Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Remember our February 2008 agreement?
- How siege mentality works
- God’s voice on earth
- The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 20)
- The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)
- Seeing is believing
| Remember our February 2008 agreement? Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:45 PM PST
After the success of that first Bersih march of November 2007, a few friends and comrades, mostly new ones made over the previous year or so, decided that it was time to 'cement' our perjuangan or struggle. And we would cement it by coming out with a very explicit document that we called The Peoples' Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin The world has a memory of only 100 days, said the Russians in response to the criticism regarding the shooting down of Korean Airlines flight KAL007. In 100 days everything will be forgotten or something else will crop up over the next 100 days to distract the people. Hence, said the Russians, they do not need to respond to the criticism regarding the shooting down of that passenger airline. Today, do any of you remember that tragedy that so outraged the entire world? How many people died? When did it happen? Why was that plane shot down? Unless you Google the information or search on Wikipedia, very few of you will be able to reply to my questions from the top of your head. And this best describes Malaysians, never mind which side of the political fence they may stand on. Malaysians are fickle, have a short attention span, respond to issues off the cuff, think short term, forget easily the original objective, change course mid-stream, and much more. Do you want to know something very ironical? I have kept to the course that was decided more than eight years ago back in 2004 soon after the general election disaster in March that same year. And that was the reason why Malaysia Today was launched in August 2004, five months after the 2004 general election -- to serve this agenda that had been decided. In 2004 it was a lonely battle that we fought because not many shared our vision and mission. It was not until two years later in 2006 that some joined the cause and only by 2007 that many Malaysians 'woke up'. By 2007, three years after the birth of Malaysia Today, I found many new friends and comrades who stood by my side and walked with me, especially in the first Bersih march of 2007. After the success of that first Bersih march of November 2007, a few friends and comrades, mostly new ones made over the previous year or so, decided that it was time to 'cement' our perjuangan or struggle. And we would cement it by coming out with a very explicit document that we called The Peoples' Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat. We met a few times at Uncle Lee's house, the late Tunku Vic's house, and so on. In case some of you are wondering who the late Tunku Vic was, maybe you can see the following link: In loving memory of Vic: only the good die young. The late Tunku Vic, in fact, was supposed to have taken over the leadership of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). This was agreed in our meeting in Chiengmai, Thailand, which was attended by (Sam) Haris Ibrahim and some of the other 'movers' of MCLM. Unfortunately, Tunku Vic died soon after MCLM held its first AGM to elect a whole new set of office bearers in May last year. Anyway, back in 2007, Tunku Vic and about ten or so of us formed an ad hoc committee to draft The Peoples' Declaration. This document was finalised in the meeting in Tunku Vic's house. It was then agreed that we would write to ALL the political parties in Malaysia from both sides of the political fence and invite them to endorse The Peoples' Declaration. Only six of the two dozens or so of the political parties responded, three of them from Pakatan Rakyat. A couple of the non-Umno political parties in Barisan Nasional 'whispered' that they would support the ideals of The Peoples' Declaration but they cannot officially endorse it for obvious reasons -- they do not want to make it appear like they are 'breaking ranks' with Umno. Nevertheless, the fact that they support it 'off the record' was good enough for me. At least their heart was in the right place although I cannot say the same for their guts. It is nice to know that there is a 'silent' group within Barisan Nasional, and even in Umno itself, that support the ideals of The Peoples' Declaration although they wish at this stage to 'remain in the closet'. Who knows, one day they might come out of the closet and declare that they are pro-reform and proud of it. At that time, The Blog House at Damansara was non-partisan. People from both sides of the political fence supported The Blog House. Even Umno Bloggers plus people like Mukhriz Mahathir, Marina Mahathir, etc., went to The Blog House. It was a place where we could leave our politics outside the gate and enter The Blog House as Malaysians united for change. I thought that Malaysian politics had finally arrived. At last there was a place we could meet as supporters of change and not supporters of the government or supporters of the opposition. And it was at The Blog House that we decided to officially launch The Peoples' Declaration under the umbrella of Barisan Rakyat. (See more here and note the personalities in the photographs: The PEOPLE'S VOICE and the PEOPLE'S DECLARATION officially launched today.)
BARISAN RAKYAT WAS FORMED EVEN BEFORE PAKATAN RAKYAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE That was almost five years ago on 23rd February 2008. About two weeks later, on 8th March 2008, Malaysia held the 12th General Election. And, because the six political parties endorsed The Peoples' Declaration on 23rd February 2008, three of them from Pakatan Rakyat, we spent the next two weeks campaigning for Pakatan Rakyat. During the election campaign we made it very clear to the voters that we support Pakatan Rakyat because Pakatan Rakyat supports our reform agenda as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration. However, if after winning the election Pakatan Rakyat does a U-turn and betrays us, we would withdraw our support for Pakatan Rakyat. In my speeches during the election rallies all over Malaysia, I even openly declared that if we can make Pakatan Rakyat then we can also break Pakatan Rakyat. Basically, what the lord giveth the lord can taketh away. We are going to give Pakatan Rakyat a chance to rule for one term, I said. And if they fail us then no second term for Pakatan Rakyat. If we can give power to Pakatan Rakyat we can also take back power from Pakatan Rakyat. Therefore Pakatan Rakyat had better remember that they rule at the pleasure of the rakyat. It is peoples' power, kuasa rakyat, or makkal sakti that gives power to the politicians. Hence we, the voters, and not the politicians, are the boss. And if the politicians ever forget this we are going to punish them come the next general election in 2013 or so. The crowd cheered and clapped. They gave this declaration a standing ovation (most of the crowd was already standing anyway). They agreed with this covenant. We the rakyat will vote for those who support the rakyat's agenda and if those we vote into office forget this or betrays us then they are going to suffer the wrath of the rakyat. Since March 2008, The Peoples' Declaration is as forgotten as Korean Airlines flight KAL007. I raised this matter in a talk in London on 2nd October 2010 where Anwar Ibrahim was one of the participants of that talk (see the videos below). Anwar, however, responded in his talk in Australia later on that they would not always listen to what we want. In other words, they no longer support the agenda for change as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration although they had agreed to support it in February 2008 two weeks before the 12th General Election. The deal is now off. And since the deal is now off and they no longer support the agenda for change as spelt out in The Peoples' Declaration then I too am no longer obligated to support Pakatan Rakyat. A deal is a deal. And a deal must be bilateral, not unilateral. If one side reneges on the agreement then the other side is not obligated to stick to the agreement. But my friends and comrades, who together with me pushed the agenda for change through The Peoples' Declaration, have sold out. They have turned traitor and have abandoned The Peoples' Declaration. They have agreed to support Pakatan Rakyat for the sake of supporting Pakatan Rakyat and not support Pakatan Rakyat because Pakatan Rakyat supports The Peoples' Declaration. As I said, Malaysians are fickle. Malaysians have a short attention span. Malaysians think short term. Malaysians forget easily the original objective. Malaysians change course mid-stream. And what makes this even more ironical is that while I am unwavering and hold firm to the original objectives of February 2008, they allege that I have changed course and have done a U-turn whereas it is they who have turned traitor and have sold themselves to the very politicians who have betrayed the cause. Yes, in February-March 2008 I campaigned for Pakatan Rakyat. But I did so with terms and conditions attached. And this primary term and condition is that Pakatan Rakyat will support The Peoples' Declaration. And the other term and condition is that if Pakatan Rakyat withdraws support for The Peoples' Declaration then I too will withdraw support for Pakatan Rakyat. I have kept to this agreement. I have been very consistent in my stand. It was quid pro quo. And just as Pakatan Rakyat has every right to withdraw from any agreement, so, too, I have the right to do the same. My friends and comrades, however, decided to break ranks with me. They abandoned the cause. They are prepared to cast aside The Peoples' Declaration and support Pakatan Rakyat even if Pakatan Rakyat reneges on its word. In other words, my friends and comrades have become turncoats and have sold out. I suppose, as they say, everyone is for sale. The only question is: at what price? And the price here is power. Since they believe that Pakatan Rakyat is going to form the next federal government they want to be amongst the winner. Hence they will support Pakatan Rakyat even if Pakatan Rakyat no longer supports The Peoples' Declaration.
Friends of Pakatan Rakyat October 2010 talk in the UK lCvdagYlR98 SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvdagYlR98 W403AOQqJnc SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W403AOQqJnc Toe-77-TtT4 SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toe-77-TtT4 FsSRTVo29BY SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsSRTVo29BY |
| Posted: 07 Jan 2013 02:39 PM PST
When will Muslims get out of this siege mentality and stop looking at every act by non-Muslims as an act to undermine Islam? I suppose as long as Judaism and Christianity are seen as competitors to Islam this psyche will never change. Can you see that only Judaism and Christianity are treated with hostility? This is because Muslims do not perceive Hinduism and Buddhism as competitors. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin U.S. triples foreign arms sales in 2011 By Mike Mount, CNN Senior National Security Producer International weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high of $66.3 billion, according to a congressional report that noted big fighter jet and helicopter purchases by Saudi Arabia. The data by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service noted an "extraordinary increase" over 2010, saying the total U.S. figure accounted for almost 78 percent of sales globally. Russia followed the United States at $4.8 billion with France at $4.4 billion, according to the report, "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2004-2011." China's 2011 sales were at $2.1 billion but focused less on large weapons platforms such as planes and more on smaller weapons, selling them to Asian countries and to African nations, the report said. The data allows members of Congress to see "the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world ... where most the potential for the outbreak of regional military conflicts currently is greatest and where the greatest proportion of the conventional arms trade is conducted," according to the report. A number of countries in the near-East and Asia, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, continued or resumed large-scale weapons purchases because of continued threats from Iran. Saudi Arabia was the biggest buyer of arms from the United States, making up about half of the 2011 total at $33.4 billion, according to the report. Saudi Arabia bought some 84 new F-15 fighter jets to add to its fleet as well as upgrades for 70 others. The purchase also included ammunition and missiles for the planes. Saudi Arabia also bought numerous Apache attack helicopters and multi-use Blackhawk helicopters. With its very close proximity to Iran, the United Arab Emirates bought an advanced missile shield system called the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and its corresponding radar systems for almost $3.5 billion. The U.A.E. also bought $939 million worth of Chinook transport helicopters. Oman bought 18 F-16 fighter jets for $1.4 billion. "For certain developing nations in these regions, the strength of their individual economies appears to be a key factor in their decisions to proceed with major arms purchases," according to the report. Last year was the eighth-straight year the United States led global arms sales. The United States and Russia made up almost 70 percent of weapons sales in the developing world between 2008-11. While the United States showed huge growth in sales, the international arms market is, "not likely growing at all," according to the report. "There continue to be significant constraints on its (international arms market) growth, due, in particular, to the weakened state of the global economy," the report said. *************************************************** Saudi Arabia is the world's 11th highest military equipment purchaser. And if you notice something else as well, Muslim countries appear to be spending a lot on arms purchases and would spend even more if the US did not block or embargo sales to certain 'unfriendly' Muslim countries. To prevent war you must be prepared for war, the military strategists say. Hence you arm yourself to the teeth to make sure that no one starts harbouring any ideas of invading your country. And if you own more arms than your neighbour, your neighbour would not dare attack you. However, since you are well armed, you now pose a threat to your neighbour. Hence your neighbour too needs to match you and also has to become well armed or else you might attack this neighbour instead. And that is why it is called an arms race. You compete or race with each other to see who can be better armed. So, when your neighbour buys 20 fighter jets you buy 30. When your neighbour buys 30 tanks you buy 40. And so on. History has shown us that most wars are fought between neighbours. Once in a while we have wars such as Britain versus Argentina over the Falkland Island. Most times, however, it is East versus West or North versus South of the same country or ethnicity. Of course, the US breaks this rule by getting involved in wars all over the world and halfway across the world. But then being the policeman of the world and in the interest of selling more arms they need to keep wars going. Furthermore, if other countries fight each other, then most likely they would leave the US alone. Arms trading is probably one of the largest businesses (I was told second to the entertainment industry: which includes music, movies, theatres, casinos, theme parks, clubs, discos, TV, radio, game/reality shows, etc.) and extremely lucrative. There is no compromise on security, which means price is not a criteria. You buy what needs to be bought and pay what needs to be paid with no hesitation. You cannot afford to worry about money when life and limb are at stake. Muslim countries appear to be top of the list of arms purchasers. And a big portion of their budget is spent on arms rather than on education, health, welfare, and whatnot. And it is basically money down the drain. How much of those billions that are spent are actually productive? Let us look at Saudi Arabia as one example. Saudi Arabia has not fought any wars. Yet it is the largest buyer of arms. What happens to all those arms that it buys? Well, after a couple of years the weapons become obsolete and need to be mothballed. Then they need to buy the latest and improved version to replace the scrapped armoury. Hence these billions of weapons have a short shelf life and need to be discarded even though they have never been used. And that is why I said it is money down the drain. It is like buying car insurance. You do not need car insurance unless you crash your car. And probably 99% of the people who buy car insurance do not crash their car. Hence it is money down the drain. Arms are also insurance -- insurance against your neighbour attacking you, which you never use in the end With the exception of Saudi Arabia, most countries that spend a huge chunk of their budget on arms are also countries where the people are poor. That means the more you spend on arms the poorer your people are. And that is because to be able to spend on arms you need to sting on health, education and welfare. I sometimes wonder whether this is because of the siege mentality, more so amongst Muslims. Muslims seem to view 'others' (including other Muslims) as enemies. Hence they need to arm themselves to the teeth to secure themselves against these enemies. Islamic history is all about jihad and wars. This is the 'culture' that Muslims are brought up with. So it is in the Muslim psyche that they are constantly on war mode and hence the need to arm themselves. And this is also why we hear so much statements and rhetoric from Malaysian Muslims regarding enemies of Islam. To the non-Muslim it may be puzzling as to why Muslims always view others as enemies. And why do Muslims always jump at their own shadow and imagine an enemy lurking in those shadows? If you can understand this then you can understand why Malaysian Muslims are so sensitive about Bahasa Malaysia Bibles and the use of the word Allah in these Bibles. Muslims regard non-Muslims as a threat to Islam so every move made by non-Muslims is viewed with suspicion. Muslims are constantly in war mode so any act by non-Muslims would be perceived as an act of war. When will Muslims get out of this siege mentality and stop looking at every act by non-Muslims as an act to undermine Islam? I suppose as long as Judaism and Christianity are seen as competitors to Islam this psyche will never change. Can you see that only Judaism and Christianity are treated with hostility? This is because Muslims do not perceive Hinduism and Buddhism as competitors. Judaism and Christianity share the same roots with Islam while Hinduism and Buddhism do not. Hence Muslims do not care whether Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc., also use the Allah word but for sure the Jews and Christians must not. That is the Muslim psyche. And countries like Saudi Arabia spend billions on arms not because they fear the Jews and Christians but because they fear their fellow Muslims. Is this not ironical? And trust me: many Muslims are going to be very upset with what I just wrote. And they are going to be upset with me not because they feel I have lied but because I have told the truth. But is this not also what the Pakatan Rakyat people are like, even the non-Malays/non-Muslims? They are angry with me not because I lie but because I have told the truth. And since I have told the truth they are not able to rebut what I say other than angrily accuse me of lying without explaining what then is the truth if I have lied. Maybe I should say that this is not a Muslim psyche but a Malaysian psyche -- they get angry about the truth. But is it not the truth that in 2011 the US tripled its arms sales and the majority of these countries are Muslim countries while Saudi Arabia is the largest purchaser? So why get angry about what I wrote when it is true? |
| Posted: 06 Jan 2013 03:01 PM PST
Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God's representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin In the past, until about 500 years or so ago, the 'common people' in Christendom did not interpret religion themselves. That is because religion was communicated in a language that the masses did not speak. Hence they needed 'middlemen' to help interpret religion. And these middlemen would interpret religion in a 'politically correct' manner. Then, by the late 1400s to early 1500s, religion began to be communicated in the people's mother tongue. The English read religion in English, the Germans in German, and so on. This reduced the need for middlemen and made them redundant. And people began to realise that the middlemen had been taking the people for a ride and were 'tailoring' religious decrees (fatwah) to suit the political agenda of the powers-that-be. For example, for Catholics, divorce was not allowed. However, if the king wanted to take on a new wife then the religious authorities could always declare that the king's first marriage was null and void. Hence he need not divorce his first wife to marry his second wife since his first wife was not really his wife in the first place. The first wife no longer exists so the second wife becomes the first wife. Then, when he wants to get rid of his second (but now first) wife to marry his third (but now second) wife, he can declare that she has committed treason against God's representative on earth and hence by offending the king she has offended God and can, therefore, be put to death. Then, on the day they execute his second (but considered first) wife, he can go marry his third (but considered second) wife. Religious decrees or fatwah have been a very useful political tool for Christendom. The Church and the Crown shared power. Hence rules need to be laid down that serve both the Church and the Crown. When the Church ignores the Crown then the Crown will act against the Church and the Church would lose its powers and status. Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God's representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people. That was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. Since then, especially around 200 years ago, the people got rid of this menace called the Church and later even the menace called the Crown. Hence the two biggest exploiters and oppressors of the people were removed. Today, many people go to church only three times in their life -- when they are christened, when they marry (if they have a church wedding), and when they die (unless they get blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan). Other than that they go to the pubs. As I said, that was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. In Islamdom, they still have not got rid of the 'Church' and in many countries the 'Crown' as well. And that is why in some Muslim countries we still have monarchs who are the head of religion. And we also still have religious authorities that pass decrees or fatwah. Basically, many Muslim countries are still hundreds of years behind Christendom. Hence those who live in such countries suffer what the people in Christendom suffered up to about 200 to 500 years ago. And that is why we still read news reports such as the two below from NST (regarding dogs) and Hakarah (regarding fatwah or decrees). The religious authorities tell us what we can and cannot believe in plus what we can and cannot do. They interpret what is and is not allowed. And we are compelled to follow these rulings or face arrest and punishment. But is this really what God stipulated? This is what the religious authorities say God has stipulated. Can we disagree with this? We cannot disagree with this. Can we interpret things our own way? We cannot interpret things our own way. They will interpret it for us. You will notice one thing, though. Most times they will quote the Hadith when they pass rulings or decrees. But why quote the Hadith and not the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam? That is because the Qur'an is 'silent' on many issues so if they quote the Qur'an then they will not be able to support what they say. Hence they need to quote the Hadith. What if you do not accept the Hadith? You cannot. You must accept the Hadith. If you reject the Hadith then you are a deviant and can be arrested and punished. What if you follow a certain sect of Islam that does not recognise the Hadith or it recognises a different set of Hadith and not the ones that you recognise? You cannot. You can only follow the sect of Islam that the government says you can follow and if you follow another sect of Islam then you can get arrested and punished. Basically, Islam, today, is where Christianity was 500 or 200 years ago. However, while Christendom has reformed and has allowed freedom of choice, Islamdom does not allow freedom of choice. The religious authorities in Islamdom decide what you can and cannot do and there are no two ways about it. Hence, while the Qur'an does not say that dogs are not allowed (in fact, there is a verse that allows dogs to be used for hunting and game procured from hunting is halal to eat), because they use the Hadith and not the Qur'an to make their rulings, most Malays will not keep dogs. And note that I said 'Malays' and not 'Muslims' because the one-time Mufti of Terengganu kept a dog and would take his dog out for a walk every day even when he went to market to buy his fish. And the one-time Mufti of Kelantan said that dogs are not only allowed but you can even bathe your dog. ******************************************* Islam allows blind to use dogs EYES AND EARS: There is no issue in using the services of trained dogs, says Perlis mufti (NST) - There is no rule in Islam which prohibits the use of service dogs to guide the blind, said Perlis mufti Dr Juanda Jaya. "Using the services of guide dogs which are well trained is allowed in the religion, including the Syafie mazhab, which is subscribed to by Muslims in the country. "There is no issue on using service dogs for various purposes like hunting, guarding and as guiding dogs," he told the New Straits Times, yesterday. Considered as one of the most sought after service dogs, guide dogs are trained from young to act as eyes and ears for the blind. Guide dogs are also trained to improve the mobility of the blind and have been proven to help them lead independent lives. On why blind Muslims in the country do not consider having guide dogs, Juanda said there was confusion on the exact ruling and status of dogs in the religion. "People need to learn to differentiate between religion and culture in order to make decisions in their lives and to not follow blindly what others say about rulings in Islam." Fatwa Council president Tan Sri Dr Abdul Shukor Husni said there was no specific fatwa issued for guide dogs for the blind. "It is mainly because we didn't receive any enquiry or requests from the affected community to consider a fatwa on guide dogs. "If there is a request and we see a present need for the issuance of a fatwa on guide dogs, we will have a meeting to discuss this issue thoroughly," said Shukor, while calling for Muslims who are concerned about the issue to come forward. In 2008, the United Kingdom's Muslim Law (Syariah) Council issued a fatwa stating that "a blind person, in the light of syariah law, will be allowed to keep a guide dog to help him and if required to take him to the mosque for his prayers". Then, 18-year-old Mohammed Abraar Khatri, who lost his sight because of a degenerative disease the same year, championed the rights of Muslims to use the services of guide dogs with help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Muslim Council of Britain. His guide dog, named Vargo, accompanied Mohammed to school, outings and to the mosque. A special compartment was set up within the mosque compound to let the dog stay while Mohammed went to pray. Perak mufti Tan Sri Dr Harussani Zakaria said Muslims were allowed to keep dogs if they were trained to be guard dogs, to watch over the garden (kebun) or to be seeing-eye dogs. "It is said in a hadith that the angels do not like the barking of dogs and will not enter a house in which a dog is kept. But that does not mean that we cannot keep them for certain purposes." "We are permitted to keep them, as long as they are not kept in the house, and we have to sertu if we touch them when they are wet." Sertu, he said, is the act of washing the skin with water six times and with a mixture of water and earth once. It is often mistaken for the term samak, which is the act of cleaning an animal's skin with rough materials such as sand or ashes. ******************************************* Tidak boleh buat fatwa berdasar andaian – Mufti (Harakah Daily) - Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh mengeluarkan sesuatu fatwa hanya berdasarkan andaian atau laporan akhbar semata-mata. Mufti Pulau Pinang, Datuk Seri Hassan Ahmad berkata, dalam menyelesaikan isu yang disebut sebagai 'Amanat Haji Hadi', Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan perlu bersemuka dengan Presiden PAS itu sendiri. "Ia mesti mengikut prosedur. Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi perlu dijemput untuk berbincang dan bagi mendapatkan penjelasan. Ia tidak boleh diselesaikan mengikut andaian," katanya dipetik Sinar Harian Online. Semalam, Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi berkata, sejak 31 tahun lalu, beliau langsung tidak pernah menerima apa-apa surat atau dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan kepada Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung petikan ucapannya yang dibuat di Banggol Peradong, Terengganu, 31 tahun yang lalu yang kemudian dipopularkan pihak tertentu sebagai 'amanat' itu. Katanya, tindakan itu tidak adil bagi dirinya kerana tidak diberi peluang menjelaskan perkara sebenar berhubung polemik itu sehingga kini. Sebelum ini hanya Majlis Fatwa Negeri Melaka, yang mengeluarkan fatwa berhubung amanat itu yang diwartakan pada tahun 2002. Sebaliknya tiada fatwa khusus di peringkat Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung perkara itu. Mengulas fatwa yang dikeluarkan di peringkat negeri itu, Hassan berkata, Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh bergantung kepada fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh majlis fatwa di peringkat negeri. Kuasa mengeluarkan fatwa, katanya, adalah kuasa negeri dan fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak semestinya satu keputusan mutlak kerana kuasa agama kekal di bawah kuasa negeri. |
| The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 20) Posted: 04 Jan 2013 06:01 PM PST
Haji Hamid and I discussed this matter and it was agreed that if the police do arrest and charge Dr Wan Azizah then I would have to admit that I had, in fact, smuggled Anwar's blood, urine, hair and fingernail samples into Australia. Then the Melbourne pathologist office can make their test results official. This would save Dr Wan Azizah from the charge of making a false police report but I would instead face the risk of being charged for smuggling. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Anwar's trial is halted by arsenic claim (The Independent, UK, 11 September 1999) - Malaysia politician Anwar Ibrahim is being poisoned with arsenic by the authorities while in prison, his lawyer said yesterday at the trial of the former deputy prime minister on sodomy charges. Karpal Singh said secret tests on Anwar's urine proved that the politician, who is already serving six years for corruption, has an alarming level of arsenic in his body. "I suspect some people in high places, in all likelihood, are responsible for his condition," Mr Singh said. "The family and Anwar Ibrahim are alarmed. He is in jeopardy of his life." The trial was adjourned by Judge Ariffin Jaka, who ordered that Anwar, 52, be taken to hospital for tests. Later, Mr Singh showed a report said to be from an Australian pathology lab, indicating the urine sample tested had 77 times more arsenic than normal human urine. Anwar's relatives somehow obtained a urine sample and smuggled it out last month using a false name, Mr Singh said. The lab report carried the name Subramaniam and an age of 59. Before the hearing was adjourned indefinitely, prosecutors said there was no proof that Anwar was being poisoned in prison. Arsenic could have entered his body through food given to him by family and friends in court, the Attorney General, Mohtar Abdullah, said Anwar flew into a rage at that, pounding the wooden railing of the dock and stamping his feet. "Fed by my wife! I was poisoned by Azizah!" he shrieked ironically, referring to his wife, who heads an opposition party that has vowed to end the government's 18-year rule. Anwar is accused of sodomising his former family driver. He says the sex and corruption charges are part of a political conspiracy to end his challenge to the Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad. He faces up to 20 more years in prison if convicted of sodomy. Anwar was arrested on 20 September last year, 18 days after the Prime Minister fired him. He was beaten on the night of his arrest by the police chief of Malaysia. When the judge asked Anwar how he felt, he said: "I am generally all right, I am not feeling any pain, but certainly I am not my usual self." Anwar said he had lost weight and hair, symptoms he connected to arsenic poisoning. His wife later said he lost 9kg (19lb) this year. "This is attempted murder," said Azizah. "I'm very alarmed, very frightened, to learn that his life is in danger." The Deputy Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, said that he had ordered an immediate investigation. Anwar Ibrahim (R) smiles as he arrives at hospital under guard in Kuala Lumpur September 10. Anwar was taken to the hospital on Friday after his lawyer Karpal Singh said a pathologist in Australia had found arsenic in Anwar's urine. Anwar Ibrahim, second from left, is welcomed by staff of National University Hospital on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur as he arrives for his medical test Friday, Sept. 10, 1999. Anwar Ibrahim, center, waves to his supporters as he was discharged from National University Hospital where he was admitted to be checked for possible arsenic poisoning, Monday, Oct. 4, 1999 in Kuala Lumpur. ********************************************* I can't quite remember the exact day in August 1999 it was, but I know it was a Friday and before the 10th of September 1999, the day the arsenic poisoning of Anwar Ibrahim issue exploded. I remember it was a Friday because I had just returned from my Friday prayers when I received a phone call from Anwar's MCKK classmate, Haji Hamid Rashid, who was also my 'boss'. I was then working in the R&D division of Parti Keadilan Nasional (now called Parti Keadilan Rakyat or PKR), basically a psychological-warfare (psywar) unit to handle the Internet media war long before the advent of Blogs or new portals such as Malaysiakini. At that time there were only 280,000 Internet subscribers in Malaysia compared to 15 million or so today. Nevertheless, we saw the importance of the Internet long before Umno realised it in 2008 and we decided to get in from the ground floor because he who is first 'controls the market', so to speak. Haji Hamid's phone call was rather strange. Normally he would drop in to the PKR office at Phileo Damansara -- a building owned by Anwar crony, Datuk Ravi Dharan, one-time Samy Vellu crony who made millions as a Barisan Nasional stooge -- and we would hold our discussions in a special 'bug-proof' room. Haji Hamid never considered the phone a safe medium of discussion as the powers-that-be can listen in on whatever we discuss. Hence that phone call was most unusual. And the discussion was even stranger. "No names!" said Haji Hamid. "Meet me now at the PJ Hilton car park. No further explanation." I jumped onto my motorcycle, a Yamaha Virago, and rushed to the PJ Hilton. I arrived there in less than 15 minutes, parked my bike, and hung around. There was no sign of Haji Hamid so I thought that maybe I was early. After waiting for about 10 minutes or so my phone rang and Haji Hamid said, "Turn and face the highway." I was facing the PJ Hilton, expecting Haji Hamid to come from there. I turned to face the highway as instructed and I saw someone hiding behind one of the pillars of the flyover. He signalled to me to come over. I walked over and as I got closer I could see that it was Haji Hamid. Apparently he had arrived before me but he wanted to monitor me before showing himself lest I was followed. Haji Hamid then explained that Anwar had been poisoned with arsenic. They had secretly taken some of Anwar's blood, urine, hair and fingernail samples and had sent them to the Melbourne for testing under the name of Subramaniam and the tests proved that Anwar had a high level of arsenic in his system. They then tried to send a second set of samples, this time in Anwar's name, but the Malaysian police had found out and had intercepted and confiscated them before they could leave the country. Now Anwar was under close monitoring so no one could get to him for another set of samples. However, what the police did not know is there was a third set of samples. But these cannot be sent through the normal channels because the police were monitoring all the courier companies. Hence they needed to be smuggled out. Haji Hamid explained that none of Anwar's family dared smuggle the samples out because the minute they try to leave the country they will be stopped and subjected to a 100% check. Haji Hamid wanted me to help find someone who can act as a smuggler. I told Haji Hamid it would be too risky to trust someone else to do this job and that I had better do it myself. We walked in to the PJ Hilton and asked the concierge to check flights to Melbourne, Australia. The earliest available flight was Monday. Haji Hamid told the concierge to make the flight booking, who asked me the name of the passenger. Haji Hamid pointed to me and the concierge replied, "Raja Petra, right?" Haji Hamid went pale. Haji Hamid told the concierge to hold on and he pulled me aside. "He knows who you are," Haji Hamid said. "It's too dangerous. We need to abort." I assured Haji Hamid that he had nothing to worry about. Clearly the concierge was one of us since he knows who I am. Reluctantly Haji Hamid agreed to proceed but he cautioned me that if I got caught I was on my own. I assured Haji Hamid that he would not get dragged into this if I got caught. The flight booking for Monday was done and we went back to the car park. Haji Hamid then handed me a polystyrene box with a sealed container submerged in dry ice inside it. "Put this in the fridge until your flight on Monday night," he told me. "But do not break the seal." I went home and emptied the fridge in my bedroom and placed the sealed box inside it. "What the hell are you doing?" my wife Marina asked. I explained to Marina what was going on. "You are storing Anwar's piss in my fridge?" she asked. "Well, look at it this way," I replied, "one day when Anwar becomes Prime Minister and when he complains that I piss him off we can remind him that when he was in prison we were the trustee to his piss. Hence we have every right to piss him off." On Monday night Marina drove me to the airport and I tried to look as cool as I could when I checked in. "Any luggage?" they asked me. "Only this box, which I will hand carry," I replied. I walked through the security check and immigration clearance. They X-rayed the box and allowed it through. There was also no 'red flag' on my passport. I breathed a long sigh of relief as I walked onto the plane and sat down. My last two days were filled with visions of getting stopped or arrested but it was plain sailing with no hiccups. I arrived at Melbourne airport and phoned the number that Haji Hamid had given me. The man at the other end asked me my name and said he would call me back in a few minutes. He then called up Haji Hamid to verify my identity and then called me back with instructions on where I was supposed to go. I jumped into a taxi and headed for the place. The person I had spoken to earlier, one of Anwar's Malaysian lawyers, was waiting outside the gate. He then escorted me in and told me he is not allowed to touch the box I was carrying. We went to the pathologist's office where a local Australian lawyer was waiting. They asked me to place the box on the table and then took photographs of the box from all angles. The Australian lawyer then inspected the seal and confirmed that it had not been broken or tampered with. In the presence of both the Malaysian and Australian lawyers, they broke the seal and removed the contents from the box. I waited while they did a test on the samples and confirmed that there was indeed a high level of arsenic. Nevertheless, the test would have to be 'off the record'. This was because not only were the samples smuggled out of Malaysia but they were also smuggled into Australia, which was a crime. The only way they could make the test official would be if I were to declare that I had smuggled them into Australia. But that would mean I would also be admitting that I had committed a crime and would have to face arrest. The rest of the story is in The Independent news report of 11th September 1999 (above). When this issue exploded on 10th September 1999, the Malaysian police interrogated Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who had made a police report on the matter, and threatened to arrest and charge her for the crime of making a false police report. Haji Hamid and I discussed this matter and it was agreed that if the police do arrest and charge Dr Wan Azizah then I would have to admit that I had, in fact, smuggled Anwar's blood, urine, hair and fingernail samples into Australia. Then the Melbourne pathologist office can make their test results official. This would save Dr Wan Azizah from the charge of making a false police report but I would instead face the risk of being charged for smuggling. Fortunately the Malaysian police did not carry through with their threat of arresting and charging Dr Wan Azizah for the crime of making a false police report and I was spared the agony of having to face a charge of smuggling. I hear that the Australian government does not take too kindly to those caught smuggling human tissue samples into Australia. 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) The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)
|
| 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)
|
| 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'? 
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
