Jumaat, 18 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


My favourite song, Listen

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 05:42 PM PST

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

They say, as you get older, like me, you start to become too sentimental and emotional. That could be true. However, those who have known me for most of my life tell me that ever since they knew me back in my younger days I have always been a sentimental and emotional person.

I suppose that is quite true. I cry when I watch sad movies. When I listen to beautiful songs with even more beautiful lyrics it brings tears to my eyes. And when I saw Melanie Amaro perform 'Listen' in the X Factor I could not stop myself from getting all teary eyed. And an even bigger problem is I still need to wipe my eyes even till today although I have watched and listened to Melanie perform that song countless times.

Many accuse me of being too sentimental and emotional in my writings. Some even sent me nasty messages whacking me for my series The journey in life is never a straight line, which has temporarily stopped at episode 20. "We are not interested to read about your stupid life," they tell me. "Stop writing about yourself," they say. "Just write about the coming general election."

Listen is the latest 'phenomena' in Malaysia. This is the result of the exchange between Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin and KS Bawani at the UUM event. In the last general election in 2008, the catchphrase was 'correct, correct, correct'. It looks like in the coming general election expected in February-March this year, the catchphrase is going to be 'listen, listen, listen'.

As I have always said, this coming general election is not going to be about who is going to win it. It is about who is not going to lose it. And the group that makes the most mistakes is going to lose the general election mainly because the 'other side' made lesser mistakes than the side that lost.

The trouble is, both sides are blundering big time, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. And we do not know how the voters are going to react to these numerous blunders. Nevertheless, voters being voters, and they are the same all over the world, Malaysians are quite prepared to suffer an attack of denial syndrome and allow all these transgressions to be pushed into the background.

Many have asked me what my stand is. They say they are not too clear about my stand and they do not know whether I support Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. They want to know whether I even have a stand in the first place.

Yes, I do have a stand. And I decided more than two years ago back in 2010 what my stand was going to be. However, as much as I tried to explain what this stand is, many still do not get it.

I am too 'complicated' for most of them to comprehend. They want me to make things simpler for them. They want to know which herd I am joining. Am I joining the Barisan Nasional herd or the Pakatan Rakyat herd?

Herds are for cows. I know Sharifah Zohra Jabeen said even cows have problems. But I am not a cow. So I do not need to have any 'cow problems' by joining any specific herd.

So, what is the answer then? What is my stand? Which herd am I joining? Well, I will let Melanie Amaro answer that question. These lyrics explain where I am coming from and if you still do not get it then you are not the type of reader that I want for Malaysia Today.

 

Listen to the song here in my heart

A melody I start but can't complete

Listen to the sound from deep within

It's only beginning to find release

 

Oh, the time has come for my dreams to be heard

They will not be pushed aside and turned

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

 

Listen, I am alone at a crossroads

I'm not at home in my own home

And I've tried and tried to say what's on mind

You should have known

 

Oh, now I'm done believing you

You don't know what I'm feeling

I'm more than what you made of me

I followed the voice you gave to me

But now I've gotta find my own

 

You should have listened, there is someone here inside

Someone I thought had died so long ago

Oh, I'm screaming out and my dreams'll be heard

They will not be pushed aside on words

Into your own all 'cause you won't

Listen

cfxGKyYyom8

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxGKyYyom8

 

 

Yo, people, listen up!

Posted: 14 Jan 2013 07:16 PM PST

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin certainly stirred a hornet's nest and in the process spawned an entirely new satire/music video industry. So much has been said about this incident that I think it is totally unnecessary for me to comment about the matter any further.

What is of interest to me, however, is Sharifah's comparison of those with a mere 'O' level to those who are university graduates. According to her, those who do not have a tertiary education are inferior to those who do.

Actually, if you were to drive on Malaysian roads, you will never be able to differentiate between those who have no (or a lower) education and those who have a higher/tertiary education. From their bad manners on the road and the inconsiderate attitude that they demonstrate, you will never be able to tell the difference.

If education is meant to make you a better and more learned person, Malaysia has certainly failed in this respect. Whether you have a Ph.D. or you are a fisherman or farmer it makes no difference. The way Malaysians drive, those who have a Ph.D. and those who have never gone to school are exactly the same.

I have said this before, many times, and I am going to say it again. In the UK, you go to a driving school to learn how to drive. That is because you need to know how to drive to be able to pass your driving test and get a driving licence.

In Malaysia, you go to driving school to learn how to pass your driving test. It does not matter whether you know how to drive or not. Passing your driving test and getting your driving licence does not depend on whether you know how to drive. It depends on whether you got your driving licence 'through' the driving school.

Hence people who know how to drive, but did not go through a driving school to sit for their driving test, will fail the driving test while those who do not know how to drive, but went through a driving school to sit for their driving test, would pass the driving test.

And that is why the majority of Malaysians do not know how to drive plus the fatality rate due to traffic accidents in Malaysia, on a per capita basis, is ten times that of the UK.  

Actually, more than half of those people driving on Malaysian roads should never have been allowed to drive. The tragedy is not so much that they kill themselves but that they kill others due to their recklessness and inconsiderate attitude.

Do you want to know one thing? If you have a driving licence from Brunei, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the Republic of Korea, (mainly the Commonwealth and EU countries), etc., (a total of 50 countries in all) you can exchange it for a UK driving licence. Malaysian driving licences, however, are not accepted for exchange. That says a lot about the 'quality' of Malaysian driving licences.

And the same applies to Malaysia's education system. Just like in the case of Malaysian driving schools, Malaysia's education system is not about getting an education and becoming learned but about passing your exams.

And they will 'lower the bar' if necessary to allow more people to 'jump over'. Hence those who do not deserve to pass get passed and are then sent for their tertiary education, and in some cases to an overseas university.

Over the last four years since 2009, I have bumped into many Malaysian students -- those post graduate students doing their masters and/or Ph.D. as well. And I have come to a very troubling conclusion. Nevertheless, this is merely my own opinion and, not being from the academic field, I am looking at things from the eyes of a layman and not from the eyes of an academician.

First of all, Malaysian Malays at overseas universities are mostly government-sponsored students while those non-Malay Malaysians, according to what they tell me, are FAMA-sponsored students.

When they first told me they are 'FAMA-sponsored' students I thought they meant FAMA the Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (SEE HERE: http://www.fama.gov.my/). "Does FAMA give out scholarships or grants?" I asked these non-Malay and mostly Chinese students. This was certainly news to me.

I had to chuckle when they explained that FAMA means fada-mada (father-mother). But this is no chuckling matter. I feel it is sinful that all the Malay students are 'government scholars' whereas the non-Malay students are 'private funded'. Why is there not a more equitable balance, at par with the racial composition of the country?

I know this has, for a long time, been a bone of contention amongst the non-Malays. The Malays, no doubt, hide behind the New Economic Policy (NEP) to justify this 'sin' while the non-Malays resent the NEP for this very reason. Hence discussing this matter is just going to open up a can of worms and I suspect the comments below this article are going to turn this article into a race-bashing exercise.

But I am not trying to turn this into a race-bashing exercise. My concern is that when I speak to these students (of all races) I find that the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the Malay students leave much to be desired whereas the attitude, mentality and intelligence level of the non-Malay students are far superior compared to that of the Malay students.

And herein lies the tragedy. When I talk to the non-Malay students I get the impression that those selected and sent overseas are the crème de la crème. But when I talk to the Malay students I do not get this impression. In fact, if I had been given the job of vetting through the students, many, or maybe even the majority, of those selected would have been disqualified.

The other side of the argument, of course, is that if only the 'higher grade' Malay students are selected and sent overseas while those who fail to make the grade are excluded, then the ratio of Malay to non-Malay students sent overseas would be very low. At the end of the day, the ratio of Malays to non-Malays would probably be reduced to 1 in 10.

I can understand and appreciate this argument. We need to give the Malay students a chance. If not then very few Malay students would have the opportunity of an overseas tertiary education. Other countries, too, have racial quotas to help the minorities get ahead.

But in the case of the other countries, the racial quotas and the lowering of the bar are meant to help the minorities, who otherwise would be left behind. Malaysia, however, is doing this for the majority, not the minorities such as the Ibans, Dayaks, Orang Asli, etc.

Instead of lowering the bar to allow as many Malays as possible to 'jump over', the government should explore how to increase the standard of education to enable more people to clear the bar (without having to lower it).

In other words, don't teach Malays how to pass their driving test. Teach Malays how to drive. Then, when they sit for their driving test, they will pass. If you mass-produce graduates like on an assembly line, then you will end up getting low quality people. And that is not the objective of an education.

So those who have degrees/masters or Ph.D. should not be too proud of that fact. It is not the piece of paper that you possess which we should talk about but the quality of that paper. And when you open your mouth you reveal that the paper you possess is…well…not worth the paper it is written on.

 

Friday prayers are NOT compulsory, said the Mufti

Posted: 10 Jan 2013 05:53 PM PST

Nevertheless, since the 'big man' himself, the Perak Mufti, has issued a ruling or decree that the Friday congregational prayers are NOT compulsory, and since Malaysians are obligated to comply with these rulings and decrees issued by these authorities, I have since stopped doing my Friday congregational prayers. I no longer go to the mosque on Friday.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Soal agama perlu ikut fatwa

(Sinar Harian) - Hal ehwal agama perlu dirujuk kepada Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan yang telah ditubuhkan di negara ini dan bukannya berpandukan orang lain yang hanya berlatar belakangkan politik semata-mata.

Setiausaha Barisan Nasional (BN) Kelantan, Datuk Md. Alwi Che Ahmad berkata, dalam hal ini, hanya Majlis Fatwa sahaja yang berhak menentukan penggunaan kalimah ALLAH yang kini semakin hangat diperkatakan oleh setiap golongan masyarakat di sini.

"Kita mesti rujuk isu ini kepada Majlis Fatwa, kerana ini hal agama, maka hanya mufti sahaja yang boleh beri keputusan, bukan orang lain," katanya.

Beliau diminta mengulas isu Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng yang menuntut penggunaan nama Allah di dalam kitab Bible versi bahasa Melayu di negara ini.

Menurutnya, jika persoalan penggunaan kalimah Allah ditanya kepada golongan berkepentingan dalam sesebuah parti, jawapan yang akan diberikan sedikit sebanyak akan mempengaruhi ke arah pendapat peribadi sahaja.

Beliau berkata, kerajaan perlu akur dengan keputusan mufti kerana mufti adalah satu pertubuhan yang dilantik di bawah majlis agama Islam.

"Kenapa isu ini perlu dinaikkan oleh Lim Guan Eng sedangkan dari pengalaman saya, tiada perkataan 'Allah' digunakan dalam kitab Bible, maka di sini kita dapat lihat bahawa agama kita, cuba dipermainkan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu.

"Jika ia digunakan juga, maka, tiada beza antara agama kita dengan agama lain kerana 'Allah' dipakai oleh semua agama dan ini akan menimbulkan kecelaruan dan juga kebebasan beragama kepada generasi akan datang," katanya.

Alwi yang juga Ketua Pembangkang di Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan itu juga berkata, kebebasan menggunakan kalimah 'ALLAH' untuk agama lain tidak boleh diberikan di Malaysia kerana perkara tersebut boleh membuatkan penganut agama lain mengambil kesempatan dalam agama Islam dan dalam masa yang sama juga menyamai tarafkan kedudukan 'ALLAH' dan juga tuhan mereka.

"Kita wajib pertahankan agama kita, hak kita, bukannya untuk dipermainkan, selandas dengan kepelbagaian kaum dan bangsa di negara ini, maka setiap pihak mesti bertanggungjawab untuk menjaga agama masing-masing," katanya.

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

The key issue in the above news report is: Kita mesti rujuk isu ini kepada Majlis Fatwa, kerana ini hal agama, maka hanya mufti sahaja yang boleh beri keputusan, bukan orang lain.

That loosely translates to: we must refer this matter/issue to the council that issues religious decrees because this is a religious matter so only the Mufti can give rulings and not any other people.

This statement implies that only a certain/selected group can interpret what God meant and the rest of us do not have the freedom or liberty to make any interpretations because we do not know what God wants.

How this group of people obtained the franchise or monopoly to act as God's appointed spokesmen is not clear. That is not explained. I suppose your credentials would depend on where you studied religion and whether your certificate, diploma or degree is recognised.

What if I studied religion in one of the madrasah in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any of the gohead-gostan countries (to quote the late Tan Sri P Ramlee)? Would my credentials be recognised?

Let us take Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat as an example. His Islamic studies began in pondok schools (madrasah) in Kelantan and Terengganu. He then went on to study religion in Uttar Pradesh, India, after which he obtained his Bachelor of Arts in Arabic Studies and Master of Arts in Islamic jurisprudence from the Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

Would, therefore, Nik Aziz's decrees be recognised? And Nik Aziz has ruled that it is not against Islam for non-Muslims to use the Allah word. Other religious scholars, however, do not agree with this. Hence we have two opposing views, both views from scholars with credentials.

But which one do we accept as correct and which one do we reject as wrong? And what is the basis for accepting or rejecting these decrees? Is it based on the credentials of the person issuing the decree? Is it based on our political affiliation and hence we decide based on what is politically expedient? Is it based on our religious leaning and depending on the sect that we follow? What is the basis of our acceptance or rejection of these religious decrees?

What we are currently told is that the government decides -- so we have to just follow what the government says -- but issued through the 'mouths' of certain bodies such as MAIS, JAIS, JAKIM, IKIM, Majlis Fatwah, Persatuan Ulama', the Muftis, and so on.

There are so many 'authorities' on Islam in Malaysia.

Let us contemplate one example. When I was in Kamunting back in 2008, we were told by the detention camp authorities that we are not allowed to do our Friday congregational prayers. (In fact, after I was released, I made a police report at the Sentul Police Station regarding this matter).

It is not that the 50 or 60 of us detainees wanted permission to walk to the mosque down the road to do these Friday prayers -- even if they handcuffed us and chained us in a chain gang (which means there would be no way we could escape). We wanted to do these Friday prayers within our own cellblock.

But we were told we are not allowed to do our Friday prayers because they are not compulsory and that this was a ruling or decree by the famous Perak Mufti himself. So why are we so stubborn in insisting that we be allowed to do our Friday prayers? The Mufti is the highest religious authority in Perak and Kamunting is in Perak. So don't be stubborn and listen to what you have been told, they said.

Then came Hari Raya (I was in Kamunting for Hari Raya 2008) and the other detainees got together to do their Hari Raya congregational prayers. I, however, was not allowed to join them because I was in solitary confinement so I was not allowed to mix with the other detainees. Nevertheless, I could hear them do the Hari Raya prayers next door to my cellblock.

Now, as far as I know, the Friday congregational prayers are compulsory while the Hari Raya congregational prayers are not. But the government denied the detainees permission to do the compulsory Friday congregational prayers but allowed them to do the optional Hari Raya congregational prayers. And this was based on the ruling or decree by the highest religious authority in the State of Perak, the Mufti.

I do not have any certificate, diploma or degree from any of the Islamic universities but my common sense tells me that when something is compulsory then you must do it and when something is optional you are not obligated to do it. And even a ten-year-old Malay-Muslim can tell you that the Friday congregational prayers are compulsory while the Hari Raya congregational prayers are not.

Nevertheless, since the 'big man' himself, the Perak Mufti, has issued a ruling or decree that the Friday congregational prayers are NOT compulsory, and since Malaysians are obligated to comply with these rulings and decrees issued by these authorities, I have since stopped doing my Friday congregational prayers. I no longer go to the mosque on Fridays.

I am still waiting for the Perak Mufti to issue a new ruling or decree saying that the Friday congregational prayers are, in fact, compulsory. And since he has not and until he does then I would regard this ruling or decree as binding and something that I am obligated to comply with.

So, yes, the Mufti is the highest religious authority in the land. He tells us what we must and must not do. And we must follow what he tells us to do, or not to do. And the Perak Mufti has told us that we cannot do the Friday prayers because they are not compulsory. So who am I to argue with the highest religious authority in the land? I do what he tells us to do and not do what he tells us not to do. And he said: DO NOT do your Friday congregational prayers. So be it. I stopped doing them. After all, I am a good Malaysian and an obedient Muslim.

 

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

 

How siege mentality works

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?

 
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


This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last two years my studies in British and European history has been able to help me look at events from a fresh perspective. When we studied history back in our school days in Malaysia it was merely a study of dates and events, and maybe the personalities behind those events.

Later they changed the syllabus to objective and you just marked the correct answer: A, B, C, D or E. That brought the level of education down drastically and sometimes you passed your exams by just making a lucky guess at what the right answer is.

Here in Oxford we need to look at the broader picture to understand why what happened, happened. And if we apply the Oxford module rather than the 'Pendidekan Malaysia' module (I am not even sure of the 'modern' Malay spelling any more) then the Sabah 'illegal immigrants given Malaysian citizenship' issue can be better understood.

Many of you reading this are probably quite young, born after Merdeka of 1957 or after 'May 13' of 1969 -- or maybe you were still a kid then and did not know what was happening around you. Hence you will look at the 'Sabah issue' from today's perspective. And hence, also, you just want to know who the guilty person is in what you consider a most heinous 'crime' -- in your opinion tantamount to treachery.

Now, I am not saying what they did in Sabah is legal or illegal, or even moral or immoral. This piece is not about right and wrong. Historians do not pass judgement about events in history. They just analyse what happened and what, in their opinion, were the causes of that event.

First let us go to back to 1946, the year Umno was formed.

In 1946, the British Colonial government introduced the Malayan Union, which reduced the powers of the Raja-raja Melayu (Malay Rulers). This, in turn, meant that the Malays would lose some of their powers. Hence the elite and intellectuals amongst the Malays opposed the Malayan Union.

Yes, it was the Malay elite class and the intellectual community -- and not the fishermen and farmers -- who opposed the Malayan Union. The kampong people did not really care because their lives would remain the same never mind who ran the country.

Because of this opposition to the Malayan Union, in 1948 the British abandoned the idea and instead introduced the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Next came the idea of Merdeka or independence. And this took many years of negotiations (no blood on the streets, as what Umno tells us). One issue of concern to Britain was what to do with the more than one million Chinese and Indians after Malaya was given Merdeka. They can't be sent back to China and India so an independent Malaya had to absorb them by giving them citizenship.

Now, note what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday. He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was worse. The Tunku gave citizenship to more than one million foreigners. Maybe Dr Mahathir is trying to say that he gave citizenship to less than one million foreigners.

What Dr Mahathir did not explain is that the Tunku had to agree to the granting of citizenship to more than one million Chinese and Indians, which was the British term and condition for agreeing to Merdeka for Malaya. If the Tunku did not agree then the British would probably disagree to Merdeka for Malaya mainly because they had to 'protect' the more than one million Chinese and Indians who would otherwise become stateless.

It was a sort of trade off. Malaya would absorb the more than one million Chinese and Indians. The Chinese and Indians, in turn, must agree to special privileges for the Malays (plus Malay becomes the national language and Islam the religion of the Federation). And then Britain would grant Malaya independence.

In 1955, two years before Merdeka, the first elections were held in Malaya and the Alliance Party (a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC) won 51 of the 52 seats. That meant the Alliance Party was 'stable' and could rule an independent Malaya with a clear mandate from the voters. Two years later, in 1957, Malaya gained independence.

But that 'honeymoon' was short-lived. Twelve years later, in 1969, the Alliance party received a beating in the Third General Election. It garnered less than 50% of the popular votes and lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Alliance Party (meaning all three: Umno, MCA and MIC) knew that it was losing power. Hence Barisan Nasional was formed to replace the Alliance Party so that the opposition parties could be brought into the ruling coalition. And that was how the Alliance Party got back control of the country -- by forming a new coalition with the opposition parties (what we could call a 'unity government', I suppose).

But that was not enough and they needed to do more. Selangor, the jewel in the crown, was in jeopardy (it still is today). So they created new 'Malay' cities, such as Shah Alam, and 'flooded' these cities with Malays to 'dilute' the Chinese voters.

Then they created a separate Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur so that the majority Chinese in Kuala Lumpur could be 'kicked out' of Selangor. Thus the ruling party can afford to lose Kuala Lumpur but they would not also lose Selangor.

By then, of course, Malaysia had been created with the agreement that 25% of the Parliament seats would come from Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that Sabah and Sarawak would be the ruling party's 'fixed deposit' and there was no way 1969 could be repeated as long as Sabah and Sarawak remained under the ruling party.

But that soon changed in 1985 when PBS, seen as a Christian-based party, kicked out the 'Muslim' government and replaced it with a 'Christian' government.

This meant, yet again, the ruling party was in danger of losing power like what happened in 1969. And they were in danger of losing power because the Muslims, who used to be 85-90% of the population, pre-Merdeka, had been reduced to a mere 50% or so -- in the first instance when more than one million Chinese and Indians had been given citizenship in 1957 and in the second instance when Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and the Muslim population was diluted even further.

Hence Barisan Nasional (in particular Umno) needed to dilute the non-Muslim population, in particular in their 'fixed deposit' states in East Malaysia which control a very critical 25% of the seats in Parliament and where the Muslims are not the majority like in West Malaysia.

And that was when the idea was mooted to 'create' an additional Muslim population of at least one million. And they could not wait for this to happen gradually over 50 years by encouraging Malays to have more children. They had to 'fast track' this exercise, which means they had to 'import' the population.

The first step was for Umno to get into Sabah. The next step was to 'import' one million Muslims into Sabah and give them citizenship. In 1994, this exercise over those few years proved successful when the 'Christian' government got kicked out and a 'Muslim' government took over the state and has held it ever since.

Now, certainly Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia at that time. But it was the Barisan Nasional government (which means it was more than just Umno) that came out with this game plan on how to grab back and/or retain power by diluting the non-Muslim population by importing a large Muslim population.

In 1957, they granted citizenship to one million 'foreign' Chinese and Indians and 30 years later they 'balanced' this by granting citizenship to one million foreign Muslims. There was nothing illegal about what they did but whether it was moral or not is another thing altogether.

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

And this happened not because of one man, Dr Mahathir, but because of what the government did. And Anwar was a key person in that government at that time. Hence I would be very careful about how the opposition plays up the Sabah issue because if the truth were to emerge it may cost PKR a lot of votes in Sabah. And if they can't win Sabah then they can't form the next federal 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


Bank Islam’s Azrul a PKR mole, says blogger

Posted: 18 Jan 2013 04:49 AM PST

The pro-Umno Rocky's Bru says the suspended economist had "frequent, passionate and discreet" communications with several PKR leaders.

(FMT) - A pro-Umno blogger has alleged that suspended Bank Islam chief economist Azrul Azwar Ahmad Tajuddin was a mole who supplied Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim with sensitive information.

Ahirudin Attan, who runs a blog called Rocky's Bru, said this was the reason why Anwar, his daughter and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah and PKR chief strategist Rafizi Ramli were "visibly and terribly upset" over Azrul's suspension from the bank.

Azrul hit the limelight recently for outlining three possible post-GE scenarios at a regional forum in his capacity as Bank Islam chief economist. One of the three scenarios included Pakatan Rakyat winning the next general election.

Bank Islam sought to distance itself from its chief economist after the news broke out, and shortly afterwards suspended his service indefinitely, citing breach of internal policy.

PKR has questioned the propriety of the suspension.

"If you are wondering why Anwar Ibrahim, his daughter Nurul Izzah, and PKR chief strategist Rafizi Ramli are visibly and terribly upset over the suspension of Azrul Azwar Ahmad Tajuddin – to the point of calling for a boycott of Bank Islam – it's because they have a lot to lose. And I mean a lot," Ahiruddin said in his latest posting.

"In their tweets… the trio may not have admitted to knowing Azrul. Very soon, however, they will have to own up to the fact that they not only know the Bank Islam chief economist but know him intimately."

He claimed that Azrul was fondly known as "Wawa" by the three and that he was not a "regular bank employee they are making him out to be".

"Wawa and the PKR leaders communicate frequently, passionately and discreetly. Anwar, Nurul Izzah and Rafizi will admit that they have been in regular contact with the Bank Islam chief economist for quite a while. They have been using him over and over and over again.

"Wawa has been their insider, their fly on the wall at highly classified internal meetings and meetings with Bank Negara, and the spy who has been leaking to his handlers, including to Anwar Ibrahim directly, confidential information of the Bafia (Banking and Financial Institutions Act) kind, from board papers to correspondence between the central bank."

He said the bank acted against Azrul because as a bank officer he had contravened the law.

"And this was not his first offence.

"Wawa was suspended pending a domestic inquiry. The investigation, however, has brought to surface affairs and conduct more sinister than just political over-zealousness.

READ MORE HERE

 

This is no conspiracy theory

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over the last two years my studies in British and European history has been able to help me look at events from a fresh perspective. When we studied history back in our school days in Malaysia it was merely a study of dates and events, and maybe the personalities behind those events.

Later they changed the syllabus to objective and you just marked the correct answer: A, B, C, D or E. That brought the level of education down drastically and sometimes you passed your exams by just making a lucky guess at what the right answer is.

Here in Oxford we need to look at the broader picture to understand why what happened, happened. And if we apply the Oxford module rather than the 'Pendidekan Malaysia' module (I am not even sure of the 'modern' Malay spelling any more) then the Sabah 'illegal immigrants given Malaysian citizenship' issue can be better understood.

Many of you reading this are probably quite young, born after Merdeka of 1957 or after 'May 13' of 1969 -- or maybe you were still a kid then and did not know what was happening around you. Hence you will look at the 'Sabah issue' from today's perspective. And hence, also, you just want to know who the guilty person is in what you consider a most heinous 'crime' -- in your opinion tantamount to treachery.

Now, I am not saying what they did in Sabah is legal or illegal, or even moral or immoral. This piece is not about right and wrong. Historians do not pass judgement about events in history. They just analyse what happened and what, in their opinion, were the causes of that event.

First let us go to back to 1946, the year Umno was formed.

In 1946, the British Colonial government introduced the Malayan Union, which reduced the powers of the Raja-raja Melayu (Malay Rulers). This, in turn, meant that the Malays would lose some of their powers. Hence the elite and intellectuals amongst the Malays opposed the Malayan Union.

Yes, it was the Malay elite class and the intellectual community -- and not the fishermen and farmers -- who opposed the Malayan Union. The kampong people did not really care because their lives would remain the same never mind who ran the country.

Because of this opposition to the Malayan Union, in 1948 the British abandoned the idea and instead introduced the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Next came the idea of Merdeka or independence. And this took many years of negotiations (no blood on the streets, as what Umno tells us). One issue of concern to Britain was what to do with the more than one million Chinese and Indians after Malaya was given Merdeka. They can't be sent back to China and India so an independent Malaya had to absorb them by giving them citizenship.

Now, note what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday. He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was worse. The Tunku gave citizenship to more than one million foreigners. Maybe Dr Mahathir is trying to say that he gave citizenship to less than one million foreigners.

What Dr Mahathir did not explain is that the Tunku had to agree to the granting of citizenship to more than one million Chinese and Indians, which was the British term and condition for agreeing to Merdeka for Malaya. If the Tunku did not agree then the British would probably disagree to Merdeka for Malaya mainly because they had to 'protect' the more than one million Chinese and Indians who would otherwise become stateless.

It was a sort of trade off. Malaya would absorb the more than one million Chinese and Indians. The Chinese and Indians, in turn, must agree to special privileges for the Malays (plus Malay becomes the national language and Islam the religion of the Federation). And then Britain would grant Malaya independence.

In 1955, two years before Merdeka, the first elections were held in Malaya and the Alliance Party (a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC) won 51 of the 52 seats. That meant the Alliance Party was 'stable' and could rule an independent Malaya with a clear mandate from the voters. Two years later, in 1957, Malaya gained independence.

But that 'honeymoon' was short-lived. Twelve years later, in 1969, the Alliance party received a beating in the Third General Election. It garnered less than 50% of the popular votes and lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Alliance Party (meaning all three: Umno, MCA and MIC) knew that it was losing power. Hence Barisan Nasional was formed to replace the Alliance Party so that the opposition parties could be brought into the ruling coalition. And that was how the Alliance Party got back control of the country -- by forming a new coalition with the opposition parties (what we could call a 'unity government', I suppose).

But that was not enough and they needed to do more. Selangor, the jewel in the crown, was in jeopardy (it still is today). So they created new 'Malay' cities, such as Shah Alam, and 'flooded' these cities with Malays to 'dilute' the Chinese voters.

Then they created a separate Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur so that the majority Chinese in Kuala Lumpur could be 'kicked out' of Selangor. Thus the ruling party can afford to lose Kuala Lumpur but they would not also lose Selangor.

By then, of course, Malaysia had been created with the agreement that 25% of the Parliament seats would come from Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that Sabah and Sarawak would be the ruling party's 'fixed deposit' and there was no way 1969 could be repeated as long as Sabah and Sarawak remained under the ruling party.

But that soon changed in 1985 when PBS, seen as a Christian-based party, kicked out the 'Muslim' government and replaced it with a 'Christian' government.

This meant, yet again, the ruling party was in danger of losing power like what happened in 1969. And they were in danger of losing power because the Muslims, who used to be 85-90% of the population, pre-Merdeka, had been reduced to a mere 50% or so -- in the first instance when more than one million Chinese and Indians had been given citizenship in 1957 and in the second instance when Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and the Muslim population was diluted even further.

Hence Barisan Nasional (in particular Umno) needed to dilute the non-Muslim population, in particular in their 'fixed deposit' states in East Malaysia which control a very critical 25% of the seats in Parliament and where the Muslims are not the majority like in West Malaysia.

And that was when the idea was mooted to 'create' an additional Muslim population of at least one million. And they could not wait for this to happen gradually over 50 years by encouraging Malays to have more children. They had to 'fast track' this exercise, which means they had to 'import' the population.

The first step was for Umno to get into Sabah. The next step was to 'import' one million Muslims into Sabah and give them citizenship. In 1994, this exercise over those few years proved successful when the 'Christian' government got kicked out and a 'Muslim' government took over the state and has held it ever since.

Now, certainly Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia at that time. But it was the Barisan Nasional government (which means it was more than just Umno) that came out with this game plan on how to grab back and/or retain power by diluting the non-Muslim population by importing a large Muslim population.

In 1957, they granted citizenship to one million 'foreign' Chinese and Indians and 30 years later they 'balanced' this by granting citizenship to one million foreign Muslims. There was nothing illegal about what they did but whether it was moral or not is another thing altogether.

The important thing is, while Dr Mahathir may have been guilty of 'reversing' what Tunku Abdul Rahman did, he did not act alone. This was not one man's plan on how to ensure that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not lose power. It was a GOVERNMENT plan, with Dr Mahathir as head of that government, of course. And we must remember that in 1991 Anwar was Malaysia's Finance Minister and in 1993 he became the Deputy Prime Minister. And the 'Christian' government of Sabah was toppled in 1994.

And this happened not because of one man, Dr Mahathir, but because of what the government did. And Anwar was a key person in that government at that time. Hence I would be very careful about how the opposition plays up the Sabah issue because if the truth were to emerge it may cost PKR a lot of votes in Sabah. And if they can't win Sabah then they can't form the next federal government.

 

Manikavasagam issued stern warning over outburst

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:55 PM PST

(The Star) - PKR has issued a stern warning to Kapar MP S. Manikavasagam for criticising Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and state exco member Dr Xavier Jayakumar.

An official said the party's political bureau, headed by its president Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, issued the warning on Wednesday following a report from its disciplinary committee.

He said several leaders, including Dr Xavier, had pressed for Manikavasagam's suspension, but were over-ruled by party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Disciplinary committee head Datuk Dr Tan Tee Kwong confirmed that a decision had been made but refused to give further details, saying these would only be made public after Manikavasagam had been informed.

Manikavasagam was issued a show-cause letter after two video clips in mid-December showed him urging Khalid to resign over the demolition of an altar in Taman Seroja in Bandar Baru Salak Tinggi in November.

In another clip, Manikavasagam blamed Dr Xavier for the demolition of temples in Selangor over the last four years. He replied to the show-cause letter on Tuesday.

Earlier, two PKR members, N. Shanmugam of Batu division and K. Samynathan of Kelana Jaya, said Manikavasagam criticised the two leaders as they had failed to resolve problems involving temple demolitions in the state.

"He (Manikavasagam) had promised that the Pakatan Rakyat government will not demolish any temple if it comes to power," Shanmugam said.

"But seven temples have been demolished so far and more notices for demolitions have been received by other temples," Samynathan added.

 

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, I challenge you to a debate!

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:49 PM PST

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

Zan Azlee, The Malaysian Insider

You were way out of your depth. It was obviously clear. And that was the reason why you had to pull the microphone away from KS Bawani when she was speaking.

But you definitely had no awareness of this, I'm sure. You thought you were all that in your sophisticated-looking pantsuit and fancy title of President of Suara Wanita.

Trying to go for a SW1M? Try not to sink instead!

You were at a university, Universiti Utara Malaysia, an institution of learning where people go to (where most of them are actually legally adults) obtain an education.

You were a part of a panel at a forum. A panel forum, which I'm very sure, had an objective to bring forth discourse and intellectual discussion, and to share that with the students.

The forum, which was titled "Seiringkah Mahasiswa dan Politik", had given the panellists a chance to speak, and also had a session that was open to the floor, a chance for the students to speak.

If the panellists were allowed to share their thoughts and opinions, then by all means, the members of the floor should be given that chance too. It is a forum anyway.

What right did you have to stop a person from speaking? What right did you have to pull the microphone away from someone when she is speaking?

Is it because you are older? And this is considering the fact that you said to Bawani that she had to learn to respect her elders.

Respecting elders doesn't mean blindly following what they say. Respecting elders is also feeling the responsibility to correct them when they are wrong and heading down the wrong path.

Or did you feel you had a right to pull the microphone away because you thought it was your forum? And, to you, this meant that only you had a right to an opinion?

I really felt that you were just scared. You were scared because suddenly, there was this young girl dressed casually in a long sleeved T-shirt and jeans who could articulate better than you.

I think you felt threatened because this young girl was sharing opinions that were so well thought out and clear that the rest of the attendees might just have been persuaded by her.

Probably the desperation that you felt was so intense that you couldn't do anything else but force her to keep quiet by pulling the microphone away from her so no one could hear her.

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

You just ranted along about how those who didn't like the state Malaysia is in to leave the country. Come on! How stupid do you think people are? 

And what is it with the animal analogy? I don't even want to comment on that one! Basically, you didn't even have quality rebuttals for Bawani. You just bullied her away from the microphone.

READ MORE HERE

 

Listen, listen, listen! Have we gone overboard?

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:37 PM PST

I am reminded of a scene in the film "Les Misérables", when the young revolutionaries whisper the lyrics "do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry men? It's the music of a people who will not be slaves again!" Though there will not be a revolution as our country is already a democracy, finally being free after 56 years of a BN government is now the idea of a people's victory in Malaysia.

Douglas Tan, The Malaysian Insider

In this day and age, there are YouTube sensations which catapult little known individuals to fame. The K-Pop star, Psy, went from a virtual unknown outside Korea into an international sensation, with his music video "Gangnam Style", garnering 1.2 billion views on YouTube and setting a Guinness world record and spawning masses of parodies including local favourites such as "Oppa KL Style" and "Georgetown Gangnam style".

On the local scene, 2012 was the year of cows in condos, with Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil being lambasted by political leaders and online media, and most prominently being featured in yet another "Gangnam Style" parody, "Ubah Rocket Style" released by the DAP. In 2013, the word of the month seems to be "Listen".

Respect?

For those who are unaware or oblivious of the background, a little known leader of an NGO called Suara Wanita 1 Malaysia or SW1M was propelled to fame when a YouTube video of a woman berating a student went viral on social media circles.

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen reached notoriety, which is almost unparalleled in local politics in terms of ridicule and attention, from a video made at Universiti Utara Malaysia entitled "Forum Suara Mahasiswa Part 4" (translated into "Voice of the Students Forum Part 4"). This virtually happened overnight when she cut off second-year law student Bawani KS mid-way through her question by saying "Listen" 10 times and "Let me speak" seven times despite Bawani's protests.

The crux of Bawani's question was whether Malaysia would be able to move towards a system where university education could be provided for free. This is reflective of a promise being made by Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, to abolish PTPTN and provide free tertiary education to Malaysians. What proceeded from Sharifah Zohra's interruption was ludicrous.

She then thanked Bawani for "having the guts" to ask the question, before turning to ask the students whether she had accorded "respect" to Bawani. At this point in the video, I began to feel sick inside because what she proceeded to do was nothing short of humiliating.

She mocked Bawani's attitude, said she is less "pendidikan" compared to her, asked her to leave the country if she is unhappy with the government's policies, and then proceeded to say the now famous "even animals have problems". If there was anyone who was being disrespectful, it was Sharifah Zohra. Her reply was not only "kurang ajar", it was a classic red herring.

For many online netizens who vented their frustrations, she epitomised the Barisan Nasional government: arrogant, out of touch, emotionally cold and vindictive. Bawani, on the other hand, achieved hero status by being the underdog, standing up for her beliefs and daring to question the authorities.

Neitzen's revenge

Although the forum itself took place on December 8 last year, the outpouring of wrath and ridicule only culminated in the past week. The parodies, Photoshopped pictures and even music "re-mixes" have all gone viral, especially on Facebook, with countless "likes" and "shares". There has also been a Facebook page opened dedicated to asking Sharifah Zohra to apologise to Bawani. Eventually this was highlighted on Yahoo! News and then the mainstream media just a couple of days ago.

The controversy has also given birth to a slew of marketing opportunities. Yes 4G, DiGi and Nandos came out with their own "Listen" campaigns to great effect, catching the wave of emotion crashing against Sharifah Zohra. I admit that I also got caught up in all of this, going so far as to order a "Listen, Listen" T-shirt!

There seems to be no end to the scorn poured on Sharifah Zohra and Barisan Nasional from this sordid episode. What is apparent is that there is a lot of pent-up rage which is being poured out, which is far larger than Sharifah Zohra herself.

There is the anger at the BN for attempting to brainwash university students. There is also the arrogance and oppressiveness of the party which is personified in how Sharifah Zohra attacked Bawani. Subsequent to all of this, there is also the unrepentant recalcitrance by Sharifah Zohra not issuing an apology and with the SW1M Facebook page posting updates defending their president.

It may be an understatement to say that this may be worrying to Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his colleagues with the general election looming.

Gone too far?

However, in the midst of all this emotion, there were two of my friends who kept their heads to ask some very logical questions about the situation. Kelvin Yii posted a very meaningful video blog, providing a logical commentary and asking crucial questions as to the state of affairs transpiring from the event. Another friend, Tai Zee Kin, proceeded to ask a very honest question, as to whether all the persistent mocking, joking and parodies would make us any better than Sharifah Zohra herself? Have we gone too far?

Politics, it appears, finds its basis on emotional hyperbole rather than constructive, rational discussion. Taking a step back, are we being excessively harsh on Sharifah Zohra? Perhaps so, especially where there are individuals in high political positions who had made blatantly racist or arrogant statements in the media in the past. Sharifah Zohra perhaps is a victim of circumstances.

Was what she did acceptable then? No it was not. Shall we feel too sorry for her then? Maybe not. But then again, have we as netizens allowed for emotion to usurp logical and pragmatic discussion? Yes, but I believe that it mostly down to the fact that we are guilty of jumping on the "bash Sharifah Zohra" bandwagon.

READ MORE HERE

 

NGO lapor polis dakwa pelajar Islam diberi Bible di hadapan sekolah

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:27 PM PST

(Bernama) - Sebuah pertubuhan bukan kerajaan, Persatuan Mukabuku Pulau Pinang, hari ini membuat laporan polis mendakwa dua lelaki mengedar kitab Bible kepada pelajar beragama Islam, di hadapan sebuah sekolah di Jelutong di sini.

Pengerusi persatuan itu, Salleh Ismail, berkata pihaknya mempunyai bukti bergambar dan video dua lelaki itu memberi Bible kecil berbahasa Inggeris kepada pelajar Melayu di sekolah menengah berkenaan.

"Kami harap pihak bertanggungjawab menyiasat kegiatan ini kerana ia melibatkan akidah umat Islam terutama generasi muda," katanya kepada pemberita selepas membuat laporan di Balai Polis Jelutong.

Beliau berkata pihaknya membuat laporan polis kerana aktiviti pengedaran Bible kepada pelajar Islam adalah kegiatan berdakwah agama lain kepada umat Islam dan ia menyalahi Perkara 11 (4) dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang melarang agama lain disebarkan kepada orang Islam.

 

Peanuts for landowners, millions for cronies

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 01:47 PM PST

The moment your land is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. It will be taken away from you in the name of development.

By Chua Jui Meng

Now the Malays are beginning to see through Umno's 55 years of misleading the community to enrich themselves, their families and cronies.

It sure took a long time for the Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia and several non-governmental organisations to finally see the real problem – the super corrupt and greedy Umno.

Chamber president Syed Ali Alattas lamented that the Malays in Johor are the poorest in Malaysia, with cost of living skyrocketing due to the significant presence of foreigners (Singaporeans) residing in the state.

He also pointed to the fact that 80% of the former Malay-majority owned Iskandar land was now foreign-owned.

Syed Ali said even the Malays in Kelantan were richer because one can buy more with the ringgit in the east coast state.

The Malays can buy a bungalow for RM200,000 in Kelantan but the same would cost RM1.5 million in Johor.

In the past two decades, thousands of acres of Malay ancestral land had been "robbed" by former Menteri Besar Muhyiddin Yassin and now the Ghani Othman-led Johor government is using the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Just look and tell me what you see in Tebrau, Pasir Gudang, Danga Bay, Iskandar and Nusajaya.

And the latest to benefit from the "seized" Malay land is China's Country Garden (Holdings) Ltd.

It bought 55 acres in Iskandar's Danga Bay for RM900 million for property development. The state government, using the Act, had paid the majority Malay land owners only 64 sen psf or RM1.53 million.

Now, locals just cannot afford the houses and condominiums priced from RM800,000 and above. And these properties are on land previously belonging to Malays.

Blame Dr Mahathir

In fact the land grabs in Johor have been going on the past two decades, starting with Muhyiddin, and now with Ghani and his government using the Act to acquire land to be alienated to cronies for property development.

And the person Malaysians have to thank for such an opportunity to abuse and grab land is Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It was Mahathir, using Barisan Nasional (BN)'s overwhelming majority in Parliament in 1991, who passed the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill.

The rephrasing of sections of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 basically gave incontestable power to state governments to seize private land for development by private companies and individuals. Lands originally acquired for public purposes can also be used for private development.

Before the amendments, land could only be acquired for public purposes or for public utilities like building of roads, schools, hospitals, pipelines, water or power plants, etc.

With the addition of "…for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia", no land is safe.

The term "beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia" is as subjective as you can get. A piece of land can be acquired to build a posh five-star hotel, an amusement park or a golf resort because in the opinion of the government it would bring in the tourist dollar and create jobs for locals, not to mention enriching the private companies which would, of course, be paying taxes.

That was Umno and Mahathir's "killer" and is the cause of land grabs everywhere today. This has actually rendered all land in Malaysia as unsafe investment.

The moment the land you own is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. In the name of development (read Umno's pockets), you will be paid peanuts but Umno and its cronies will develop and reap millions or billions of ringgit.

READ MORE HERE

 

RM23m for Umno company to play middleman

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 01:44 PM PST

DAP claims the Puteri Umno leader's company charged RM23,000 to train a PE teacher when in fact a similar programme conducted by UiTM costs only RM6,000. 

Jared Pereira and G Lavendran, FMT

A Puteri Umno leader was awarded a contract worth RM22.9 million by the Education Ministry in 2012, and there are doubts that the company awarded the contract had the capability to do the job, DAP claimed today.

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming said the ministry had awarded a contract to the Puteri Umno leader to act as a middleman in a sports arrangement between the Education Ministry and the United States Sports Academy (USSA).

USSA conducts a programme called the 'International Diploma in Physical Education and Scholastic Sports' (IDPESS) and the Education Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, had sought its services to retrain 1,000 physical education teachers here, especially those without proper qualifications.

The alleged company, claimed Ong, was headed by Kedah Puteri Umno deputy chief Hisham Suhaili Othman, who is also Langkawi Puteri Umno chief.

The company is Syarikat KH Sports World Sdn Bhd, who is the authorised agent in Malaysia for USSA, and the contract was awarded via a direct negotiation, said Ong

.

The purpose of this arrangement was to train these teachers to complement Muhyiddin's 'Satu Murid Satu Sukan' initiative which was to enhance physical education in nation building.

According to its website, USSA is an online academy which provides sports degree programmes to about 1,300 students annually.

Ong said the training of the teachers began last June but the duration of the program nor the number of teachers that have been trained was unknown.

READ MORE HERE

 

Radio stations very naughty, says Chief Minister

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 01:23 PM PST

http://cdn.theborneopost.com/newsimages/A0057805.jpg 

(Borneo Post) - "The relevant authorities must find out who the sponsors or owners of these radio stations are. We cannot allow them to continue broadcasting lies upon lies because at the end of the day, many people would think that what they say is true.

 

Chief Minister Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud describes Radio Free Sarawak (RFS) as a 'naughty one' who has no respect for the truth.

 

Taib, who is also state Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman, said a lot of people have heard RFS' broadcast and were angry because they knew the radio station was spreading lies.

 

He, however, believed that only very few (people) were misled by the lies.

 

"The fact that they illegally broadcast from a foreign country shows that the broadcasters have no pure motive in what they are doing," he said after receiving tithe on behalf of Tabung Baitulmal from Pelita Holdings Sdn Bhd and Magna Focus Sdn Bhd at Menara Pelita here yesterday.

 

On Radio Kenyalang, Taib believed that its establishment was prompted by the impending general election.

 

On possible jamming of the radio broadcast, the chief minister said the matter was best left to the relevant authority to decide.

 

Parti Rakyat Sarawak president Tan Sri Dr James Masing was reported to have said on Wednesday that he wanted Radio Free Sarawak and Radio Kenyalang to be stopped on their tracks as the 'illegal entities' are poisoning the minds of the rural populace, especially the Ibans, and running down the BN government.

 

Masing, who is also Land Development Minister, urged the authorities concerned to act against those distributing free radio sets in the rural areas as they were agents of the two radio stations.

 

He added that if their operations could not be halted, the relevant authorities should at least jam their transmissions so that they would become inaudible to listeners.

 

Masing added that Radio Free Sarawak and Radio Kenyalang must be stopped to prevent others from following suit.

 

"The relevant authorities must find out who the sponsors or owners of these radio stations are. We cannot allow them to continue broadcasting lies upon lies because at the end of the day, many people would think that what they say is true.

 

"This is bad because both radio stations are running down the BN government," he said.



 

RCI revelations could drown Musa, Umno

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 12:55 PM PST

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

(Free Malaysia Today) - The disclosures in the current RCI hearing in Sabah may lead to more damaging testimonies implicating the state's top leadership.

Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman, who is also the state's Umno chief, could be in for some uncomfortable moments soon as those involved in handing out Malaysian documents to illegal immigrants in Sabah continue to expose the high and mighty.

So far, one ex-chief minister, Osu Sukam has been implicated by the testimony of a former director of Sabah's National Registration Department (NRD) at the ongoing investigation by Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants problems in Sabah here.

Ramli Kamaruddin, in his testimony said Osu was present with then federal deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayob at a hotel here in 1994 when he was given instruction "to issue NRD receipts using the name and identity card numbers of voters already in the electoral roll, with the sole purpose of allowing them to vote to help ensure that a state government endorsed by the federal government would win" in Sabah.

A former right-hand man of ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Abdul Aziz Shamsudin, was also mentioned at the RCI hearing which, going on current disclosures, promises to expose one of the biggest scandals in Malaysia's history involving members of the ruling Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition government.

Another former chief minister, Harris Salleh, who testified before the five-member RCI, tried to shield himself from the scandal by saying that it was the federal authorities that gave immigrants Malaysian documents like IC, and not him or even the state government he led.

He also denied any knowledge of a project to parcel out ICs in exchange for votes.

Musa was dragged into the scandal after his name was mentioned many times in books by blogger Mutalib M.D.

The blogger had implied Musa's involvement in recruiting illegal immigrants in Sabah to become Umno operatives and also voters to defeat Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) state government in the 1994 election.

Mutalib, who did his own research and interviews with people directly involved in or in the know of the security scandal, has written prolifically on the hiring of Muslim illegal immigrants from the Philippines and Indonesia by Umno.

Musa's involvement is based on his being the chairman of an alleged special task force set up by Sabah Umno to recruit immigrants. A former Umno member, Jabarkan Napi, has also repeatedly named Musa in the scam.

Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/01/18/rci-revelations-could-drown-musa-umno/ 

Did Tan Sri Muhyiddin’s honorary doctorate cost the Malaysian taxpayer RM23m?

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 12:41 PM PST

http://ussa.edu/publications/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DPM-with-TJ-and-KH-250x207.jpg 

Tan Sri Muhyiddin needs to explain why a contract worth RM23m to retrain Physical Education (PE) teachers was given to a UMNO leader via direct negotiation

Ong Kian Ming, DAP Election Strategist, 

Our education minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was awarded an Honorary Doctorate on the 17th of January by the United States Sports Academy (USSA), which is based in Daphne, Alabama, for his efforts 'to enhance physical education to help in the building of a nation' through the creation of the 'One Student – One Sport' initiative.

For a 6 month period starting from June 2012, USSA trainers were in Malaysia to provide retraining for PE teachers and training for other teachers interested in PE through an "International Diploma in Physical Education and Scholastic Sports (IDPESS)" program. This pilot program to retrain 1000 teachers cost the Malaysian government RM22.9m and the contract was awarded to a Syarikat KH Sports World Sdn Bhd (who is the authorized agent in Malaysia for USSA) via a direct negotiation.

According to KH Sports World website (http://www.kh-ussa.com/management-team/), its chairwoman is Hisham Suhaili Othman whose list of titles includes 'Naib Ketua Puteri UMNO, Negeri Kedah', 'Ketua Puteri UMNO, Bahagian Langkawi', 'Ahli Jawatankuasa Perhubungan UMNO, Negeri Kedah', 'Bendehari Biro Sukan & Kecergasan Puteri UMNO, Malaysia' and 'Ahli Lembaga Pelawat Hospital Langkawi'.

While the intention of providing retraining to PE teachers, especially those without the proper qualifications, may be a good one, we question why this contract was given, via direct negotiation, to a company which was founded in 2008 'to venture into the sports equipment and product market' in Malaysia.

We also call into question the decision to appoint a US based college whose method of teaching is almost exclusively via distance and online learning. Such a college would certainly not have sufficient teaching faculty and resources to deliver face to face teaching programs, especially for the 1000 teachers who were supposed to enrol in this program. For comparison, the estimated current number of students at USSA is less than 600!

We also call into question the high cost of this program. RM22.9m for 1000 students translates into RM22,900 for every 'diploma' earned. This is more than 4 times what it costs to obtain a 'Diploma in Pengajian Sukan' from Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), which costs about RM5709 for 6 semesters.

The awarding of this contract is yet another example of the BN's 'Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin' where the Prime Minister preaches transparency on the one hand while members of his cabinet does the complete opposite by awarding contracts to cronies at vastly inflated prices. Is this the price the Malaysian taxpayer has to pay so that our Minister of Education can obtain an honorary doctorate?

Did Tan Sri Muhyiddin's honorary doctorate cost the Malaysian taxpayer RM23m?

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved