Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• What's the difference between BN & George Soros?
• Defence Ministry Acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles
• Kenyataan Mukhriz Sahkan Negara Hilang RM3.5 Bilion Setiap Tahun Kerana Agihan AP Yang Tidak Telus
• Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice
• What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Tun
• Why Tun M is terrified of the opposition!
• Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre
• Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo?

What's the difference between BN & George Soros? Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:36 AM PDT Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser In the BN Government's on-going witch hunt against SUARAM to try to discredit us for pursuing the suspected corruption scandal over the Scorpene deal in the Paris court, they now try to suggest that there is a problem with us having received funds from George Soros' Open Society Institute. The Domestic Trade Minister wants Bank Negara to investigate if there is "money laundering" involved. In so doing, the Minister has unwittingly put Bank Negara in an embarrassing position. George Soros is well known as a currency speculator, philanthropist and promoter of open society. What is baffling is the BN Government's problem with Soros. From the BN Government's propaganda, there seem to be two problems: (i) He is a currency speculator (ii) He is Jewish.   The Jewish Question The fact that being ethnically Jewish (rather than being a Zionist) can be the basis for derision and condemnation in Malaysia (especially in the UMNO press) is evidence of the racist nature of the governing regime. This speaks volumes about UMNO's capacity for providing a non-racist path to progress in Malaysia. SUARAM certainly does not have a problem with Soros' ethnicity.   Who is NOT a Currency Speculator? Soros has a reputation as a smart currency speculator. But he has made his millions through his own means and devices. On the other hand, our own Bank Negara under Dr Mahathir's watch speculated in the international currency markets from 1992-94 using the rakyat's money and incurred losses cited as ranging from RM10-30 billion! It has been claimed that the maximum exposure of Malaysian taxpayers' money in the forex market during that irresponsible fling was as much as RM270 billion. (Malaysian Business, April 1994) It was the biggest disaster ever for Bank Negara which had to be bailed out by the Finance Ministry in 1994 but the biggest heads have yet to roll! It was after this fiasco and one of Dr Mahathir's most humiliating performances that he, in a pique of rage, called Soros a "moron". When the 1997 Asian financial crisis struck, Soros was again blamed. However, Mahathir eventually had to eat humble pie at a press conference with Soros on 15 December 2006 at which he accepted that Soros had not been responsible for the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Thus, after the 1992-94 forex scandal one would have thought that the BN government would think twice about denouncing currency speculators!   SUARAM's Principled Stand on Justice, Democracy & Human Rights Through the 23 years of SUARAM's existence, we have never compromised our principled stand on freedom, justice, democracy and human rights. We have never been beholden to any funders, whether foreign or local, as our anti-imperialist stand and actions in the Anti-War Coalition testify.   Malaysia sliding down the slippery road to banana republicanism From the Domestic Trade & Consumerism Minister's irresponsible statements about charging our company while CCM is still investigating the case and this latest gaffe involving Soros, the BN Government appears to be shooting itself in the foot. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is trying so hard to present himself as a reformer by promising more democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the run-up to the 13th general election; On the other, his minister continues to violate all these principles of good governance in his haste to try to discredit SUARAM. This seems to be the Prime Minister's dilemma. His words do not seem to match the BN Government's actions and with every gaffe by blundering ministers, we seem to be sliding down the slippery road to banana republicanism.

Defence Ministry Acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT The reprimand by the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail on the acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs) at exhorbitant prices highlights the malaise in the Ministry of Defence procurement exercises Tony Pua On Saturday 8 September 2012, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail asked that "nobody should take advantage of the situation for personal gains when acquiring equipment for the Special Forces," adding that recently four Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV) were purchased for RM2.76mil or RM690,000 each by the Ministry of Defence. Sultan Ibrahim then displayed one of the RIV vehicles and another personal vehicle that he purchased for RM150,000.   "Which of these will be your choice? I do not understand why government purchases involve exorbitant charges that do not make sense," Sultan Ibrahim, who is also a Colonel in the Special Forces, was reported to have said.   The above acquisition follows a series of controversial procurement of defence vehicles by the Ministry of Defence that have raised major question marks over whether the tax payers are getting value for their money.   In 2008 the Ministry of Defence has acquired 12 Eurocopter Cougar EC725 for RM2.3 billion or RM193 million each despite the same model helicopter being acquired for only RM82.8 million each by the Brazillian government. The Ministry had attempted to justify their higher purchase price to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee on the basis that there were "customisations" on the vehicle to meet the needs of the local air force.   Last year, the Ministry also awarded a RM6 billion contract to Boustead Naval Shipyard to build 6 offshore patrol vessels and a RM7.55 billion contract to purchase 257 units of 8x8 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) from DRB Hicom Bhd.   The RM6 billion contract was subsequently inflated to a RM9 billion contract and the Minister of Defence, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi had justified the both the acquisition and the increase in price on the fact that Malaysians are acquiring the state of the art "littoral combatant ships" (LCS).   It was subsequently exposed that the Ministry of Defence had merely "renamed" the German-made "Gowind Class" naval vessels into "LCS", which is the name for the more technologically advanced ships built for the United States. We can only interpret that the "renaming" of the ships is done to mislead the public into believing that we were indeed acquiring the best-in-class ships with the RM9 billion contract.   Similarly, it was exposed that while we are buying 257 APCs from DRB-Hicom for RM7.55 billion, DRB-Hicom is acquiring the 257 APCs from Turkish defence contractor for RM1.7 billion. While DRB-Hicom will still need to install certain optional equipment, such as the turret guns and software systems onto the APCs, it is beyond reasonable believe that such additional "customisations" will cause the bill to be inflated from RM1.7 billion to RM7.55 billion; or from only an average of RM6.6 million to RM29.4 million for each vehicle.   When the above controversies were exposed, I was accused by the Minister of Defence as a foreign spy seeking to expose national defence secrets and criticised as being ill-informed with regards to defence technology.   However, when the critique comes from the Sultan of Johor, the Minister has no choice but to concede an investigation into the glaring financial irregularity. Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi had responded yesterday that "the Defence Ministry takes note of the comment positively. [He] will look into the difference in prices between the RIV awarded by Sultan Ibrahim priced at RM150,000 compared with the RM690,000 sold by the supplier."   We call upon all of the above deals to be investigated and scrutinised not the Ministry of Defence itself, but by an independent Parliamentary Oversight Committee. Malaysians have no faith that the Ministry will be able to conduct an investigation that is fair and above board.   In the light of procurement transparency promoted by the Government Transformation Programme, it is critical that the Ministry of Defence supports the set up of the Oversight Committee to prove that all is above board. After all, if all the above transactions are of value for money to the Government, then surely there is nothing to hide from this independent panel.

Kenyataan Mukhriz Sahkan Negara Hilang RM3.5 Bilion Setiap Tahun Kerana Agihan AP Yang Tidak Telus Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:21 AM PDT Jika jumlah AP yang dikeluarkan mencecah 70,000 setiap tahun seperti yang dianggarkan, negara dan rakyat kehilangan hasil sekitar RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion setiap tahun kerana kementerian yang turut diketuai Datuk Mukhriz kini hanya mengenakan caj RM10,000 sahaja setiap AP apabila ia diagihkan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu tanpa melalui proses tender terbuka.  Rafizi Ramli,YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad Saya mengalu-alukan maklumbalas pertama Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir terhadap isu penurunan harga kereta memandangkan beliau adalah antara orang penting yang bertanggungjawab menggubal dasar automotif negara, atas kapasiti beliau sebagai Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI). Saya sertakan laporan BERNAMA bertarikh 7 September 2012 mengenai kenyataan yang dibuat beliau semasa merasmikan Persidangan Perwakilan Wanita Umno Bahagian Jerlun: Mukhriz: 'BN tidak berani buat janji kosong' 7 September 2012 JERLUN - Barisan Nasional (BN) tidak akan membuat janji yang tidak mampu ditunaikan oleh parti, kata Timbalan Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan Umno Kedah Datuk Mukhriz Tun Mahathir.     Beliau berkata semua yang tertulis di dalam manifesto pilihan raya BN akan dianggap sebagai janji kepada rakyat dan semua itu perlu ditepati untuk memberi kesenangan kepada rakyat.     Mukhriz yang juga Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri berkata BN tidak akan berani untuk membuat sebarang janji yang ia tahu tidak akan mampu dilaksanakan.     "Lainlah dengan pembangkang. Mereka kata manifesto yang dibuat itu bukannya janji sebaliknya hanya cadangan, sebab itu mereka tidak serius dalam menunaikan semua yang ditulis dalam manifesto pilihan raya yang lepas.     "Apabila mereka sendiri dah kata macam tu, apa kita nak harapkan lagi daripada mereka," katanya kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan Persidangan Perwakilan Pergerakan Wanita Umno Bahagian Jerlun di Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Permatang Bonglai di sini hari ini.   Beliau berkata janji menurunkan harga kereta yang dibuat oleh Pengarah Strategi Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Mohd Rafizi Ramli sekiranya pembangkang berjaya mentadbir Putrajaya pada pilihan raya umum ke-13 akan datang adalah bersifat populis.     Katanya strategi pembangkang ialah menggunakan isu-isu yang bersifat populis seperti hendak hapuskan pinjaman Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN), hapuskan tol dan turunkan harga kereta.     "Mereka tidak jelaskan dari mana datangnya duit malah ada pemimpin PKR mengatakan untuk mengumpul dana kerajaan, mereka akan jual AP (permit import) kereta menggunakan kaedah opsyen.     "Seperti kita tahu, kalau guna kaedah itu, orang yang menawarkan harga tertinggilah yang akan menang. Jadi daripada anggaran kami setiap AP akan berharga RM50,000 hingga RM60,000. Kalau itu dilakukan, bagaimana nak turunkan harga kereta? Itu baru AP, belum kira lagi harga kereta tersebut," katanya.     Mukhriz berkata pembangkang hanya pandai membuat cadangan tetapi tidak memikirkan bagaimana hendak menjayakan cadangan tersebut termasuk dari mana hendak dapatkan punca pendapatan untuk menampung semua itu.     "Silap-silap kita (negara) akan menjadi muflis," katanya. Kenyataan Datuk Mukhriz yang mengesahkan anggaran kementerian beliau bahawa permit import (AP) akan menarik bidaan setinggi RM60,000 setiap satu jika dikendalikan secara telus melalui tender terbuka mempunyai kesan yang besar kepada kewangan negara. Jika jumlah AP yang dikeluarkan mencecah 70,000 setiap tahun seperti yang dianggarkan, negara dan rakyat kehilangan hasil sekitar RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion setiap tahun kerana kementerian yang turut diketuai Datuk Mukhriz kini hanya mengenakan caj RM10,000 sahaja setiap AP apabila ia diagihkan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu tanpa melalui proses tender terbuka. Bagi setiap AP, negara dan rakyat rugi sehingga RM50,000 dan jumlah itu masuk poket pihak berkepentingan yang mengaut untung besar akibat dasar tidak telus Umno/Barisan Nasional. Jumlah RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion ini adalah lebih tinggi berbanding anggaran yang dibuat KEADILAN dalam menentukan sumber kewangan untuk menampung dasar menurunkan harga kereta melalui pemotongan cukai eksais secara berperingkat. Ia juga membuktikan kemampuan kewangan kerajaan untuk melaksanakan dasar ini, jika Umno/Barisan Nasional benar-benar serius mendengar desakan rakyat. Kenyataan Datuk Mukhriz juga menggambarkan beliau masih belum faham mekanisme yang boleh digunapakai untuk menurunkan harga kereta kerana terlalu terbawa-bawa dengan pandangan yang berpihak kepada tauke kaya dan pengedar kereta yang membuat untung berlebihan dari sistem AP sedia ada. Rungutan beliau, kononnya harga AP yang tinggi jika dilelong secara terbuka akan menyebabkan harga kereta bertambah tinggi membayangkan beliau mahu mempertahankan kadar keuntungan berlipat kali ganda yang kini dinikmati pihak-pihak berkepentingan ini. Menurut perkiraan beliau, bila kadar keuntungan ini dipertahankan, sebarang peningkatan kos kepada pengedar kereta akibat harga AP yang lebih tinggi perlu ditanggung oleh rakyat. KEADILAN mengesyorkan supaya pengedar-pengedar berkepentingan ini bersaing sesama mereka dengan mengurangkan kadar keuntungan demi mendapatkan pelanggan. Apabila harga AP meningkat dan harga kereta mula turun, mereka tidak ada pilihan melainkan mengurangkan kadar keuntungan yang tidak berpatutan yang mereka nikmati selama ini. Demi menerangkan lagi mekanisme ini kepada Datuk Mukhriz, KEADILAN ingin menjemput Datuk Mukhriz untuk turut sama hadir ke Forum #turunhargakereta yang diadakan pada hari Khamis ini (13 September 2012) jam 8 malam di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Kuala Lumpur & Selangor yang bakal menemukan YB Tony Pua, YB Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad, Saudara Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Saudara Rafizi Ramli dan YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. Jika beliau benar-benar berjiwa besar demi kepentingan rakyat, kami yakin Datuk Mukhriz akan sudi singgah bersama-sama dengan rakyat berbincang kaedah terbaik untuk menurunkan harga kereta, terutamanya apabila beliau sendiri sudah mengesahkan bahawa kerajaan mempunyai dana yang mencukupi untuk melaksanakannnya.

Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:04 PM PDT I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser   I am in full agreement with the director of the forthcoming film 'Tanda Putera', Shuhaimi Baba that we should withhold any critique of the film until we have seen it. I have so far merely warned Malaysians about the record of the Barisan National in resurrecting the spectre of 'May 13' at every general election since 1969. Others have protested against some of the images posted on the Facebook for the film. But judging from Shuhaimi's interview in an online media (FMT, 6.9.2012), I am not too sanguine about her impartiality and capacity to discern fact from prejudice in a mature manner: "When I first read Dr Kua (Kia Soong's) book, I thought what came out first and shining through was his prejudices against Malays and his resentment against the office of the prime minister then. His accusations – alluding to who was responsible for May 13- that is, Tun Razak, was not only atrocious but irresponsible. But then he knows that, I am sure, since he's more intelligent than most men, and he does it for effect and propaganda and to rile up Chinese sentiments. It was too easy for him. As a writer, he preferred to be biased and did not shed any light on the riots but even considered the communists had nothing to do with it. His obvious biasness – not questioning why in Tunku's own book, and later in an authorised biography of Tunku as late as 1990 – Tunku did not cast aspersions on Tun Razak. There were reports and books written by people who were not present during May 13. Some were based on third party reports. Yet in one publication, no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report. Complete with prejudices against the Malays and the Malaysian government. How is it that this author can be quoted as a reliable source? He had deliberately too omitted details of what were the insulting behaviours towards the Malays before May 13. I find the NOC (National Operations Council) report on May 13, 1969, may not be as complete, but it was more useful and reliable because they were verified with statistics and signed support reports and documents. The NOC report was also verified by a committee appointed by Tun Ismail. The head of the committee was a person of high integrity. So that's where I am coming from when I say I looked at all angles…"   Prejudices against Malays? First, I would like to thank her for reading my book although I am very disappointed that she has drawn very odd conclusions from it. I have read such accusations of my supposed "prejudices against Malays" among the mindless blogheads in cyberspace but I would expect better of an artist who seeks a reputation for integrity. For a start, she fails to provide any evidence for my supposed "prejudices against the Malays and (my) resentment against the office of the prime minister". Many respected Malay intellectuals have critiqued my book and made no mention of it being "prejudiced against Malays". I may be guilty of using class analysis in my writings but you will not find a more committed anti-racist crusader than me in this country… The late Rustam Sani (bless his soul!) wrote in his blog on 13 May 2007 after attending the launch of my book: "May 13: A Sunday morning well-spent at the book launch. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Dr Kua had penned a very important book – indeed, to my mind, he has made "publishing history" of sorts. I came out of the book launch feeling only half-satisfied with the discussion that took place and half-pessimistic about the future. It did not, however, diminish my appreciation of Dr Kua's book as an important contribution to my understanding of Malaysia's contemporary history, and for such interesting and thoughtful presentations by the guest speakers." Among the guest speakers was highly respected Malay intellectual, Professor Syed Husin Ali who  disputed my "coup detat" thesis but he did not think that my book displayed "prejudices against the Malays". Azmi Sharom, writing in The Star on 31 May 2007, had this to say about the book: "As with Kua's earlier works, it is written in a passionate style that drives the narrative forward with a sense of urgency, so much so that reading it was a pleasure. I think that this is an important book. It raises issues and questions that challenge the official story of the riots and it adds new information that is vital if we as a nation are ever to truly understand that horrible period of our history."    Again, he did not get the impression that I was "prejudiced against the Malays". Likewise, my socialist comrade Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim has not mentioned to me that he finds my account "prejudiced against Malays" because he also subscribes to class analysis of society and history. I am therefore dubious about the amount and the quality of research done by Ms Shuhaimi on May 13 and whether she seriously read my book. She says that "no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report."   The Full Story of May 13 is Yet Untold First, my book uses declassified documents which I researched first-hand in London and made available in The British Public Records Office, Kew Gardens. That's a lot of valuable legwork that is potentially helpful research for Ms Shuhaimi's film. The suggestion that I was trying to portray this as a first-hand account is puzzling, as the title itself clearly states the fact that such first-hand accounts are extracts from the declassified documents themselves. Ms Shuhaimi is certainly the first person to make such an observation. The reason my book created such a sensation was because many Malaysians do not find the official versions credible. Contrary to what Ms Shuhaimi says, the official statistics on the casualties during May 13 are the least credible of all. I may not have been there but my brother in law was a professor at the University Hospital at the time and my brother was a medical student at Malayan University too. They saw the number of bodies that were tarred to conceal their ethnicity and they certainly exceeded the official figures. The documents in my book testify as much to this fact. I provided a class analysis based on the available evidence provided by the records at the time. A fuller story will only emerge with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission when families of the victims, the police, the army, hospital doctors and staff come forward to tell us their stories. A serious artist should welcome as many stories from the people as possible and not be beholden to the official version.   The Tunku's Views on Tun Razak Ms Shuhaimi accuses me of bias and claims that the Tunku didn't cast aspersions on Tun Razak. Again, this reflects on the quality of her research and her capacity to weigh historical documents. Obviously Ms Shuhaimi does not consider the documents produced in my book to be worth consideration or to be objective. She falls back on the Tunku's early writings and apparently, "the Tunku's authorised biography". For the information of Ms Shuhaimi, K. Das was the Tunku's official biographer and they had carried out a series of interviews which can be read in my 2002 title: "K. Das & the Tunku Tapes". Yes, a copy of the tapes was given to me by K.Das' family. Can any records beat these audio recordings done in the twilight of the Tunku's life when he could finally speak his mind? Will Ms Shuhaimi challenge me to produce the Tunku tapes to verify if the Tunku actually said these words to K. Das? "You know Harun was one of those – Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie – who were all working with Razak to oust me, to take over my place…" (Kua Kia Soong, 2002: 112) For the further information of Ms Shuhaimi, I am not the first person to see May 13 as a coup detat against the Tunku. A Malay (yes, Malay!) intellectual, Subky Latiff had already put forward this thesis in an academic journal, Southeast Asian Affairs, Singapore in 1977. Although I was not at the seminar when Subky Latiff presented his paper, I am sure there were no gasps of "how atrocious and irresponsible!" among the academics gathered there.   Why the deference to Authority? We can understand deference to authority in a feudal society. But why do we need to be deferential to the people we elect? Ms Shuhaimi refers to the Prime Ministers as if they are deities to worship. In fact, whenever a general election approaches, that is the time when the politicians including prime ministers eat humble pie and plead for our support. What are prime ministers but the leaders of the respective parties who happen to win a majority in the general election? If we take the trouble to research into Malayan/ Malaysian history, we will invariably find that the leaders of political parties often use foul underhand means to maintain their political positions. This goes not only for the incumbent but also for the opposition parties. My recent "Patriots & Pretenders" gives an account of the way the British colonial power connived to ensure the victory of the Alliance in the pre-Independence manoeuvres. Take UMNO as an example. If political chicanery had not come into play, Dato Onn Jaafar leading the Independence of Malaya Party could have become Prime Minister at Independence. If the British colonial power had not backed the Alliance, the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition could have given the Alliance a good run for their money and we could have had a socialist prime minister who would not want such feudal deference from the people! The proclamation of The Emergency in 1948 through to 1960 was to ensure the British colonial power passed political power onto their local custodians at Independence and not to the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition. Then again, if it had not been for Dr Mahathir's "tengkolok trick" in 1990, Tengku Razaleigh might have become Malaysia's prime minister. Likewise, the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 altered the history of UMNO and assured Dr Mahathir's hold on power into the 21st century. Yes, like any democrat I have a healthy disrespect for authority in an oppressive regime and I would have imagined an artist with ideals and integrity would share such aspirations for truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human rights.   Were the Communists Responsible for May 13? I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. In my book I have shown that in the Tunku's broadcast at 2230 on 17 May 1969, he had qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted "bad elements". Is this Ms Shuhaimi's own prejudices or does she have stronger evidence to show that the communists were indeed responsible for May 13? The regime used the communist bogey at the time because it was necessary for it to justify imposing a state of emergency and to carry out the agenda of the new Umnoputras. To conclude, I fervently hope that Ms Shuhaimi will seriously study my views like any honest artist and ponder the deconstruction of prejudice. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for Ms Shuhaimi as an artist to be more circumspect – be more of a calligrapher with a deft brush rather than follow the mindless mob that tars and feathers any detractors…

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Tun Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:00 PM PDT Isn't Mahathir, in his desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever, indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN, wonders P Ramakrishnan.   Tun Dr Mahathir's warning that the country may never see a Barisan Nasional (BN) government again if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is voted into Putrajaya, would provoke the response, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" from many Malaysians who are totally fed up with BN rule. After 55 years of BN rule, it is time to say, "Enough is enough! It's time to go!!" Mahathir should stop whining that the federal opposition would do "everything possible" to stay in power forever if they were to form the next government. What's wrong with that, Tun? Didn't you do that, Tun, to stay in power forever? Why is it when you did "everything possible" to cling on to power, it was the proper thing to do but it is utterly wrong now for others to aspire to, as you did. Didn't you refuse our beloved Tunku, the honest Hussein Onn, the fearless Tengku Razaleigh and others admission into Umno Baru so that you could remain in power forever without any opposition from within the party? Didn't you introduce the system of 10 bonus votes for every nomination you received from Umno divisions to ensure that you would continue to be the President of Umno without any threat of a challenge? Didn't you fix a minimum number of nominations from Umno divisions to be eligible to contest the president's post? And didn't this effectively prevent Tengku Razaleigh from challenging for the president's post? Didn't the BN amend the federal constitution to disqualify those who resigned and thereby forced a by-election so that you could not be put to the test again? The amendment came soon after Shahrir Samad resigned as a BN parliamentarian in 1988, forcing a by-election in Johor Bharu, which he won convincingly as an independent, thus embarrassing you in the process. Didn't you have absolute control of the party and government so that your position would remain unassailable as long as you chose to stick around? Wasn't the BN guilty of gerrymandering to ensure that the BN had the best advantage to win the elections so that you and the BN could lord over the nation forever? Didn't you destroy the judiciary in 1988 when you played a role in the sacking of the then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas? Wasn't it to preserve and perpetuate your position? Didn't you shackle the powers of the royalty by holding semarak gatherings throughout the country to run down the royalty and by amending the constitution so that you and the BN could remain in power forever without any obstacles or obstruction? Didn't the BN deny allocations for all elected MPs and State Assembly members – unfairly and unjustly – so that the BN could continue to rule forever by pulling the purse strings? Didn't the BN engineer the overthrow of the legitimately elected Pakatan government in Perak ignoring the choice of the voters so that the BN could forever continue to be in power by whatever means? Isn't the BN hounding Anwar through trumped up charges and all other foul means to prevent his political ascendancy, which threatens the BN's greed to remain in power forever? Isn't it because the BN wants to be in power forever – and by any means – that it is going after the brave Bersih leaders who had inspired Malaysians to march in their thousands demanding free and fair elections? Aren't you in your desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN? Why is it, dear Tun, that only you and the BN can have the licence to do everything possible to remain in power forever? Why are you denying the loyal opposition the same opportunity to protect and preserve their position? Haven't you heard of the saying, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? Your hypocrisy is really nauseating, Tun! P Ramakrishnan, the immediate past president of Aliran, now serves on the Aliran executive committee.

Why Tun M is terrified of the opposition! Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:17 PM PDT Daniel John Jambun If we look at how Tun Dr. Mahathir has been making political comments during the last few months we would have noticed very clearly that he is actually very worried, yes, utterly terrified, about of the possibility of the opposition taking over the government. The basis of this fear is real. Mahathir is not merely having a nightmare for nothing. And he has a lot of good reasons to see it all coming. Firstly, the great tsunami of 2008 changed the way the BN looks at itself. It made BN realize how fragile the national coalition is. In fact 2008 was such a close call that had it been without Sabah and Sarawak, the powerful BN leaders would no longer be sitting in Putrajaya right now. And he knows things had gone further downhill for the BN since then. In spite of all the dirty tactics, all the scandals against opposition leaders, all the manufacturing of endless good news about the economy, the Santa Claus programs, the people had continued to lose confidence in the BN. Now wonder Mahathir had gone into the bad habit of saying a lot nonsensical and downright stupid things! In desperation he said it's better to have a devil that you know that a devil you don't know. It was admittance that the BN is a devil. He had justified the huge influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah and made the totally ludicrous proposal that as long as they can speak Malay, they qualify to become citizens of Malaysia. This statement set off a barrage of firings from both the opposition and the BN leaders. It made us wonder what kind of mind was ruling us for 27 years. Now he had gone into fear mongering by saying again and again that if the opposition takes over the country, it would lead to total chaos, which goes in line with PM Datuk Seri Najib's idea that the opposition is not qualified to take over the government. Well tell that to Lim Guan Eng and Datuk Khalid Ibrahim.   But to top it all, Mahathir's most interesting remark was his idea that if the PR takes over the government, it will rule Malaysia forever. The funny thing about this childish remark is that it is actually a compliment to PR! Mahathir said if the PR takes over, it will do things to make sure the BN can never come back to rule again, saying he "knows a few things." What he said here is very telling about what kind of government the BN has been running for 27 years under Mahathir. He doesn't know a few things; he actually know A LOT of things, meaning underhanded tactics and dirty tricks to ensure the opposition can never take over the government. Well, if he knows all these tricks and he had used them over the years, how come the BN is in real danger of toppling over now? Maybe Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" or as the Malay proverbs says, "Sepandai-pandai tupai melompat akhirnya jatuh ke tanah juga."   Or maybe Mahathir's many tricks – increasing the population of Sabah with immigrants by four folds, gerrymandering, threatening and penalizing the opposition leaders and dissenters with draconian laws, manipulating the economy to keep Sabah and Sarawak poor so they continue to be beggars and dependants in Malaysia, suffocating the press, promoting social polarization through manipulation of race and religion, etc. etc. – had failed to put Malaysians under anymore control because they have had enough of it and realized it is time to change the government. He thought he could continue to put on a benign face and manipulate the people forever. But guess what, you can't fool the people forever.   It is interesting that he believes that a new Malaysian government will become more corrupt than his government. Only a dictator who controlled a regime which put on a benign face for so long can think like this. He is actually telling the world, that by knowing "a few things" he was really corrupt and evil as a Prime Minister. By saying all these things he is actually admitting that he is a Machiavellian politician who would stop at nothing to get what he wants. And now, frustrated that he no longer calls the shots, he thinks he is helping Najib's government by going into fear mongering. And poor Najib can't say or do anything because Mahathir has a lot of clout, being able to play the role of a puppet player behind the scene. Najib has to keep quiet, or else. And when we fully realize the reality of this situation, in which our Prime Minster is at the mercy of his predecessor, we will have reasons to have even less confidence in the present BN government! So Mahathir is not doing Najib any favour by talking endlessly like a drunken and frightened monkey. Despite his praises for Najib, he only causes the people to see out PM as a weak puppet.   It will be very interesting to observe what Mahathir will say on the next few days. You can bet he won't be able to keep quite more than a few days. He is too paranoid to keep quiet more than a few days. But what he needs to understand is that his ideas are getting more and more ridiculous and only to serve to convince us even more that our former PM is losing his marbles and showing clear signs of senility.   But what is the real reasons Mahathir is so frightened of the prospect of the BN falling? Believe me Mahathir's reasons are less patriotic than what he tries to show to the public. The real reasons are personal. If BN falls, protective walls around him will crumble and he stands to face the music for a lot of misdeeds during his heydays. Why else is he so paranoid about the RCI and so eager to defend the illegals? Because of the reality of the Projek IC Mahathir. And this is not the only can of worms that are waiting to be exposed. There will be so many that the whole world will have to reel back in shock and disgust. But what can he do now, that the dark clouds are descending on his head and his family? The days of reckoning are here and nobody, even Mahathir with all his clout and money, can stop it.

Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser On 4 September 2012, the London High Court of Justice handed down a judgement that there was no legal duty for Her majesty's Government to hold an inquiry over the killing of 24 civilians by HMG's Scots Guards at Batang Kali on 11/12 December 1948 and that the claimants had no grounds to challenge the decisions of the Secretaries of State not to hold an inquiry. The conclusion of the court was that the decisions of the Secretaries of State "were not unreasonable…" They had maintained that the facts of the case remained in dispute; the veracity of the accounts was in doubt as most of the witnesses had died, and the evidence would be unreliable since it happened more than sixty years ago. Regarding the claim that the Secretaries of State had an obligation to conduct an inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court cited the House of Lords decision [Re McKerr and McCaughey UKHL 12, 1 WLR 807] that "there was no duty to investigate a death before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000." (para 93) Although this may seem like a setback for the claimants and all who demand justice for the 24 victims, there are certain positive dimensions in this judgement and hope in comparable cases elsewhere. 1.       The court established that the 24 victims were civilians and not combatants (para 1): On 13 December 1948, the British High Commissioner had reported the deaths to the Colonial Office as "the shooting and killing of 26 bandits..." This was standard propaganda during the Emergency by the British colonial government and their local custodians. It has taken all these 64 years for this fact to be established by a British court! 2.       The British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards The Secretaries of State had argued in the court that the British Government had no legal responsibility for the actions of the Scots Guards who did the killing at Batang Kali, so they were under no duty to hold an inquiry to pin the responsibility. They had argued, very much like our learned professors in the Mat Sabu/ Mat Indera case, that the Scots Guards were merely assisting the Federation or the Selangor Sultan or both, in maintaining order. In any case, they further argued that any responsibility would have lapsed to the Federation of Malaya upon independence in 1957 via Article 167 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court decided that: "It is clear, in our view, that the British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards. First, the Scots Guards were part of the British Army in contradistinction to the Malay Regiment and other local forces. Second, it is evident from the minute of the British Cabinet…that the reason for the decision to send the brigade of the British Army was to defend British interests against the advance of communism on what was in reality territory the British Government controlled, to prevent the deaths of British citizens and to protect its economic interests. Third, control over the deployment of the army in Malaya was vested in British Defence Co-ordination Committee Far East…Fourth, the Scots Guards were paid for by the British Government…" (para 112) Thus, this judgement has wide applications in the Mat Sabu/Mat Indera case although I suspect many of our local professors need not just legal exposure but rather, political awareness of our colonial history.   Batang Kali is Britain's Rawagedeh Another source of hope for the claimants of Batang Kali is the recent apology by the Dutch government for a massacre of 150 people at Rawagede committed by its soldiers in Indonesia in 1947, as the country fought for independence. Earlier in 2011, a court in the Netherlands ordered the government to pay compensation over the killings. The case was brought by relatives of those who were killed. Reports said the Netherlands would pay 20,000 euros to the relatives, but the exact figure was still being negotiated.   A Crime against Humanity The Rawagedeh claimants had argued that what took place in Rawagedeh on December 9, 1947 was a crime against humanity. Like any other colonial power, the Dutch had used the euphemistic term 'excesses' to describe the tragedy. Like the British in Malaya, the Dutch state defined it as an internal problem. On December 9, 1947 Dutch forces raided the West Javanese village to look for weapons and the Indonesian freedom fighter Lukas Kustario. Unable to find him, the Dutch military lined up the men and killed almost all of the male population. The widows of Rawagedeh and their children sued the Dutch state not only for the execution of their husbands and fathers, but also for failing to investigate the massacre. They wanted the Netherlands to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its actions, and sought financial compensation for their loss. Like the British state, the Dutch had also argued that the statute of limitations had expired. But according to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The Netherlands, however, like many other Western countries, is one of the states that did not ratify the convention. But the Netherlands did ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – after all, the court is at The Hague. However, according to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court the court can only prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity committed on or after July 1, 2002 – the day it came into being. This is not dissimilar to the House of Lords judgement cited in the Batang Kali judgement of 4 Sept 2012.   Gracious and Glorious if Kate & Will Apologised for British State It will therefore only be a matter of time before the British state will be forced to face up to its moral responsibility to the Commonwealth and follow the example of the Dutch government. In this the Queen's diamond jubilee year celebrations, would it not be a gracious and glorious gesture for Kate and Will to openly apologise to the families of the victims of the Batang Kali massacre during their Kuala Lumpur visit in a few months' time? Britain has always tried to project a self-image that is civilized, dignified and humanistic. Apologists for the British Empire have painted a romantic picture of colonialists setting their colonies "on the road to modernity…" The ideology of colonialism, which rationalized and justified oppression and exploitation, has distorted Malayan history and this history has been passed intact to their local custodians (foreign lackeys?). The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Without accounting for past transgressions, the British state will remain for ever trapped in history and the families of the 24 men massacred at Batang Kali will keep reminding the British state that they have a moral responsibility to apologise for the tragedy and to compensate the families for the senseless loss of their loved ones. The claimants have already notified their lawyers to appeal to the higher courts forthwith…

Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo? Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:23 AM PDT A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point.  Sandra Rajoo   People seem to be all excited recently over the education review blueprint which is due to be made public on Sept 11. Some even hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread, and this is before they even know the actual content. Let us hold the applause until after we read the whole document and see where it is taking us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. Will this 'mother-of-all-solutions' blueprint stand up to scrutiny? Is it going to be a solid, excellent-for-education master plan or will it be a glitzy, complex and tricky-to-implement blueprint? A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. This effort at revamping the education system, which is long overdue, has to be commended though. Nevertheless I am not holding my breath. Decades of failed endeavours by the MoE tend to make people cynical, and I am wary of those who throw out feel-good statements to pacify a sceptical public. Clearly, there is an inability to look at education holistically and plan accordingly. Piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives which have been the norm will not bring desired results.   Recall the time the ministry tried to design a curriculum aimed at producing creative and critical thinking (CCT) learners. Learning was going to be fun and enjoyable apparently. Unfortunately, it didn't look very good on paper, and fared even worse in the classroom. Obviously, the desired outcomes did not materialise. Many teachers had no idea what CCT entailed, and were not too eager to encourage it, lest students start asking questions and forming opinions. So that became a failed venture. What became evident and has remained entrenched were the obsession with grades, dropping of literacy levels, robotic methods of learning, emphasis on rote-learning, 'invisible' teachers, lack of concern for students' welfare, demotivated students and indifferent education officials. The teaching and learning of Maths and Science in English (PPSMI) is another issue that makes our hackles rise. From its inception about 10 years ago until today it has been fraught with difficulty and mired in controversy. The education ministry appears helpless and at a loss, what with the flip-flopping and the inability to train competent teachers. The vagueness of the 'soft-landing' which promises the continuation of PPSMI for certain groups of students and the current situation where many teachers have reverted to teaching in BM reflect poorly on the ministry. There has so far been no effort made at monitoring the situation on the ground. Is it any wonder that many parents are moving their children to private or international schools, or resorting to home schooling? Another point of contention was when the Prime Minister announced that Literature in English will be incorporated into the curriculum. This was picked up by the media and was heralded as the panacea for our English language woes. But Literature has been in the curriculum for a decade or so already. The subject is not something new. It is amazing that the people pertinent in education circles are unaware of this fact. English woes aside, we need to also ensure that our children receive proper instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. The disorganised way in which BM is being taught in schools does not augur well for the present and coming generations. When English was the medium of instruction, it created many proficient and competent users of the language which cut across all ethnic groups. The same cannot be said about BM. How many are really competent in the language? This problem has been neglected for too long. Let's see what the new education blueprint has in store for us. Going by the 153 proposals adopted by the Review Panel, our education system does appear to be in a bit of a shambles, doesn't it? Concerned groups have been voicing their views and giving suggestions over the years, but were largely ignored. Was the ministry waiting all this while for a 'saviour' to come save the day? Is this blueprint going to be the saviour? The implementation of the blueprint will stretch over 13 years which is a long time. Is the ministry committed to carry the momentum over this long period? The revealing of the blueprint is expected to generate debate amongst stakeholders.  We hope any critique given by the public is looked upon as feedback to how things can be improved. Any comment deemed unfavourable to the ministry should not be frowned upon and disregarded.  All the same, I believe that responsible and dedicated educators will have their own personal education blueprint which they use to plan, guide, execute and monitor their performance. If people involved in education, from the director-general to the school principal to the classroom teacher, have been doing this all along, the nationwide review exercise would not have been necessary. Good teachers don't wait for directives from the top before giving their best to students. Ultimately it is not the blueprint per se that can save our education system, it is whether officials and educators can save it through a good understanding of their roles and a commitment to the responsibilities they hold.   We want to reach a stage in our education where we can say with pride that our children are bright and capable because of the education system, not despite it.

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

Selak punggong pada gambar Najib Posted: 11 Sep 2012 02:50 PM PDT Budak yang melakukannya bersama ayah bondanya minta maaf menyatakan penyesalan atas tindakan geramnya. Beberapa budak lagi yang ikut memejak gambar sudah berjumpa polis dan memberi keterangan. Apa yang terjadi itu adalah gelagat anak-anak muda terhadap Perdana Menteri mereka. Perdana Menteri kena terima bahawa rakyat yang dipimpinnya bukan semua menangguk atas semua kata-kata dan tindakannya. Ada yang mengoyak, memijak, melondeh seluar pada gambarnya. Semua itu tidak manis tetapi adalah untuk memberitahu Perdana Menteri ramai juga orang yang benci kepadanya. Maka kejadian itu semuanya buruk belaka, tetapi ingatan kepada pemimpin bahawa mereka diperhatikan oleh rakyat. Disamping menyuruh polis mengajar rakyat yang seperti itu, maka Perdana Menteri juga boleh belajar dari kejadian itu mengapa ada orang buat begitu padanya. Nabi-nabi dulu apabila ada indakannya terlanjur ada malikat datang menyamar sebagai manusia memberi kiasan. Nabi Daud a.s. didatangi dua orang minta penghakimannya iaitu yang seorang mengadu betapa kambingnya yang cuma seekor hendak diambil oleh yang seorang lagi sedang dia sudah ada 99 ekor kambing. Adakah ia adil? Jawab baginda, "Tidak patut." Kejadian itu menyindir Nabi Daud yang ada 99 isteri hendak mengambil seorang perempuan lagi bagi dijadikan isterinya sedang perempuan itu ada hubungan dengan seorang laki-laki lain. Sebagai Nabi baginda cepat menangkap sindiran itu. Nabi Yunus tanpa arahan Allah meninggalkan umatnya yang menentangnya. Nabi itu diuji dengan dibuang ke laut bagi menyelamatkan bahtera yang lebih muatan dan baginda ditelan jerung berhari-hari hinggi dimuntahkan dari perut ikan di wilayah yang ditinggalkannya. Nabi Yunus menyedari kejadian itu adalah kesilapannya sebagai Nabi. Baginda bertaubat. Perdana Menteri Najib bukan nabi. Tidak malaikat datang menyindirnya. Tetapi Allah kirim budak-budak menghina gambarnya. Disamping dia merestui jentera kerajaan bertindak atas budak-budak itu, maka dia juga patut memikir mengapa ada rakyat yang dirasakan sudah diberi segala-galanya boleh menghinanya demikian? Mengapa di bawah pentadbirannya ada rakyat kurang ajar begitu? Pemimpin akan ditanya mengapa ada rakyat jadi begitu? Roh Najib selamat jika jawapannya diperkenan Allah. Jika jawapannya mengarut, dia akan dibalun malaikat nanti. Beberapa bulan sebelum budak-budak itu menghina gambar Najib, sekumpulan orang berhimpun berpetang-petang menonggeng ponggong ke rumah Ambiga Sreenevasan, ketua Bersih. Semua Umno, pembesar-pembesar dan pecacai seronok terhadap menonggeng ponggong itu. Sikap pentadbiran seolah-olah berkata, "Padan muka kami Ambiga!" Ada yang suruh cabut kerakyatannya. Ada rakyat di bawah pentadbiran Najib yang berperngai begitu. Sukakah Najib dan penyokong Najib atas perbuatan itu? Najib biasanya diam. Kalau batu bersuara, bersuaralah Najib. Tidakkah kerja nakal budak-budak terhadap gambarnya itu satu ingatan Allah supaya kerajaan Najib bermuhasabah terhadap pemerintahannya betapa longgarnya akhlak orang di bawah pemerintahaannya. Yang suka Najib pun tidak berakhlak dan benci kepadanya pun tidak berakhlak juga. Jangan sampai jawapan kepada masalah yang dihadapi itu adalah natijah dari pemimpin dan kerajaan yang tidak berakhlak. Jangan lihat saranan saya sebagai mengutuk Najib, tetapi lihatkan sebagai ingatan. Rosak dunia jika dipenuhi oleh pengampu. Biar ada orang ― seorang dua ― sedia mengingatkan sesama saudara manusianya.

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• They are messing with our minds
• The only good politician is a dead politician
• Why it is un-Islamic to arrest Ong Sing Yee
• When nothing works, do nothing
• Till death do us part
• The Istana influence in politics
• Remember we did this in primary school?
• Let the pictures do the talking
• Relative to time and place
• By whose interpretation?

They are messing with our minds Posted: 09 Sep 2012 07:00 PM PDT Committing suicide was the last thing on our minds back then. Our minds were not messed up like the minds of today's kids. Okay, maybe we were a bit messed up because we could not decide in what order of priority it was supposed to be -- bikes, booze and broads or bikes, broads and booze. But we did not allow details to stand in the way of fun. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin One million people commit suicide each year: WHO (AFP) - One million people die by their own hand each year, accounting for more deaths than wars and murders put together, the World Health Organisation said yesterday, calling for urgent action to address the problem. "Data from the WHO indicate that approximately one million people worldwide die by suicide each year. This corresponds to one death by suicide every 40 seconds," the organisation said in a report launched ahead of the World Suicide Prevention Day on Monday. And while the number of deaths by suicide is staggering, the number of attempts each year is 20 times higher, the WHO said, pointing out that five percent of people in the world try to kill themselves at least once during their lifetime. And the problem is getting worse, the organisation said, insisting that "given the magnitude of the public health problem of suicidal behaviours", urgent action was needed. "As suicide is largely preventable, it is imperative that governments, through their health, social and other relevant sectors, invest human and financial resources in suicide prevention," the report said. According to Dr. Shekhar Saxena, who headed the team behind the report, suicide rates have risen sharply in some parts of the world in recent years, with some countries seeing their rates jump by as much as 60 percent. "Although suicide continues to remain a serious problem in high-income countries, it is the low- and middle-income countries that bear the larger part of the global suicide burden," the report said, adding: "It is also these countries that are relatively less equipped to prevent suicide". The highest documented suicide rates can be found in Eastern European countries like Lithuania and Russia, while they are lowest in Latin America, WHO said. The United States, Western European countries and Asia fell in the middle of the range, the report showed, but stressed that statistics are not available for many countries in Africa and South-East Asia. Globally, suicide is meanwhile the second cause of death worldwide among 15-19 year-olds, with at least 100,000 adolescents killing themselves each year, according to the study. Among adults, the suicide rate is highest among those aged 75 and older, the WHO said, pointing out that "elderly people are likely to have higher suicide intent and use more lethal methods than younger people, and they are less likely to survive the physical consequences of an attempt". The report also showed that men were three times more likely to commit suicide, but that three times as many women as men attempted to kill themselves. "The disparity in suicide rates has been partly explained by the use of more lethal means and the experience of more aggression and higher intent to die, when suicidal, in men than women," it explained. ********************************************* Latin America has the lowest suicide rate in the world, maybe because they like to party One million people a year or one person every 40 seconds commits suicide all over the world. "Although suicide continues to remain a serious problem in high-income countries, it is the low- and middle-income countries that bear the larger part of the global suicide burden," said the report. "Globally, suicide is meanwhile the second cause of death worldwide among 15-19 year-olds, with at least 100,000 adolescents killing themselves each year, according to the study," said the news report above, which represents 10% of those who commit suicide So there you have it. These people are too young to have sex (they are not matured enough to make the decision whether to have sex of not) but they are not too young to commit suicide. But why do people commit suicide, especially teenagers who have not even started their life yet? I suppose it is because they are not happy. And since they are not happy they no longer want to live. Isn't 15 or 16 a bit too young to not be happy? When I was that age I was happy like hell. Every day was party day, as far as I was concerned. And we lived for today. We did not care a damn about tomorrow. Why are the kids of today not like how we were when we were their age? I suppose, in our days, we did not have any pressure. Everyone was a friend, not like today where you have Malay friends, Chinese friends, Indian friends, etc. You were just a friend, period, so there was not much pressure placed on us to compartmentalise ourselves into racial, religious or social blocks. Then we never worried about our future. Every day is today. Tomorrow also becomes today when the sun rises the following morning. Hence who cares about tomorrow? Tomorrow never comes. Nowadays, there is no today. Everything is about tomorrow. We don't live for today. We plan and prepare for tomorrow. I suppose grass helped a lot as well. In our days, grass was not considered a drug and hence was not illegal. Even policeman would join us for a smoke. And sometimes the policemen would dip into their own pocket and pull out some grass for us to 'roll'. Man, in those days we kids did not have any problems with the policemen like the kids of nowadays. The policemen were our friends and our smoking 'kakis'. Some of them even came around with their squad cars to join us in Benteng for Teh Tarik and a smoke. Committing suicide was the last thing on our minds back then. Our minds were not messed up like the minds of today's kids. Okay, maybe we were a bit messed up because we could not decide in what order of priority it was supposed to be -- bikes, booze and broads or bikes, broads and booze. But we did not allow details to stand in the way of fun. So what happened? What changed in those 45 years since we were kids who lived for today and did not care a damn about tomorrow? Why do kids today commit suicide when in our days a good 'watermelon' was to die for but only in a figure of speech sort of way? (By the way, for those of you who do not know what 'watermelon' means, too bad. For those who do, maybe you can take a trip down memory lane with the video below). Anyway, sometimes I wonder whether the fault could be because we replaced grass with religion and that is why so many people are unhappy and end up committing suicide. Well, as Bob Marley said, "Don't worry, be happy." But we will have to start by getting rid of those people who keep telling us that we are going to go to hell if we don't listen to them. oenlU0KiILc SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oenlU0KiILc

The only good politician is a dead politician Posted: 09 Sep 2012 04:56 PM PDT Would an orgy help then? I mean, not only will we encourage males and females to mix freely but they can also strip naked and engage in an orgy. We will have a mass bonking session involving 1,000 men and women. Will this make Malaysians love each other more? If free mingling of males and females can help improve racial harmony just imagine what free sex can do. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Two dead, child loses leg in Thai south 80 police hurt after riot at Kurdish festival in Germany Wave of attacks kills 56 in Iraq Taliban threaten to kill Prince Harry Those are just some of the news items this morning. There are, of course, many more than just those four and all give Islam a bad name. Basically, the impression that one gets is Islam or Muslims is about violence, conflict, killing, intolerance, extremism etc. Why is it when we read anything about Islam or Muslims it must always be something negative? Aren't there any good news like Muslims set up relief centres for refugees, Muslims raise USD100 million for war orphans, Muslims condemn and call for economic sanctions against states that propagate terrorism, and whatnot? I am sure that there are some good news but who likes to read good news? It is the bad news that sells. Sex, politics, murder -- those are what sell.  And if it is a politician involved in a sex cum murder scandal that sells even better. Hence do you now understand why the Altantuya Shaariibuu story will just not go away? Today there is that story about PAS in Negri Sembilan separating the males and females at its Hara Raya bash (Negri PAS under fire for segregating sexes at Raya open house). State MCA political and strategy bureau head Datuk Lee Yuen Fong said PAS' action only caused uneasiness among Malaysians. "Why do you need to segregate when it is an open house and held in an open area? This is a preview of what PAS will do if it ever gains power," he said. Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council chairman Edward Lim said that having such a rule would not help foster unity. "We can understand if the rule is introduced to ensure women, girls and children get their food as there is always a scramble at such events," he said. National MIC information chief Datuk V.S. Mogan described the segregation as ridiculous. "It mocks the open house concept and doesn't help in promoting unity," he said. PAS has been doing this for years. I have attended many PAS functions at Taman Melawar in Gombak (not only Hari Raya events) and they have always had separate sections and separate entrances for males and females. But this has never upset my wife and me one bit. My wife just walks in together with me through the 'male' entrance and she sits together with me in the male section. She does not join the other ladies in the ladies section. And that has never been an issue. No one has come up to her to ask her to leave the male section and go join the women in the ladies section. In fact, my wife was not even wearing a tudung or scarf. And sometimes she wears tight/body-hugging jeans and a 'sexy' T-shirt. These people make it appear like this is something that PAS only introduced this year rather than it has always been like that for more than two generations. And what are these MCA, MIC and Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council people complaining about? The event is a PAS event held at their place. They can decide how they want things done in their own event. If you come to my event, say at my house, I will expect you to take off your shoes even though taking off your shoes when entering someone's house is not British culture. It is my house so I will decide how things are done. And if you don't like it then don't come to my house. Simple! The event was a PAS event. If PAS says no dogs are allowed then don't bring your dog. Go bring your dog to a MCA or MIC event of you wish. If PAS says you cannot strip and dance stark naked on top of the table then don't do that. Do that when you go to the Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council gathering. Lee said that in a multi-racial and multi-religious country like Malaysia, it was important for people to mix with one another as it would help promote understanding. So the state MCA political and strategy bureau head, Datuk Lee Yuen Fong, wants to promote racial harmony through free mingling of males and females. If males and females were not allowed to mix freely then Malaysia would suffer racial discord. Would an orgy help then? I mean, not only will we encourage males and females to mix freely but they can also strip naked and engage in an orgy. We will have a mass bonking session involving 1,000 men and women. Will this make Malaysians love each other more? If free mingling of males and females can help improve racial harmony just imagine what free sex can do. Actually, asking men and women to mix freely or organising orgies would not solve the racial problem in Malaysia. What would help improve things would be when we line up all the politicians in front of a firing squad and shoot them, especially those politicians who are using race and religion to divide Malaysians The only good politician is a dead politician, I always say. THE SECRET TO RACIAL HARMONY

Why it is un-Islamic to arrest Ong Sing Yee Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:19 PM PDT When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin From the Islamic viewpoint, there is nothing wrong in stepping on statues, paintings, posters and photographs of humans and animals. In fact, the Talibans in Afghanistan blew up such statues. Remember the Bamiyan statues of Buddha that were blown up back in March 2001? Statues, paintings, posters and photographs of people and animals are forbidden in Islam. Some ulama' (scholars) say that 'exemption' can be given in certain instances such as when photographs are needed for passports, identity cards, driving licences, etc. However, if they are just for fun or for show, then, according to the ulama', they are forbidden. Hence are we allowed to hang photographs of rulers, political leaders, pop stars, etc., on the wall? Not if it is meant to revere these people or to 'honour' them. This would expose people to the danger of idol worshipping like how some people idolise pop stars. I know some kids will say that so-and-so is their idol. They idol worship these superstars. Well, in Islam that is wrong. Saudi Arabia would even confiscate photographs and posters of Imam Khomeini. I should know because I had to hide my poster to smuggle it out of the country. I was warned I might be arrested if I was caught but I took that risk (and got away with it). When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall. I did what my Tok Guru advised although it pained me to do so because that was the poster I carried above my head in the Mekah demonstration that I participated in. Hence what Ong Sing Yee did was actually very Islamic. The Talibans would probably approve of what she did. So would the Salafis. In fact, even many Sunnis, the sect that most Malaysian Muslims belong to, would feel the same way. If Ong Sing Yee had stepped on a poster of Carlsberg beer or on a poster of Sports Toto, she would have been commended. Such things are haram in Islam. And so are posters of human beings, which are equally haram in Islam. Let those politicians and fake Muslims continue to foam at the mouth and whine away. We true Muslims who know what Islam is all about should commend Ong Sing Yee. More people should do what Ong Sing Yee did. Revering politicians and placing their photographs on the wall is considered idol worshipping in Islam. All these should be pulled down just like what the Talibans did in Afghanistan. Oh, and don't worry about the Sedition Act. That is an old English law that was created so that the people would not criticise the King. You see, the King went against the Pope and the people were not happy about it. In those days, many people were papists and they believed that the Pope was God's Wakil on earth and that what the Pops says is on behalf of God. The Palace, however, wanted the people to believe that the new Wakil of God is the King and not the Pope. But they had to stop the people from contradicting the Palace. Hence they created the Sedition Act so that those who said the Pope and not the King is the Wakil of God could be arrested. Basically, the Sedition Act was meant to defend the Church of England. Now, Malays use it to defend haram things like hanging photographs and posters of people on the wall. Actually, these are sesat Muslims.

When nothing works, do nothing Posted: 07 Sep 2012 04:37 PM PDT But Dr Mahathir is old and senile. Nik Aziz is a country bumpkin. Saudi Arabia is crazy. It is our civil right to watch porn. No one should stop us from watching porn. So we have children also watching porn. But that is the price of freedom of information. There should be no censorship. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin More than 11 years ago, back in early 2001, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad explained why Malaysia needs a detention without trial law. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a preventive law, explained Dr Mahathir. It is a law that makes it possible to detain people before they commit a crime. If they have already committed a crime then they can be arrested and charged in court. But it is better to detain these people before they commit a crime, Dr Mathathir said. Once they have already committed the crime they would probably be far away from the scene of the crime and would have escaped by the time the police arrive. Even if they are arrested and charged they may get off. Maybe there is not enough evidence to get a conviction or a smart lawyer would get them acquitted. Hence, even if they are arrested, there is no guarantee they would be punished. This makes the ISA necessary, said Dr Mahathir. People can be detained even before they commit a crime. Even while they are still thinking of committing a crime they can already be detained. Once they have committed a crime the damage would have already be done. Better we prevent the damage before it happens. Then 911 happened. And this allowed Dr Mahathir to gloat and tell us 'I told you so'. Our Twin Towers is still standing because Malaysia has a detention without trial law, said Dr Mahathir. The US does not have such a law so their Twin Towers is gone. That shows how useful the ISA is to preserve peace, order and stability. The US too needs a preventive detention law like Malaysia, Dr Mahathir counselled that great power. Then the US 'followed' Malaysia's 'advice' by introducing their version of a detention without trial law. And the western countries too started embarking on preventive detention. They detained suspected terrorists who had yet to commit any crime but were suspected of planning or thinking of committing a crime. So the world proved Dr Mahathir right in the end. And now we find that adults who have sex with children escape punishment. Then we say that Malaysia's legal system stinks. People who should be punished are not punished and people who should not be punished are punished. It is the world upside down. And, of course, we are not happy about this. So what do we do? Do we detain without trial people who are suspected of planning to commit a crime or do we wait until they do commit the crime and then arrest and charge them and see them get acquitted and escape punishment? Then we have people like Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat who says that boys and girls (or men and women) should not be allowed to mix freely. In fact, countries like Saudi Arabia do not allow girls or women to leave the house unless escorted or chaperoned by male members of their family. This is to prevent girls or women from being raped or duped into having sex with horny male predators. But we call Nik Aziz an idiot and Saudi Arabia a backward country. We do not want segregation of the sexes or separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females. We want males and females the freedom to mix and not having to endure forced segregation by the state. Yes, we want this and we want that. We want everything. We also want race-free political parties that will uphold the interest of our race. Hmm…that sounds like we want virgin prostitutes. Then we have a 14-year old girl who has sex with a 13-year old boy. Do we now charge the girl for sex with a minor since she is one-year older than the boy? Or will this apply only if an 18-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy and then the 18-year old girl gets sent to jail in the interest of the 17-year old boy? But it was the boy who seduced the girl. So how can the girl be punished? Yes, but it is the age that counts. And since the girl is older than the boy then she and not the boy has to be punished. But why, in the first place, do children of 12 or 13 have sex? Well, this could be because children of nine or ten have access to the Internet and they get to see porn on the Internet. So they want to try out all those exciting things they see every day on the Internet. So it is the Internet then that has to be blamed? Or is it because boys and girls or men and women are allowed to mix freely? Would barring girls from leaving the house without a chaperone or having separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females help? Or do we just arrest more people and charge them in court and see them get acquitted and go unpunished? Phew…what a dilemma we are facing. Then Dr Mahathir comes out and makes a statement that the Internet needs to be regulated. Then we whack Dr Mahathir and call him all sorts of names. But there is just too much porn on the Internet, argues Dr Mahathir. We are allowing children to see things they should not be allowed to see. And if we allow children free access to porn sites then they might want to try what they see on the Internet. And then we will have children indulging in sex. But Dr Mahathir is old and senile. Nik Aziz is a country bumpkin. Saudi Arabia is crazy. It is our civil right to watch porn. No one should stop us from watching porn. So we have children also watching porn. But that is the price of freedom of information. There should be no censorship. Okay, the downside is children who watch porn indulge in sex. But we do not agree to chaperoning girls or women. We also do not agree to segregation of the sexes. We want more policemen on the streets arresting adults who have sex with children and strict judges who are prepared to send these people to jail. And if a 19-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy then the girl must be locked up even if it was the boy who seduced the girl. And since Barisan Nasional cannot do this then we must kick out Barisan Nasional and replace the government with Pakatan Rakyat. And how will Pakatan Rakyat solve this problem that Barisan Nasional cannot? That is not important. What is important is we gave Barisan Nasional 55 years and they could not solve the problem. No doubt Pakatan Rakyat has not told us yet how they are going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional could not solve. But we will talk about that later. Let's vote them into office first and then we will discuss how Pakatan Rakyat is going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional cannot solve. Maybe we will do what Dr Mahathir suggests. Maybe we will listen to Nik Aziz. Maybe we will follow what Saudi Arabia does. Maybe we can show children various verses of the Qur'an and Bible that say sex outside marriage is forbidden and that they will go to hell if they violate God's command. Maybe we can detain without trial suspected sex offenders before they commit a crime. Or maybe we will do nothing and the problem will just continue. But let's vote first and find out later.

Till death do us part Posted: 06 Sep 2012 06:57 PM PDT I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "Till death do us part," goes the marriage vows. But in many cases that never happens. In the US, about 40% of marriages end in divorce whereas in the UK it is slightly lower. Whatever it may be, an average of more than one-third of marriages in the US and UK does not end with the death of one of the partners. It ends earlier than that and the divorce rate for second and thirds marriages is even higher, according to the statistics. I suppose people change. Interests change. Priorities change. Age sometimes also plays a part. As we get older we change our mind or our value system. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons as to why some couples are just not able to keep their marriage vows. Or it could be because you got tired of eating curry every day and now you want to change your diet and taste some tom yam. Some people tell me that when you eat curry at home every day you sometimes want to go out for some tom yam. The only thing is, don't get caught lest your wife does a 'Bobbit' on you. Change is the only thing that is constant, if you know what I mean. In my younger days, I used to love going to discos (what kids nowadays call clubbing). By the time I was 27, I preferred to spend my time at the mosque listening to the ustaz preach religion. Another 27 years later -- by the time I was 54 (that was eight years ago) -- I got bored with the same old sermons. We appeared to be going nowhere with all this talk regarding rukun and hukum. I wanted to know more, not just about batal wuduk, batal puasa, batal sembahyang, hukum nikah, hukum cerai, and whatnot. So I stopped going to the mosque to listen to sermons that I had been hearing for more than half my life and which I already knew by heart and could utter in my sleep. I suppose this is what the journey of life is all about. As you travel farther down the road you begin to see things differently and this changes you and the way you look at things. And when you reach the forks or junctions in your life you may decide to take the left lane rather than the right lane, as you have been doing so many times before. I mean, when you keep taking the same right lane every time and you find that the scenery does not change you might, out of curiosity, decide this time to try the left lane to see what happens. Then you discover that the left lane actually offers the answers to the questions you have been asking for decades but never found the answers to. It is no different in politics. Anwar Ibrahim, in his secondary school days, was fiercely anti-British. Considering that Malaya (not even 'Malaysia' yet at that time) had just gained independence barely three years before that, this is not surprising. The Merdeka spirit still burned very strongly in many people in 1960, Anwar included. But as we got farther and farther away from 1957, Merdeka got reduced to something that we read in the history books. Why did Anwar need to continue screaming about Merdeka when we were already Merdeka? Anwar then began to talk about Malay nationalism. And with that he talked about the Malay language and why Malay should replace English, even for the street names. Anwar's nationalist fight from 1968 to 1971 was through the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) and the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Thereafter, Mountbatten Road got changed to Jalan Mountbatten and eventually to Jalan Tun Perak. Birch Road (named after the eighth Resident of Perak, Sir Ernest Woodford Birch) was renamed Jalan Birch and again to Jalan Maharajalela -- named after the man who killed James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the first Resident of Perak) -- and many more all over the country. In 1974, Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act. Not long after that, Anwar became an Islamist and started to fight for more Islamisation through the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), which was formed in 1972. In those days, Anwar worked very closely with the Islamic party, PAS, and was a strong supporter of the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, as was I. In 1982, Anwar did a U-turn and, again, became a Malay nationalist when he joined Umno. I must admit that in the early 1960s I disagreed with Anwar's anti-British and pro-Malay language stand. But after he got released from ISA and became an active Islamist around 1976-1977 (by then I was already an Islamist myself, as I explained above), I did a U-turn and supported him. I would attend most of the rallies that PAS organised in the East Coast where Anwar was a speaker. But when Anwar joined Umno in 1982, I washed my hands off him. There was one occasion when he flew to Kuala Terengganu with his Umno Youth entourage and I completely ignored him although I was seated right behind him in the plane. By the way, he also ignored me, so it was mutual. Then, of course, that brings us to 1998, but I have already told that story so many times before so maybe it is not necessary that I talk about it again. Suffice to say, in 1998, I forgave Anwar for his betrayal and rallied behind him in support of Reformasi. But that only lasted six years. In 2004, I again 'divorced' Anwar and chose to fight my own battle through Malaysia Today, although I still aligned myself to the opposition, in particular DAP, who I campaigned for in 2008. Sometimes marriages last. Sometimes they do not. In the US and the UK more than one-third of marriages do not. But it happens and even the 'till death do us part' vow uttered in church do get broken. Nevertheless, when the relationship no longer works you need to just move on and look for a new relationship. Even then there is no guarantee that the next one will work. Will, under such a situation, an anti-hopping law work? Is it even democratic in the first place? What about freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution? Do we remove that Article that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association? Basically, that is what it would tantamount to. Say, you are a member of DAP. And, say, DAP agrees to hold a referendum on whether Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic State with the Islamic law of Hudud as the law of the land. And, also say, DAP agrees that if 51% of Malaysians vote in favour of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State then DAP will not oppose it. Would you agree to that? Would you be of the opinion that the voting will be clean and honest and that there will be no rigging? Would you accept whatever the outcome of the referendum because it is your party's decision and you will not oppose your party's decision although you are opposed to an Islamic State?  Or would you want the freedom of resigning from DAP because you are of the opinion that an Islamic State will not work for Malaysia? I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. Yes, changing your position does happen. And you may have reasons for that although others may not share these reasons. But this is what democracy is all about -- the right to change your mind and your position. Hence, if this right is taken away from you, then democracy itself has been removed. Anwar has changed his position a few times, as have I. But to condemn Anwar for his ever-changing position when he has every democratic right to change his views (as he gets older) is a violation of these rights. We all change, as we get older. My friend from DAP, YB Ronnie Liu, used to be a Communist in his younger days. But weren't many of us Communists when we were younger, me included? In fact, I still buy and wear Che Guevara T-shirts even until today. However, as we mature and as we lose some at that idealism, we begin to change. Today, Ronnie is as Communist as Madonna is a virgin. In short, till death do us part is a fallacy. And even the Catholic Church has had to reluctantly accept this reality. But would a Catholic cease to be a Catholic just because he or she broke her marriage vow of 'till death do us part'?

The Istana influence in politics Posted: 03 Sep 2012 06:56 PM PDT The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Malaysia's 1990 general election was the worst election performance for the ruling party since 1969. Barisan Nasional won only 53.4% of the votes and 70.55% of the seats. The opposition, which won 46.6% of the votes, performed almost as good as it did in 2008 when it garnered 46.76% of the popular votes. The biggest blow to the ruling party, however, was that it got massacred in the state of Kelantan, which fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since. DAP, which for the first time was in a loose coalition with Semangat 46 -- called Gagasan Rakyat -- won 20 Parliament seats. PBS, another Semangat 46 'partner' in Sabah, won 14 seats while the Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah or APU coalition with PAS won 15 Parliament seats plus the Kelantan State Assembly. Now, what is so special about the 1990 general election? 1990 was the first general election after the (second) Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s (there were two incidences in the 1980s but Umno lost the first one and won the second one). And in that Constitutional Crisis Annuar Musa, the Umno Chief for Kelantan, called the Kelantan Sultan stupid in a speech he delivered in Kelantan while Anwar Ibrahim called His Highness a smuggler (regarding the Lamborghini incident). This infuriated the Sultan who openly declared war on Umno and which resulted in Umno getting whacked big-time. Even Umno members voted opposition in huge numbers. Since then both Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno have learned their lesson. The Monarchy may be only a Constitutional Monarchy and without executive powers, and some may even view the Monarchy as outdated and no longer relevant, but the Malays still regard the Monarchy as a 'sacred cow' that should not be dragged though the mud -- just like how they feel about Islam, the Malay language and kedaulatan Melayu. No doubt 'modern' Malaysians cannot grasp this 'weird' sentiment and they just do not understand why those 'old' values can still have a bearing on how Malays vote. This is, of course, a very 'rural' thing -- hence urban Malaysians would not understand this. But if you have lived in a kampong, like I did for 20 years from 1974-1994, then you will appreciate how the Malay mind works and what makes them tick. I mean, you may not see the significance of Malay 'values' just like how Malays would not understand the significance of the colour red over white when you hand out ang pows during Chinese New Year. Every ethnicity has strange 'values' that the others do not understand. The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost? It is not the physical loss that people are concerned about but the significance or symbolism of that act. Stepping on the Malaysian flag means pissing on Malaysia. Hence 'stepping' on the Rulers (Raja-Raja Melayu) also means pissing on the Malays. Strange, don't you think so? I suppose no stranger than believing that white envelopes bring bad luck while red envelopes will make you rich and prosperous -- or that giving someone money in a white envelope during Chinese New Year equates to pissing on the Chinese. And isn't the crucifix also about symbolism? If not then why can't Muslims wear a crucifix? What 'physical' harm does it do? I cautioned my friends in the DAP (YB Ronnie Liu can conform this) that the Selangor State Government has to step very cautiously when dealing with the Rulers. You can't always say yes, no doubt, I told Ronnie. Sometimes you may need to say no. But you must know the 'correct' way of saying no so that 'no' is not taken as a rebuke or a snub. And that is the most difficult thing whenever protocol is involved. And proper protocol 'education' is not something you are born with. It is something you acquire along the way. Even the underworld has certain protocol, which you need to observe. Just walking requires protocol as well because walking side-by-side, walking in front, and walking behind, mean different things and will send different messages (read: Rosmah Mansor). But observing proper protocol requires putting aside egos. Observing proper protocol is an admission that you are subservient to convention. Walking upright into a room where an elder or senior is seated or walking slightly 'bent' means two different things. Gesturing or pointing with your finger and gesturing or pointing with your thumb also means two different things. Those of you who complain that you were extorted or beaten up by triad members back in your schooldays in the 1960s probably failed to understand the importance of protocol -- the correct and incorrect hand gestures, when to and when not to have eye-to-eye contact, etc. Yes, even the underworld practices protocol, as does the Istana. And if you need to deal with the Istana you had better learn the proper manners or else limit your dealings as far as possible. Of course, when you are in government this is not always a choice open to you. I know…I know…many of you are now going to say that you don't care a damn and that this is so feudalistic and outdated and whatnot. That is well and fine maybe from where you sit. But when the majority of the Malays are still feudalistic and when many of the seats are Malay-majority seats it matters. And let us not discover the hard way like Umno did in 1990 that what they thought does not matter, in fact, does matter and then we pay a heavy price for our arrogance and ignorance. Oh, and one more thing, Anwar Ibrahim, alongside Dr Mahathir, of course, is viewed as an enemy of the Monarchy. Hence it is even more important for Anwar to not rub the Istana the wrong way. Between Najib Tun Razak -- an 'orang Istana' -- and Anwar, the Rulers would rather see Najib as Prime Minister. So be warned.   THE ANTI-MONARCHISTS OF THE 1980S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Remember we did this in primary school? Posted: 03 Sep 2012 04:11 PM PDT Do you remember back in primary school when we were still kids and when we quarrelled we would 'step on your father's head'? We did this by throwing a piece of paper on the ground and then declaring that it was the head of our enemy's father before we stepped on it. After more than 50 years we are still doing that. Actually, we have never really grown up much even though we may have grown old. Our body became big but our brain remains tiny. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let the pictures do the talking Posted: 02 Sep 2012 02:39 PM PDT Many accuse me of being cheong hei. Well, today I am not going to write anything. Instead I am just going to show you some pictures and see if you are smart enough to get the message. If not then never mind. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin

Relative to time and place Posted: 01 Sep 2012 05:52 PM PDT Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame. But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God. Dr. William Lane Craig **************************************** That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist. Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God 'tells' us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists). In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world. Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my 'adopted cousins' would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis 'western standards')? In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him. It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that. The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong? Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist. Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral. Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, 'children' were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read 'La croisade des enfants' [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob). Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home. Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ. But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion's definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God's law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically. I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards. My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death. Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished. Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society's standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one? You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up. If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed. And one such 'old value' that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married.

By whose interpretation? Posted: 29 Aug 2012 06:42 PM PDT Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin You may have noticed that I have not written a thing regarding former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan's statutory rape case. First of all, I thought that since every man and his dog was already talking about it you don't really need me to comment as well. I mean it is not quite the untold story that I normally like to dabble in. It is more like the 'over-told' story. Furthermore, do you really need more 'noise'? There is such a thing called overkill and flogging a dead horse (an idiom). There is also such a thing called information overload, which makes people lethargic and sometimes immune to the issue. Hence 'too much' can be counter-productive. Secondly, this appears to have turned into an opposition crusade, which is bad. Once it is perceived as a political issue rather than an issue of justice, people become divided on the issue based on political leanings and not because it is either the right thing or the wrong thing. People will oppose right or support wrong if the criteria is politics. Take crossovers as one example. Anyway, what is my take on the issue? Okay, are you outraged about the court's decision because you are an opposition supporter or because it is morally (or legally) wrong to not classify the case as statutory rape instead of consensual sex? (Note that even some of those in government feel the same way as you do although they speak 'gentler' in expressing their view and without the venom). I think a more important question would be are you capable of setting aside politics when you talk about this issue -- or any issue for that matter that involves justice, civil liberties, etc? Can we leave our Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat hats outside the door and come to the table as Malaysians of common interests and concerns? That is the one thing we find most difficult to do. It is always politics first and everything else second, even in matters such as Hudud, which is supposed to be above politics but is not. Okay, so a man (or boy) has sex with an underage girl. My first question would be: are the men/boy and girl Muslims? If they are then this is zina (illicit sex or sex outside marriage). And is not zina a crime under the Sharia (Islamic law)? Hence should not the boy and girl be tried under the Sharia? If the man/boy and girl were both above 18 they would have been brought to the Sharia court. Why are they not brought to the Sharia court just because one or both are below 18? In Islam, the 'age of consent' would be the age of puberty. For girls that would be once she gets her period and that could even be when she is nine years old. According to the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six but did not 'take her' until she was nine. And aren't Muslims supposed to believe in and strictly follow the Hadith and Sunnah or else they cease to be Muslims and would become kafir (infidels). Hence if the girl is 13 and she already has her period, is she legally (in Islam, that is) a woman who can consent to sex or is she still a child? And hence, also, since she is a Muslim and 'legally a woman', is she accountable for her 'crime' of consenting to sex or is she blameless? In other words, if the Sharia court were to try them, would both be on trial or only the man/boy? Okay, we can argue that the Sharia court does not come into play here. This matter does not involve the Sharia court. Why not? If Muslims above 18 'get caught' for illicit sex they get dragged to the Sharia court. The common law court has no power to try Muslim adults who have sex outside marriage. In fact, sex outside marriage is not a crime under common law (even for Muslims) unless it is same-gender or gay sex. Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? Okay, what if the church or Christians preaches Christianity to Malay boys and girls of 13 or 14 (in short, below 18). Is this a crime? A crime under which law? Common law? Under common law it is not a crime to preach Christianity to Malay children. It is only a crime according to the Religious Department. But the Religious Department does not have power over us until we are 18. Islam recognises 9-year olds as adults. Common law does not. We are adults only at 18. And common law decides whether we are adults. Not the Religious Department. So how? The question is: who has power over Muslims? The common law courts or the Sharia courts? And why does the common law court have power over us until we are 18 and then the Sharia court takes over after that? Is age 18 the 'legally adult' age in Islam? And if 18 were the legal adult age under Islam, can Muslims below 18 get married? Yes, Muslims below 18 can get marriage on condition they are 'adults' (meaning reached puberty) and they have their parent's consent. Hence at that age they are already responsible for their own actions, even in crimes of illicit sex. But then we are not talking about the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law here. We are talking about common law. Hence common law overrides the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law and will decide at what age you are an adult and at what age you are still a child. And you will face the common law court when you are legally a child and the Sharia court once you are legally an adult. And although Islam has decided the age of adulthood, Islam has no power over Muslims because the laws of the land and Islam do not work in tandem. Crazy or not? In Islam, religion decides when we become an adult and hence can get married and have sex. But Islam does not have the power to decide at what age we would be considered as having consensual sex outside marriage. That the common law decides. And that age is 18. Now, who decides when we cease being a child and legally become an adult although at the age of nine we already discovered the difference between a boy and girl and knew what to do with that thing between our legs? Well, the 222 Members of Parliament, of course. They pass all the laws and they have decided that only at age 17 we can drive and at age 18 we can have sex and at age 21 we can vote. But why at age 17, 18 and 21 respectively? Queen Isabella of Valois married Richard II when she was 6 years, 11 months and 25 days old. David II married Joan, the daughter of Edward II, when he was 4 years and 134 days old. Louis XIV of France became King at age 5 and took over full control at 23. Joan of Arc led the French against the English at age 17. And of course we have that story regarding Aishah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad. In those days, you married as soon as you legally became a woman, which was when you got your period, and would have been around age 9-11. At age 10-13 boys joined the army and fought and died for their country. These were ages when you were no longer children. I know, times have changed and we no longer consider girls of 10 or boys of 13 as adults. That may be so when it comes to common law but not if we consider religion. So, are we outraged about the case of Noor Afizal Azizan because we perceive it as him having sex with an underage girl and the law says a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex and hence he broke the law? Okay, so it is the law that we are concerned about, am I correct? The law says that a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex. This is a law passed by Parliament, the body that can legally pass laws, which we all must follow. And since Noor Afizal Azizan broke the law passed by Parliament we are outraged. Okay, I can accept that. The law must be followed. After all this is a law passed by Parliament. But hold on, Parliament also passed a law that says we must get a police permit if we want to hold a demonstration. Should this law not also be followed since we are extremely concerned about the law? Was Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim therefore correct in that the law must be followed? Hmm...touché or not touché?

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net