the issues so that he can get the protection of the party when people sue him. If not Rafizi would end up like me if he does things outside the party. And he did not lie. He never said he was there or that he saw everything. What he said was that he was reliably informed, like what I said on my Statutory Declaration.

And I know it appears like Rafizi has done a U-turn. Yesterday he never said that the information or documents he received came from a third party. But now that Deepak has denied meeting him and/or denied giving him any documents, Rafizi turns around and says that the evidence came from a third party.

Actually I know who that third party is but I am not sure whether I should reveal his name. What happens if that person sues me? No one is going to help pay for my legal costs and if I lose the case no one is going to help pay for whatever damages the court awards to the person suing me. So I have to think carefully whether to help Rafizi out by revealing the name of the person. Since Rafizi has the party behind him maybe I should leave it to him to reveal the name of this third party -- although he also appears to be reluctant to do so.

Maybe Rafizi is worried that if he declares that he was not actually a witness but that the evidence was given to him by a third party then people will accuse him of doing a U-turn. Rafizi knows that that happened to me when I explained during my TV3 interview that I was not a witness but was informed about the matter by a third party. Everyone accused me of doing a U-turn even though I did not. Hence, understandably, Rafizi needs to be very careful here or else he will suffer the same fate that befell me.

Rafizi is not only a product of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK). He is also a product of a UK university education. That makes him very clever. Most MCKK cum UK educated people are very clever. And, being very clever, he would most certainly be aware that most Malaysians are not very bright. In fact, some Malaysians -- those not from MCKK and a UK education -- can sometimes be downright stupid. Hence Rafizi has to be very careful with what he says. People will even accuse him of saying what he never said -- unless you are from MCKK and armed with a UK education (then you will not be stupid enough to accuse people of saying what they did not say).

I am sorry if I sound like I am defending Rafizi. Even if I am defending Rafizi so what? Is it a crime to defend someone from your alma mater? Yes, I am defending Rafizi. I do not deny that and I am not apologetic or embarrassed about it. When someone deserves defending then you must defend that person.

And if you are not happy with that then sue me. It is, after all, a free country. Anyone can sue anyone.

Even the Christians are free to sue the government for not allowing them to use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat comes out with a statement next week also agreeing that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible then the Christians should sue Pakatan Rakyat as well.

But wait first until next week and see what Pakatan Rakyat has to say because they will be meeting only next week to make a decision as to whether Christians can use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. And if Pakatan Rakyat were to agree with the government that Christians should not use the name Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible only then sue them. But I am confident Pakatan Rakyat will not agree with the government.

 

Musa Hassan zips lips in latest scorcher on Altantuya murder

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 04:47 PM PST

Amin Iskandar, The Malaysian Insider

Tan Sri Musa Hassan has refused to be drawn into the latest controversy over the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, following the publication of a book claiming the former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) has inside information.

The retired policeman reiterated that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was uninvolved in the explosive case that had been linked to several politicians from the ruling Barsian Nasional (BN) and had resurfaced recently in the run-up to the 13th general election.

"I have nothing to comment," he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted yesterday for a response on allegations he has knowledge of the events surrounding the death of the Mongolian translator, for which two elite police commandos have been convicted and are facing death sentences.

"I have said it many times: Najib is not involved with the murder of Altantuya. This is (Abdul) Razak Baginda's work," he said, referring to the PM's former political advisor who once had an affair with the Mongolian.

"I had briefed Pak Lah that Najib was not involved in this case," Musa said, referring to the then-PM, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

A 26-page book titled "The Black Rose ― Black Rose 1.0", which describes the tangled web of high-profile personalities purportedly involved in the murder conspiracy, has been circulating on the Internet over the past few days.

Carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan, who is at the centre of the controversy surrounding P. Balasubramaniam's conflicting sworn testimonies on the case, yesterday admitted to being the book's author. He also said he will release a sequel.

Balasubramaniam, a former policeman-turned-private investigator who was at that time hired by Abdul Razak Baginda to keep an eye on Altantuya, is seen to be a key witness to the whole saga.

Deepak recently revealed his involvement in getting Balasubramaniam to make the second statutory declaration (SD), reversing an earlier statement linking Najib to Altantuya's murder.

The Bar Council was chided on Tuesday for dragging its feet in investigating the identity of the mystery lawyer behind Balasubramaniam's controversial second SD.

Lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu, who is acting for the former private detective, said that the Bar Council should speed up its inquiry on the high-profile case that had previously been linked to several high-ranking government officials and resurfaced recently in the run-up to the 13th general election.

The Bar Council has said it is investigating the possibility of misconduct in the drafting of Balasubramaniam's second SD, which contradicts his previous sworn statement made just a day earlier over the death of the Mongolian translator.

A cloud of mystery has been hanging over the identity of the lawyer who had drawn up Balasubramaniam's second SD, dated a day after his first on July 3, 2008, regarding the Altantuya murder case.

Last month, Musa accused politicians, including Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, of interfering with police work.

 

Deepak denies link to documents

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 04:38 PM PST

He said he never met Rafizi and is uncomfortable with the way PKR has exposed the matter using his name to gain political mileage.

(The Sun Daily) - Businessman Deepak Jaikishin has denied that he has anything to do with bank documents produced to the press by PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli that allegedly incriminates him.

He said he never met Rafizi and is uncomfortable with the way PKR has exposed the matter using his name to gain political mileage.

"The documents... are not my documents. I have never seen the documents. If he (Rafizi) said he got it from an intermediary, then who is he?

"I would like him (Rafizi) to come forward and explain how he got the documents," he told a press conference at a hotel here yesterday.

Deepak also called on PKR de facto chief Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to meet him to discuss the truth and not ask a 'third party' like Rafizi to politicise the matter.

He said he is standing alone in the matter and is 'feeling the heat' following the expose he made recently.

"If the truth matters, I invite Datuk Seri Anwar to come and present the facts of what they really are (with me).

Deepak said he will consult his lawyers to give notice to Rafizi in order to know who disclosed the documents.

In an immediate response, Rafizi told theSun that Deepak's denial is expected.

He said that the documents were circulated by Deepak himself and as a company director he must be aware of the documents which are actually bank statements and receipts of his two companies.

"We can prove that the documents come from Deepak.

"He has to convince the public that the documents are not his. He gave the same documents to several people," he told theSun.

Rafizi said Deepak is 'playing a game' and trying to put the media highlight onto himself for his "expose" which came on the eve of the Umno general assembly last month.

 

Pakatan plays down Allah issue

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 04:29 PM PST

(The Star) - Pakatan Rakyat leaders have tried to play down the controversial use of the word "Allah" by Christians, with PAS saying that the matter has been closed.

The leaders of the opposition parties have yet to meet to resolve the differing stand on the issue, although Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had proposed the meeting to resolve the matter.

"There has been no discussion on the matter. We (PAS) feel that it has already been resolved as all that needs to be spoken about it has been spoken," said the Islamist party's secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali after attending a Pakatan secretariat meeting here yesterday.

Asked if a decision had been reached by Pakatan partners over the issue, Mustafa replied that he did not want to add anything to the matter.

Controversy over the "Allah" issue cropped up when Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng urged the Federal Government to allow Christians to use the word "Allah" in their Malay version of the Bible in his recent Christmas message.

Lim's message caused an uproar among Muslims, while some Muslim NGOs held protests in front of his office in Komtar, Penang, last month.

PAS also hit out at Lim, stating firmly that the word "Allah" should not be used by Christians to refer to God as it would only lead to confusion for both Muslims and Christians.

On Dec 27, Anwar conceded that an urgent meeting to discuss the matter was needed to resolve the issue although discussions were held by the Pakatan leadership when the controversy surfaced in 2010.

On a separate issue, Mustafa said PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang would decline the air-time offer by RTM to explain his "Amanat Haji Hadi" if no live coverage was given.

 

Group demands jewellery expose probe, Rafizi wants to meet Deepak

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 04:03 PM PST

The carpet dealer, however, has denied seeing the jewellery bills but Rafizi claimed today the documents were provided by Deepak himself through a third party linked to PKR

By Boo Su-Lyn and Syed Jaymal Zahiid, The Malaysian Insider

A journalists group wants an investigation of PKR's Rafizi Ramli revelations about carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan's purported US$4 million (RM12.4 million) jewellery purchases for dignitaries although the controversial businessman has denied the documents.

In turn, Rafizi is willing to meet the carpet dealer about the documents which were handed over to the PKR strategy director through a third party.

"The Young Journalists Club of Malaysia (KWMM) is very worried about the trend of the federal opposition exposing private and confidential documents, whether owned by individuals or the government, for insidious purposes," club president Dzulkarnain Taib said in a statement today.

"KWMM takes the irresponsible behaviour of an opposition leader like Rafizi (picture) very seriously, who has made baseless assumptions and allegations without strong evidence. This was done merely for political purposes and to get more votes, since the 13th general election will be held soon," he added, using the club's Bahasa Malaysia acronym.

Rafizi was charged last August with violating the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA) for allegedly exposing confidential banking details of NFCorp.

The NFCorp runs the National Feedlot Centre (NFC), a RM250 million federal-funded cattle-farming project that has been at the centre of a major national scandal.

Yesterday, Rafizi provided the media copies of transaction records, including one for a US$115,000 purchase of polished diamonds from Dehres Ltd, a fine jewellery supplier from Hong Kong.

Another document detailed transactions worth US$3.9 million involving the purchases of rings, necklaces and earrings from Firestone Co Ltd, another Hong Kong-based fine jewellery supplier.

Rafizi has said that Deepak was acting as a jewellery middleman for a local dignitary.

The carpet dealer, however, has denied seeing the jewellery bills.

Deepak also accused Rafizi of making the exposé for political mileage.

But Rafizi claimed today the documents were provided by Deepak himself through a third party linked to PKR and suggested that the carpet dealer's outburst yesterday was caused by the party's initial refusal to "champion" the issue.

READ MORE HERE

 

Dr M: Beware the one who hoodwinks

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 03:53 PM PST

The former premier warns Malaysians not to fall prey to Anwar Ibrahim as he once had in the past.

RK Anand, FMT

More than a decade ago, he was considered the protege of and heir apparent to Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But in 1998, the ties turned sour. And the rest, as they say, is history.

In his latest blog posting, Mahathir claimed that he was once hoodwinked by the religious piety of Anwar Ibrahim and warned Malaysians not to fall prey as well.

Now as his nemesis leads the opposition charge for the coming general election, where for the first time in more than five decades a change of government was considered possible, the former premier once again issued a dire warning.

Targeting Anwar, he pointed out that the former deputy premier had not brought about positive changes during his tenure with the government.

"Now as leader of the opposition, he is claiming to bring about changes. What good change did he introduce when he was in the government?

"All he was interested in was getting up the leadership ladder of Umno in order to become prime minister. How he achieved his objective does not bear scrutiny," he added.

Recalling the 1997-1998 financial crisis, Mahathir said Anwar, who was also finance minister then, had attempted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) solution without IMF loans.

"Banks and companies were faced with the threat of bankruptcy from non-performing loans. Imports cost more. Cost of living shot up.

"The track record of the minister of finance then was bad although there is a fondness of claiming success brought about by others as his success. PNB, UIA and Islamic banking were part of the claim," he added.

Pakatan aping Obama

Mahathir warned Malaysians that experimenting with change and placing federal power in the hands of Anwar and PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang-led government would be perilous.

"Many things can be destroyed in five years. We have some experience of this," he said, alluding to his handpicked successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whose one term in power witnessed the opposition making significant gains in the 2008 polls.

"Besides, the opposition as government will ensure that there will be no return for BN [Barisan Nasional]. Officers in the government will be used to 'gempar' [threaten] whoever tries to change the government. We know this has happened before," he said.

"Already we see this person who claims to fight for free speech suing and resorting to the courts to shut the mouths of his critics. Other powers of the government will be similarly abused. Nepotism and cronyism will be employed as indeed they are in the party he now heads.

"The record is there. Malaysians must not allow themselves to be hoodwinked as I was hoodwinked by the appearance of religious piety in the past," he added.

Mahathir also accused Pakatan Rakyat of aping US President Barack Obama in terms of making unkept promises of change in the run-up to the elections.

"Making promises during campaigns for elections is easy. Keeping them is a different matter. The best hope is that people's memory is short. They will normally forget the promises.

"Give them a chance, they [Pakatan] say. BN has ruled this country for 55 years. It is time to change. They will change this into a welfare state. Everything will be free. No fees for education, no tolls, large subsidy for petrol, 20% royalty to oil-producing states etc..etc," he said.

READ MORE HERE

 

Pakatan to decide on ‘Allah’ issue next week

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 03:34 PM PST

Anwar says the matter would be deliberated at the opposition pact's leadership council meeting scheduled for next Tuesday.

G Vinod, FMT

The Pakatan Rakyat leadership will be holding a meeting on Jan 8 to deliberate on use of the word "Allah" to represent God in Malay language Bibles, said PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim.

"We have will be holding our leadership council meeting next week and I believe the matter will be raised. We will discuss this," said the former deputy prime minister.

Last month, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng urged the government to allow Christians to use the word "Allah", to address God in the Malay language Bibles.

However, his suggestion drew criticism from several Muslim-based NGOs which cautioned Lim not to provoke the Muslims.

Lim was also rebuked by his ally within Pakatan when PAS information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said that non-Muslims should abstain from using the word Allah in their holy books as reference to God.

Meeting with Bank Negara confirmed

Touching on the Global Financial Integrity report (GFI), Anwar said that Bank Negara had agreed to meet him to discuss the latest report by the financial watchdog on the illicit outflow of funds from Malaysia.

"We have proposed to meet on Jan 17, which they have tentatively agreed. They promised to get back to us," said Anwar.

The US-based financial watchdog reported that Malaysia ranked number two in terms of illicit outflow of funds in 2010, ranking second to China.

The report indicated that Malaysia lost RM200 billion in that year alone. Between 2001 and 2010, Malaysia lost about RM871 billion in capital outflow.

Describing it as "alarming", Anwar had since offered to meet Bank Negara governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz to offer solution to the matter.

READ MORE HERE

 

Musa: IGP, top brass avoided me

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 03:30 PM PST

The ex-top cop defends his open criticism of the police force, saying that he had reached a dead end when trying to engage with the top brass and his successor the inspector general of police. 

Anisah Shukry and Teoh El Sen, FMT

Each time Musa Hassan approached his successor Inspector General of Police (IGP) Ismail Omar, the latter would "walk away" from him, making all communication between the two impossible, the ex-IGP said.

"I don't have the chance to talk to [Ismail] because whenever we meet even in public, he just walks away from me," said Musa in a recent interview with FMT.

"I don't know [why]. Maybe they think I am no longer relevant," he said.

Musa said this when asked if he had raised the issue of criminal elements and political interference in the police force with the IGP before announcing it to the public.

Musa had dropped the bombshell two months ago during a press conference with crime watchdog MyWatch, which coincided with the opening of the Umno general assembly.

His timing, as well as his new role as the patron of the NGO lead by PKR members, had led many to grill him on his motives.

While the question on most people's lips is "why now?" (Musa's reply: the timing was a coincidence), others have expressed disgust at what they perceive as efforts that could destroy the police force's credibility.

Musa's rival, former top cop Ramli Yusuff had slammed him for turning to the media instead of discussing the issues with Ismail in private.

"You don't have to say these kind of things in the open. These are internal matters. Musa could have discussed it discreetly with Ismail, meet up with him, tell him nicely," the former commercial crimes investigation department (CCID) chief had told FMT last month.

But Musa told FMT that not only did Ismail deliberately avoid him, but the top brass also refused to speak with him on the matter.

"I have spoken to some police officers. But of course they are lower rung, they can't do anything about it. But the bosses, they refuse to talk to me," claimed Musa.

When asked whether the current leadership of the police was open to discussing such issues head-on in a transparent manner, he said: "I don't think so."

"I see Ismail [as] only a ceremonial IGP. He would only attend ceremonies," Musa remarked.

Encouraging transparency

He also dismissed claims by his detractors that his bombshells would destroy the credibility of the men in blue.

Instead, Musa said, open criticism of the police force would encourage transparency and enhance its credibility.

"I don't think so, [that making claims publicly would erode confidence in the institution]. You have to be open about this…

"If you keep quiet and keep things this way… there will always be the perception of the public that you are not doing anything," Musa pointed out.

"[Then] it would erode the credibility of the police and also the confidence of the people [towards the police]."

'People still want me to be involved'

Ramli had also criticised Musa, now technically a civilian after having retired in 2010, for "disturbing" the police with his allegations.

"When you have retired, your days are over. You don't disturb. Your successors have their own way of doing things. You are gone, so why do you want to disturb?" Ramli had said.

But Musa told FMT that he still received text messages and even visits from people asking for his help in matters related to crime.

He said that when people contacted him for advice or help, it meant that they still wanted him to be involved in crime-fighting.

"The question mark is why people still give information to me even though I am retired, when they can give it straight to the police officer?

"That's why I feel sometimes that something is wrong here. Why should people trust me? They should trust the police because I am already retired," stressed Musa.

He said that despite being a civilian, he could not bring himself to deny them help as they would come to his house asking for advice.

READ MORE HERE

 

‘Jewellery documents are from Deepak’

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 03:25 PM PST

The PKR leader claims that the documents showing purchases of expensive jewellery supposedly for Rosmah Mansor came from Deepak himself, through a third party.

G Vinod, FMT

PKR has claimed that the documents implicating businessman Deepak Jaikishan in the purchase of expensive jewellery was from the latter himself.

"Few months back, Deepak himself gave the documents to some PKR leaders. The documents were later handed to me for further deliberation," said party strategic director Rafizi Ramli today.

Yesterday, Rafizi produced several documents claiming that two carpet companies linked to Deepak had purchased 19 types of jewellery worth about RM13 million in 2009.

The jewellery was said to be purchased on behalf of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's wife, Rosmah Mansor.

Deepak, however, was not pleased with Rafizi's exposé and said that the documents were not his.

"I've never seen the documents Rafizi is producing. Those are not my documents. He has to come forward and tell us where he got these documents from," Deepak was reported as saying.

However, the businessman did not rebut the allegations made by Rafizi, saying he would seek legal advice on the matter.

Rafizi said that while Deepak could claim what he wanted, the latter should however explain why his company purchased the jewellery.

"If he believes the documents produced are forged, I urge Deepak to lodge a report with the authorities," he added.

However, Rafizi insisted that the documents came from Deepak and PKR leaders would lodge a report with the police and the MACC on the matter on Monday.

"I will cooperate with the authorities on the matter. In fact, the individual who received the documents from Deepak has agreed to vouch that he received it from the businessman," he said.

Rafizi also explained why he did not pursue the matter earlier, saying that at that point of time, it was not a matter of public interest.

"But when the government announced that RM160 million from Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) would be used to purchase Deepak's company and a land belonging to Awan Megah Sdn Bhd, the whole situation changed," he said.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved