marahfreedom

18 Articles on Malaysian Politics : Guan Eng’s B.S., RPK’s B.S., RPK’s Indirect Apology to LGBTs? (Article ‘Soft on LGBT appears on Malaysia Today), Potential Anti-Intelligensia Alert, Anwar’s Intent to Continue Institutionalized Bribery and Racism, Suggestions for BERSIH Capers and the Judiciary, Karpal Not Alone in Denouncing Hudud After All, RPK’s Authoritarianism and Flawed Logic (more of), Hegelian Dialectic Shows Extent of Affliction in Mindsets, Talk But No Action Conformist Academics (Another KTK writes?), Greedy Pakatan Pushes The Failed Vehicular AP System As If Viable, Malaysian Legal System Fearful Or Abusive . . . Arrests Painball Gun Owners, Honest Look At Malays (if the title is an NLP do warn . . . ), One Man’s Vice Is Another Man’s Consensual Right to Adult Industry Services, Baubles And Accessories Are Not Weapons, DAP’s Selfish Attitudes in Media Towards Their Own Indian DAP Leaders, Adultery and Structural Issues In Islam, RPK Pulls A ‘Barbarisation’ on Islam, Freedom Of Information By Scrapping Communications and Multimedia Act Section 239 (No More Astro Bills!) – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 29th July 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, amendments to law needed, Apartheid, best practices, better judgments, better laws, critical discourse, criticism, dress code, Fat Cats, freedom of choice, Freedom of Expression, gambling, gaming, Invasive Laws, Islam, meaningless platitudes, Media Neutrality, media sabotage, media traps, media tricks, misplaced adoration, misrepresentation of facts, Nepotism, OPZ, organic psychedelics advocacy, Organic Psychedelics Zone, political correctness, Political Fat Cats, politics, pretentious, preventing vested interest, red light district legalisation, spiritual abuse, spiritual fifth columnists, Vehicular AP, word of the law on July 28, 2012 at 8:48 pm

ARTICLE 1

GOOD JOB Guan Eng & team: The Pearl of the Orient’s charm is back! – Thursday, 26 July 2012 09:41

One would need courage and humility to recognize the transformation taking place over these past several years in Penang since 2008. Indeed, a visit to Penang is the best way to learn, witness and partake in the beauty that is becoming of the once raped island.

Notice the ample thought given in creating bicycle lanes. Note too how motorists keep to the law even when out of sight of the law keepers.

Notice how the ferry is kept refreshingly clean. And sense the improved work attitudes of its employees – including clean uniforms and engaging charm.

Notice that the rotting stench of uncollected garbage and choking debris along the island’s shores have all gone missing. Improved too is the absence of stench from covered drains. And see how the shops and stall operators appear cleaner and more ‘schooled’ in mannerisms and hygiene.

Most noticeable is the re-appearance of retired senior citizens back on the circuit of being gainfully employed. From hotels to restaurants, you notice more grey hairs and weather beaten brows easily warming you with caring aged eyes and toothless grins.

Noticeable too is the almost near absence of imported legal (together with Malaysia’s paradoxical illegal labour) workers. It appears that now every Penangite has equal opportunity to work.

Chocking, honking traffic has almost vanished. In place, you sense that people are more in less a hurry.

Trishaw riders are miraculously back with a vibrancy in their characteristic all yellow trappings. And what a joy to see these peddlers have nice park benches to rest, chat and even play a round of checkers in between trips.

What seemed impossible not so long ago and for a long time but now so naturally possible is also significant. There is ample space created for taxis to park in an orderly un-obstructive manner while waiting to get customers.

More cheerful Penangites

No wonder the people of Penang now seem more cheerful as they go about their business of the day. Listening to their relaxed and open conversation makes you wonder too ‘how come’? Where did they get this sudden courage to speak their mind so candidly and without fear or cover?

The taxi drivers are making a joke of the hand-out for tyres, saying, “bagi tangan kanan, ambil balik tangan kiri biasa loh.” And the retirees back on the job market are saying, “sekarang senang mah, boleh cari makan loh.”

Food prices are far more cheaper than Kuala Lumpur – never mind the fact that Penang is only four hours driving distance. You can have a decent nasi kandar of choice for below ten ringgit. And serving you is no ‘pendatang haram’ but family and kin of Malaysian citizenry.

It appears that it does makes economic sense to do away with import labour and give citizens a chance to make a living.

Syabas Penangites. And a feather for your able island’s leadership.

Indeed the Pearl of the Orient is back and the people have proven that when you give back to society what rightly belongs to humanity, people take personal responsibility more seriously and they need little prodding with slogans and reprimands through long preaching down.

But you will need courage and humility to witness and acknowledge the glow that is being put back on that island beauty Penang.

Mailbag

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Gratuituous praise as usual eh? Penang is not the Pearl of the Orient. Hong Kong is. The pearl held by the lion in the crest of the Hong Kong insignia personifies the romanticised (though west inspired) phrase “Pearl of the Orient” referring to Hong Kong – NOT Penang, which has a palm tree signifying a plantation which is now a bleak and spiritually unhappy (mentally or superficially most in Penang are quite happy, abit deeper and just horror . . . ) expense of urban landscape no different from any other on the planet, except for the pretentious, narrow minded and parasitic insanity of some (not too many but quite numerous, so careful you visitors, NWO alert if anything . . . ) the residents.

Also the local DAP politicians are so dirty and vicious and accepting of second class citizenships that they will poison activists with the psychiatric establishment because their politics differ and ask for funeral funds before their deaths. Penang features far too much (there are some normal people but even these get swept up in whatever b.s. herd mentality style . . . ) of a charmless waste bin of fundos posing as good citizens parasiting off the poorer or ‘less well thought’ (some of the rich are nigh unthinking and can be quite insane when infected by religion or cults of personality in politics, infecting the poor and the greedy in turn) lot who have suffered so much (or inflicted so much harm) that they are no civilised people/no longer people beyond a veneer or brittle smiles or superficial politics.

Too few ‘pearls of people’ here in Penang either! Now if Sipadan tried, MAYBE because there are at least REAL PEARL farms there, but Sipadan is 30 years behind Penang, even as Penang is 30 years behind Hong Kong . . . Penang is too often (read the news and apply some logic to see what I mean) a cursed place peopled by political deadwood and the damned fundos backed by poisoners of a psychiatric establishment that have so far been hiding behind a complicit legal system from punishment for abusing people active in politics and activism, minority-fringe group issue advocacy (Minority of 1 is NOT insanity, in fact virtually nothing is insanity . . . ), outside the ‘allowed groups’ . . .

Meaning, Penang is a Fascist dictatorship of an oligarchic/plutocratic elite, NOT a real democracy where anyone can speak freely and participate . . . is the UN paying attention and identifying which ‘stupidos’ are insane as opposed to the non-establishment contrarians being labelled and sabotaged, now without privacy thanks to neurotech abuse sanctioned by the psy-establishment? Some fundos, politicians and psyche-personnel need to be put in prison and stripped of their social and professional status to exhonerate those they have abused and subverted, families they destroyed . . .

ARTICLE 2

The principle behind the stand: the lesser of the evils – Friday, 27 July 2012 Super Admin – Raja Petra Kamarudin

What if His Majesty the Agong wants to see a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all three parties that spells out very clearly and specifically the terms of the ‘Unity Government’ that DAP, PKR and PAS are going to form? And what if DAP insists that one of the terms of the MoU must be that Malaysia retains its Secular State status while PAS insists that the implementation of Hudud be one of the terms of the MoU? And because of this conflict, DAP, PKR and PAS end up in a deadlock and cannot sign the MoU and hence the Agong swears in the new Barisan Nasional government.

I said the lesser of the evils, not the lesser of the two evils. That is because in some cases there may be more than just two evils. And I am writing this article in response to the posting by Haris Ibrahim titled Manchester’s Plan B, stands and directions? Will RPK make sense of these for us?

In that posting, today, Haris gave me 48 hours to respond. This was what he said in the concluding paragraphs of his posting:

“I don’t know about the rest of you, but I must confess that Plan B leaves me very troubled with the stand and the direction of RPK. Only RPK can lay those concerns to rest. Will the master strategist share his master strategy relating to Plan B, or so much of it as he can, with us? I will wait 48 hours to hear from him.”

Now, if you remember what I had said in the past, politics is always about compromises and choosing the lesser of the evils (or two evils). And that is why, as I had also said, I did not agree with Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s concept of ‘Politik Baru’ or ‘New Politics’.

I also wrote about how Dr Chandra ‘lectured’ me and was quite exasperated when I said ‘Politik Baru’ is an oxymoron. Politics is the oldest profession in the world (or second oldest if you regard prostitution as the oldest). Hence how can you have ‘New Politics’ when politics itself is the oldest game in town?

I was, of course, being cheeky. I knew what Dr Chandra meant. When he said ‘Politik Baru’ he meant we should indulge in clean politics and not in dirty politics. But can you really expect politics to be clean when the only way to win in the political game is to ‘play dirty’, as Malaysians would say?

And that is where the oxymoron comes in. To win you need to play a dirty game. If you play a clean game you would get whacked good and proper.

I used the analogy of a street fight. When someone walks up to you in a bar and punches you, do you put up your fists and defend yourself using Queensbury Rules? Queensbury Rules would work in a boxing ring with referees to monitor the boxing match. But in a bar where your opponent is not only drunk but also much bigger than you, you need to grab a bottle and whack him over the head with it. You floor the bugger then get the hell out of there in double-quick time.

Is this fair? Who cares? Your objective is not to get whacked, or worse, get killed. So you grab whatever you can and finish the guy off. Fair does not apply in such a situation when limb and life are in jeopardy.

Hence, in politics, if your opponent is not playing fair why should you? If you want to win against a dirty opponent you need to be even dirtier than your opponent. And if you do not have the stomach for such a dirty game then do not become a politician because politics is dirty. It is as simple as that.

Dr Chandra was trying to change the rules of the game. But the other side will not play by your rules. They will set their own rules. And the rule is there are no rules. Hence it should be the law of the jungle. And the law of the jungle is about survival of the fittest. The weak die. You either move to the top of the food chain or else you will become food for those stronger than you.

And that is what politics is all about.

For more than a year I have been raising all sorts of issues involving Pakatan Rakyat. I have pointed out the weaknesses in Pakatan Rakyat. I have pointed out that Pakatan Rakyat is no longer honouring the letter and the spirit of The Poeples’ Declaration although they had endorsed it in the run-up to the last general election.

I also pointed out that we are perturbed by the quality of the candidates. We do not trust some of the people in Pakatan Rakyat and feel that they are for sale. In fact, some have even proven us correct by defecting to the other side.

In our meeting with Anwar Ibrahim in London, we warned him that in the last general election most people were happy to just vote for anyone who was not Umno or Barisan Nasional. However, we have found some of these candidates a huge disappointment. The next time around, we warned Anwar, the voters are going to look at the candidates closely and will vote based on candidates, no longer based on party lines.

Anwar said that he agreed with our observation and that they have taken note of this point and plan to address it when they choose the candidates for the next general election. Anwar also explained that Pakatan Rakyat was having problems attracting candidates to contest on the Pakatan Rakyat ticket.

We were actually quite aware of this. And the problem existed even back in 1999 when Pakatan Rakyat did not exist yet and the opposition coalition then was called Barisan Alternatif. We also personally know some of those people who had been approached. But they declined the offer to contest the election even when they were told they need not join the party but could contest as ‘independent’ candidates. However, they would need to contest on the party ticket even if they did not sign up as party members.

We told Anwar that if this was the only problem they faced then we would be very happy to assist the opposition in sourcing for candidates. Following that, the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) was launched and one of the first tasks of many that we embarked upon was to look for candidates to contest the general election.

We were very surprised, however, when we were told that Pakatan Rakyat would not accept our candidates. We were even more surprised when they started saying that our purpose in looking for candidates was to trigger three-corner contests in an effort to ‘pecah undi’ (split the votes) and help Barisan Nasional win the election.

After a year of trying to explain that this was not our ‘hidden agenda’ and that what we were doing was merely in response to what Pakatan Rakyat said — their problem in finding candidates — I decided to abort the exercise.

To make matters worse, we could not meet our target of 30 candidates because of the negative publicity about what we were trying to do. When we met with resistance, we stopped at seven candidates. We thought it was futile to push for 30 when there is so much bad publicity about our effort.

Eventually, the candidates dropped out one-by-one until we were left with just one candidate. And even that solitary candidate was going to be a problem because he wanted to contest in Kapar, Kelang, and that seat was ‘owned’ by PKR and PKR’s man in Kapar, Mike, was not going to give up his seat.

Hence Kapar would have to be a three-corner contest. And if the MCLM candidate contests Kapar in a three-corner fight this will only prove our critics right, that we are splitting the votes to help Barisan Nasional win the seat.

So, as I said, after more than a year of trying unsuccessfully to explain what we were doing and still not making any headway, I announced on 1st January this year that we are abandoning the independent candidate initiative. Actually, what I said was in response to a question by the chap interviewing me.

Jalil Hamid of NST asked me about MCLM and about MCLM’s plan to contest the general election. I corrected him by saying that MCLM never planned to contest the general election. That was not our intention at all. What we were trying to do was to help Pakatan Rakyat look for candidates. However, since this effort is not welcomed, we are dropping the whole idea.

Haris was most unhappy about this and he accused me of making a unilateral decision and said that this had never been discussed. Haris then resigned from MLCM while the others who were supposed to have been the candidates announced that they were distancing themselves from me. It appears my announcement that the independent candidate initiative is now off was not received well at all.

My contention was that if Pakatan Rakyat wanted our support then more effort needed to be put into fielding better candidates. And we told Anwar so, which he did not dispute. However, if what we were trying to do is going to be met with such a negative response then we might as well just abandon the whole exercise.

However, Pakatan Rakyat cannot expect our support if they field substandard candidates. Then everyone screams and tells me that it must be anything but Umno (ABU) and nothing else. Even when I pointed out that Pakatan Rakyat is not perfect, they scream, “Never mind. Pakatan Rakyat may not be perfect. There may be many weaknesses and even some corruption in Pakatan Rakyat. However, compared to Umno and Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat is the lesser of the two evils.”

So there you have it. We are supporting Pakatan Rakkyat not because they are perfect. We know they are not perfect. But compared to Umno and Barisan Nasional they are the lesser of the two evils. And that would be the principle behind why we should support Pakatan Rakyat. It is a very clear stand we take. Our stand is to support Pakatan Rakyat on the principle that it is the lesser of the two evils.

Okay, if that is what the majority wants then I can live with that. Unfortunately, in a democracy, it is what the majority wants that counts. Whether what the majority wants is right or wrong is not crucial. If the majority in Germany during WWII wanted the Jews exterminated then the Jews will get exterminated. Is this the right thing to do? Maybe not but majority rule is not about what is right. That is the downside of democracy, as history has time and again proven.

Okay, I was opposed to the ends justifying the means, and I said so many times. I was opposed to the concept of choosing the lesser of the two evils, and I said so many times. The end justifying the means is a dangerous concept.

The Americans tried to assassinate Fidel Castro to solve their problem with Cuba. Assassination of a foreign leader is wrong but then the end justifies the means. They were looking at the lesser of the two evils. Assassinating a foreign leader is an evil thing to do. However, allowing Castro to rule Cuba is a bigger evil. Hence assassinating him is the lesser of the two evils.

And that is why I was opposed to the concept of the end justifying the means and the lesser of the two evils. Where do we stop? How far do we go? What becomes halal (allowed) and what becomes haram (forbidden)? Under the concept of the end justifying the means and the lesser of the two evils there is no haram. Everything is halal. So see how dangerous it can become?

While we in the opposition propagate the concept of the end justifying the means and the lesser of the two evils, Umno and Barisan Nasional too play that same game. And they are in power so they can play the game more effectively and more successfully than us.

Okay, what stand do Umno and Barisan Nasional take? Their stand is very simple. They do not want to lose power. So they need to retain power by defeating Pakatan Rakyat in any way possible, fair or foul means never mind.

Umno works on one very basic principle. And that principle is the Chinese control the corporate sector. Hence the Malays must control the political arena. The Chinese cannot dominate both the corporate world as well as politics. The Malays must dominate politics at all costs. And no cost is too great to pay.

What if Umno is going to lose political power? What if the majority of the voters vote against Barisan Nasional? Umno will have to make sure that this does not happen. They cannot allow a level playing field and face the risk of losing power. Hence all manner of gerrymandering must be applied plus the electoral roll will have to be padded with ‘BN-friendly’ voters.

What if after doing all this they still lose the election? Say, in spite of all the manipulation, Barisan Nasional still gets ousted. Are they prepared to quietly walk away and concede defeat? Or will they embark upon a post-election ‘exercise’ ultra virus to the Constitution to prevent Pakatan Rakyat from walking into Putrajaya?

Barisan Nasional has lost the election. But they refuse to give up power. They are retaining power through unconstitutional means. And that is evil. So what do we do? Do we just keep quiet or do we also play that same evil game?

No doubt what we need to do will also be evil. But it is going to be the lesser of the two evils. And the lesser of the two evils would be to launch a civil war against an unconstitutional government that refuses to concede defeat in the general election.

Take note, though, many lives will be lost. And that, of course, is an evil thing to happen. But is the loss of thousands of lives a lesser evil than the loss of the government? Or will it be the other way around? Will the loss of the government be the lesser evil? Would you consider lives as very precious and that the loss of thousands of lives can never justify the quest for power?

Another possible scenario would be that Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election and there is a smooth and peaceful transfer of power. We cannot rule out that possibility as well. Then that would make this entire discussion purely academic.

Yet another possibility would be that Barisan Nasional wins the general election but with such a slim majority that it is almost a hung Parliament plus they lose almost half the 13 state governments, like what happened once upon a time. Then this triggers a power struggle in Umno, like what happened once upon a time. The group that wants to oust the group in power is more radical and believes in a hard-line action against the opposition to totally wipe out the opposition once and for all.

Now, we want to see the emergence of a two-party system in Malaysia. And two party-system means two parties equally-balanced where one can check the other. However, if the radical group succeeds in grabbing power then this aspiration of a two-party system would be buried. Thus, we need the liberals and not the radicals to hold power in Putrajaya.

If the radicals take over then there would no longer be any credible opposition come the general election, say, in 2018. However, if the liberals rule then the opposition still has one more shot in 2018, or whenever.

Okay, this is based on the scenario that Pakatan Rakyat fails to win the coming general election and Barisan Nasional is weakened further from the 2008 general election. If Pakatan Rakyat does worse than it did in 2008 then the problem ends. If Pakatan Rakyat wins the general election then we may have a problem but a different kind of problem. And if Pakatan Rakyat does better than it did in 2008 but Barisan Nasional still wins then it would be yet another kind of problem.

So there are three possible outcomes and three possible problems attached to these outcomes. Hence, based on the lesser of the evils, as what you all want, we have to figure out our course of action. Each course of action has some evil attached. The question would be: which would you regard as the lesser of that evil?

You may think that the above is mere speculation and not based on anything tangible. Okay, let me put it another way. Say Barisan Nasional wins 110 Parliament seats in total. The balance 112 Parliament seats are shared between PKR, DAP and PAS. Say DAP wins 40 seats, PKR 37 seats and PAS 35 seats. Who will get to form the government?

Barisan Nasional, a legally registered party, has the most number of seats, 110, compared to DAP, PKR and PAS who all won less than 110 seats each. You may argue that DAP, PKR and PAS can always combine their seats, which means the total would be 112 and hence more than Barisan Nasional’s 110.

Are you sure? What if they can’t? What if His Majesty the Agong wants to see a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all three parties that spells out very clearly and specifically the terms of the ‘Unity Government’ that DAP, PKR and PAS are going to form? And what if DAP insists that one of the terms of the MoU must be that Malaysia retains its Secular State status while PAS insists that the implementation of Hudud be one of the terms of the MoU? And because of this conflict, DAP, PKR and PAS end up in a deadlock and cannot sign the MoU and hence the Agong swears in the new Barisan Nasional government.

Yes, yet a fourth possible scenario. And in politics anything is possible. In fact, the more impossible it may appear the more possible that it may happen. So, in this case, which would you regard as the lesser of the two evils? I don’t know so you tell me. Migrate? Take up arms and start a civil war? Curse PAS and DAP for not coming to an agreement on the matter of Hudud? Curse Anwar for not resolving this matter before the general election? What? You tell me!

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

This article is most ingenuous and insulting  to the Rakyat’s intelligence!

a) What if His Majesty the Agong wants to see a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all three parties that spells out very clearly and specifically the terms of the ‘Unity Government’ that DAP, PKR and PAS are going to form?

No such requirement in UN or foreign nation recognition – the Agong can denounce a MOU refusing political party yet that party can still be recognized worldwide. Only a majority of MPs matters even if no MOU’s exist. This is ‘Absolute Monarchy’ talk. Are you mad RPK? Bodeking back into favour?

b) And what if DAP insists that one of the terms of the MoU must be that Malaysia retains its Secular State status while PAS insists that the implementation of Hudud be one of the terms of the MoU?

The UN insists that ALL countries of the world are secular to a point. Or do we need NATO peacekeepers to remind? Hudud as mentioned can be implemented in majority assenting districts in Malaysia, ridiculous to suggest Hudud in ALL of Malaysia  ESPECIALLY in majority non-Malay districts and even in non-assenting majority Malay districts which have Malay majorities that do not want Hudud which by all common sense considerations leaves only Terengganu and Kelantan as possible consideration for Hudud (even Kelantan and Terengganu might have significant though not necessarily majority numbers of districts that do not want Hudud which by UN standards may not be enforced upon those populaces either.).

c) And because of this conflict, DAP, PKR and PAS end up in a deadlock and cannot sign the MoU and hence the Agong swears in the new Barisan Nasional government.

RPK must be senile here saying ‘And hence the Agong swears the new Barisan Nasional government (minority) voted government.

If BN is a minority, BN cannot be sworn in by the Agong – the UN or any responsible foreign government would never recognize the new MINORITY government! Because internationally only the majority coalition is recognized! More Absolute Monarchy from RPK. RPK, you really disappointed in this article and treat the Rakyat and readers like simpletons. RPK may be well informed but RPK can’t think straight for sh1t these days or presumes that everyone else can’t. Just look at the quality of articles RPK has been dishing out these days. Tsk tsk tsk . . . RPK should return to Malaysia and stand against Anwar in Penang, that perhaps RPK can do, something useful like give an alternative to Anwar – I think RPK is no more fundo and potentially more open minded than Anwar though no word yet on that backtrack LGBT yet . . . RPK shouldn’t don’t bother throwing strawmen scenarios and absolute monarchy at the Rakyat from jolly England and do something useful for GE13.

d) Curse PAS and DAP for not coming to an agreement on the matter of Hudud? Curse Anwar for not resolving this matter before the general election?

No. The Rakyat just won’t vote for them. The best curse is to not vote for any MP. In either case 2 terms only!

ARTICLE 3

Anwar’s anti-homosexual hypocrisy – Wednesday, 25 July 2012 Super Admin

“While this might be a good vote-getting strategy in some parts of Malaysia, his claim shamefully runs completely contrary to the central principle of non-discrimination in international human rights law,” was Robertson’s rants against Anwar, picked up in a statement the HRW issued last week.

Azmi Anshar, NST

DATUK Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been busted again, playing both sides of the coin when he should have picked one and be done with it. But then, it’s an Anwar speciality over the years he’s been grating the public consciousness.

This time though, his duality — this split personality meandering on human rights issues — is his own doing, one that invited a stricture that, surprisingly, didn’t bore from a Federal Government leader, backer or blogger.

It was unloaded by Human Rights Watch’s (Asia division) Phil Robertson, an ally fuming at Anwar’s doublespeak uttered during his revealing testimony in his lawsuit against Utusan Malaysia last week.

Responding to defence counsel’s questions, Anwar the plaintiff explicitly agreed that homosexuals should be discriminated to protect the sanctity of marriage. Full stop? Not quite. It was not the point that Anwar wanted to make as he insisted that “archaic” laws should be reviewed to prevent punishment of the innocent.

Defence lawyer Datuk Firoz Hussein’s question could not have been clearer: “Should we discriminate against homosexuals?” Firoz asked. “Yes” was Anwar’s emphatic reply.

Anwar went on: “We don’t give space to homosexuals and uphold the sanctity of marriage…the law must be crafted in a way we must believe the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman…we do not promote homosexuality.”

Anwar had a partisan reflection when he articulated why Malaysia’s anti-homosexual laws were “archaic”, illustrating something that seemed “personal” when he intoned, “legislation to punish innocent people should not be condoned or tolerated”.

When pressed to elaborate on why he considered existing laws against unnatural sex under Section 377 of the Penal Code to be “archaic”, Anwar was more direct: “…because it is hardly used and only used for political reasons”.

That’s Anwar speciality, that ability to tie you up in literary knots even under oath. For the general populace, he wants homosexuals discriminated — banned, barred, isolated or alienated — yet he wants “archaic” laws governing the counter-culture to be reformed. Which is it?

Robertson wasn’t having any of Anwar’s nonsensical flip-flops, directly denouncing his anti-gay position as “shameful”, “fundamentally wrong” while accusing him of playing politics with civil liberties.

“While this might be a good vote-getting strategy in some parts of Malaysia, his claim shamefully runs completely contrary to the central principle of non-discrimination in international human rights law,” was Robertson’s rants against Anwar, picked up in a statement the HRW issued last week.

Bang goes Anwar’s carefully manufactured reputation as an international human rights advocate. The malarkey of his global pulpit, centred upon caressing his image in the likes of civil rights battlers Aung San Suu Kyi, is exposed as untenable when it comes to defending political self-preservation, especially his vested interest with Islamic allies Pas and a host of like-minded religious jurors.

To be sure, Robertson would just have imposed a similar judgment against the Federal Government, but there are diametric differences: whereas Anwar speaks with a forked tongue, the Barisan Nasional has consistently insisted that gays have no role to play in the mainstream.

To be plain, Anwar is a hypocrite (by Robertson’s angry diatribe) and a liar (by the rants of disappointed supporters) as he speaks for the downtrodden before international audiences, but deserts them at home. On the other hand, the Federal Government opposes — as representative of the moral/religious majority and a matter of national law/policy — the LGBT (Lesbians Gays Bisexual Transgender) movement propelled by Bersih leader Datuk S. Ambiga.

Going by the consistency of his ironies and deceptions, Anwar wants to be a man of all seasons for everybody and if he trips on his convoluted political rhetoric, that’s fine because in his mind, enough people have the required gullibility to believe in his “heartfelt” empathy.

Until someone like Robertson comes along to fiercely prick Anwar’s hydrogen-inflated and moveable balloon.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Less LGBT hate by allowing a pro-LGBT article is NOT an apology or backtrack on some of RPK’s less LGBT neural articles.

ARTICLE 4

Stop playing race game – FROM AROUND THE BLOGS – Wednesday, 25 July 2012 Super Admin – AZMI SHAROM

The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.

I WAS wondering when it was going to happen; when certain quarters were going to dust off that old chestnut of May 13, 1969, and use it as a political tool.

It all seems terribly coincidental that as the general election draws nearer, suddenly race riots get inserted into political speech, and a movie about May 13 is apparently waiting to be released.

The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.

Let’s look at some facts. Firstly, the vast majority of the Malaysian population were not even born in 1969.

This means that first-hand knowledge of that terrible time is simply not part of most of us. Without that emotional connection, I believe that younger Malaysians are willing to question the feasibility of such a thing happening again.

And really, could it? In 1969, the politics of the nation was so very clearly divided along racial lines. The Opposition was not united as it is today. PAS won 12 seats, DAP 13 and Gerakan 8.

They were not part of a coalition and each stood on its own, therefore it was possible to play the race game because, in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in particular, the Opposition had the face of “the other”.

Today, with the Pakatan coalition in existence, the Opposition is a much more complex animal. If the Opposition wins, how can the race card be played when two of the component parties are so predominantly Malay?

Let’s take a look at recent events that has got some powerful people’s knickers in a twist.

In particular the Bersih demonstrations of 2007, 2011 and 2012. The demographics of these events were multi-ethnic and became even more multi-ethnic with each progressive one.

By the time of this year’s Bersih demonstration, the make-up of the people who took part was much closer to the make-up of the country as a whole. However, the predominant ethnic group was still Malay.

This goes to show that the political divide, not of political parties but of ordinary citizens, can no longer be conveniently divided along ethnic lines.

Significant numbers of Malaysians, regardless of their background, can be united when they have a common political goal, in this case clean and fair elections.

Furthermore, ethnic Malays can be vocally unhappy with the status quo. In the present-day scenario, it is ridiculous to say that the politics in Malaysia is simply a matter of Malays versus Non-Malays.

And let us look at the 2008 elections. The results were unprecedented and surprised most people. I remember that night very well, as the results became clear that Barisan had lost their two-thirds majority and five state governments.

I decided to drive around Kuala Lumpur, just to see what would happen. And what happened? Nothing.

The streets were quiet. No celebratory parties, no processions, no fireworks; nothing.

The Opposition and their supporters on the streets were as muted as the Barisan and their supporters.

No gloating, no taunting, no excuses at all to provoke a reaction from the supporters of the powers-that-be.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Still no stand on :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;crypto-racism is very dangerous when held in the heart by racists-would-be. Btw, those giving free citizenships are causing more harm than any non-Bumi does, by lowering overall wealth.

ARTICLE 5

No new taxes after car excise duty cut, says Pakatan – by Ida Lim – July 27, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, July 27 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will not impose new taxes to compensate for any potential loss of revenue from its plan to shelve excise duties to lower the sticker price for cars if it takes power in the next general election.

PKR’s strategy director Rafizi Ramli had on Tuesday announced that the federal opposition intends to cut the triple tax on cars — import, excise and sales tax — if it wins the coming general election.

Today, Rafizi (picture) said that there will be “no introduction of new taxes”.

Instead, he said, a PR federal government would instead cut spending and also revamp the current Approved Permit (AP) system to make up for any losses.

“I think we can look at how we manage APs. APs now… to give riches buta-buta (blindly),” he said.

“If AP is managed well, there will be a source of wealth that can balance the loss of revenue from excise duty.”

However, he said, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would only announce details of PR’s mechanism for the alternative source of revenue next week.

Rafizi had previously admitted that the government could lose RM8 billion in yearly revenue if car taxes are cut.

But the offer to voters will effectively boost the disposable incomes of Malaysians and reduce household debts.

Malaysians pay inordinately high prices for cars mainly because of the protection afforded to national carmaker Proton since 1984.

The public pays import, excise and sales taxes that translate into some of the highest car prices in the region and the world.

A recent income survey found that a household earning RM3,000 a month could spend up to 50 per cent of its income on maintaining a car.

A cut in car duties — which currently run as high as 105 per cent — could help stimulate the economy by boosting disposable income and reducing household debt burden, analysts have also told The Malaysian Insider.

The high taxes now have resulted in about 20 per cent of the RM581 billion total household debt in the country last year being held in cars, an asset that depreciates over time.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Pakatan must be mad if they think the Rakyat are going to continue paying extra for their cars to some AP Crony – this shows Anwar supports apartheid in some manner as well! Unvotable! Vote 3rd Force which will make ALL OF MALAYSIA an AP and duty free zone. Who ever suggests or supports keeping AP must be enmired in crony politics mentality, a crony or plain greedy. Look around the world, there is no such thing as AP in any developed country and even in Africa where apartheid has officially ended, there is no AP, though apartheid still exists in some places unofficially from unremoved legal or social or other embedded structures.

ARTICLE 6

Don’t waste public funds by appealing: Bersih to govt – Harakahdaily,     25 July 2012

Jul 25: Acknowledging it is the government’s right to appeal against yesterday’s decision by the High Court declaring the coalition a legal entity, the grouping however advised Home minister Hishamuddin Hussein not to do so.

“For the sake of our country, we sincerely ask them not to pursue with an appeal and to drop all the civil suits against us as it is a waste of public funds,” Bersih 2.0 steering committee members said in a statement.

The coalition said it hoped BN would accept present political realities and deal with Bersih 2.0 as a legitimate entity demanding free and fair elections on behalf of the people.

Judge Rohana Yusof ruled in favour of Bersih, pointing out to contradiction by the authorities who allowed Bersih to hold its third rally this year despite not revoking the pronouncement that it was ‘illegal’.

Bersih is led by former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreevenasan and literary icon Samad Said, along with 14 other steering committee members.

Responding to the judgement, Hishamuddin said his ministry would discuss with the Attorney General whether to appeal against the decision.

Bersih meanwhile called on BN to start cooperating to improve the electoral system.

Meanwhile, PAS information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, describing the judgement a victory for the people, hoped that lesson was learnt by BN.

“This is a reminder against issuing a declaration which violated the law, and Hishamuddin should be aware that many rally participants were arrested because of that wrong declaration,” he added.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

A group of citizens backed by the Bar Council, could file a lawsuit against the Home Minister, CPO of the district or at least the highest ranking officer at the rally for not making orders clear or controlling their men. As for being beaten and hurt during the rally where provable (i.e. has filmed evidence) compensation by the ENTIRE police force perhaps in salary dockings collectively shared rather than taxapayers’ monies, no offense to police but this shouldn’t be too much individually when divided, and does give a message to the police to not resort to violence or at least use submission holds and moves (no hitting with batons or rubber hoses unnecessarily, what does the PDRM think this is, Camel Riders in Egypt under Mubarak?), with any protestors and ralliers who threw the first punch first being left out of any compensation unless obviously retaliated against in an inequitable manner. Lets see if the Courts or Bar Council get blackballed internationally or the Home Minister, CPO or Ranking Officer has to resign at very least. As for BERSIH, please make clear on the below, Anwar’s ‘keep AP in place’ fortells much cronyism and potential apartheid if anything  :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;and field some candidates for GE13! We can’t hand the government to either BN or PR, 3rd force is best (well maybe DAP and PKR if the 90% and 50% family blocs (and crony capitalists) respectively are not fielded in GE13!

ARTICLE 7

PKR Youth wing against hudud – Wednesday, 25 July 2012 Super Admin

NOT IN FAVOUR: Its chief, Shamsul Iskandar, on same wavelength as Karpal in opposing the Islamic law

(NST) – PARTI Keadilan Rakyat’s Youth wing has chosen to side with DAP chairman Karpal Singh in opposing  Pas’ hudud aspirations.

Its chief, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, yesterday warned his Pas counterpart, Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi, that he had opened a Pandora’s box over his recent comment on the implementation of hudud, which had raised the ire of Karpal and other DAP members.

He said it was improper for Nasrudin to dredge up the longstanding issue as he claimed that the stance of the alliance between PKR, DAP and Pas on the Islamic criminal law was clear.

“I would like to advise Nasrudin to refer to our agreement late last year that hudud is not part of Pakatan Rakyat’s joint policy until all member parties agree to it.”

Shamsul Iskandar added that close to 30 top opposition party leaders had met for over three hours on Sept 29, last year to resolve the deep-rooted hudud issue, which has seen DAP and Pas repeatedly at loggerheads.

“DAP’s objection has to be respected and PR will continue to allow its members to air different views,” he said.

On Friday, Karpal had expressed displeasure upon learning that Nasrudin had, during a political debate, suggested that he was willing to consider hudud for the country.

Hudud is a term used in Syariah to describe the class of punishment for certain crimes such as theft, fornication and adultery, consumption of alcohol and other intoxicants and apostasy.

Nasrudin had uttered the remark during a debate with Umno Working Committee Secretariat of Young Ulama chairman Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya.

The debate on Thursday, titled “PRU13: Orang Muda Pilih Siapa”, was organised by the tabloid, Sinar Harian.

Karpal had also asked Pas leaders to keep its “members in the lower ranks” in check, and urged them to pursue the welfare state, an ideal endorsed by the DAP, PKR and Pas alliance.

He had also claimed that Pas had abandoned its aspirations to set up an Islamic state and implement Islamic laws in the country as a trade-off for its cooperation with DAP and PKR.

On Monday, however, Pas syura council member Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed refuted Karpal’s statement and said having Islamic laws and setting up an Islamic state were still high on Pas’s agenda.

Pas Youth deputy chief Dr Raja Ahmad Al Hiss yesterday said he did not want the dispute between Karpal and Nasrudin to interfere with preparations for the elections.

“Since the general election is approaching, Pas does not want to get distracted as we want to stay committed to ensuring Pakatan Rakyat’s victory and capturing Putrajaya,” he said in a text message yesterday.

Meanwhile, MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong challenged senior PKR and DAP leaders to state their stand on hudud and to “chastise Pas” over its plan to implement Islamic laws in the country.

“If PKR is for the creation of a welfare state, does that mean it is for or against hudud, considering the fact that its leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, had voiced his support for hudud?” Wee asked in a statement here yesterday.

“So far, Karpal has been a lone ranger in speaking against hudud. (Are) the DAP office-bearers distancing themselves from their chairman?”

Wee’s deputy, Dr Mah Hang Soon, said the opposing viewpoints between DAP and Pas were “embarrassingly inconsistent”.

“Karpal cannot confidently say that Pas gave up on the creation of an Islamic state in favour of a welfare state if Nasrudin publicly declares otherwise and has the support of a Pas Syura council member.”

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

I can imagine DAP and PAS throwing even more religious strawmen at the Rakyat if they win. What will be left of Malaysia may be worse but in a different way than if BN won. BN – Corruption and Racism, or PR – Fundamentalism and Nepotism? Choose neither BN nor PR by voting for 3rd Force. BN came and went. Pakatan failed and needs to be booted. 3rd Force must prevail or more madness, but of a different sort, looks set to continue under PR unless all Pakatan MP’s sign a statuary declaration supporting a bill for :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

But only 3rd Force looks able to sign a Statuary Declaration confirming their committment to ensure the above, with BN actually currently having the mandate to grant the above but simply refusing to use that mandate! Failed coalitions both! Vote for 3rd Force!

Amanah has decided to go with BN’s ‘don’t use mandate’ to ‘not end apartheid’ or ‘don’t end 2 classes of citizenship’ – so Amanah becomes non-3rd Force. Does the Rakyat know how to vote yet?

ARTICLE 8

When moving forward means moving sideways – Monday, 30 July 2012 Super Admin RPK

Career politicians — which would be what most Malaysian politicians are — are in it for the money. If politicians are not paid any salary or allowance and, say, wakil rakyat, instead of receiving a salary/allowance, need to pay for the ‘honour’ of being a wakil rakyat, how many would want to become a wakil rakyat?

For example, the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, took six months no-pay leave to campaign in the general election (he handed the administration of the country to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein). He also sold a lot of his personal property to finance Umno. When the Tunku retired he was almost broke and could not even afford to pay his income tax. So the government froze his gratuity.

How many politicians would do what the Tunku did?

The Tunku, understandably, was very sad. After being ousted and forced out of office on allegations that he was a ‘Chinese lover’ and that he is to blame for the 13th May 1969 race riots due to his excessive ‘compromises’ with the Chinese, he is whacked with a huge income tax bill and his gratuity is frozen.

The Tunku who did so much for the country and sacrificed his personal wealth for the sake of the country is made into a pariah and suffers persecution. That turned him into a bitter old man and when the old Umno was wound up and the new Umno (Umno Baru) was formed he refused to become a member. In fact, he worked with Semangat 46 to oppose Umno Baru. And when he died he died outside Umno.

The Third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn, also opposed Umno Baru and, just like the Tunku, died outside Umno. He too did not like what Umno had become. His intentions never changed. Neither did the Tunku’s. But Umno had changed. And both these gentlemen did not like what they saw in the new Umno that rose from the ashes of the old Umno.

. . . what happens if the party has transformed or mutated into something that you do not believe in? Do you call it a day and move on or do you bite the bullet and stifle your dissent? Dissent would be considered as rebellion in a political party. Demonstrating dissent would weaken the party as it gives an impression that the party is divided, or worse, disintegrating.

But doing so goes against what you believe in. So what do you do? Do you speak out and risk being seen as not toeing the party line or do you leave and be called a traitor or turncoat? Not an easy decision, especially for someone who has attained a high profile status in the party.

For example, the Qur’an starts by saying that there is good and there is bad in liquor but there is more bad than good. Hence this verse can be taken as an advice about the ills of liquor but not quite a prohibition from drinking.

Then the Qur’an says you must not drink before your prayers. This is a prohibition but a prohibition only when you are going to pray. In other words you can still drink as long as you are not about to pray.

Finally, the Qur’an prohibits liquor altogether.

Now, the Qur’an is supposed to be the word of God but sent to us through the Prophet Muhammad. So why can’t God (or Muhammad) make up His mind? Why the ‘U-turn’? Why like this one day and like that another day? Why not be consistent?

Students of the Qur’an can tell you that in the early days of Islam when the pagans of Mekah were not yet ready to fully abandon their old customs and traditions, Muhammad (or God, if you embrace the belief that the Qur’an is God’s word) had to be more compromising and less hard line. However, after more than a decade, after Islam had become well entrenched in Medinan society, Muhammad was able to be more intolerant and less compromising on what was considered unIslamic.

True, people have left Umno-BN and people have crossed over from the opposition to join Umno-BN. But different people have done so for different reasons.

Onn Jaafar, as an example, left Umno because Umno would not accept non-Malays into the party. He wanted Umno to abandon its Malay agenda and transform itself into a Malaysian party. But Umno could not agree to that. So, since Umno did not share his ideals of a non-race-based party, he left. Since he could not change Umno and since he was not prepared to change his stand just to toe the party line, he quit to form his own non-race-based party UMNO Baru.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

The above article is the cleaned up and manipulation free version of the original. Read the original at your own risk at :

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/50854-when-moving-forward-means-moving-sideways

RPK is still manipulating, propagating (replicating more like) a certain ‘definitely skewed’ mode of thought, though far more cautiously after the past few responses on this blog which some might consider harsh. But when a man as old as RPK speaks, tolerance for manipulation and inaccuracy or lack of logic is virtually zero by the standards of today’s youth. More rebuttals :

1) But doing so goes against what you believe in. So what do you do? Do you speak out and risk being seen as not toeing the party line or do you leave and be called a traitor or turncoat? Not an easy decision, especially for someone who has attained a high profile status in the party.

This presumes or causes the reader “corruptible ethics” as well as pre-empts political parties to be undemocratic . RPK sinks to new lows, or displays more uncorrected character flaws . . .

2) . . . Muhammad was able to be more intolerant and less compromising on what was considered unIslamic. . . .

Shows that RPK is not ‘naturally nice’ or ‘naturally all encompassing’ or not inclined to diversity. So if RPK is praising and intending to be like Muhammed, fully expect that IF RPK has the ‘power’, RPK will be merciless but meanwhile will play nice because RPK has no power at the moment. So who needs this sort of MP/leader like RPK? Fail again, and more authoritarianism. I still encourge RPK to return to Malaysia and stand against Anwar in Anwar’s constituency, choosing between the lesser of 2 evils and all that y’know . . . UMNO Baru could even be revived but only if the below 3 items are part of the new party and part of all MP or required as candidates’ statuary declarations for the Rakyat :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Otherwise only 3rd Force candidates fresh from the Rakyat with a Statuary Declaration on the above 3 items, and ready to leave after 2 terms are the only votables. End the APARTHEID of Bumiputra and make Apostasy something that cannot be punished! The Quran cannot be misinterpreted in this manner as a tool of control against Malays, even as APARTHEID of Bumiputra is against all concept of Islamic (and Human) civilisation!

ARTICLE 9

‘Kit Siang main force behind May 13′ – Tuesday, 31 July 2012 Super Admin

An article in the Perkasa website accuses the DAP veteran of being the main force behind the riots which, according to the writer, claimed 2,000 lives.

RK Anand, FMT

Ruling politicians have never failed to remind Malaysians of the sectarian violence which rocked the nation more than four decades ago.

The spectre was often summoned to stoke fear in the hearts of the electorate and served as a convenient tool to create suspicion and animosity between the races.

And while the soon-to-be repealed Sedition Act was used against those who uttered statements of comparatively lesser evil, those who peddled the May 13 bogey were however left untouched.

With the 13th general election looming and being touted as the nation’s most pivotal political bout, the bloodletting of 1969 had cropped up with increasing frequency, especially with the Chinese having turned their backs on the Umno-led Barisan Nasional coalition as evident in their voting trend.

And in the forefront of this bandwagon was Perkasa, the self-appointed vanguard of the Malay race in Malaysia.

In a recent article published on its website, the writer had accused DAP’s Lim Kit Siang of being the prime mover behind the racial riots.

The article was accompanied by a macabre montage depicting the veteran politician with a bloody hand print in the background and blood dripping over his face, with the words “13 Mei”.

The article claimed that the opposition leader later sang a different tune, saying that DAP was willing to work with BN to ensure that such a tragic episode did not recur.

“His aim was to put a lid on his cardinal sin as the main force [pengerak utama] behind May 13 and to wash his hands of the blood of the innocent victims [of the riots],” it read.

The article, titled “Kit Siang pernah halau Melayu dari Kg Baru”, was penned in reaction to Lim’s vexed response to the accusation that DAP was infiltrated by Communist elements.

Delving into the history of DAP’s formation, the article stated that since its inception, the party had close ties with Singapore’s People’s Action Party or PAP.

Following Singapore’s departure from the Federation, the article said DAP was formed with Lim, who was said to share family ties with Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, being one of the pioneers.

“There is not much difference between DAP and PAP. So it does not come as a surprise that the new generation of DAP leaders like Lim’s son Guan Eng continue the tradition of ‘worshipping’ PAP,” it added.

The ‘big headed’ Chinese

Following the 1969 general election, the article stated that DAP and Gerakan (which was then an opposition party) grew arrogant after securing a huge victory in Selangor.

“DAP used the freedom of expression without limits to condemn and insult the Malays during a mammoth rally in Kuala Lumpur which saw them bring banners and loud-hailers.

“It had only been 12 years since the Chinese were accorded full citizenship based on one of the conditions set forth by the British and they [the Chinese] had grown big headed,” it read.

Citing a report by the National Action Council then, the article said it was found that DAP’s street procession in which racist sentiments were spewed against the Malays was the catalyst behind the racial riots.

Interestingly, the article stated that 2,000 lives were lost in the riots despite official statistics placing the death toll at under 200 amidst claims that it was an attempt to downplay the incident.

According to the article, the slogan bandied about by Lim and the other Chinese leaders in DAP during their procession was “Malai si which meant ‘Mati Melayu’ [Malays are dead].”

The article also cited several other slogans purportedly chanted during the rally, which among others were: “Apa polis boleh buat, kita raja. Buang sama polis Melayu”, “KL sekarang Cina punya” and “Melayu balik kampung, Melayu sekarang tidak ada kuasa. Sekarang kita Cina sudah control.”

The fact was, claimed the article, DAP cannot change to become a party which would champion the rights of the Malays and Bumiputera “because racism runs deep in its veins”.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

” The fact was, claimed the article, DAP cannot change to become a party which would champion the rights of the Malays and Bumiputera “because racism runs deep in its veins”. “

Tsk! RK Anand’s line reads no better being racism by neglect of consideration that all citizens have the same rights under law and that Bumiputra Special Privileges were as per the Reid Commission only allowed to be in place fo 15 years and then reviewed for removal. The way RK Anand speaks, sounds as if Bumiputra was intended to be forever! That is the Social Contract. Equality for all Malaysians AFTER 15 years of Special privileges. How about we have parties that do not champion rights of any race and instead champion rights of MALAYSIAN citizens . . . DAP and PAS get along because of a sense of Fundamentalism. What does RK Anand think of the below and will RK Anand even dare ask for what is merely equality even where Pakatan cynically and unfairly fail to act to ensure what UN and Quran assure all humanity?

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

ARTICLE 10

‘Do your worst, we will do our best’ – Tuesday, 31 July 2012 by Kua Kia Soong, FMT

The NGOs in Malaysia have found themselves ‘between a ROC and a hard place…’, says Suaram’s adviser Kua Kia Soong.

While the Registrar of Societies may now feign innocence regarding their selectivity in registering societies by questioning Suaram’s registration as a business, let me remind the young generation and those with short memories about our nation’s shortcomings relating to the freedom of association in our recent history.

As you know, ‘Operation Lalang’ was Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s autocracy at its worst when he arrested and detained more than a hundred innocent Malaysians without trial in October 1987.

Upon the release of the last Operation Lalang detainees in 1989, several of these detainees including my goodself and members of the Families Support Group formed this human rights organisation known as Suaram (Suara Rakyat Malaysia). Aware of the obstacles in registering a human rights society under the Registrar of Societies, Suaram registered as a business under the Registrar of Business.

At the time, another human rights organisation, Hakam had taken more than two years to be registered in 1989 even though it boasted two former prime ministers (Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn) as its patrons. It had tried unsuccessfully several times to register as a society in the eighties.

The Malaysian chapter of Amnesty International also tried unsuccessfully for five years to register as a society under the Societies Act. Two applications and an appeal to the Home Minister were also rejected.

Consequently, quite a number of NGOs decided that in order to carry out their services to society, they had no choice but to register as businesses.

So why is there a sudden interest in Suaram’s status after its 23 years’ existence? Is it coincidental that this has arisen out of our recent request to the French judicial system to pursue suspected commissions embroiled in the RM7 billion Scorpene submarine deals?

It is no secret

Given the difficulties created by the Societies Act, some non-governmental organisations, including Suaram decided to register as companies or businesses.

As the corporate gurus say, “If something is not working, do something else.” Or, as Deng Xiaoping famously said, “It does not matter if the cat is white or black, as long as it catches the mice.” The mice, in the case of NGOs, are defending human rights, democracy and social justice.

NGOs registering as companies were certainly not a secret. In fact, in early 1997 the government threatened to force all NGOs to register under the Societies Act. Nonetheless, registration as a company has not completely protected NGOs from harassment by the government, as the recent intrusion by the SSM into Suaram’s accounts has demonstrated.

In 1996, the Institut Pengajian Komuniti (IPK), an NGO taking up the issue of rights of indigenous peoples in Sarawak was de-registered by the Registrar of Business over a legal technicality.

The ROC’s Tenaganita fiasco

In 1997, the Registrar of Companies raided the offices of Tenaganita, the NGO that had exposed inhuman conditions in immigrant detention centres, and confiscated their documents.

Tenaganita and two directors were subsequently charged in court in March 1997 under the Companies Act for late filing of audited financial statements of 1994. And most unusual was the fact that the charges were prosecuted by a Deputy Prosecutor from the Attorney-General’s Chambers instead of the usual officers of the Registrar.

The charges were subsequently withdrawn on July 9, 1997 when it was pointed out in court that the Registrar had already compounded the offences and accepted payment of a fine through Tenaganita’s accountants.

Then on Sept 5, 1997, the Registrar again issued fresh charges against Tenaganita and two directors on minor technicalities. This time around, the Registrar refused to compound the alleged offences for a fine.

After Tenaganita mounted a legal challenge to the prosecutions alleging mala fide prosecution, the charges were withdrawn on Nov 25, 1997.

As you can see, NGOs in Malaysia have found themselves “between a ROC and a hard place…”

PSM’s Greek tragedy

Opposition political parties have fared no better. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) only obtained its legal registration as a political party in 2008, 10 years after it first filed its application. The entire saga endured by PSM in its struggle to be registered reads like a Greek tragedy in modern Malaysia.

And of course, the Registrar of Societies can feign selective outrage yet again: “Wasn’t the Malaysian Indian United party (MIUP), whose founding leader is S Nallakaruppan swiftly registered in October 2007, just five months after he quit PKR in May 2007?”

“You mean the party that pledged to work closely with, and give its support to, the ruling BN coalition? Yes, we believe the ROS acted expeditiously on their application…”

Restrictions to the fundamental right to freedom of association are also imposed on trade union officials through the Trade Unions Act. Today, less than 10 per cent of Malaysian workers are unionised compared to more than 60 per cent at the time of Independence. What a transformation indeed!

Inspecting the good guys

We stress that the entire charade by the government to harass Suaram through a complaint by some nonentity in the public and CCM’s ‘routine’ inspection is political and uncalled for.

We do not even know if the complaint was made officially to the CCM. It would appear that the CCM is acting on every single complaint (offical or otherwise) from the public at a highly efficient rate.

We question if there is a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within CCM that provides guidelines on receiving and acting on a complaint.

We also question whether or not the SOP requires the CCM to first verify the background of the complainant prior to receiving and acting on a complaint.

From the evidence in the Paris (Scorpene Scandal) Papers, one would have expected that the CCM would know its priorities and begin “routinely inspecting” the highly dubious activities and accounts of Perimekar Sdn Bhd and Terasasi Sdn Bhd, but have they?

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Show us that people who can look like so-called ‘leaders’ are able to do good and not merely ask for funeral funds. Run for election  as an independent candidate Kua Kia Song.

‘As for the technicality of registration’, my dear Perfessher, there is no need for that. A statuary declaration to abide by certain items for any group of candidates is all thats needed. ROS which is being a problem and obviously less than neutral becomes a perfunctory body that can be safely ignored and bypassed (in a neutral ROS peopled by neutral people that may not be the case but in Malaysia, very much so), political parties are an instrument of control. The technicality and illusion of a ‘great party’ of unity is to con the people with. The people however do not care about political parties anymore. All want to be entertained and all want social freedoms. If an independent candidate or a group of independant candidates runs for election, can give that, as opposed to a oh-so-unified party controlled by an undemocratic term limitless supremo who fears activists and independent minded persons so much they would prefer to sabotage and poison and drug then label these potential competitors as insane, guess who the people would rather vote for? Taking the above into consideration, the ROS is absolutely redundant when faced with independent candidates.

Conform much Dr. Kua? Even the below commentator thinks more outside the box that this preconceived acceptance of ROS and being in a political party to participate in democratic processes! Looks very much like so but all PHd. holders are brainwashed confirmists to a degree . . . there is no need to belong to a political party or need association with the ROS. And all MPs and Assemblymen should GTFO of Dewan to allow the next generation of people to take over and perhaps even like Tunku Abdul Rahman did specifically – FOR FREE not asking for state funds. Wanna join 3rd Force on this premise? To not collect a single cent of salary like Tunku Abdul Rahman, AND leave after 2 terms? Now THAT would be statesmanship! Not the shameless demands for 750K funerals, pretenses about normalcy of family bloc term limitlessness ,or morons impressed by the concept of political parties and the need for ROS controlling whether or not a group of people may peacefully engage in democratic processes like politics.

ROS is not worth talking to because ROS is so un-neutral – totally idiotic ROS won’t even let a political party choose a logo IN THIS DAY OF CUSTOMISATION, DISALLOWING LOGO CHOICE IS TOO IDIOTIC AND BACKWARD!!! ROS is absolutely dictatorial and BACKWARD ! Let a particular logo of free choice represent a statuary declaration that all ‘unaffiliated independent’ candidates have signed, and let the ‘unaffiliated independent’ candidates wear a button badge that features the logo, or insert that logo in every public photo. There, ROS refusal to register party and logo problem solved.

Break the mold or be broken by the mold! Lets make this square (w)hole!

Commentator Comments :

written by A Bolehlander, July 31, 2012 14:42:21
ROC often expound that they are merely handling the registers and not a regulator (that’s when you lodge a complain over something and they refuse to take any action). Good reason why a change of governance is necessary. as Tao sage says, if you keep walking the same path, you’ll just continue reaching the same destination. 55 years of strolling down the slope (and gaining momentum too). How about changing the vehicle, the direction and way of doing things, for better or worse, we are sure at least we won’t be going down the same slope, a risk worth taking


written by malsia1206, July 31, 2012 14:12:13
The Pedigree in Barisan’s stable – AG, PDRM
The Thorougbreds in Barisan’s stable – EC, MACC
The Lower Liners in Barisan’s stable – ROS, CCM, National Registration, Immigration
The Judiciary is another prime suspect to fit into the upper tier.
That’s the critical setup of this present regime. Keep em all in Putrajaya’s pockets.


written by singhkris, July 31, 2012 14:17:06
Why is the Registrar not being challenged in court.

Anyway you continue with your challenge and the case in France. If you have to mount a legal challenge to fend off any trumped up charges, I am sure there are enough Malaysians who will support you financially. Just give a call!

ARTICLE 11

PKR pledges open bidding for auto APs – UPDATED @ 02:17:26 PM 31-07-2012 = By Mohd Farhan Darwis – July 31, 2012

PETALING JAYA, July 31 —  PKR today suggested auctioning off Approved Permits (APs) for imported vehicles through an open bidding process in the first three years under Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) rule before abolishing the system entirely in 2015.

The party’s strategy director Rafizi Ramli said this would be on top of PR’s electoral pledge to slash excise duties and to help reduce household debt and boost the disposable incomes of Malaysians.

He told a press conference today that if an estimated 70,000 APs are awarded every year, the auction should fetch nearly RM3 billion in revenue annually for the government.

He said this would help compensate for the RM8 billion in annual losses expected from PR’s plan to slash car excise duties, which currently run as high as 105 per cent.

“Under Umno-Barisan Nasional (BN), the AP system only benefits those who are close to them.

“This is why PKR suggests that the next government, whether or not under BN or PR, must abolish the AP system by 2015 in order to comply by agreements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA),” he said.

Rafizi pointed out that under the country’s National Automotive Policy (NAP) in 2005, the AP system was supposed to be abolished by December 31, 2010, but was instead extended by five years to 2015.

He said Malaysians must be reminded of this, as the system was meant to help Bumiputera entrepreneurs to flourish in the automotive industry.

“In his Budget 2010 speech, (Prime Minister) Datuk Seri Najib Razak annnounced that every AP will be sold for RM10,000 and funds from them will be channelled to a special Bumiputera entrepreneur fund.”

Rafizi said that in 2011 alone, some 600,123 new cars were registered. Of that total, he said 533,515 units were manufactured and assembled in Malaysia, which meant that some 66,608 APs were issued for imported vehicles.

He said if APs were sold at RM10,000 each, the government should have spent RM666 million to help Bumiputera entrepreneurs from the fund.

“But until today, we still do not know what has happened to that fund or how funds from the sale of APs have been spent,” he said.

“This is why PKR suggests that the next government adheres to the commitment to abolish the AP system by 2015. But for the first three years from 2013 to 2015, necessary measures must be taken to ensure that we get the best value from the APs issued through this open auction,” he said.

Rafizi suggested that the opening bid for the auction of an AP should be set at RM10,000 for fuel-saving vehicles, RM20,000 for regular vehicles and RM30,000 for higher capacity vehicles.

He said with the estimated revenue from the auction, PR’s plan to reduce car prices by slashing excise duties would be easier to implement as it would compensate for the RM8 billion drop in government revenue.

“At the same time, our tax revenue from other means would also increase because when we return RM8 billion into the pockets of Malaysians, this would in turn be pumped back into the economy,” he pointed out.

PKR had last week promised not to impose new taxes to compensate for any potential loss of revenue from its plan to shelve excise duties to lower the sticker price of cars if it takes power in the next elections.

Malaysians pay inordinately high prices for cars mainly because of the protection afforded to national carmaker Proton since 1984.

The public pays import, excise and sales taxes that translate into some of the highest car prices in the region and the world.

A recent income survey found that a household earning RM3,000 a month could spend up to 50 per cent of its income on maintaining a car.

A cut in car duties — which currently run as high as 105 per cent — could help stimulate the economy by boosting disposable income and reducing household debt burden, analysts have also told The Malaysian Insider.

The high taxes now have resulted in about 20 per cent of the RM581 billion total household debt in the country last year being held in cars, an asset that depreciates over time.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

At the same time, our tax revenue from other means would also increase because when we return RM8 billion into the pockets of Malaysians, this would in turn be pumped back into the economy,” he pointed out. Exceptional . . . LIKE! Frankly the above logic could be applied to almost every other tax or fee or toll or even road tax. The money should be flooating in the system not sequestered by government departments to ‘spend on our behalf’, we can do the spending instead of passing the money to the government to spend ‘for us’. Oh and remember Encik Ramli, – 2 TERMS ONLY, then GTFO of the Dewan and let another try their hand at governance before nepotistic family blocs form, power madness or corruption begins – AGAIN.

“This is why PKR suggests that the next government, whether or not under BN or PR, must abolish the AP system by 2015 in order to comply by agreements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA),” he said. “This is why PKR suggests that the next government adheres to the commitment to abolish the AP system by 2015. But for the first three years from 2013 to 2015, necessary measures must be taken to ensure that we get the best value from the APs issued through this open auction,” he said.

How about abolishing the AP system immediately? But Pakatan would rather not educate the citizens or voters on how (lets say at 3 APs per receipient) AP enriches 23,000 or less cronies while the rest of the populace has to pay these 23,000 people who doubtless will Pakatan voters and supporters! This is unjust and, 23K people will be enriched at the expense of everyone else . . . thats 0.1% out of 26+ million citizens. Who is stupid enough to support this sort of thing? Just scrap the AP system, this is stealing from BN to enrich PR! Drop the pretence and WORK or do business or what not. AP is RENT-SEEKING plain and simple – for 23,000 CRONIES!!! Want to do something real? Allow car modders to indulge their modifications and see a boom in the most important lower end economy of garage owners and small accessory or customisable part imports, REAL work and REAL economy, not this 23K cronies get rent seeking money justified by bad laws.

Then remove Road Toll Concessionaires or limit charges to no more than 10% of month salaries at most! This way disposable income will not end up in ‘Toll Booth Corp’ or what not crony company! PAS not talking about bulldozing Tolls anymore? Greed got to them then? During the Prophet’s time, EVERYONE travelled for free, and the only people who stopped others and asked for money were HIGHWAY ROBBERS or BEGGARS which are now legitimized into the toll booth form! Even beggars are rich (though they pretend to be poor) and highway robbers have moved to high tech or less risky or more people friendly ways of making cash – like targeting the wealthy, ripping out ATMs and stealing cars for parts! The Toll Booth structure is too much like PROTECTION MONEY and gangsterism! Even gangsters prefer to set up their own pubs or mini-casinos (LEGALIZE THIS non-Muslim ENTERTAINMENT – Issue Mini Licenses . . . or run for candidacy as indies who will! ) instead than need to go door to door demanding cash. So think how unpleasant and lowly Toll Booths are in the eyes of the Rakyat (For the ‘adventurous’, how about – – – – ing the Toll Booth as well . . . ). Start bulldozing the Toll Booths or limiting the charges to no more than 10% of income at most . . .

Rafizi pointed out that under the country’s National Automotive Policy (NAP) in 2005, the AP system was supposed to be abolished by December 31, 2010, but was instead extended by five years to 2015.

The whole point of AFTA is do remove red tape and make the burden less on the consumers. These delays are intolerable. And no matter what way they present Vehicular AP, BN or PR, there is no wealth being spread here, but rent seeking and parasitism of political parties off ordinary citizens! These guys also do know that Bumiputra Apartheid was supposed to be ended in 1976 but to honestly concede, some of us are aware of how entrenched and stagnant the shameful AP mentality is now. 3 years eh? But what about completing the end of the Reid Commission’s near 60 year postponed review like gentlemen who can keep their word? The Malay leader who speaks about this would gain the respect of the international community – the above is more compromise and pandering to weakness than progress but that Reid Commission Review cannot be ignored any more. Will 3rd Force win on the back of this against BN and Pakatan failures to address? Pakatan must be aware that the very same could be given by BN IMMEDIATELY or in a statuary declaration by 3rd Force indie candidates as well. So how about making moves to ensure tha 30-40% non-Malay demographic as well with something definitive towards :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Mini-ARTICLE 11.5

Man held for menacing neighbour with paintball gun
August 02, 2012

BESUT, Aug 2 — A civil servant allegedly threatened his neighbour with a paintball gun in Kampung Raja here, after his child was awakened by fireworks yesterday afternoon.

He was later detained by police at 11.25 pm last night.

“The 44-year-old suspect went to the victim’s house about 12.30 pm and threatened to shoot him with a paintball gun,” Besut police chief Supt Kamaruddin Zakaria told Bernama here today.

The victim, a 35-year-old labourer, lodged a report at the village police station the same evening, he added.

“We also seized a paintball gun at the suspect’s house,” he said.

Kamaruddin said the suspect was detained for criminal intimidation under the Penal Code and for not having a licence for the gun. — Bernama

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Any person with common sense would be laughing if someone threatened with a paintball gun and invite the person to a paintball game or match.  Seized a paintball gun? Licensing is needed for a painball gun?!? So will a can of paint be considered similar to a grenade? I think the cops need to go after those with real illegal weapons instead. PB guns are toys. Fireworks in residential areas (especially at certain hours) are an offense though. Commercial areas, not really. The police sure this arrest or even this  Penal Code is correct or makes sense?

ARTICLE 12

We are Malay-Muslims, we are entitled (the author is being sarcastic) 1 August 2012 | Why You Can, I Cannot? | Posted by Syahredzan Johan

Syahredzan Johan asks during this holy month, are Malay-Muslims entitled to better rights than others?

Photo credit: http://www.techwithus.com/2012/07/6-ways-to-survive-16-hours-of-ramadan-fasting/ | Is it time to have that sandwich?

So you are fasting. The sun is bearing down on you, your stomach is growling and your throat is parched. It is only 12.30 in the afternoon; you still have hours to go before you may break your fast. All of a sudden, a non-Muslim person appears before you, enjoying an icy cold can of your favourite cola. He looks like he is savouring the cola. You could imagine the sensation of that very same cola filling your throat with diabetes-inducing caffeine goodness. So you flare up. How dare this person drink in front of you? Does he have no respect for the holy month of Ramadhan, to be wantonly quenching his thirst in full view of Muslims? Does he not know that Muslims form the majority of this country and therefore must be respected?

This is the basic premise prevalent amongst many Malay-Muslims in this country. Muslims form the majority and therefore they are entitled to be respected. Malay-Muslim sensitivities must not be offended; the Malay-Muslim public must be protected from harm, confusion and many other bad and insidious things that may threaten the ummah. In recent times, these deep rooted sentiments are brought to the fore by opportunistic politicians. Thus it appeared as if Malay-Muslims have become more and more intolerant of minorities.

Malay-Muslims are entitled not to have a Hindu temple in the vicinity of their housing estate. Malay-Muslims are entitled to dictate what names others may invoke the Creator. Malay-Muslims are entitled to stop the sale of alcohol beverages and deny the establishment of a cinema in Malay majority areas.

Every Friday, Malay-Muslims are entitled to abandon their civic consciousness and park all over the place as if the streets belong to them. Malays-Muslims are entitled to blare religious ceramahs to every corner of the neighbourhood and into the wee hours of the night.

The prime minister must be Malay-Muslim, the civil service must be filled with Malay-Muslims and government bodies are seen as Malay institutions, tasked first and foremost to safeguard Malay and Muslim interests.

This premise of entitlement has also been used to justify the persecution and discrimination against sexual and religious minorities, purportedly because Article 3 provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation. So we say that LBGTs do not enjoy protection of the Constitution because their sexual orientations are against Islam, although we conveniently forget that other things, like gambling, are also forbidden in Islam but are still legal in this country. Books are seized and banned and fatwas are made absolute. In a recent decision, the Federal Court went so far to say that the integrity of the religion needs to be safeguarded at all costs. Does ‘at all costs’ include the supremacy of the Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land?

Make no mistake, this is not about Islam. It is about how we justify the discrimination, persecution and blatant disregard for fundamental liberties, all in the name of religion. It is how we view and treat others as inferior to us because we believe that we are entitled to do so. We permit transgressions because we labour under this presumption that Malay-Muslims, by virtue of being Malays and Muslims, are entitled to the best of the country as they occupy a higher standing than the rest of the rakyat out there.

There is no legal or constitutional basis for this. Article 3 does not make Malaysia an Islamic state and Article 4 expressly provides that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Article 8 provides that every citizen is equal before the law and enjoys equal protection of the law. The oft quoted Article 153 does not make Malay-Muslims superior in law or fact, it only provides for the reservation of quotas for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak in certain matters.

So what if Muslims are the majority? We have such a flawed understanding of democracy; as if in a democracy, the rights of minorities are inferior to the rights of the majority. That is why we have a Constitution, which protects and guarantees the fundamental liberties of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

We find ourselves up in arms at the fate of Muslims minorities in other countries like Thailand, Philippines, Myanmar and China.  We invoke freedom of religion when we hear of minarets being banned in Switzerland or burqas being banned in France. But if the rights of Muslim minorities should be protected in the face of the majority, why is it that we do not have the same vigour to protect the rights our non-Muslim minorities? Why must the rights of others here only be exercised if we deem those rights as exercisable?

So before you take offence at someone who is drinking in front of you while you are fasting, take a step back and think of your religion. Put aside your sense of entitlement and think; just because you are fasting, does it mean that everyone else around you must stow away their food and drinks?

Recommended Reads:
Conversations on the Constitution: Anand Grover an…
“Yellow, Yellow, Dirty Fellow.”
ALB: Missing Bobo, and the UKM4
Should All Malaysians Overseas Be Entitled To Vote…

Tags: Article 153, Article 3, Article 8, discrimination, fast, Federal Constitution, holy month, LBGT, Malay interests, Muslim, Muslim interests, Ramadhan, religious rights, Syahredzan Johan

Posts by Syahredzan Johan

Syahredzan Johan adalah seorang peguam muda dan seorang rakan kongsi di sebuah firma guaman di Kuala Lumpur. Dia melihat dirinya sebagai seorang pengkritik politik dan pengulas sosial. Tetapi dia sebenarnya hanyalah seorang warga Malaysia yang mempunyai terlalu banyak pendapat. Dia adalah seorang yang patriotik, walaupun bukan dengan cara biasa seperti mengibar bendera. Dia percaya Malaysia mempunyai potensi yang hanya dapat direalisasi sekiranya rakyatnya belajar bersatu-padu dan bukannya berpecah-belah. Ikutilah Syah di Refleksi Minda.

Posted on 1 August 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

Read more articles posted by Syahredzan Johan.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Apply accordingly the laws. In China or India, does a Malay or Muslim who is a full citizen have full access to whatever social services or some acronym b.s. government outfit funded equally from all tax payers? So in Malaysia, the same can only be applied on Chinese or Indian. This Syahredzan Johan writer sounds like an MP worthy sort,  do run for private candidacy if able to endorse :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

I believe that parallel comparisons of policy and constitution in Malaysia to India, and Malaysia to China, will confirm that the Indian and Chinese citizens here in Malaysia are getting a very bad deal – social and economic apartheid, and that the Indian or Chinese reps. (out of sheer greed or fear and cowardice) here have failed their duty as ‘leaders’ of their commmunities for allowing APARTHEID while the Malay MPs have been complict in not acting against such ill natured and shameful policy.

Selected Commentator Comments :

@starranise – 1 August 2012 – 5:54 pm

Apologising to all Muslims during Ramadhan when you have done nothing wrong is unnecessary. It is your right to eat or drink whenever you choose. You’re not the one fasting. Resisting temptations is one of the fundamental motives behind fasting. It is part of a Muslim’s trial. If they are offended or angry with you, they are jeopardising their own fast. Food and drink are secondary to the process of fasting. It is discipline, patience, consideration, empathy, feeling at peace with oneself and the people around you. That’s the deeper meaning of Ramadhan.

ARTICLE 13

Selangor allowed 4,000 massage parlours’ – Saturday, 04 August 2012 18:51

KUALA LUMPUR- Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew of DAP was taken to task by a MCA leader yesterday for not explaining why there was a growing number of illegal massage parlours operating in Selangor.

MCA Selangor liaison committee secretary Wong Kun Moon claimed that since DAP and its allies took over the state in 2008, the number of massage parlours had increased from 800 to 4,000.

“Liu had repeatedly denied this during state assembly sessions by saying that the previous administration under Barisan Nasional had put a freeze on the applications of new massage parlours since 2006.

“However, despite the freeze, about 3,200 illegal centres are now operating in the state,” Wong said when contacted yesterday.

(Liu is the Selangor executive council member in charge of Local Government, Research and Development and also Pandamaran assemblyman.)

Wong said several Selangor leaders, including Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s Bukit Lanjan assemblyman Elizabeth Wong, had queried Liu over the rising number of illegal massage parlours in the state.

“Every time the issue is raised, Liu will put the blame on the previous BN-led Selangor government.”

According to Wong, there were about 4,000 massage parlours operating in the state and a majority of them had no licence.

“There are more than 400 illegal centres operating in Klang alone. If Liu is sceptical, I urge him to take a look for himself and to stop lying.”

Wong, who is also Kuala Kubu Baru assemblyman, also urged Liu to clarify the matter by disclosing the number of massage parlours approved by the state government since 2008.

“The Selangor government has the authority to issue permits for these parlours, but its failure to enforce its rules over these centres has resulted in the rise of social problems.”

Wong also challenged Liu to prove he was not colluding with the owners of such centres “for his own personal benefit”.

He was referring to an incident on Nov 2, 2007, where Liu was accused of inciting the staff and customers of a hotel in Puchong to prevent a Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) enforcement officer from performing his duties.

In the anti-vice operation, police and MPSJ officers had raided the unlicensed hotel and detained 22 foreign prostitutes, including 12 male patrons.

In response to the allegations, Liu told Wong to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims and challenged him to disclose the list of the 4,000 massage parlours within 24 hours.

– New Straits Times

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

We may not like Ronnie Liu supporting nepotism (close 1 eye mentality to democracy killing nepotism by Ronnie shows unethical mindset), but in this case let the people hang around these supposedly illegal bars instead of getting bored which leads to all kinds of negative behaviour. Make drinks cheap so they will be drinking instead of robbing to pay for expensive drinks. Legalise small-bet casinos and RLDs or Organics Psychedelics Bars so that they will be playing games and f- – – ing, or getting pleasantly stoned (price controls on organics please, these things grow FOR FREE and cost nothing!!! Prohibition mindset causes crime and high prices.) Instead of robbing people and burgling homes. Take away the entertainment districts at your own risk fools.

Guess who the first people they target will be? The MPs, Assemblymen, EXCOs, Residents Committees, even the people who set customs duties and tax levels (too damn high) and any law makers who took away their entertainment or made entertainment too expensive . . . on top of apartheid and extreme religion the Malaysian Fed Gov. want to take away places of entertainment? The Malaysian Fed Gov. must be insane . . . run for election and remove these red tape extremists and moralists. There are fun loving people who are not Muslims that need their spaces for entertainment too. Licence and legalize instead of creating more dangerous urban environments by boring the citizens out of their minds AMEND LAWS or GTFO of Dewan! . . .

ARTICLE 14

Fined for offensive weapon possesion, failure to produce IC – Thursday, August 02, 2012 – 15:48 – by Bernama
A MECHANIC was fined RM1,000, in default a month’s jail, by the Magistrate’s Court here today for possession of an offensive weapon in front of a hotel here last week.

Magistrate Azmil Muntapha Abas handed down the sentence on Mohamad Audadi Mad Sarmor, 24, after he pleaded guilty to the charge.

He was charged with having an iron knuckle duster in front of GEA Hotel, Jalan Hang Kasturi, Dang  Wangi here at 2.20am last July 27.

Azmil Muntapha also fined another RM1,000, in default a month’s jail, for failing to produce his identity card or personal documents when requested by the police at the same place, time and date.

Prosecuting officer Inspector Zuraimi Kamarozzaman prosecuted, while Mohamad Audadi was unrepresented.

In the same court, a wireman pleaded not guilty to a charge with breaking into a laboratory of a primary school in Sentul here four years ago.

Johan Afandi, 28, was charged with breaking into the laboratory of Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil Jalan Fletcher in Sentul here and stealing a projector, worth RM600, on Aug 10, 2008.

Azmil Muntapha allowed him bail of RM4,000 in one surety and set Sept 10 for mention.

Earlier, Zuraimi requested bail at RM5,000, but Johan, who was unrepresented, requested for a lower bail, saying that he had five children, including a two-year-old, and was the sole breadwinner.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

A knuckle duster is no less dangerous than any metal components or machine parts that can act like knuckledusters, or a glass bottled drink, any table wear or a heavy handbag filled with coins. Even a heavy chain for locking up gates is as dangerous. This is not a very good law. Then also the IC which is overkill. The police could ask the person to go home and pick up the IC instead of fining the person. 1000 is alot of money for most of the lower income types! Even 50 is alot . . . Actually knuckle dusters are manly accessories much like large steel rings set with large faceted stones on every finger.

Illegal to wear large rings on every finger then?

Even a steel weight for training could become a weapon more dangerous than a knuckle duster. How could the law be so unreasonable? Leave the ‘cool guys’ alone until they actually hurt someone. Just because someone forgot an IC or wore a knuckle duster does not entitle the state to treat them so badly or take awat so much money from them, inconvenience them with the court etc… The police are men too are they not? So don’t oppress your fellow men. These are MALE accessories. Surely the police have male relatives that keep their sense of ‘macho’ in an item or few on their person at all times? Amend all these chilling effect laws immediately! By this sort of logic, might as well ban motor vehicles, which possibly account for as many if not most of the injuries and deaths world wide overall . . .

Hardly weapons, but cool looking accessories . . . some handbags also incorporate knuckle dusters into the handles as a design statement.

ARTICLE 15

Several DAP Indian leaders furious at being left out – Sunday, 05 August 2012 Super Admin

(The Star) – Several DAP Indian leaders are furious after reports of their activities were conspicuously missing from the inaugural issue of the party’s Tamil newsletter, Makkal Kural (Peoples’ Voice).

They said only programmes of selected leaders were given prominence in the eight-page newsletter, which is distributed free.

Several DAP Indian MPs, when contacted, said they were unaware of the Tamil newsletter, which gave prominence to Bersih 3.0 chairman Datuk S. Ambiga, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang, chairman Karpal Singh, vice-chairman M. Kulasegaran, secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and Perak deputy chairman V. Sivakumar.

There was also a question-and-answer with Kulasegaran and a one-page report on former Hindraf leader V. Ganabatirau.

Conspicuously missing were reports on DAP deputy secretary-general Dr P. Ramasamy and other Indian elected MPs and state assemblymen from the party.

DAP Bagan division assistant secretary G. Asoghan said many questioned why the newsletter did not carry reports of other DAP Indian leaders.

“This newsletter is for distribution to the Indian voters. We have to show what our (Indian) leaders have achieved to be able to convince them to support us,” he said.

“Anyone reading the newsletter will have the impression that Ambiga is a DAP leader. It is our own newsletter and we must highlight our leaders,” he said.

Pahang vice-chairman J. Appala-samy said he was surprised as he had compiled the reports of the various Indian leaders.

“None was used. For me, it was a waste of time,” he said.

A national DAP official said there would always be complaints but they will look into it.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Several Indian leaders could set up an alternative Indian based party not beholden to the term limitless DAP Karpal family bloc nor lapdogs that accept apartheid like MIC. How about teaming up with Hindraf? DAP always glory hogs, and DAP is infected by PAP-USA-Zionist mentality. How about a 3rd Force NEUTRAL party? Look at Konsensus Bebas which is daring enough to kick Pakatan where deserved by leaving and setting up their own (unfortunately very likely lapdog party – as claimed by RPK had received millions in bribes to defect – that has not spoken against APARTHEID). In these few Indian leaders’ case, seperate from DAP and set up a 3rd Force Party working towards :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Konsensus Bebas might yet drop alliance with BN and with several Indian leaders here, a viable party in Penang could be set up to remove BOTH Pakatan’s nepotist gloryhog cliques and BN’s racists. The Rakyat should already be clear enough that the term limitless creeps hjave been in power too long, now punish Pakatan and DAP by dropping the undemocratic and sidelining freaks. Local intelligensia can dedicate efforts to Pakatan but not even the courtesy of an invitation to join or response. Indian leaders here, do you know how to respond to DAP’s Rakyat unfriendly and politically-door-closing sidelining behaviour?

ARTICLE 16

Malaysians of all races should protest……. NO HOLDS BARRED – Wednesday, 08 August 2012 Super Admin (Raja Petra Kamarudin)

Well, in case you have not realised, Yang Berhormat, not only same-sex marriages, as you said, erode the family institution. Sex outside marriage does as well. And there are many more Malaysians bonking outside marriage than Malaysians entering same-sex marriages. So why aren’t you appealing to all Malaysians to ‘protest en masse’ regarding this? This is a bigger problem than same-sex marriages.

(Bernama) – Malaysians of all races should protest en masse the practice of same sex marriages as they would erode the family institution, advised Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom.

Commenting on the recent wedding reception here of Malaysian gay Christian priest, Ngeo Boon Lin and his musical producer partner, Phineas Newborn III, who were married in New York last year, he said that even the Christians in the country prohibited such practices.

“The reception portrayed Malaysian society as confused. It’s clear their motive was to fight for gay rights,” he said.

He was speaking a press conference after breaking fast with the Department and agencies’ staff at the National Mosque, here.

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

There are five references in the Qur’an regarding gay behaviour. The two main references to homosexual behaviour are:

“We also sent Lut : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81

“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk.” Qur’an 26:165

Both these verses refer to gay sexual activities involving men. Gay sexual activities involving women or lesbian practices are not mentioned in the Qur’an. There is at least one mention of lesbian behaviour in the Hadith, though. However, while traditionalist orthodox Muslims regard the Hadith as the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad, liberal Muslims doubt their authenticity. And some sects of Islam reject the Hadith totally or have a different version of the Hadith.

In many Muslim countries, homosexuality is condemned and subject to legal punishment. The specific punishment varies among jurists, ranging from jail time and/or flogging to the death penalty. In Islam, capital punishment is reserved only for the most grievous crimes that would hurt society as a whole. Some jurists place homosexuality under that category, particularly in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen etc.

Arrest and punishment for homosexual crimes, however, are not frequently carried out because Islam also places a strong emphasis on an individual’s right to privacy. If a ‘crime’ is not committed in the public sphere, it is largely overlooked as being a matter between the individual and God.

Now, is that clear, especially to the non-Muslims reading this piece? In short, a crime that is damaging to society is taken seriously and the punishment is severe. A crime that does not affect society and is committed behind closed doors is between you and God.

One very important aspect of Islam is: a person’s privacy must be respected and you should not spy on your neighbour. Spying on your neighbour is a bigger sin than the sin committed by your neighbour behind closed doors.

Now, why is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, so kaypoh about what others do? Whatever perceived sin the Christian priest, Ngeo Boon Lin, and his partner, Phineas Newborn III, did was done outside Malaysia. Even if a crime had been committed it was done so outside Malaysia’s jurisdiction. If these two had committed a crime then let the US punish them since they did it on US soil. What next does the Minister want to do? Peep on Malaysians in the UK who do not pray and fast and drink beer? Do you think Scotland Yard has no other problems to deal with?

If you were to ask a Muslim what is Islam all about, he or she would reply that Islam is about justice. If you were to ask a Muslim who may support the Islamic Sharia laws, in particular that branch of the Sharia called Hudud, he or she would reply: because the Sharia and Hudud is about justice.

Islam And Obsession of Muslims With Sex (and homosex)

But why do the religious scholars and politicians always and only talk about sex?

Islam is supposed to be about justice. But they talk as if Islam is only about sex. Everything that comes out of their mouths is about sex. I am yet to hear anyone talk about justice. It is always about sex. You are giving people the impression that Islam is so focused on sex that sex has become an obsession to Muslims.

Okay, Islam is against homosexuality. I am not going to deny that fact. But Islam also says that what you do behind closed doors is between you and God. Islam also says you should not spy on your neighbour or peep into your neighbour’s house. Islam also says that what you do in your home is your business as long as what you do does not hurt society. Only if it hurts society should we be concerned, even if it is done in the privacy of your home and office.

So, what are these crimes that do affect society and which we should be concerned about even if committed in the privacy of your home and office, and which the Minister should be talking about? Well, what about bribery, corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement of the country’s (meaning taxpayers’) resources, police violence, manipulation of the judiciary, cronyism, nepotism, racism, persecution, denial of someone’s fundamental rights, etc? There are loads and loads of sins and crimes that affect society and which Islam forbids. And on a list of 100 such sins and crimes, homosexuality sits at the bottom of that list. Yet we talk about the bottom 100th and not the top 99.

What is wrong with Muslims? They turn Islam into a religion of ridicule. And when people ridicule Islam these Muslims get angry. They threaten revenge and bloodshed. They demand death for those who insult Islam and/or Prophet Muhammad.

How do you expect people not to insult Islam if the Muslims themselves make a mockery of Islam? When you act like a lunatic of course people are going to call you a lunatic. And when Muslims act like lunatics you can expect non-Muslims to say that Islam is a bad religion.

You are demanding for non-Muslims to respect Islam. But how can you expect them to respect Islam when Muslims themselves act disrespectfully toward their own religion. You are turning Islam into a circus with the things you are doing and saying. And when people laugh you get angry.

Malaysians of all races should protest en masse the practice of same-sex marriages as they would erode the family institution, advised the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom.

Well, in case you have not realised, Yang Berhormat, not only same-sex marriages, as you said, erode the family institution. Sex outside marriage does as well. And there are many more Malaysians bonking outside marriage than Malaysians entering same-sex marriages. So why aren’t you appealing to all Malaysians to ‘protest en masse’ regarding this? This is a bigger problem than same-sex marriages.

Bangang sungguh menteri Melayu ni!

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

This above is the ‘cleaned up version’ as far as I can note. Read the original littered with propaganda and NLPs at :

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/51013-malaysians-of-all-races-should-protest

Also there are also some who actually tolerate or turn a blind eye to what their wives do for some emotional reasons, or for the sake of keeping appearances for their young or (familial stability craving) children (in this case the Syariah Courts and Islam have no right to destroy such private efforts to keep face or contrived respectability). In some other cases the older Muslim wife has been ‘given leave’ (verbally or non-verbally the intent is clear) by the husband who has new wives or a mistress even though the libido of the old (or aging) wife is still strong. These sorts of situations probably are met with very insensitive treatment by the Syariah Courts if any, given even that the religious police even target Mat Sallehs (in a most tribal/communal and uneducated manner), who sleep with Malay GROs or even casual sex between races by young persons married (more problematic) or unmarried (still a Human Right, but try broaching this IRL in Malaysia and get some very ugly feelings and looks, even outright violence).

Meanwhile the LGBT community which keeps to themselves is targeted, Muslims are effectively disallowed from going apostate – Inquisition style. Is Malaysia a civil society? Hardly and I’d say the Islamic Al-Azhar University at Cairo needs to send a delegation headed by a ‘Grand Inquisitor’ to address these Syariah and Hudud inspired abuses occuring in Malaysia by gathering all the State Muftis, Imams, Mullahs also Religious Police, any (corrupted as hell, also power mad likely, Federal Department Heads related to Islam) here and TELLING THEM CLEARLY what punishment or enforcement is allowed in Islam, the above examples invlving adultry definitely amounts to abuse – Bumiputra Apartheid IS an abuse.

Note that I do not mention the Sultans who are supposed to be the Heads of the Ummah here but who evidently would retain more dignity if Faith and State were separate . . . given the terrible mess ‘on the ground’ a far cry from insular world they live in (no Muslim would ever broach again, the parochialism in malay society is still medieval and thus the vicious cycles of ‘bohsia’ in abuses of all sorts continues without address) mentioning the same would be a disservice in some ways for certain, let the dirt of politics messed with faith be fronted by the above groups instead . . . doubtless Cairo would find that Malaysia is run as if by medieval era tribal minded barbarian warlords via religious codes, NOT educated and NOT civilised people.

Heck that delegation might even give Nik Aziz flak for views on hudud, specifically limb hacking! How about this ‘clean up’ tour of duty Al Azhar University? Tell Malaysian Muslims right at the top levels how Malay Muslims shame themselves with their ill treatment and abuse of the Ummah and even non-Muslims here! Then also tell these fundo-cases that Malaysia has no right to withhold :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Any honest Muslim cannot deny the points just made above. And Ulama though honest to what the Quran might be in their limited intellect or lack of communication outside their own community (much less internationally o understanding of the UNHCR) to understand or apply, render the Islamic faith in Malaysia dishonest and abusive in effect, especially so in a multipolar, multi faith or multi ethnic society that can only be equal and humane. Want to try what some of us have suffered? So please send that Inquisitor’s delegation from Al-Azhar pronto! Al-Azhar Islamic university in Cairo needs to give BOTH Muslims and non-Muslims a hand here in backward 3rd world, barbaric Malaysia! Get over here, hear out the abused and aggrieved, for those who want to go apostate but DARE NOT, for those who are not allowed non-Muslim rights, and tell these fundo-cases off !

ARTICLE 17

But that’s just it; Islam IS politics – Tuesday, 07 August 2012 Super Admin (Raja Petra Kamarudin)

No doubt Islam had Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Father of Modern Turkey, the seat of the Ottoman Empire, who attempted to impose the separation of church and state. Atatürk, however, although viewed as a reformist by those from the west, is viewed as a traitor by most Muslim scholars. In fact, people like the PAS President, Abdul Hadi Awang, label Atatürk as an apostate and one of Islam’s greatest traitors.

(Malaysian Digest) – Do not politicise Islam, as it can lead to disunity.

This was the message sent out by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who said Islam should instead be placed at the highest level so that a lot of problems faced by the Muslim community could be overcome.

“We must not politicise the religion, as Islam is not politics.”

“If politics is made to be above Islam, the Muslim community will be confronted with a lot of problems, causing disunity which today is the source of the community’s weaknesses and the enemies of Islam belittling the religion,” he said in his speech at the at the Quran reciting completion and breaking-of-fast at the Tan Sri Ainuddin Wahid Mosque, Taman Universiti in Skudai, here, yesterday.

Najib said the Barisan Nasional administration has always prioritised Islam in its governance of the country, and adhered to the requirements of the religion.

“We developed our administration based on syariah and that is the Islamic requirement for us and among the five things we have done is looking after Islam, and that is why Malaysia is known as an Islamic country.”

“We protect the Islamic faith and character, promote the religion, provide Islamic infrastructure and Islamic law and so on,” he said.

Najib said the government’s success in managing Malaysia well, despite facing numerous challenges, was recognised by other Islamic nations to the extent that Malaysia is now the model for a successful Islamic country.

However, he stressed that the government has never neglected the welfare and interest of Malaysians, as it has extended numerous forms of aid, which are not available to people in other countries.

“Last night, I was in Bachok, Kelantan where I found out that there is even aid for disturbance from wildlife, for instance, you can get aid if you’re bitten by a snake. Where else in the world, a government does this?”

“This is a government which takes care of the overall welfare of the people, where we want an Islamic concept and the same time, we want progress and development.”

“We don’t want Islam to be linked to poverty and weakness but to be linked to strength and empowerment because Allah loves people who are successful,” he said.

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

Here we go again. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is preaching Islam to Malaysians. I doubt, however, the ulama’ (religious scholars) would agree with Najib’s prognosis on Islam — if they are honest ulama’, that is. Either Najib has the wrong impression of Islam or he is indulging in wishful thinking.

To understand the present, we need to go back and look at the origins, the origins of religion, that is. Let us start with Christianity and I am going to refer to Britain for purposes of this discussion.

Britain used to be pagan. In the beginning the druids ruled Britain and the Britons worshiped many gods. 50 years or so before the birth of Christ, the Romans invaded Britain and brought their gods to the island, also paganism. This triggered a struggle between the old English gods and the new Roman gods.

Around 400-500 years later, the Romans left Britain and the Saxons and Franks began to migrate to Britain in hordes, as did the Vikings. They too brought their gods. Invariably, Britain saw 500 years of wars between the many kings, as Britain did not have one king but different kings ruled the different regions (at that time there were more kings and gods than virgins in Britain).

In 313, the Emperor Constantine granted the Christians freedom of worship. Thereafter Christianity began to rapidly spread and it was only a matter of time before it reached Britain. Some say Constantine died a Christian while others say he died a pagan (only he would know).

The Britons and Saxons, however, resisted Christianity and it was not until the Christians took up arms that paganism was defeated and replaced with Christianity. Hence Christianity was spread through the use of force.

Around that time, Islam began to establish itself in the Arabian Peninsular and it too began to spread at the point of a sword, just like Christianity had done over 300 years before that. Hence both Islam and Christianity spread the same way, through conquests and persecution.

Eventually, Christendom saw the separation of church and state. But this did not happen overnight. It took more than 1,000 years for that to happen. Islam, however, although it took the same route as Christianity to spread, did not go the same route of separation of church and state, as Christianity had.

In short, both Islam and Christianity started the same way, by the use of force. However, they did not both end up the same way. Christianity the church ‘split’ into two entities while Islam the adeen remained one entity.

No doubt Islam had Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Father of Modern Turkey, the seat of the Ottoman Empire, who attempted to impose the separation of church and state. Atatürk, however, although viewed as a reformist by those from the west, is viewed as a traitor by most Muslim scholars. In fact, people like the PAS President, Abdul Hadi Awang, label Atatürk as an apostate and one of Islam’s greatest traitors.

The notion of separation of church and state is not an acceptable concept in Islam. And any ‘true’ Muslim would agree with this. To disagree would make you a deviant Muslim or a Muslim who is defying God’s command and who is violating the Qur’an.

As I said, Najib either has the wrong impression of Islam or he is indulging in wishful thinking. Islam has not yet gone the way of Christianity in being able to accept the concept of separation of church and state. Will that time ever come? I don’t know but for sure it is not going to happen in our lifetime — so don’t hold your breath or else you might turn blue.

Now, if you are an honest Muslim, you will acknowledge this fact. To argue otherwise means you are not being honest and are trying to mislead the people. So, Najib, are you an honest person or not? And if you can understand this then you might be able to understand PAS as well.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

. . .  doubt, however, the ulama’ (religious scholars) would agree with Najib’s prognosis on Islam – . . .

The ulama’ (religious scholars) are out of touch with LIVING reality and obsessed with the afterlife, they do not understand what politicians understand. Najib’s ‘prognosis’ is not necessarily wrong as this is pplicable to the majority portion of LIVING Muslims, and we do know most Muslims ARE NOT focused on the afterlife like the dedicated Ulama. Now if the Muslim population in general thought like Ulama though, Islamic civilisation would not even need sovereign states or kings but only want to be judged as pure and pious, focusing on the afterlife – this would mean that ALL MUSLIMS by now if they were ‘Ulama minded’ or ‘honest Muslim’ would have forgone most earthly trappings for afterlife instead.

Honesty is knowing that Muslims would be destroyed were they ‘Ulama minded’, Islam is a relgion for the old and the dispassionate, and no honest Muslim would be able to progress in most of the ‘modern world’ otherwise. Malays though are ANIMIST originally, and being born in an animist region of the world, will not be likely to pledge allegiance to the far off Kabaa spiritual colony, thus making political relevance always stronger than religious afterlife obsessed Islam’s ‘honesty’. RPK a traditionalist? Well unless Islam is intended to be ‘Amish’ in scope WITH women living like nuns and men quite insular and living within their own comunities, an honest Muslim will be the picture of stagnation . . .

The notion of separation of church and state is not an acceptable concept in Islam BUT necessary if Muslims are to be able to engage the rest of the world, without being able to separate the two we end up with the suicide belt types or extreme among Taliban with honour killings and what not, RPK must understand that this seperation f Church and State is a DEVELOPMENT in Islam, Hadhari if you will (not Badawi’s Hadhari but hadhari nevertheless), Najib is as astute as those writing articles to elicit responses which will be entered simply to enable a large portion of humanity to get along with everyone else. An honest Muslim cannot deny the points just made above. And Ulama though honest to what the Quran might be, are not considering what politicians and the state have to deal with, thus rendering the word of the Ulama dishonest in effect, especially so in a multipolar multi faith or multi ethnic society.

Good meanderings of thought with a skewed stand are better than no meanderings at all RPK . . . but that an article as above would take aging Malay (former) royalty with all the funds and social networks available and an education at University to produce this half baked sort of thought process is telling (what I leave to the reader to decide) . . . If only Najib were less corrupt and UN Human Rights Charter aware, would abolish the apartheid Bumiputra system, and not be enmired in C4 cases would that second term as PM should be assured and allow BN to win, but it is still not too late to endorse :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Politics is dirt and sullies any and all faiths. the sooner Muslims realise this and not be so lazy as to be unable to differentiate the hegelian dialectic of the 2, Malaysia will be a better place. With PM Najib on this statement, but deplore Najib’s inability to implement the above 3 items. RPK, Najib would be one up on a debate about necessity of seperation of state and faith. Not so ‘no holds barred‘ now eh? Establishment poseur . . . change that outdated thinking, or just stay in England and retire among the pseudointellectuals spouting semi intelligent, if not propaganda filled nonsense as above. Some people are good for the country, some people are not.

But that’s just NOT it; Islam IS NOT politics

Still hate LGBT? Or prepared to withdraw an article or few? The older generation is old ! (and full of selfish and self serving contradications)

ARTICLE 18

Note that currently Malaysia makes illegal possession or set-up of your own satellite dish in Malaysia. A person convicted under Section 239 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 can be fined up to RM100,000 or jailed up to two years, or both. Do the Rakyat really want these laws? To enrich Astro and the colluding MPs’ monopoly? Or does the Rakyat prefer the MPs to make this law redundant so that Malaysians can watch everything that is free world wide? why should we pay anything at all to watch what is free after all? Because the Rakyat did not think before voting, the Rakyat did allowed MPs that will keep these idiot laws in place.Iif 222 MPs decide to scrap Section 239 to ALLOW Satellite dishes, Astro could go out of business, and Malaysian television would become even more redundant *BUT* – the Rakyat could access ALL channels world wide without having to pay a single cent. Do you love the Rakyat? Do you want the Rakyat to vote for you? So help the Rakyat  end an unnecessary monopoly.

The owner of this dish definitely would not be able to afford ‘Astro’ fees but because the lucky fellers are not in Malaysia’s collusive monopoly minded law writers grips, they get ALL the channels of the world without the government harrassing them. Vote for MPs who will end Section 239!

Voters demand that your MP accede to ending Section 239 before voting for said MP. If the MP will scrap Section 239 the MP is votable. If that MP does not want to, then said MP has been on the take from Astro and does not want freedom of information which a private satellite dish can give. Also remember the  items . . . any MP who can sign a statuary declaration to give :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;would likely win enough seats to become PM. Racists and fundos, crony capitalists and ponzi communications companies won’t like the above but the above is the best way forward for Malaysia. Any MP who refuses to scrap Section 239 is UNVOTABLE. Make private satellite dishes legal and stop enriching monopolistic companies that government allows! This is as bad as Anti-Trust or Anti-Monopoly anywhere else! Illegal and an abuse via profiteering off the Rakyat!

More low cost slum dwellers who get to access more of the world’s channels than any Malaysian ever will UNTIL the term limitless nepotist and racist MPs who refuse to remove Section 239 GTFO of Dewan or AMEND and ABOLISH OFFENDING LAWS! 222 Unvotable MPs seating in Dewan!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: