Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

See Video: MALAY Thugs Attack Ceramah Held by ABU-HINDRAF at Jalan Kebun on 21st January 2012

2012-01-23T01:49:00.004+08:00

One person SERIOUSLY injured!!!

From Malaysiakini Read here for more

A ceramah organised by Anything But Umno (ABU) was cancelled at the last minute due to a disturbance from a "rowdy" group.

According to Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) executive director E Nalini (right), the ceramah was disrupted by several youths sporting T-shirts with BN and Umno logos.

"The ceramah was to start about 9pm last night. As we were driving to the hall, there were about six or seven men beating up a boy with sticks," said Nalini.

This was confirmed by ABU coordinator Haris Ibrahim, who added that one young man was taken to the hospital.

"Another group of some 20 people were causing a ruckus opposite the hall, waving rods and riding motorcycles," Nalini told Malaysiakini, adding that they were told the area was an "Umno stronghold".

Co-organised by Hindu Rakyat Action Force (Hindraf), the ceramah was to take place at the Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) Hall on Jalan Kebun, before it was called off over safety concerns.

"I understand that the hospital had to do a CT Scan on the youth. He is out of danger but he is certainly traumatised," said Haris, who was to speak at the ceramah.

Apart from Haris, other speakers lined up were PKR's Badrul Hisham Shahrin, PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu and Hindraf national coordinator W Sambulingam.

Haris said the organisers would decide later today on their next course of action.

Nalini said that the rowdy group dispersed after several police patrol cars arrived at the scene.

Malays told to leave

Hindraf adviser N Ganesan said in a statement that the group was making a racket outside the MBSA hall by honking motorcycle horns, and one of the group's leaders even told Malay attendees to leave the ceramah.

"Having succeeded in getting a few of the attendees to leave the hall, the mat rempit then began kicking and pushing over the publicity material and tables placed at the entrance to the hall.

"This made some in the crowd restless, and prompted the mat rempit leader to ask the crowd to 'berambus' (get lost).

N Ganesan, HRP advisor June 4"Things took an ugly turn when a mat rempit then rode his motorcycle right into the seating area, making those there scramble for safety," recounted Ganesan (left).

A scuffle then took place when one of the participants told the motorcycle group leader to leave.

They began shoving one another and it eventually ended in a fight, said Ganesan, adding that the participant was then "knocked senseless, and had to be rushed off to the hospital".

Ganesan also criticised BN and Umno, accusing them of using youths to disrupt the ceramah.

He added that despite the "brazen attempt" to thwart the gathering, Hindraf as well as ABU would continue to host forums and ceramah of such nature.

However, Selangor police chief Tun Hisan Tun Hamzah refuted the allegations that a person was injured.

"NOTHING happened, the residents were unhappy, that's all. NO BN or Umno supporters disturbed them," said Tun Hisan when contacted.

"No police reports were lodged, not even by the victim who was said to be injured," he said.

"Papagomo" aka Wan Muhammad Azri and "Parpukari "aka Mohd Salim Iskandar sued for RM 10 Million for Defamation .

2012-01-17T09:24:00.004+08:00

REAL NAME: Wan Muhammad Azri bin Wan Deris
Identity Card No: 830121-03-5019
Date of Birth: 21 January, 1983
Residence: Setapak, Kuala Lumpur

Read here for more

Pro-Umno bloggers Papagomo and Parpukari are facing a looming RM10 million lawsuit each for allegedly defaming businessman Abdul Razak Mohd Noor.

Abdul Razak had through law agency Netto & Co on Jan 3 issued a letter of demand to the duo, on top of a notice of demand published in a major local daily last Saturday.

When contacted, Abdul Razak's lawyer Reuben Netto said his client had resorted to public notices as he had no other avenues to defend himself.

"When we go before the judge, we want to say that we have done everything in our power to identify the bloggers," he said.

The notices names Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris as the owner of the Papagomo blog and Mohamad Salim Iskandar as the owner of the Parpukari blog.

Abdul Razak claims that Papagomo had through a blog posting on Dec 11, 2011 and Parpukari through a blog posting on Dec 4 and Dec 12, 2011 defamed him.

"They have defamed my client by calling him a conman and accusing him of cheating the government, saying that he had collaborated with the opposition and labelling him as being ungrateful to Umno," said Netto.

Justifying the demand of RM10 million in damages, Netto said Abdul Razak holds all telecommunications licences relating to broadband and satellite services in partnership with Telekom Malaysia.

"He is supplying the Malaysian public with broadband services in cooperation with Telekom, he is a fairly big person in terms of the services he renders. But with these defamatory articles, the banks and Telekom are calling up my client and asking what is happening," he said.

Netto said he was informed that Papagomo has met with other bloggers and sought advice on how handle the looming suit, while Parpukari thus far has ignored the legal notices.

Court action expected soon

"If by the end of the week, they do not show any sincerity or overtures in writing, then it will force our hand to file an action in court," he said.

Aside from damages, according to the letter sent on Jan 3, Abdul Razak is demanding for the duo to withdraw their allegations from their blogs as well as, at their own expense, request similar withdrawals from sites that have circulated the claims.

He is also seeking for the two to publish an unqualified apology on their blogs and to seek similar publication on sites which have circulated their allegations.

The duo will also be required to put in writing a guarantee to not publish similar allegations or imputations against Abdul Razak in future.

If the bloggers do not respond, Netto added, a suit will be filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court as early as Friday and the latest by early next week.

Papagomo has in the past made several controversial claims, including alleging that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng's son had outraged the modesty of his schoolmate, a claim which has been proven untrue. READ HERE FOR MORE

Several police reports have been lodged against the blogger before, but this looming suit appears to be the FIRST major legal action against him and Parpukari.

NOT GUILTY!! Judge Zabidin ACQUITS Anwar Ibrahim of Sodomy Charges

2012-01-09T10:06:00.004+08:00

Dato' Mohamad Zabidin Bin Mohd Diah,DSDK, SMP, SDK
High Court Judge Kuala Lumpur (Criminal 5)
(Appointed High Court Judge on 28 July 2006)

QUOTE:

"...The court does not exclude the possibility the (DNA) samples were compromised.

Therefore the accused is ACQUITTED...."
-High Court Judge Dato' Mohamad Zabidin Bin Mohd Diah

Read here for more and HERE and HERE

The High Court today acquitted Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of a charge of sodomising his former male aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah ruled that the prosecution had NOT DONE ENOUGH to prove Anwar had committed sodomy against Saiful.

“After going through the evidence, I cannot be 100 percent certain that the evidence could have been compromised.

Hence, the court is reluctant to convict on such corrobaration of evidence from SP1 Saiful.

The court does not exclude the possibility the (DNA) samples were compromised. Therefore the accused is acquitted.” he ruled to shouts of joy from Anwar’s supporters and family.

Anwar, a former deputy prime minister was charged with sodomising Saiful at the Desa Damansara condominium between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. He had been similarly indicted of sodomy over a decade ago and was found guilty. He spent six years in jail before being exonerated.

Anwar's wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail cried and hugged her elated husband.

In an immediate reaction, Anwar thanked his lawyers.

"I'm finally vindicated after the smearing of my character. I'm thankful to Wan Azizah and the team of lawyers led by Karpal Singh."

He also thanked the support of Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

"We want to continue on the reform agenda, fighting corruption, and freedom of the press."

WALL STREET JOURNAL: "Malaysia - One of the MOST Notorious and Long-Running Abuses of Power in the Muslim World "

2012-01-09T00:41:00.004+08:00

READ HERE FOR MORE

8 January 2012

“We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.

…Failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense”.
–Barack Obama, US President

We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.”

That was President Obama at the State Department last May, rolling out his own version of the freedom agenda for the Muslim world.

So why has the Administration been virtually silent when it comes to one of the most notorious and long-running abuses of power taking place in the Muslim world today—this one in our good friend and ally, Malaysia?

The abuses in question concern Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who on Monday faces a verdict—and potentially years of jail time—on dubious sodomy charges.

Mr. Anwar first went through this charade as a deputy prime minister in the late 1990s, when he fell out with then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad during the Asian financial crisis, was savagely beaten by police and ultimately sentenced to prison on sodomy and corruption charges.

Mr. Anwar spent six years in prison. In 2004 the sodomy charges were overturned by the country’s highest court—a year after Mr. Mahathir had left office.

Yet Mr. Anwar was again served with sodomy charges four years later, after the ruling UMNO party had lost its two-thirds majority and the opposition seemed close to assembling a parliamentary majority.

The current case is even flimsier than the last one. It is based mainly on the word of one accuser who, as it so happened, had met with then-deputy prime minister, now Prime Minister, Najib Razak days before the alleged incident.

Doctors at two hospitals could find no evidence of rape in the aftermath of the alleged incident. Nonetheless, political observers anticipate a guilty verdict.

This is happening in the context of growing discontent among Malaysians with UMNO’s ruling order, and Mr. Najib’s ambivalent attempts at political reform. But if that’s reminiscent of the unhappiness that presaged the Arab Spring, so too is the don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of the Obama Administration.

Malaysia is supposedly a moderate Muslim country and a useful regional counterweight to China, and the President was full of praise for Mr. Najib’s “great leadership” when they last met in November.

As for Mr. Anwar, the State Department has publicly offered no more than boilerplate about his case. Perhaps quiet diplomacy is now at work on Mr. Anwar’s behalf, but that kind of diplomacy is fine only as long as it produces results.

In the meantime, Malaysian democracy could benefit from a sign that the U.S. is not indifferent to Mr. Anwar’s legal ordeal or to the political system that has allowed it to continue. U.S. interests could benefit as well.

“Failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense,” said Mr. Obama in May.

Mr. Anwar’s case gives the President a chance to show that he meant what he said.

Ex- UMNO ADUN says, " DAP is MORE Relevant and Functional in Achieving a MORE Democratic and Abuse-FREE Society."

2012-01-02T20:43:00.008+08:00

by

Dato' Mohd.Ariff Sabri bin Hj. Abdul Aziz. aka "Sakmongkol AK47"

Read here for more

I am not going to respond to the xenophobic responses around news that Aspan Alias and Sakmongkol are about to join DAP. No explanation will be able to change preconceived biases. So why bother? So we are about to join or have joined DAP.

The DAP is a democratic party committed to the rule of law, good governance and good government. It abhors corruption and abuse of political office. To me those are attractive propositions.

UMNO on the other hand has turned its back on these. It harps only on one primal worry of Malays- when UMNO is threatened it shares the threat with Malays at large.

So a threat to UMNO is translated mindlessly into a threat to Malays as a whole. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

That is how UMNO has approached politics in Malaysia basically- make its fears public, make the gains private for selected Malays within UMNO.

I have only one message to that- those salad days and that halcyon period are over.

UMNO is trapped by its own successes. Indeed its supporters and leaders assume ownership of the wrong things and end up digging in to support the wrong choices.

My answer is, if we do indeed change our political vehicle that is what we are actually doing. Don’t read our move as blasphemous or treasonable.

The DAP is more relevant and functional in achieving a more democratic and abuse-free society. As a Muslim, we are changing wadah not aqidah.

So, I thought it would be more substantive to answer my critics by writing an article, why shouldn’t Malays embrace DAP politics? That’s the only way to dominate and conquer your fears.

How has DAP politics been inimical to the general political health of this country?
Can any DAP Chinese leader be a PM when it’s contesting only at most 50-55 seats?
Can any DAP non Malay leader harbor the dream of becoming a PM in a country dominated by Malays?
Has the DAP threatened the institution of Malay rulers?

DAP has never done THAT or will NOT be mad to countenance such rebellious idea, but UMNO on the other hand has insulted the Malay rulers way back in 1998 constitutional crisis.

Can we reasonably accept the allegation that the DAP is instrumental in claims that Malays are being converted into Christians when most DAP members are NOT themselves Christians?

We have to do better than that to take Malays as imbeciles. Only UMNO seems to do that.

But DAP is Chinese chauvinist party and anti-Malay. I will answer by examining the deeds rather than slogans.

When I was an ADUN in the Pahang Legislative assembly ( 2004-2008) I have NEVER heard the lone DAP member ever speak about anti Malay themes. He spoke about abuse of power, about mindless spending, he spoke about maladministration.

The first book Lim Kit Siang writes that I read was Time Bombs in Malaysia. After that I read so many books written by Kit Siang that touched on the Maika Scandals, the BMF financial scandal and so on.

If we are honest enough, we have to admit, the issues raised were never about one race dominating the other but were always about the abuses of those in power, corruption, and a continuous attack on policies that are ruinous to this country.

So we are going to oppose Kit Siang on the basis of the fact that these things are spoken of by a Chinaman?

To the Chinese UMNO is also a chauvinist Malay party except, their leaders can be easily bought. The Malay will sell all to abandon their cause. Er…correction, the UMNO Malay, I mean.
I would also like to respond by saying- WHY Malays SHOULD consider joining DAP en masse. It’s a party committed to democratic principles and rule of law. I can only imagine, so many can prosper under a regime of freedom of speech within DAP.

I can speak on the plight of the displaced and disowned Malays with more energy than allowed of in UMNO. The interest of Malays can be fought of on any political platform other than UMNO. That is what UMNO fears. Its monopoly is broken.

So the past week I have had many friends calling me asking whether it’s true I am joining DAP? Some folks in my hometown, Pekan refer to me now as Dato DAP. I find the responses somewhat amusing and comical.
There was a comment reminding me and Aspan as to who started May 13? The thrust of that reminder is to remind us; of his and others belief that DAP started the May 13 incident.

Ok, you want to play ball, we play ball too.

Since you want to know, what if I say Tun Razak allowed it to happen because the ensuing troubles would give him an excuse to kick out Tengku Abdul Rahman? The point is, there was no single contributor to the May 13 incident.

But I would place some blame on Tun Razak who as Home Minister allowed things to degenerate. He allowed it so that a proclamation of emergency can be made.
Finally, let me deal with certain responses from certain pro UMNO bloggers. The chief spokesman is of course that paid lackey and buffoon of a regurgitating machine. He does nothing but regurgitate material passed on to him by his paymasters.

The material he writes and posts therefore emits the strong smell of vomit. The owner of the lard layered brain does what he does best- spewing personal attacks. And so he invites comments from likeminded mental gnomes to do what he has orchestrated.

Why the paranoia?

If we are not good, failed ADUN, bankrupt politicians, it will be cinch for any winnable UMNO candidates to beat us.

So, it’s no cause of concern or a sleep depriver. But please remember to stop telling lies about us so that we can promise not to tell the truth about you.

I see a sense of hopelessness.

They cannot attack our nationalist credentials because we are as Malay as they are too ( to some we are , in fact more Malay in appearance and in thinking) – so they do what they do best.

Attack me on the personal side. No big deal.

My advice to these UMNO bloggers is simple. Please stop telling lies about me, and I promise not to tell the truth about you people.

And telling the truth about you people includes telling the truth about top UMNO leaders including the PM who is Pekan UMNO division head.

If we are so easily beatable, then why all the fuss?

We can’t do damage to invincible UMNO. We on the other hand, see UMNO as the party before, presently and forever stealing, pillaging and ruining the country.

The Forgotten Malaysians: Malaysian Indian Poor

2011-12-27T17:38:00.004+08:00

How WE (MALAYSIANS) fail the Malaysian Indian Poor

By

Anas Zubedy

Read here for more

After 54 years as a country, it is unfortunate that a lot of non Indian Malaysians do not yet know the Indians.

For example, a lot of Malaysians still do not know the difference between Punjabis and Bengalis, and in some instances in recent years this confusion has been the topic of public discussion.

This goes back to the time of Independence and the formulation of our principal social engineering programme, the NEP.

With all due respect to the Tun Abdul Razak administration which created it, one of the main reasons why some parts of the Indian community is still stuck in the trenches of poverty are because the NEP was not extended to help those in the estates.

While the NEP helped the Malays and Bumiputera out of poverty and managed to create a group of middle class Malays, it overlooked the needs of the real composition of Indians.

The NEP was designed based on the per capita income of the Malay, Indian, Chinese and foreigner population. At the time, the Chinese had the highest percentage of per capita income, the Indians second, the Malays had the lowest.

However, as for the Indians, because we did not understand them, we grouped all of them in one big group.

What we did not realise is that the Indians are not a homogenous group, but made up of different groups that came in several batches. While there are a small group of Indians who were wealthier, about 10 million of them came to Malaya as buruh kasar.

Understanding in the Indians

Based on the average between the incomes of the small group of middle class Indians and the larger community of poor Indians, the statistics drawn were inaccurate.

It shows as if the Indians were doing okay, but in reality a big cluster of them were as poor as the Malays and Bumiputera.

It is sad that because we do not really understand our Indian brothers and sisters, we have allowed their poverty problem to continue as a legacy until today.

Now that our PM has vowed to address this issue, it is important that we know who they are, where they are and where they are going.

I recommend a book by Muzafar Desmond Tate called ‘The Malaysian Indians: History, Problems and Future’.

Here are several important points from the book. As I mentioned earlier, the Malaysian Indians are not all the same, but are made up of different smaller communities.

One major way the Malayan Indians were divided were the separation between Hindu and Muslim.

Another thing was social division into four major class groups:

’1) The elite, consisting of professionals, high government officials and senior executives in leading private firms;

2) An upper, English-educated middle class consisting mainly of government servants;

3) A lower, vernacular-educated middle class, comprising merchants, school teachers, journalists, smallholders, all largely outside government service;

4) Labourers in government service – the PWD, medical services, railways, the docks and the municipalities of large towns – and in private employ, particularly on estates.’

Tate writes that the Indian community remained highly compartmentalised as there was very little interaction between these groups, and hardly any social mobility existed for them.

A large number of Tamils who arrived in Malaya during the British colonial period were drawn from the lowest ranks of Tamil society and came as contract labourers for tin mines and agricultural estates.

They were ‘virtually debt slaves’ from the point they came to Malaya, having to work off the costs of their passage and recruitment under the contract system. Their wages were so meager that this would take them their whole term of service.

The upper-class

Besides this large group of Tamil labourers, there was also a small group of upper-class Tamils who came by their own resources. These were men of trade, commerce and finance, and Tate writes that this upper class, though small in numbers, were very significant as they ‘exerted an influence out of all proportion to their numbers’.

After Merdeka, the rift between the more affluent middle class and the larger number of Indian estate workers who ‘hover on the borders of poverty’, continued to exist.

The middle class was doing fine, dominating certain professions like law and medicine.

The enrolment of children into primary and secondary schools also remained the same. But for those in the rural areas, especially in the estates, the problem of poverty seemed intractable.

At the same time, the greatest shift that happened post-independence is urbanisation, which brought new social problems with it.

This was the ‘new poverty syndrome’ of the rootless Indians in the town. While the strategies of the NEP brought growing industrialisation, the Indian workers who left the estates found that they were in no position to compete in the towns.

They were uneducated and had no command of English, they lacked technical skills and were once again forced to live under squalid conditions.

The NEP, on the other hand, did not extend its benefits to the estate workers. The official rationale was that these workers were employees of the private limited companies who owned the estates, and thus they did not fall under the scope of the NEP.

Living below poverty line

In reviewing the Second Malaysia Plan (1970 – 75), the authors of the Third Malaysia Plan concluded that the aim of eradicating poverty in the plantation sector did not make progress.

Two-fifths of the estate workers were still living below poverty levels and unemployment was high.

Even at the end of the term of the Third Malaysia Plan in 1980, very little progress had been made towards the eradication of poverty.

In other words, Tate concludes that due to the segregation between the middle class Indians and those in the estates, and the failure of the NEP to support the Indians below the poverty line, essentially, the major problems of the Indian community remained the same in 2000 as they were before 1957.

This problem of poverty has become the legacy issue that we have to urgently deal with, along with the contemporary issues of the social problems of the urban squatters.

To really move to help the Indian poor out of poverty, any action taken cannot be a once-off thing. We need to define a target, the same way we implemented the NEP with specific goals.

There are several mechanisms we can put into place. Education is the first thing we need to look into. We can open up boarding schools like Maktab Sains MARA to make sure the children are provided a level playing field in education.

We can provide channels for skills-based training and open up job opportunities. For those who are not able to read and write, we can perhaps provide vocational academies for them to learn the basic skills they need.

To help the poor Indians, there needs to be provisions for the whole process from homes to schools to jobs, so that within one generation we can reduce poverty among the Indian poor and move them into the middle class via education and support, just like what we did for the Bumiputera under the NEP.

We must remember and take to heart that the Malaysian Indian poor problem is not an Indian problem, but a Malaysian one.

Senator Ezam Noor Quit PKR BECAUSE He Needed MONEY and "Ashamed Having to Live Off His Wife's Income".

2011-11-18T23:38:00.005+08:00

Quote

"I am jobless and without any source of income.

I no longer earn US$3,000 a month as a director of a company in Indonesia as the company has closed down.

I have to look for opportunities to be appointed director for one or two companies.

I can only do this if I can prove that I have left the party (PKR).”
-Ezam Noor

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

The Syed Husin Memoir: Ezam quit for Money

EZAM NOOR

Quoting conversations from his lengthy political career, the much-anticipated memoir by former PKR Deputy President Syed Husin Ali lends credence to suspicions surrounding once-PKR Youth chief Ezam Mohd Noor’s defection.

In a chapter dubbed ‘Ezam’s excuse for leaving the party’, the veteran politician shared that Ezam had told him a month before his resignation that he was “broke” and “ashamed” for having to “live off his wife”.

According to Syed Husin, Ezam had on May 13, 2007 told him that he was then “jobless and without any source of income”.

“I no longer earn US$3,000 a month as a director of a company in Indonesia as the company has closed down,” he was quoted as saying by Syed Husin.

“I have to look for opportunities to be appointed director for one or two companies. I can only do this if I can prove that I have left the party.”

The revelation, which the writer said was “absolutely unexpected”, came after Syed Husin asked Ezam about rumours that the latter had submitted a resignation letter to the Selangor PKR secretary.

“Doctor, I am quitting. Azmin (Ali) is no longer my enemy, (PKR de facto leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) is. Trust that I will do anything to destroy him,” Ezam purportedly said.

Syed Husin said Ezam’s “forthrightness” came as a “big shock”, and that he had sent a note to Anwar regarding the conversation, shortly after which the promising youth wing leader quit the party.

Narrating his reactions during the conversation with the now BN senator, Syed Husin said that he wondered if Ezam had been “bought by UMNO”.

“I remembered a letter sent to me by (activist) Hishammuddin Rais when he was behind bars,” he said, not mentioning the contents of the letter.

But while his matter-of-fact tone does not betray much about how he had felt over the incident, his views on Ezam indicate that the latter’s decision to quit had disappointed Syed Husin.

“I felt that Ezam had potential to play an important role in the party. It even crossed my mind that he could be promoted as a candidate for the deputy presidency,” he wrote.

MP ZULKIFLI NOORDIN:‘ The price is RM60,000

In a separate chapter, the memoir reveals how another former PKR man was said to have sought a cash payment from the party to quit his seat.

Kulim Bandar Baru parliamentarian Zulkifli Noordin, now Independent, was alleged to have asked for RM60,000 to vacate his seat in order to make way for Anwar to contest and get back into the Dewan Rakyat.

This was after Anwar’s ban from contesting elections, following his earlier conviction, was lifted on April 14, 2008. “(Zulkifli’s) win was challenged by the UMNO candidate who claimed that Zulkifli had not submitted his expenditure report.

“I was told Zulkifli (left) at first agreed to vacate his seat with the condition that he is paid by the party, word has it RM60,000, although I cannot ascertain the exact amount,” he wrote.

This, however, fell through as UMNO withdrew their election petition against Zulkifli, leading to the latter changing his mind about vacating his seat.

Zulkifli had months later criticised Anwar and the party, including on his blog “which was given much airtime by UMNO-owned media”. He was later sacked from PKR by the disciplinary committee.

Syed Husin said Zulkifli’s “slander” went into high gear later, “especially after he and another who had left the party, (Bayan Baru MP) Zahrain Mohd Hashim, were taken to the United States by the PM”. “According to Zulkifli, they had discussions with the PM every night,” he wrote.

Anwar later contested in Permatang Pauh after his wife and Party President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail stepped down to trigger a re-election.

“I know it wasn’t easy for Wan Azizah, as she liked being an MP. She often spoke about what had happened in Parliament in meetings,” he said. Wan Azizah’s decision, Syed Husin said, was an example of the sacrifices she makes for her husband.

The Make-Up of the Malaysian Judiciary: Who We Appoint to the Seat of Justice is a Matter of LIFE and DEATH for Malaysians

2011-11-13T21:20:00.005+08:00

Quote

"....Who are THESE JUDGES who wield such power over us, a power reserved for GOD?

Who are these MERE humans with the power to wrest children from their mothers and to condemn men to death or cage them like beasts in penitentiaries?

Who possesses the power to strip us of our professions, our possessions, our very lives?

THEY make law.

THEY may take away your wife or your good name or your freedom or your fortune or your life.

THEY are omnipotent.

And the question is: To whom have we so carelessly granted that power?

Are THEY the kind who would understand YOU , who from their experiences would know something of the fears and struggles you have faced?

Will THEY care about YOU or about JUSTICE?”
- Gerry Spence,
American lawyer

Judicial Diversity Creates Confidence

by

Roger Tan

Read here for more

How does Malaysia fare with judicial diversity?

Is ours a more representative bench?

The table shows the racial composition and gender of the judges in our superior courts.

As the table shows, there is a fair number of women and non-Malay judges at the High Court level, but not in the appellate courts.

In fact, since Merdeka, only one white, two Chinese, one Indian and one woman were appointed to head the High Court of Malaya.

They were, respectively,

Tun James Beveridge Thomson (1957-1963);
Tan Sri Ong Hock Thye (1968-1973) and Tan Sri Gunn Chit Tuan (1992-1994);
Tan Sri Sarwan Singh Gill (1974-1979); and
Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob (2004-2006).

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION

Further, the members of our Judicial Appointments Commission comprise:

six Malays,
one Chinese,
one Indian and
one east Malaysia bumiputra, and
only one of the nine members is a woman.

To my mind, the situation could be due to a dearth of non-Malays in the Judicial and Legal Services, but overall women still outnumber men in this sector.

SESSIONS COURT

Currently, in respect of Sessions Court judges, there are:

119 Malays (56 are women),
two Chinese (women),
five Indians (three are women),
nine east Malaysia bumiputras (four are women) and
one Others (a woman).

MAGISTRATES COURT

For Magistrates, there are:

139 Malays (84 are women),
two Chinese (men),
one Indian (woman) and
four east Malaysia bumiputras (all men).

However, there are probably MORE non-Malays serving in the Attorney General’s Chambers.

But if other judicial officers such as deputy and assistant registrars are added, women would almost double men.

This is not a new phenomenon as, in the last two years, women have doubled the number of men entering the legal profession.Of course, non-Malay law graduates prefer to enter the legal profession rather than join the Judicial and Legal Services with the view, whether rightly or wrongly, that private practice is more lucrative.

In fact, with the revised remuneration scheme, the current basic pay of a magistrate who is a fresh law graduate is RM1989.45 (with additional perks worth about RM1,000 depending on the location where the magistrate serves).

This, of course, is far better off than his predecessor in earlier days, like in the early 1980s when a magistrate’s basic pay was only about RM1,050.

In any event, if the reason for under-representation in the appellate judiciary by NON-MALAYS is due to a lack of meritorious candidates in the Judicial and Legal Services, then resort should be had to the pool of meritorious candidates among senior members of the Bar just like in the case of Jonathan Sumption, QC who recently made history by being the first lawyer to be elevated directly to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Having said that, let no one mistake me as advocating a quota system or positive discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and religion in judicial appointments because that would go against Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

I am also mindful of the views expressed by some women judges themselves, such as the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé. She argued that it was not enough to have simply more women or minorities on the bench. “What we need”, as she was quoted by Australian judge, Justice McHugh, “is a change in attitudes, not simply a change in chromosomes.”

I disagree.

If there exists a total absence or a huge disproportionate presence of women and minorities at appellate courts, something must be wrong somewhere.

It is my considered opinion that the Judicial Appointments Commission should always encourage a diverse judiciary which is more representative of the make-up of our country.

We must also correct any perception that our judges, who are the arbiters of civil laws, are not fair and independent especially when they adjudicate upon sensitive issues such as race and religion.

It follows that who we appoint to the seat of justice is a matter of life and death.

As one of America’s finest trial lawyers, Gerry Spence, put it so trenchantly:

“Who are these judges who wield such power over us, a power reserved for God?

Who are these mere humans with the power to wrest children from their mothers and to condemn men to death or cage them like beasts in penitentiaries? Who possesses the power to strip us of our professions, our possessions, our very lives?

“They make law. They may take away your wife or your good name or your freedom or your fortune or your life. They are omnipotent.

And the question is: To whom have we so carelessly granted that power? Are they the kind who would understand you, who from their experiences would know something of the fears and struggles you have faced? Will they care about you or about justice?”

It is, therefore, my honest view that judicial diversity and meritocracy should go hand in hand because a judiciary which does not reflect the society’s diversity will ultimately lose the confidence of that society.

In other words, the strength of any judiciary is primarily dependent on public confidence even if seated on the bench are monolithic judges who are most meritorious.

This is achievable if there is the political will, and one only need to look at how successfully Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did in bringing diversity to the American judiciary.

Selangor Sultan Provoked Constitutional Crisis by Demanding Through Royal Decree MORE Powers from Selangor State Legislature

2011-11-11T19:42:00.008+08:00

Read here and here

Selangor state assemblymen are seeing red with what appears to be royal intervention in the RUNNING of the State Legislative Assembly.

In July, every state assemblyman allegedy received a letter from Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, commanding them to agree to amendments that would supposedly give the Ruler more power over Islamic affairs. (The state assemblymen) say it could have led to a constitutional crisis.

The letter was accompanied by a Selangor government gazette with proposed amendments to the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003.

One assemblyman , who spoke under condition of anonymity, said they saw the letter on their desks at about 9:30am when they attended the July 11 state assembly sitting.

He said,

“We did not know what to do. We were totally shocked. It was a very delicate situation. If we went against it, it would have caused a constitutional crisis.

The Sultan is supposed to act on the advice of the state government, not the other way around. Even in the matters of Islam and Malay culture, the Sultan has to act on the advice of the state administration.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT THE PALACE. We had respect for the palace. WE LET IT PASS.”

He added that if the assembly had snubbed the letter and voted against the proposed amendments, it would have been played to the hilt by both the mainstream and the Umno-led state opposition.

Phone call from palace

Another assemblyman, who also spoke to FMT anonymously, said that the proposed amendments were initially made available at a state pre-council meeting, a “few days” before July 11.

According to the state assemblyman:

Many state assemblymen present at the meeting were unhappy with the bill and hotly debated the details. “They voiced their displeasure at the bill. They felt they should have been consulted first because of its importance.
The Selangor mufti, state legal adviser and aides to the various assemblymen were also at the meeting
Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim said he was troubled by the introduction of the amendments.
"The MB requested that the bill be kept in abeyance pending further study.”
“The MB asked the officers to leave and the assemblymen to stay to discuss the bill.”
Halfway through the discussion, Khalid had to step out to take a call from the palace. Apparently, the displeasure of the state assemblymen had been conveyed to the palace.
“The MB did not make it clear what the palace had said, but the assemblymen took the cue, and understanding his (Khalid) predicament, did not pursue the postponement of the bill.”
The Sultan EXCEEDED his powers when he ordered assemblymen to pass the amendments.
Nevertheless, the BILL WAS PASSED after three readings.

Sultan’s Letter to the Selangor State Assemblymen

The letter was issued from the Alam Shah palace in Klang on July 11 and has the Sultan’s signature on it.

A copy of the letter was given to Free Malaysia Today (FMT) by an anonymous sender.

A letter from the Sultan’s private secretary, Mohamed Munir Bani, to state assembly secretary Mohamad Yasin Bidin was also provided to FMT.

It reads:

“I respectfully present the decree of His Majesty the Sultan of Selangor… to be distributed to all Selangor State Assemblymen immediately.”

The proposed amendments would:

Make the administration of all mosques and suraus fall under the purview of the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS).
This responsibility was previously held by the director of Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS).
Give the Sultan the right to directly appoint anyone to the post of MAIS secretary.
Remove the need to record in verbatim every resolution and policy made during MAIS meetings.
Require all practising Syariah lawyers in the state to be Muslim.
Require cheques issued by MAIS to be drawn according to its own financial procedures.
Remove the need for MAIS and any corporation established under the Enactment to adhere to provisions in the Statutory Bodies (Accounts and Annual Reports) Act 1980.
Give MAIS the power not only to collect zakat and tithes, but also to distribute it.
Give MAIS the power to appoint anyone as mosque officials.
Give MAIS the right to control and direct the duties of mosque committees.

There were 22 clauses stated in the provided gazette, with amendments to 21 sections within the Enactment.

A Pakatan Rakyat leader, who asked to remain anonymous, also said he suspected that Umno had pushed the palace said,

“The Sultan has been advised by Umno for 50 years. This put His Majesty in a very difficult situation. This was a ploy by Umno to put Pakatan at loggerheads with the Sultan.

He defended the Sultan as an “objective” person, but said Mohamad Munir, being pro-Umno, had made it difficult for Khalid to get an audience.

Sungai Panjang state assemblyman Mohamed Khir Toyo claimed ignorance of the matter, while Seri Serdang assemblyman and state opposition leader Mohamad Satim Diman could not be contacted.

RELATED ARTICLE

Selangor Sultan Over Stepped Constitutional Boundaries, says Law Expert Aziz Bari

The Selangor Sultan may have overstepped his powers by commanding state assemblypersons to pass a Bill back in July, said Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law professor Abdul Aziz Bari.

He said this when asked to comment on a decree signed by Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, ordering them to pass a slew of amendments to EXPAND the powers of both the SULTAN and Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) over Islamic affairs in the state.

The decree, dated July 11, a copy of which was given to Malaysiakini was attached with a letter signed by the sultan's private secretary, Mohamed Munir Bani.

To AVOID another confrontation with the palace, Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers COMPROMISED and PASSED the amendments to the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, although they saw it as a form of ROYAL INTERVENTION with the STATE LEGISLATURE.

Since taking over the state government in March 2008, Pakatan has been at loggerheads with the palace over several issues.

Constitution Does NOT Provide Sultan with the Powers

Aziz, an expert in constitutional matters and have written extensively on the role of the monarch, said the constitution may not provide the sultan such powers.

He pointed out that although the Federal Constitution - Article 3(2) and Section 1(2)(d) of the Eighth Schedule - clearly states that the sultan can act without or against the government on matters pertaining to Islam and Malay customs, it was SILENT on the part of the legislature.

Aziz Bari said,

"While on Islamic matters the sultan may ignore the government advice, the same may NOT be applicable when it comes to the legislature.

We are NOW dealing with the legislative power over which the government CANNOT control. In fact the government is subservient - or answerable - to it.

The sultan is only free from government, but that does NOT mean that he (Sultan) is also free from the House.

Nonetheless interference in such petty matters, could make the monarchy, which ought to be aloof and symbolic, embroiled or entangled in mundane and routine matters, thus putting its integrity at stake.

It is just too much and would jeopardise the integrity of the palace; especially after what happened in Perak and Selangor after 2008.The fear is the powers may be exercised by some other parties.

For one thing the sultan may be too busy and this may lead to a situation where certain parties step in under his name.

Given that, what will happen to his role and position as the father figure of the state?"

Some of the amendments that give Mais the power to collect and distribute zakat as well as fitrah and free the council's account from being audited by the Auditor-General, were simply taking a reverse direction against calls for greater accountability.

Perhaps we can look at one example - the state awards. Although the constitution acknowledges the power of the sultan, it also makes it compulsory to get the consent of the legislative assembly should this have a financial implication.

It (the amendment) can exempt the bodies concerned from scrutiny and this is bad from the constitutional point of view."

Another controversy that has arisen from the amendments, is giving Mais the authority to administer mosques and suraus, including the power to appoint mosque officials and to direct the duties of mosque committees.

There are quite many mosques and suraus that have been built by the peoplehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif themselves; not from the public purse.

The new provision could be used against these privately-funded mosques and this is not good.

"This is where the position and power of the sultan needs to be seen in the light of Islamic ideals that actually stand at the very heart of the provision concerned."

Selangor Sultan's Demands for Amendments to a Selangor state law removes Selangor's Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) Accountability to the State Government.

Read here for more

It’s a bitter pill to swallow for many Selangor assemblymen now that the government may have lost control over the state’s Islamic administrative matters and the estimated tens of millions of ringgit in annual zakat collections.

The amendments made in July seemingly allowed the state’s Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) to be accountable only to the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, bypassing the state government in the process. The amendments affected the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003.

Previously, Section 16 of the Enactment – which was passed at the July State Legislative Assembly sitting – enabled the director of Selangor’s Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) to be appointed as MAIS’s secretary.

The secretary would also act as the council’s chief executive officer and administrator, and was responsible for carrying out MAIS’s policies and resolutions.

However, the July amendments took that detail out, and allowed the Ruler “on advice of the Majlis” (MAIS) to appoint the council’s secretary.

Speaking under condition of anonymity, a state assemblyman said that the change allowed MAIS to snub summonses from the State Legislative Assembly’s committee.

He told FMT.

“In one occasion, MAIS was summoned by a House committee overseeing statutory bodies and subsidiaries.

They refused to appear on the grounds that they were not subject to the committee.”

Zakat money

The assemblyman added that MAIS was a statutory body created by the Enactment, and had financial autonomy in its affairs. He said,

“They still have to table their audited accounts before the House… They can appoint their own auditors… But they are not duty-bound to come before the committee.

The effect of this, politically, is a government within a government, and Islamic affairs are taken out of the control of the state government,. .

This was of special concern, the assemblyman added, given that the amendments also gave MAIS the power to collect and distribute zakat as well as fitrah.

Selangor zakat money came up to about a third of the state government’s annual revenue which was roughly RM1.4 billion."

With this in tow, MAIS, according to an anonymous Pakatan Rakyat leader, could do whatever it wished with its companies without worrying about the state assembly looking over its shoulder.

The Pakatan leader said,

At the policy and state level, MAIS has six or seven government-linked companies under it… They said that the (state) government has no shared interest in MAIS’ corporations.

So they tried to twist this (to their advantage), by saying that the administration (of MAIS) is under the Sultan…

If we raised our voice (against it), they will raise the issue of derhaka (betrayal).”

Royal appointments

FMT previously reported that Selangor state assemblymen allegedly received a letter from the Sultan at the July 11 state assembly sitting, commanding them to agree to these amendments.

Caught by surprise and fearing a constitutional crisis in the event of a refusal, Pakatan state assemblymen ALLOWED the amendments to be passed without a hitch.

Currently, the Sultan has the power to appoint the MAIS chairman, deputy chairman and “not fewer than eight other members” to the council.

MAIS also consists of five ex-officio (automatic) members – the state secretary, state legal adviser, state financial officer, the mufti and the chief police officer.According to the anonymous state assemblyman, the building and administration of mosques and suraus were also affected by the amendments.

JAIS, as well as the state government, he claimed, would have to spend money to build them, while the administration of these buildings would fall under MAIS’ purview.

“Now, to build a mosque or a surau, you have to get approval from MAIS… Construction of the mosque is under JAIS, but the management is under MAIS,” he said.

Another interesting development was the deletion of Section 85 of the Enactment.

Provisions of the Statutory Bodies Act (Accounts and Annual Reports) Act 1980 now no longer apply to MAIS.

No need for audit

According to Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights lawyer K Shanmuga, this meant that MAIS did NOT have to submit its accounts to the Auditor-General.

He said,

“The effect of the amendment is that the accounts of MAIS (and any other statutory corporation established by MAIS under the Enactment) will no longer have to be audited in accordance with the Audit Act 1957 and submitted to the Auditor-General each year.

In fact, there appears to be no provisions in the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment requiring any audit.”

A script read by the proposer of the amendments passed at the July 11 state assembly sitting was also provided to FMT.

In regards to Section 85, it read:

“This section was abolished because the council is not included in the definition of ‘Statutory Body’ in regard to the Statutory Bodies (Accounts and Annual Reports) Act 1980 [Act 240].”

The BIGGEST BASTARD of the PRO-UMNO BLOGGERS

2011-10-21T10:47:00.013+08:00

REAL NAME: Wan Muhammad Azri bin Wan Deris

Identity Card No: 830121-03-5019
Date of Birth: 21 January, 1983
Residence: Setapak, Kuala Lumpur

Quote: READ HERE

"...Since our favourite group of UMNO-loving inbreds have run out of sextapes in their porn stash to target politicians opposing UMbred, they have turned their focus towards Lim Guan Eng’s 16-year old son.

It’s one thing to watch sextapes over and over again – like a sex maniac – just to spot if the ‘actor’ looks like Politician X or Customs Officer Y.

But it’s an entirely different thing to conjure up stories of a 16-year old boy ‘touching’ a 16-year old girls private parts.That’s called being a pedophile.

Or at least, a pedophile with sex fantasies involving MINORS i.e. kids below the age of 18. Punishable by law, if I may say so.

Especially since they made this up, it involves actual living people, and involves the fabrication and defamation of minors in the context of sexual elements.

Khairy ‘sonafabitch’ Jamaluddin’s displayed a sexual interest into the propagated fictional story of LGE’s son: See this Link: Khairy Twitter

UMNO is fucked up. They’re comprised of sexual baboons that once they hit 60, they rely on Viagra and watching shit on papagomo’s blog."

Anya Corke: I don’t know Guan Eng’s son

Read here for more and HERE

The girl whose photograph was used by pro-Umno bloggers (ie PAPA GOMO) to level accusations of sexual harassment against Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s son has denied ever meeting or hearing of the 16-year-old schoolboy.

Chess grandmaster Anya Sun Corke said today that she was “shocked, dismayed and baffled” as to how her photo was used without her knowledge or consent.

“I have never met or even heard of any of the people involved. I have never been physically assaulted in any way. I have never been victimised in any way by this boy or his family.The only way in which my ‘modesty was outraged’ has been by the publication of my picture in connection with these scurrilous and unfounded rumours,” the undergraduate at Wellesley College said in a statement.

Pro-Umno bloggers had claimed that Lim’s son had assaulted a 16-year-old schoolmate and tried to escape punishment by using his father’s name.

But the DAP showed at a press conference on Wednesday screenshots from the blogs which used pictures of Corke that matched those from www.chessbase.com.

Lim had denied the allegations on Tuesday, saying he was furious with the “barbaric lies” made about his teenage son by “pro-Umno ferocious beasts.”

His colleagues in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have come out strongly in support of the DAP secretary-general against what they call “the lowest gutter politics” seen in decades.

The principal of SMK Heng Ee in George Town also moved two days ago to put an end to the accusations, calling them “completely untrue.”

Sensing growing public anger, Umno MPs have been quick to distance themselves from the allegations.

Corke said today that she has NOT visited Malaysia for seven years.

“I would also like to express my sympathies to the boy who was defamed by these baseless allegations. Last but not least, I hope that members of the public and the Malaysian media will respect my privacy and refrain from making unsolicited contact with me and my family, college, chess federation, and any other affiliation,” she said.

According to Corke’s Wikipedia listing, she “is a Woman Grandmaster and the top chess player from Hong Kong who is currently playing for England.”

She earned the title with her performance in 36th Chess Olympiad, playing for the Hong Kong men’s team.

She was the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008 Hong Kong National Champion (for men and women), thought to be one of the youngest national champions ever.

Related Article

Allegations against Guan Eng’s son ‘completely untrue,’ says school principal

The principal of SMK Heng Ee in George Town today moved to put an end to accusations that Lim Guan Eng’s son had sexually harassed a female student of the school, calling it “completely untrue.”

Goon Boon Poh told The Malaysian Insider that he was “shocked” when he read news reports of the allegation, and that he wanted to put an end to the matter as it could affect the image of the high school.

Pro-Umno bloggers including Bukit Gelugor Umno division chief Dr Novandri Hasan Basri had claimed that the Penang chief minister’s son had assaulted a 16-year-old schoolmate and tried to escape punishment by using his father’s name.

“The allegations are completely untrue. It is very simple, there’s absolutely no truth to it,” Goh told The Malaysian Insider today. The blogs said the incident occurred in May this year. CM’s son has not been a student of my school since the beginning of this year,” he added.

Goh said that the pictures posted on the blogs were not of Lim’s son, and that pictures of the alleged victim was not even a student of Heng Ee.

The principal said that officers from the state education department had conducted an investigation into the allegations on Monday, and were satisfied with his explanation on the matter.

“If I had kept quiet, the silence would have put me, the school in an embarrassing situation. Very simple if it had happened I would have known about it, wouldn’t I. No students had complained about any such case and the girl is supposed to be a classmate, so I want to just clarify the matter,” said Goh.

The girl whose photograph was used by Umno bloggers to level accusations of sexual harassment against Lim’s son has been identified as 21-year-old chess Grandmaster Anya Sun Corke.

Corke, who represents England in chess, has no ties with Penang and has never been a classmate of Lim’s son as alleged by Umno blogs, the DAP said in a press conference in Parliament today.

The girl is understood to be currently an undergraduate of Wellesley College in the United States.

Without revealing details of the allegation, the Penang CM (picture) said yesterday he was furious with the “barbaric lies” made about his teenage son by “pro-Umno ferocious beasts,” singling out Khairy Jamaluddin and other ruling party leaders for perpetuating the allegations through snide comments on blogs and social media sites.

The Rembau MP had written on micro-blogging site Twitter on Monday, “Mungkin dia roboh Kampung Buah Pala sebab nak ganti dengan Kampung Buah Dada” in response to another tweet by PapaGomo. [English translation: Maybe he destroyed Kampung Buah Pala because he wants to replace it with Kampung Buah Dada].

The DAP called on Khairy today to “retract his snide remarks and apologise to Lim’s son, who is an innocent victim.”

PLAGIARISM: Justice Abdul Malik, the Alleged Copy-Cat Judge Sitting in Malaysia's Court of Appeal

2011-10-06T04:34:00.002+08:00

RELATED ARTICLE: Read here: Plagiarism in Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

Malaysian Court of Appeal Judge allegedly plagiarised a judgment by a Singaporean counterpart in early 2000.

Read here for more

Sixty Pakatan Rakyat MPs are pushing for a motion to censure a Court of Appeal judge for alleged plagiarism.

Leading the pack, Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh said that justice Abdul Malik Ishak had allegedly committed the offence while serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000.

The judge was accused of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright.

Speaking at a press conference in Parliament, Karpal said: “We have filed the motion (to discuss the censuring) with the secretary of the Dewan Rakyat.”

“This motion (is in line with) Article 127 of the Federal Constitution which allows for discussion of the conduct of judges if 1/4 of parliamentarians support the motion,” he added.

The total number of MPs is 222, and with 60 backing the motion, it exceeded the required number.

Meanwhile, Karpal described the charge against the judge as serious, and did not reflect well on the judiciary.

“It is clearly misconduct of a very serious nature on the part of Malik bringing the Malaysian judiciary into disrepute,” he said, demanding that the judge be suspended and brought before a tribunal.

Karpal said that portions of Selvam’s judgment were copied without quoting and acknowledging the original source.

The DAP leader said he had written twice to Malik in August and September this year but did not receive a response from him over the matter.

Karpal added that the motion filed today was also in line with Parliamentary Standing Orders 27 and 36 (8).

Standing Order 27 states that advance notice must be sent to the Dewan Rakyat secretary before tabling a motion in parliament.

While Standing Order 36 (8) required a motion to be tabled in parliament first before there is any discussion regarding a public officer appointed under constitutional provisions.

According to the judiciary website, the Johor-born Abdul Malik was appointed to the Court of Appeal on July 16, 2007.

A law graduate from the University of Singapore – graduating in 1974 , Abdul Malik was appointed as a Judicial Commissioner on Oct 1, 1992, and subsequently, as a Judge of the High Court of Malaya on Aug 17,1994.

Prior to that he had served as a magistrate, deputy public prosecutor, state legal adviser, senior Sessions Court judge and advisory board chairman at the Prime Minister’s Department.

Federal Constitution is Clear: Kelantan State Assembly CANNOT Pass Hudud Laws.

2011-10-04T17:40:00.030+08:00

HUDUD – Federal vs State Legislative Powers

by

Art Harun

Read here for more

Quote

“Hudud cannot be implemented within the current constitutional and legislative framework.”
-Malaysian Bar Council

"...It is clear therefore that the State list does NOT vest the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, or any other SLA for that matter, the power to pass HUDUD laws OR to create criminal offences.

The law passed by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly on HUDUD, in my humble opinion, is VOID for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution..."
-Art Harun (Lawyer)

I have stated in my article, Of wet dream, nightmare and Marty McFly that:

the implementation of hudud is a Constitutional impossibility until and unless two-third of our Members of Parliament would vote to amend the Federal Constitution to allow it to happen.
the time when such Constitutional amendment is moved would be the first time when our Members of Parliament would vote solely or predominantly along racial and religious line regardless of party policy or party whip.

The Bar Council has since issued a statement which basically echoes my opinion. Lim Chee Wee, the Bar Council’s President was quoted as saying:

"Hudud cannot be implemented within the current constitutional and legislative framework.”

Professor Aziz Bari Got It Wrong on the Federal Constitution

My friend, the learned Professor Aziz Bari was reported to have DISAGREED with the Bar Council’s view. The learned Professor was quoted to say:

“The key here is Islam, not criminal law.”

The learned Professor pointed out that the Federal Constitution has set out the respective jurisdiction and powers of the Federal and State legislature.

As the powers to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam rests with the State, he argued that the State, including Kelantan, may pass hudud laws accordingly.

He also refuted that such move would result in double jeopardy for Muslim wrongdoers as, in his words:

“In other words, two systems is not a problem and we are not the only country in the world where this duality prevails.”

The learned Professor opined that “power on Islamic law belongs to the State.”

He then referred to the decision of our Supreme Court (then, the highest Court in Malaysia) Mamat bin Daud vs Govt of Malaysia where the Court held that a provision in the Penal Code which impacted on Islamic law was invalid as the Parliament had no power to legislate over Islamic matters.

The learned Professor therefore challenged the Bar Council’s view that the Kelantan State does not have the power to enact the hudud law.

I have the highest of respect and regard for the learned Professor but I beg to differ on his opinion on this matter.

(Although) the respective State Legislative Assembly (“SLA”) has the power to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam, I am somewhat doubtful that the SLA may pass any kind of law which creates offences and prescribes punishment for those offences in accordance with the tenet of Islam, especially when such offences and punishments are ALREADY created and prescribed by PARLIAMENT.

Division of Legislative Powers between Parliament and SLA

The Federal Constitution divides the legislative powers between the Parliament and SLA quite clearly.

The Parliament, or loosely, the Federal government, has the power to legislate over matters specified in List 1 (or otherwise known as the “Federal List”) of the 9^th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
The SLA on the other hand may legislate on those matters in List II (also known as the “State List”) of the 9^th Schedule.
In addition, there are matters which may be legislated by both the Parliament and the SLA. These are contained in List III of the 9^th Schedule (also known as the “Concurrent List”).

Included in the Federal List is, among other things:

“civil and criminal” law;
the constitution of all courts other than the Syariah Courts and
the jurisdiction and powers of all such courts.

That much is clear.

All this while, it is the PARLIAMENT which creates and defines all criminal offences as well as prescribing all punishment for those offences. There is no doubt about that.

(In this respect, there are already laws governing murder, theft and slander, which are three of the HUDUD OFFENSE prescribed by the Quran.The ONLY HUDUD offence which is NOT criminalised by the secular law is ADULTERY).

THE STATE LIST (LIST II) in the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

Let’s reproduce the whole paragraph 1 of the State List, so as not to cause any confusion*:

Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan,
i. ISLAMIC LAW and PERSONAL and FAMILY LAW of persons professing the religion of Islam, including:
The Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy guardianship, gifts, partitions and non- charitable trusts;

Wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State;

MALAY CUSTOMS: Zakat, Fitrah and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue, mosques or any Islamic public places of worship.

ii. Creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List;
iii. The constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction ONLY over person professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall NOT have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by FEDERAL law,
iv. The control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam;
v. the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine Malay custom.

****The above provision is actually contained in one paragraph. I have broken it into several parts denoting the different areas of Islamic matters which the SLA may legislate to maintain clarity. ****

It is quite clear from the State List reproduced above that various Islamic matters ARE WITHIN the purview of the SLA.

The decision in Mamat bin Daud reinforces the view that STRICT adherence to the respective lists by the Parliament and the SLA in enacting laws is called for. In that case, a provision was included in the Penal Code by the Parliament which makes it an offence for anybody to cause religious disunity. The purport of that section was to maintain public order, a matter which is quite obviously within the purview of the Parliament.

However, in a 3-2 majority decision (with the late Eusoffee Abdoolcader, among others, dissenting), the Supreme Court held that that provision impinges on Islamic matters, which is in the State List and consequently the Parliament had no power to legislate on it.

It follows from that decision that the Court jealously guarded the purview, width and breadth of the respective Federal and State lists. No amount of encroachment will be allowed by either the Parliament or the SLA on each other’s powers.

Although the offence created by the Parliament in that case falls under public order, which comes under the purview of the Parliament, the Court still viewed that as an encroachment of the SLA’s power to legislate on Islamic matters.

It is therefore clear and obvious that the Court took a strict and stringent approach in determining the rights and powers to legislate of the Parliament and the SLA.

Kelantan State Assembly Has NO POWER to Legislate on HUDUD LAW

Applying that strict rule, it is my humble opinion that the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly does NOT have the power to legislate on hudud laws or the power to create criminal offences and prescribe “Islamic” punishments for those offences.

Matters concerning CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAWS are clearly within the power and purview of the PARLIAMENT by virtue of the Federal List.

To allow the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly to enact a law to create hudud offences and prescribe punishment for those offences would amount to the usurpation by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly of the Parliament’s power to legislate over criminal matters.

Applying the strict approach in Mamat bin Daud case, any law passed by the Kelantanese State Legislative Assembly as such would be void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

Does HUDUD come under State List of the Constitution ?

Is it true that hudud comes within the State List and therefore the SLA has the power to legislate on it?

We have to analyse the above State List to answer this question.

Paragraph (i) above:

concerns family, personal, inheritance and trust matters. That much is clear.
Hudud does NOT come within the ambit of paragraph (i) above.

Paragraph (ii)

The bone of contention is paragraph (ii) above.

It states that the SLA has the power over the creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.

There are three important points to be made about THIS provision.

Firstly, the said provision is far narrower than the power given to the Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the Federal List spells out in the widest term possible the power of the Parliament to legislate over “civil and criminal law.”

That includes everything under the sun.

The only exception is “Islamic personal law relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, family law, gifts and succession, testate and intestate.”

Any OTHER matters would come within the power of the PARLIAMENT to legislate.
Contrast that provision to paragraph (ii) above.
- Paragraph (ii) does NOT say “ISLAMIC CIVIL and CRIMINAL LAWS .”
- NOR does it say “the creation and punishment of offences IN the precepts of that religion.”
- It also contains a very important exception, namely, “except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.”
That brings me to my second point.

Paragraph (ii) above only gives the SLA power to create and punish offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam. It does not give power to the SLA to create and punish offences IN the precepts of Islam.

The established hudud offences, namely, murder, adultery, slander and theft are not offences against the precepts of Islam. They are offences within or in accordance with the precepts of Islam.
The failure to observe and appreciate this aspect of the provision has often led to a misconception that the State has the power to create any kind of offences as long as those offences are regarded as offences IN Islam. That is entirely wrong.
No less than our Federal Court, in Sulaiman Bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Trengganu & Anor has, with respect, fallen into such interpretational misdeed when it held that the SLA had power to create offences “against the precepts of Islam” although by doing so, a criminal offence would be create so long as no such offence has been created by the Parliament. Former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid in his judgment says:

“In the instant case, as the offences are offences against the precept of Islam, as there are no similar offences in the federal law and the impugned offences specifically cover Muslims only and pertaining to Islam only, clearly it cannot be argued that they are “criminal law” as envisage by the Constitution.”

It has been my absolute pleasure and honour to have appeared before the learned CJ on some occasions. FCJ Abdul Hamid was a learned Judge for whom I have the highest of respect. However, his Lordship’s test in the above case is, in my humble opinion, wholly unsatisfactory.
The test is not whether there has been an offence created by the Parliament on the issue at hand.

Rather the test is whether the offence created by the State Legislative Assembly is “against the precepts of Islam.”

In this respect, offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam are TOTALLY DIFFERENT in nature and manifestation from offences IN the precepts of Islam.
This brings me to my third point. Paragraph (ii) above clearly prohibits the SLA from legislating on matters which “are included in the FEDERAL list.”
- How clearer can that be?
- Is there any ambiguity there?
- The prohibition is as clear as daylight.
As long as the matter sought to be legislated by the SLA is included in the FEDERAL list, the SLA is PROHIBITED from legislating on it.

That prohibition is ABSOLUTE.

Applying Mamat bin Daud above, that prohibition must be STRICTLY observed.

It does not say the prohibition only applies if the matters are included in the Federal list and they have been legislated by the Parliament. CJ Abdul Hamid is WRONG in Sulaiman Takrib case in this respect.

It is clear therefore that the State list does NOT vest the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, or any other SLA for that matter, the power to pass hudud laws or to create criminal offences.

The law passed by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly on HUDUD , in my humble opinion, is VOID for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

The Beginning of the Collapse of Pakatan Rakyat ?

2011-09-29T05:55:00.021+08:00

Quote:

"Asked specifically if Pakatan will be implementing the hudud law if it comes into power in the next election, Anwar said: “No, there is NO consensus (on that)".

The coalition agreed to disagree on existing enactments pertaining to hudud law in Kelantan and Terengganu, as the enactments predate the formation of Pakatan."
-Malaysiakini

The Beginning of the MAJOR COLLAPSE of Pakatan Rakyat.

From a FaceBook User's posting

When RELIGION is put on to the fore-front of politics by parties in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition over ECONOMIC issues facing the country, voting based on religious divide for PAS and UMNO takes precedence over other more important issues, not only for muslims , but for non-muslims as well.

Religion is a highly emotive issue for Malays and non-Malays.

Most of the PAS MPs in the Federal Territory, Perak and Selangor who won on the back of non-muslim votes will lose their seats in Parliament as non Muslim voters will abandon PAS candidates. DAP members will not campaign for PAS candidates. PAS supporters will not vote for DAP candidates nor campaign for DAP candidates as they did for the 2008 GE.

PAS went for broke on hudud issue, although this is limited to Kelantan. When PAS leaders including Nik Aziz went public on its stand without prior discussion with its coalition partners, DAP feels the sense of betrayal by PAS.

PKR was forced to make a stand and being a Malay-based party, Anwar had to stand on the side of PAS on hudud. Since PKR supports huddud, non Muslim voters who stood by PKR in 2008 will abandon PKR candidates in droves.

It is an issue of loss of trust and faith by muslim and non muslim supporters of Pakatan in the ability of DAP, PAS and PKR to work together on a common policy platform for the coming GE especially on the emotive issue of the Islamic state.

There is a sense on the ground that Pakatan voters had enough of this unresolved issue.The latest move by PAS to go for broke on the hudud issue is the tipping point.

Muslim votes will either go to UMNO or PAS.PAS will lose big from non Muslim voters. But MCA may not benefit from Chinese votes at all. The question is: will NON Muslim voters who had voted Pakatan in 2008 will vote for UMNO when UMNO faces PAS/PKR this time around? Or more likely, they will not turn out for voting in these constituencies.

The prediction is BN will retain Perak and Selangor, and other states as non Muslims will return back to BN. Penang remains in DAP hands. Kelantan will remain in PAS hands and Kedah is 50:50.

BN is guaranteed of the two-third majority in Parliament in the next GE. PAS, DAP and PKR can kiss goodbye their ambition of having the keys to Putrajaya. PKR will be the biggest loser in the next GE.

Its the end of the honeymoon for Pakatan Rakyat basically.

Biggest Losers in Palestine Veto by the US? The American People

2011-09-24T19:14:00.003+08:00

Read here for more

by

Philip Giraldi

If the Palestinian application for United Nations full membership actually takes place Friday and the United States uses its Security Council veto to stop the process, it will be the final step in a predictable and preventable tragedy playing out.

Some are arguing that Washington might actually abstain, thereby gaining considerable favorable sentiment from much of the world and also sending a signal to Israel that there are limits to the bilateral relationship.

But it is far more likely that President Barack Obama, who has stated over and over that he will protect Israel in international forums, will not flinch when he calls on Susan Rice to cast the fatal vote.

Any expectation that the president might hesitate either because it is the right thing to do or because it benefits the United States is fanciful, particularly with a presidential election looming in 2012.

Washington’s attempts to “mediate” the situation have really been limited to pressuring the Palestinians to back off. Sending National Security Council official Dennis Ross, “Israel’s lawyer,” to Ramallah to talk around the Palestinian leadership should, if anything, indicate to the Palestinians that Washington is, as it always has been, firmly in the Israeli corner.

So let us assume that Palestine will feel compelled to seek full U.N. membership as the world’s 194th nation and that Washington will then veto the application.

The first question then has to be whether the entire process had any meaning at all or it was just kabuki, a stylized show played out to an appreciative audience with a predictable ending.

The short answer is that the Palestinians will certainly be on the losing end — as they have been for more than 60 years — but the real losers will be the United States and Israel.

The mainstream media has echoed Israeli and American arguments that Palestinian statehood is meaningless without a negotiated settlement of issues on the ground. But Israel has made it clear that it has no desire to negotiate anything while it continues to occupy the West Bank, so the Palestinian choice is to accept the status quo, in which it is powerless and voiceless, or attempt to line up the international community more solidly behind it and shift the playing field.

Israel has been working hard to stop the process, or, at worst, to mitigate its impact by having a number of important nations, mostly in Europe, either abstain on the vote or vote no.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a glad-hand tour of European capitals earlier this year with that express purpose, and he received positive signals from the Italians, the Dutch, the Poles, and the Germans, though it is by no means clear how they will vote. It was for Israel a top national priority, which it has conveyed clearly to its friends in the United States.

Washington, at the urging of Israel, also joined in the effort, starting with warnings late last year to Latin American nations that recognizing Palestine as a state would be “unacceptable.”

More recently, the State Department and the White House have repeatedly expressed their desire that the Palestinians shelve their plans to seek a U.N. seat, and they have been assiduously working both in front of the TV cameras in New York and Washington and behind the scenes to convince the Palestinian leadership to cease and desist. The dialogue has been given some teeth by Congress, which is determined to cut all aid to Palestine if the U.N. action goes through.

One congressmen, Joe Walsh of Illinois, is preparing a motion that will provide congressional support for an Israeli annexation of much of the West Bank if the Palestinians proceed. Walsh describes Palestinian statehood as “absolutely outrageous.”

So Israel sees the Palestinian plan as a major threat and the United States appears to be on board, but many would reasonably observe that Israel often cries wolf and greatly exaggerates what it perceives as threats against it.

Is that true in this case, making it just another instance where Tel Aviv is adopting an extreme position in hopes that Washington will deliver the goods? It may not be.

Israel sees danger precisely because the Palestinian bid will do a couple of things that call into question some significant aspects of the status quo.

First of all, since it will certainly pass with a huge majority in the General Assembly if the Palestinians opt to go that route, it will provide overwhelming international confirmation of Palestinian rights with the U.S. and Israel standing on the wrong side on the issue.It will also severely undermine Israel’s moral position, such as it is, and emphasize the illegality of the Israeli occupation of parts of the West Bank. The process is already illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world, including the United States, but it will be even less tenable if a convincing majority of the world’s countries recognize Palestine as a state with defined borders and a national identity.
Second, recognition of statehood carries with it recognition that the state exists within defined space, in this case the 1967 borders. This has enormous significance because those borders include many areas being colonized by the Israelis, as well as East Jerusalem.

It means that any Israeli settlement that is on the other side of that border is considered completely illegal and that Israel is therefore a rogue state that is occupying and settling lands belonging to a neighboring state 44 years after the cessation of hostilities.

Even the New York Times in an article on Sept. 10 regarding the recent unrest in Egypt, noting that Islamic groups were not involved, conceded that criticism of Israel has a basis in the widespread popular perception that “Muslims, Arabs, and indeed many around the globe believe Israel is unjustly occupying Palestinian territories, and they are furious at Israel for it.” The rejection of Palestinian statehood and the debate surrounding it will only heighten that sentiment.
If the Palestinians are in the United Nations as a full member or even with limited rights, they will have access to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where they can take legal steps against Israel and against individual Israelis. Even though Israel doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the court, when it reaches the point where no senior Israeli government official, present or retired, can travel without concern over being arrested, it will have a major impact on how Israel sees itself and how the rest of the world sees Israel.

The clear depiction of Israel as an occupying power in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which most of the world’s nations are signatories, would also fuel the Israel divestment campaign, which is another major concern of the Israeli government, and also legitimately so, as it could have a serious impact on the Israeli economy.
The Palestinians would also have recourse to other United Nations bodies. They would, for example, be able to appeal to UNESCO to stop the Israeli demolition of Muslim and Arab historical sites and the renaming of villages and other landmarks, a considerable benefit.

So Israel is right in understanding that the U.N. entry could have a profound impact, but the United States would hardly escape collateral damage from its veto and could turn out to be the biggest loser.

Policymakers in Washington like Joe Walsh forget Newton’s Third Law of Motion, though that assumes that they have ever heard of Newton. Newton said that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. It is true in international relations just as it is true in physics, only in the real world it has come to be known as blowback.

What would be the possible blowback from an American veto?

John Whitbeck has correctly described the veto by Washington as a “shotgun blast in both of its own feet.” The United States is already perceived negatively in every Arab nation except Kuwait. It is seen as on one hand supporting liberalization and democratization of some Arab governments while at the same time suppressing fundamental rights in places like Palestine.
Worse still, if Washington cuts aid to the Palestinians because of their going to the U.N., it will be widely perceived as a de facto partner and enabler of the occupation of the West Bank.
The unfortunately well-deserved perception of blatant hypocrisy will alienate emerging “Arab spring” regimes even more from Washington and will almost certainly lead to anti-American violence, possibly extreme, in places like Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey.
American goods and services will, as a consequence, undoubtedly become less welcome in many parts of the world, while the U.S. veto will inevitably provide a recruiting bonanza for groups that use terror, including al-Qaeda.
And it could make every American traveler less safe when he or she goes abroad, while American soldiers stationed in foreign lands will inevitably become targets of militants, inspired by yet another example of Washington’s hypocrisy.

Vice President Joe Biden and Gen. David Petraeus had it exactly right when they observed that Israeli policies were endangering Americans. That was before they came to their senses and recanted, but apparently the president of the United States was not listening anyway.

Acceptance of full Palestinian sovereignty and statehood by Israel and the United States would give Tel Aviv a genuine negotiating partner and go far toward restoring the reputation of the United States of America, while rejection of it will end the charade forever, eliminating any chance for any kind of viable peace process in the Middle East. And the damage extends beyond that.

Saudi Arabia has already warned that the U.S. veto will do irreparable damage to its bilateral relationship with Washington and will also forever destroy America’s reputation in the Arab world.

It would hasten the development of the clash of civilizations, “us and them” point of view, dividing much of the developing world from Washington. It would be the final and irrevocable step in a foreign policy that has brought nothing but disasters over the past 10 years.

WHY Hudud Law is EVERYBODY's Business Especially in Malaysia

2011-09-24T00:20:00.002+08:00

Why hudud law is everybody’s business

(This article was first published in “Off The Edge” on January 15, 2009)

by

Clive Kessler
Emeritus Professor
University of New South Wales
Australia

Once again the familiar argument has surfaced, or been desperately invoked, this time in the latest stand-off between the leading Pakatan Rakyat allies Karpal Singh and Anwar Ibrahim.

Hudud law, if implemented, will apply only to Muslims, Anwar Ibrahim again insists, so the question is one that concerns only Muslims, not Malaysian citizens of other faiths — or no conventional doctrinal allegiance at all. So non-Muslims have nothing to fear, no legitimate interest in the matter, and no right to express any opinion. The matter is for Muslims alone.

This is not the first time that we have heard this argument. It is standard debating “stock-in-trade”, not only from Anwar Ibrahim and the syariah-promoting elements in Parti Keadilan Rakyat but equally from the designated spokesmen of PAS and Umno as well as from the various associations of ulama and officially constituted religious authorities, state and federal.

Not just familiar, it is also, at best, inadequate and, more often than not, misleading. It is wrong for two basic reasons — reasons far more basic than any specific legal technicalities such as the issues raised over the interpretation of the 1988 court decision cited by Karpal Singh, or any similar individual legal judgment.

The first reason is this. Whether they are actually implemented and enforced or simply stand as symbolic signposts and “ambit claims” on the statute books, the formal authoritative assertion of the hudud laws — including such punishments as amputation and stoning and even death for apostasy — fundamentally changes the relation of the individual to the state and its legal order.

It substantially alters the balance between the state and the individual in the state’s favour. It thereby transforms the entire character of the state, arguably coarsening its laws and their impact upon public culture and social life.

When the state or any of its instrumentalities is suddenly empowered to hold, and potentially exercise, that awesome force — which it previously could not exert — over any of its citizens, or any section of them, the nature of citizenship itself is diminished and its meaning is reduced, not just for those directly “targeted” but for ALL citizens.

A state that declares itself ready to use such fearful measures, or even prepares to arm itself with them, is a state that announces its own capacity, both institutional and moral or psychological, for savage enforcement and retribution.

It is not a state that any ethically enlightened, socially emancipated or truly thoughtful citizen who had lived in a state without such fear-inspiring powers would freely choose to call home. A free citizen would refuse to exchange what they had previously enjoyed for this debased and degraded citizenship under this kind of regressive and repressive regime.

Once the syariah law and its hudud punishments are authoritatively instituted, this degrading of the character of free citizenship is a general effect.

It is one whose immediate human implications must soon affect all citizens, regardless of religion and social background, even if it is technically mandated only upon one section of the citizenry — in the Malaysian case the numerically preponderant and politically dominant section of the population.

This basic underlying change in the nature of the state, and in the character and extent of its power over its citizens, will inevitably transform the tenor of social life in general. So it will affect all the state’s citizens, not only those who are Muslims. Because it must affect the entire citizenry, all the state’s citizens without exception are entitled to have, and express, a view on the subject of hudud law implementation.

Every citizen of a modern state is entitled to voice a view whether or not that state should have the right to inflict dire physical punishment on any of its citizens, or even to enact hypothetically on a provisional basis laws of that kind whose effects are, to put the matter without euphemism, brutalising — either in fact, by their positive enforcement, or prospectively, by virtue of their intimidating inscription within formally codified law.

Even if still unenforced, their presence on the statute books cannot but have a clear, immediate and chilling effect upon all citizens by reshaping, in fact diminishing, the very meaning of citizenship itself. Even if it is only hypothetical or symbolic in intent, an assertion of the state’s right to mutilate and maim any citizen, even the least worthy and most criminally debased of them, can only demean everyone.

It demeans, too, the citizenship that they share and the law under which they live and through which their citizenship is created and sustained.

The introduction, even the mere hinted suggestion, of any proposal for the official infliction of pain on people’s bodies and souls — for outright crimes against their fellow human beings, or even for the exercise of independent intellectual and spiritual conscience — must markedly shift society away from the gentle end, and decidedly towards the crude and brutalizing end, of the ethical scale. That seems indisputable.

Any such legally mandated assault upon the citizen — any citizen or subject of the state — with its mutilation of bodies, maiming of souls, shaming and extreme humiliation of persons and its violation of personal conscience and human dignity will discredit the state, its laws, and those who uphold them. This is not a direction that a modern progressive state can take or its citizens, if they are thoughtful, condone. Those who endorse such measures must have a different agenda.

Every citizen of a modern state has the right to say that the national political community of which they are a member should not be in the business of chopping off hands and feet or even talking about, or hypothetically considering, the introduction of such measures — nor in the business of criminalising beliefs, including those of personal and spiritual principle, that are held in good conscience.

Regardless of their religion or faith affiliation, a citizen is entitled to say to the ruling authority:

“You cannot maim and painfully shame my fellow citizens — some of my fellow citizens, any of them — well, not in my name you don’t!

Because if you do, you not only enlist me as one of the perpetrators of this dire, extreme and callous act, you also make me one of its objects and victims.

As both implicated joint author and as implied target of this or any such action, I say no!”

Any contention that a citizen or any group of them should remain silent, and may be told to do so, because they have no legitimate say in such matters is unsustainable. It is a claim that fundamentally misunderstands the nature and meaning of modern citizenship as morally autonomous membership in the national political community.

Any citizen of a modern state, regardless of religion, is entitled to hold, voice and promote the view that the national political community of which they have long been a member — and long regarded in Malaysia, ever since its inception, as humane in its aspirations and progressive in its direction of development — should not suddenly assume, or (perhaps rhetorically to embarrass its political adversaries), even flirt with the previously unimagined power and right to cut off hands and feet or to criminalize individual beliefs held in good conscience.

Any such citizen would be entitled to take the view that such a dire innovation, when introduced or even officially considered — or merely intimated via some tactical political gesture — must unilaterally abrogate the fundamental contract that holds between a modern state and its citizens as its political stakeholders and moral shareholders.

Such a citizen has the right to the view that the state of which they are a member should not have, or suddenly grasp towards, any such recourse since — should it choose, especially as in Malaysia, to do so against its own history — the state and all its members stand to be demeaned by that action.

What the state does, it does in the name of its citizens — all its citizens — in general. All are implicated in its actions, and everybody is entitled, indeed obligated, to concern themselves with the moral meaning of actions for which they are in any measure responsible.

Every citizen is accordingly entitled to argue openly whether the state in which they hold citizenship should be permitted to impose such punishments on any of its citizens — and, as a citizen, to hold in good conscience that all stand to be demeaned if any one of them is so treated.

Every citizen has a right to hold and express a view whether he/she wishes his or her state to be such a state, a state that claims the right of recourse to such dire and extreme methods in the treatment of any of its citizens. Dire and extreme — let there be no mistake — these measures undeniably are since they involve the intimidatory “criminalisation” of behaviour and also thinking, on issues of legitimate personal moral and spiritual conscience.

They humiliate and punish in demeaning and savage ways that entail both terrible physical cruelty and extreme psychological degradation, the fearful violation and stigmatizing, at once and alike, of both bodies and souls.

Such legal provisions, even if they stand only “in reserve”, are statements about the kind of regime that the state is prepared, or earnestly aspires, to be and the kinds of measures to which it is prepared to have recourse.

Every citizen is, by definition, a stakeholder in the state, and all of them — not just one specially designated segment of the citizenry — are entitled to hold, voice and also promote politically a view whether the state of which they are all “part-owners-in-trust” should evolve towards or away from such a coarsening brutalisation of tone and character.

Some may question my use of such epithets as “coarsening” and “brutalising”. That is MY view.

Others may see the matter differently. That is their right. They may hold and argue the case for a different view of the matter.

As with those who would climb Everest not only without oxygen but barefoot, I wish them the best of luck.

Meanwhile for me, and many other people of sound and decent judgment, whether they be formally implemented or only indirectly intimated, punishments such as judicially-mandated amputations and stoning are nothing other than “coarse”, “crude” and “brutalising” in their effects, both individual and upon society and public culture broadly.

Those who see things differently may, if they hold such views simply as a matter of private conscience, remain silent. But if they wish to promote the case for syariah law and the hudud punishments as a matter of public policy, they must argue the case publicly.

They must argue, and persuade the generality of their fellow citizens, either that such measures are not coarse, crude and brutalizing or else that such a coarsening brutalization of social life, with all its humanly unworthy and demeaning consequences, is somehow socially beneficial and ethically uplifting. They may hold and try publicly to uphold such views. As I say, I wish them luck.

Meanwhile, there is only one principled stance available to a government — especially a government whose entire raison d’être is grounded in a commitment to the successful practising of intercultural and interreligious partnership — that is faced with the challenge from its clamouring opponents for the implementation of syariah law and its hudud provisions.

It will not do to retreat into temporizing prevarications such as the claim that the times are not yet right, the circumstances not yet appropriate, for their implementation. Rather, it must clearly say that their enactment is simply not an option — not now, not ever.

The leaders of such a government will be criticized and opposed. They will have to learn to answer their critics forthrightly. Those who argue — on supposedly democratic grounds, as some in PAS now do — that if a clear political majority want to live under hudud law then they are entitled to enact it nationally, regardless of other considerations, must be told that they misunderstand democracy.

They must be reminded that democracy is not the replacement of the premodern tyranny of the minority with a modern, electorally ratified tyranny of the majority. It is about political conciliation. It rests upon the thoughtful and deliberative negotiation, not the insistent and heedless overriding, of differences.

The times are over in Malaysia when people might say to their fellow citizens,

“We want this, we have the numbers, so you remain silent!”

Their end was signalled in March last year.

Democracy is a government not of reckless majoritarian maximalism but of limits. That, in fact, is the real and original meaning of the idea and Arabic word had (as in its derivative Malay forms such as terhad and berhad) and in its plural form hudud. They embody the notion of restraint and limitation.

The hudud punishments, in the fierce time of their origins, were stipulations of maximum limits that were not to be exceeded, not declarations of a mandatory retributive minimum that was always to be recklessly demanded, regardless of social and historical circumstances, and implacably enforced.

Those who call for the enactment of syariah law and the hudud punishments owe it to their fellow citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, to acknowledge this historical fact — and its current political implications, especially for modern societies of the social, cultural and religious complexity of contemporary Malaysia. They need, in framing their own political programmes and agenda, to recognize and uphold that core notion of principled restraint — rather than to seek, always and ever further, to “push the limits”.

To their opponents and critics who — despite these persuasive clarifications of the real meaning of hudud and the nature of democratic public culture and governance — may still insist, either sincerely or for tactical political advantage, on promoting the implementation of the hudud sanctions and punishments, the leaders of such a government must learn to say:

“You want to cut off hands and feet — are you mad or bad? Or you want just to talk about, and toy mischievously with, the idea of doing so — are you crazy or evil?

This is the modern state of Malaysia with its formal legal codes, institutions and procedures, not the long ungovernable ‘badlands’ of Afghanistan. It is Malaysian politics that we are talking about, and Malaysian public life to which you presumably are seeking to contribute.

You want to uphold, promote and restore Islam? Fine. Let’s talk about it, about how to do it together.

But remember, Islam is much more than just the syariah, and the syariah is much more than simply hudud.

So why do you focus on the hudud, why is your emphasis so exclusively upon them?

Why do you make this single, archaic and poorly understood aspect of the syariah and Islam your key, even sole, political litmus test of Islamic authenticity? Are your reasons those of principle or of political advantage and strategy?

Are you really sincere in wanting to uplift, promote and restore Islamic faith and civilization in our time? If so, prove it! Prove it by demonstrating your readiness to sit down with us to devise and decide upon a direction and plan of action that we can all accept — Umno, PAS, PKR and Malaysia generally.

Join with us to create a modern Islamic form of society and sociability, of social action and social responsibility, that we can all embrace and be proud of — that all Malaysians may recognise as reaching towards what is unifying and universal, not divisive and politically partisan.

If you are not prepared to do that, we will all know, because you will have made clear, why your political focus is so narrowly and obsessively upon the issue of hudud. You will have proved yourselves people, and a party, of cynical stratagem, not of genuine principle.”

The second reason for the inadequacy of the bland assurances that non-Muslims need not fear the instituting syariah law and its hudud punishments, and therefore need not concern themselves with the implications of any such proposal, follows directly from the first.

In Malaysia the drive to institute the syariah law and its hudud punishments, ostensibly (in its proponents’ own terms) only upon the state’s Muslim citizens and residents, is inescapably fraught — all questions of principle aside — in direct practical terms.

It would involve the attempt to overlay and impose, upon a diverse and creative social pluralism of interacting and interpenetrating cultures, a mutually exclusive legal dichotomy, a juridical bifurcation, between the state’s Muslim and non-Muslim citizens.

It is, in its own terms, an exercise in creating two radically different and mutually exclusive zones of socio-legal space, Muslim and non-Muslim. It is questionable whether such a fundamentally bifurcated social order and legal dualism is sustainable. Perhaps, as the idea’s proponents apparently contend, it is, though I greatly doubt it.

But the question whether it is viable or not is again one that directly, immediately and legitimately concerns all the state’s citizens, not just those who as Muslims would be subsumed within the “Islamic legal zone” and made fully subject to the operation of the syariah law and hudud punishments.

In the modern world all questions about the nature and structure of the state, about the character and tone of its legal system, and about the operation of its legal institutions are the legitimate business, equally, of all the state’s citizens, without individual exceptions or broad categorical restrictions.

Every citizen is entitled to hold, voice and promote their own view whether the incremental, even surreptitious, creation of a bifurcated, and perhaps ultimately broken-backed, state is a good thing, in the general public and national interest.

Some years ago the noted Tunisian historian Hichem Djaït observed that the endeavour to institute the syariah law in modern, complex, socially pluralistic and culturally diverse states (such as Malaysia, for example) risked simply recreating the inherent duality of classical Islamic society and, specifically, its foundational legal dualism.

Such societies, he held, are comprised of two distinct socio-legal zones or components, each the reverse image of the other:

a Muslim zone or space in which people held full rights but a diminished freedom; and

a non-Muslim zone in which the state’s other citizens or subjects, while enjoying a far greater measure of freedom to do as they pleased regardless of syariah-based restrictions and limitations, also “enjoyed” (if that is the right word!) or were allowed to exercise diminished rights.

Is this the kind of society that Malaysia wishes to become? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Either way, it is a matter that Malaysians — all Malaysians, without exception — are entitled and, so it seems to me, urgently need to discuss publicly and debate freely. It simply will not do to suppress public consideration of this vitally important national question.

Yet that is what seems to be happening in Malaysia these days.

Constructive and necessary public consideration is, as ever, being thwarted by artful recourse to the disabling dichotomy of which Hichem Djaït speaks:

By saying to one half of the population that they have no need or right to discuss the question since they are not Muslims and so are supposedly unaffected by whatever others may decide; and

By saying to the other half that as Muslims they have the right to be concerned with the question but not the standing to engage in any public discussion of it, that being the exclusive prerogative and province of those who alone know best, the ulama.

Whether this is a scenario for the progressive instituting and implementation of Islamic legal principles and values to the life of a modern democratic nation seems doubtful. It looks more like a strategic plan for instituting a creeping, historically regressive and anti-democratic clericalism.

That is my opinion.

But the choice is not for me to make but for Malaysians: all Malaysians as citizens, or only some of them as the historic and unchallengeable custodians, as they understand their role, of the syariah and its prerogatives.

Either way, the outcome and how it is reached, and by whom, will prove fateful for Malaysia for a long time to come.

That’s why the question of syariah law and hudud implementation is everybody’s business in this country.

-Clive Kessler

ISA will be Repealed And Replaced with Two New Laws, Says Najib.... Let's Wait and See the Details

2011-09-16T01:29:00.003+08:00

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Prime Minister Najib Razak will abolish the Internal Security Act and amend a number of laws which have long been criticised as overt attempts to stifle democracy.

In a special televised address late this evening, the eve of Malaysia Day, Najib announced the following:

Abolishment of Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, which allows detention without trial.
Three Emergency declarations to be lifted.
Amendments to freedom of assembly laws, which will recognise Article 10 of the Federal Constitution but will be "strongly" AGAINST street demonstration.
Annual renewal of publishing permits for newspapers will be replaced with a one-off licence, which can be withdrawn.
Repeal ofBanishment Act 1959 and
Revision of Restricted Residence Act 1933.

"As I had promised in my maiden speech when I first took over the post of prime minister on April 3, 2009, the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) would be studied comprehensively. In relation to that, I am glad to announce on this historical night, that the ISA will be abolished," Najib said.

"To prevent subversive acts, planned terrorism and criminal acts to preserve public order and safety, two new suitable laws will be formulated, based on the spirit and under the umbrella of Article 149 of the federal constitution.

"In principle, the Acts will be aimed at preserving peace, harmony of the people and the country."

The ISA, which is a preventive detention law, was enacted soon after Malaya obtained independence.

While initially the draconian law was used against the communists, it was often abused by the government to muzzle political dissidents.

Over the years, many key politicians were nabbed under the law which empowers the home minister to detain them for up to two years - and which can be extended indefinitely thereafter.

"Realising the reality that Malaysia has changed, feeling the pulse, apprehension and aspirations of the rakyat who want a Malaysia that has a more open and dynamic democracy, where opinions, ideas and concerns are given more attention.

"(We must do so to) stand on par with other democratic systems in the world, based on the universal philosophy of from the people, by the people, for the people. The government, under Section 3 Article 150 of the federal constitution, will table to both parliamentary bodies a motion so that all three proclamations of emergency are lifted," said Najib.

With the lifting of the Emergency declarations, it means that the ISA-type Emergency Ordinance (EO) will also lapse.

Apart from the six PSM leaders who were detained for one month in July, there are currently about 6,000 held in detention under EO.

Publishing permits for newspapers will remain, but the permits will not have to be renewed every year.

"A comprehensive review (of laws no longer relevant) will involve the Restricted Residence Act 1933 and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, where the annual licences will be abolished and replaced with licences that will be issued until they are cancelled," Najib said.

"The government will also review Section 27 of the Police Act 1967, to take into account Article 10 of the federal constitution on the freedom of assembly, on the principle that it would be against street demonstrations.

"However, the permission to assembly will be given through methodologies which will be decided later, but it will consider international norms."

The reforms announced today follow years of intensive campaigns to broaden Malaysia's democratic space, particularly the abolishment of the ISA.

The Najib administration did not apply the ISA on any dissident, while his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had applied the ISA on one opposition figure, a blogger and a journalist, back in September 2008.

But the most notorious use of the ISA was in 1987, when 106 people were nabbed under Operasi Lalang (Weeding Operation) during the Mahathir Mohamad administration.

Leading human rights watchdog Suaram estimates that about 10,000 people have been detained under the ISA without trial since its inception in 1960.

Although most people were detained for two years, there are records of some being detained for more than 20 years.

Najib's announcement today comes at a time when his approval rating, at 59 percent, hit a record low since a record high of 72 percent in May last year.

He is pressed to deliver on reform promises made when he took office in April 2009 as he attempts to improve BN's position in the coming general election, expected to be called within the next six months.

Critics have claimed that tangible reforms have hitherto been moving at a glacial pace and the announcements today are likely to improve his image.

Human rights activists and opposition parties are expected to claim victory over the reforms but this is unlikely to go down well with conservative factions within BN.

Prof Zainal Kling, History is NOT about Terminologies and Semantics. True History is about FACTS and REALITY.

2011-09-13T22:41:00.004+08:00

Read here for more on ARTiculation

Is It Really, Professor ?

by

Art Harun

Kangkung Professor

I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, save for the period when Malayan Union was introduced. For the record, this is his claim:

The good Professor rested his claim as such on the fact that the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 between Raja Abdullah and the British Governor in Singapore did not mention that Perak was to be colonised but was only to be “protected” as a “protectorate” of the British.

The Professor went on to say that the only states which were colonised by the British in Tanah Melayu were Singapore, Penang and Melaka.

The good Professor may be correct in so far as historical terminologies go.

But history is NOT about terminologies and semantics. True history is about FACTS and REALITY.

Of course, facts may be looked at from different views, angles and perspective resulting in different interpretations and conclusions. Realities may also be subjected to the same treatment giving rise to the term of “administered reality”.

With all due respect to the good Professor, the British entry into Tanah Melayu and their subsequent entrenchment in Tanah Melayu’s administration leading to at least a de facto colonisation of the whole of the Tanah Melayu peninsula and her surrounding islets CANNOT be viewed solely from and within the effect of the Pangkor Treaty alone.

That would tantamount to an attempt to define the whole cosmos just by looking at the moon alone and nothing else.

Let’s however begin with the Pangkor Treaty 1874 (as the Professor had relied his thesis on it).

The Pangkor Treaty 1874

For the record, prior to the Pangkor Treaty, the British, through the British East India Company, were already deeply entrenched in Tanah Melayu. It “colonised” Penang in 1786. Penang was later confirmed to be a possession of the British in 1800 by the then Sultan of Kedah. In 1819, Stamford Raffles took it upon himself to bring Singapore into the British fold.

Later in 1824, the British and the Dutch, presumably under the mandate of some godlike creatures residing somewhere within the mountains of Scotland, decided among themselves to divide the Malay Archipelago into two, thereby giving away Melaka to the British and Indonesia (Sumatera) to the Dutch.

In each of these three little states which the British saw fit to do as it please, they had a Governor who governed for the British. In 1867, these so called “settlements” became the “Crown Colonies” and came directly under the purview of the Colonial Office in London.

Meanwhile, in Perak, upon the death of Sultan Ali in 1871, a palace power struggle was brewing. The Raja Muda of Perak was Raja Abdullah. He should have gone on to take the thrones. As events would have it, the Raja Bendahara, Raja Ismail was pronounced as Sultan.

Perak was a rich tin producer at that time. The British were itchy to get their greedy hands on Perak. They were waiting for an opportunity. That opportunity presented itself when Raja Abdullah wrote to the Governor of Singapore, Sir Andrew Clarke, spelling out his desire to place Perak under British protection, and "to have a man of sufficient abilities to show (him) a good system of government."

The British surely did not need further motivation but to lend their generous helping hands to a Malay ruler in need of course. With that, the Governor very kindly entered into the Pangkor Treaty with Raja Abdullah on 20th January 1874. With that agreement in hand, Raja Abdullah was made Sultan of Perak (although Raja Ismail was earlier appointed Sultan by the Malay palace).

Raja Ismail (the then Sultan) of course did not attend the signing of the Pangkor Treaty as he did not recognise the agreement for obvious reason. But faced with the might of the very big and terribly friendly and generous British, Raja Ismail could not do anything other than seeing the throne being taken by Raja Abdullah. Sir W W Birch was appointed, pursuant to the agreement, Perak’s 1st British Resident.

(It was with considerable irony that Raja Abdullah – later Sultan Abdullah – was later thrown out to the Seychelles for conspiring to murder Birch).

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal was correct to say that the Pangkor Treaty did not say Perak was a colony of the British. But surely that does not mean that Perak was not colonised by the British.

So what if the British had said Perak was only a “protectorate”? Does it mean anything at all?

What if the British had said that Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”? Does that mean Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”?

Just because the British had said so?

The British, for whatever reason, chiefly because they had wanted to classify their dominions throughout the world for economics and social purposes (and also for qualification for British citizenship) had categorised its “conquests” into three classes, the colonies, the protectorates and the protected states. Semantically of course there are differences between the three.

But factually, it does not take a rocket scientist, or a learned bunch of thick-spectacled history professors to know that there were not much of a difference between them.

A colony is of course a state which the British had “annexed” or “settled” in. This state was presumed to be a jungle or a barren state where civilisation did not exist. And the very civilised British had of course “discovered” that state, just like Stamford Raffles did Singapore or Francis Light did Penang.

A “protectorate” is a state which the civilised and friendly (and generous) British had not annexed or settled in. This is a state where the British came in at the request of the helpless ruler of that state. It is a state where the British came to help or came to administer not through force but through agreements or treatise. Yes. That is a protectorate.

A “protected” state on the other hand, is a state which is protected by the British, again at the request of the ruler of that state. However, according to the British, in a protected state, the British did not involve themselves with its governance.

Yes. That is the difference between the three classes of the British conquests. Who said so? Well, the British said so. So, if the British said so, it must be correct right? Well, the British also said that Maggie Thatcher had balls. Remember?

Relying on semantics – and these semantics were coined and used by none other than the British themselves – the good Professor said according to the Pangkor Treaty, Perak was NOT colonised.

Well, is it really? Let’s look at the terms of the so called treaty.

First of all, Raja Abdullah was proclaimed by the British as the Sultan of Perak in place of Raja Ismail, who was already proclaimed in accordance with the “adat dan istiadat Raja-raja Melayu Perak” as the Sultan.

Now, may I ask, on what authority did the British make that appointment? On the fact that they are white men with guns and ammunitions far better than the collective keris and parangs owned by the Perakians? Now, if that is not annexation of Perak, tell me what it is.

Then, why don’t we (and the good Professor) loom at the salient terms of the so-called treaty.

Raja Abdullah was acknowledged as the legitimate Sultan to replace Sultan Ismail who would be given a title and a pension of 1000 Mexican pesos a month.
The Sultan would receive a British Resident whose advice had to be sought and adhered to in all matters except those pertaining to the religion and customs of the Malays.
All collections and control of taxes as well as the administration of the state would be done in the name of the Sultan, but the Sultan was to govern according to the advice and consent of the Resident.
The Minister of Larut would continue to be in control but would no longer be recognized as a liberated leader. Instead, a British officer, who would have vast authority in administering the district, would be appointed in Larut.
The Sultan, and not the British government, would pay the salary of the Resident.
Perak ceded Dinding and Pangkor Island to the United Kingdom.

Is this what a protectorate is all about? Does it not sound to all of us that Perak was as good as being annexed in a war with the British? Just consider the fact that the Sultan was to govern the state in accordance with the advice and consent of the British Resident. Perak was not colonised you say, Professor? Well, last night I saw pink cows flying over the crescent. Very nice.

Throughout the British presence in Tanah Melayu, we had three categories of states. The straits settlements, namely, Penang, Singapore and Melaka. Then we have Federated Malay States, ie, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. These states were all not “colonised”, according too the British. They were just protectorate. Yea, right.

Then we have the Unfederated Malay States, which were Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Johor. They were also termed as protected states by the British. Again, that does not mean that they were not colonised by the British.

Under intense pressure by the British for example, Johor accepted a treaty of protection by the United Kingdom in 1885. With that Johor accepted a British “advisor.”

The way Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu came under the “protection” and became branded as Unfederated Malay States is an insult to every Malaysians. And for the British to insist that they had never – officially and technically, that is – been colonised by the British is an act of colonial arrogance.

How did Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu become protected states of the British? Well, just as in 1824 when the British gods decided to divide this part of the world with the Dutch, in 1909, the British did the same with Thailand in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909. In this treaty, these two gods divided the northern Malay states into two.

Under this treaty, Pattani , Narathiwat, Songkhla, Satun and Yala remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu which integrated into the British realm in Tanah Melayu as protectorates.

Now, who gave the authority and mandate to the British and Thais to willy nilly decide among themselves who to own what? The Pope? The British queen?

The mere act of unilaterally dividing these collection of Malay states which even predate Melaka among themselves is incontrovertible proof that these states were under the whims and fancies of these two people, ie, the Thais and the British.

All the terms coined and marketed about by the British were only what they are, namely, terms. Semantics. That is all. The effect is the same.

They came into our country either through uninvited settlements or request by some people with vested interests.
Under the pretext of lending their hands to assists us, they raped, plundered and stole our resources.
They invited and brought people from foreign lands (I have to stress that I do not have anything against them) to work here.
They then divided all of us and ruled us.

Now, if that is not colonisation, I do not know what is.

The mere fact that they could come back to Malaya after the Japanese – who kicked them out earlier in about 5 days – surrendered and forced the Malay Rulers and everybody else to accept the Malayan Union (where they consolidated the Straits Settlements; the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States into one Federation – is proof enough that they regarded Tanah Melayu – regardless of their semantic classifications – as their possession, as theirs to do whatever they liked.

Isn’t that a trait of every colonial Master, Datuk Dr Professor?

If they had not controlled the whole Tanah Melayu other than the Straits Setllements, how did they manage to force every state to accept the Malayan Union.

How did they manage to compel all our Malay Rulers to submit to their arrogance habit of dividing this territory as if we are some bunch of grapes which were to be graded and stomped on by their feet whenever they please?

What authority did the British have to “administer” us?

To submit too their system?
To their sense of justice?
To their system of civil service?

I am not saying that their systems are bad but under what authority did they manage to make us adopt their systems other than a systematic colonisation of our land?

Dear Professor, perhaps you should read the British Parliament hansard when they were debating the Malayan Independence Bill.

In the first place, if they did not colonise us, why and under what authority did they have to pass an Act of Palriament in their Parliament to give us “independence”?

Sometime, people show their true colours when the speak.

This is what the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, in a Freudian moment, said:

“Today, we are setting the seal on this work. We can, with Edmund Burke, rejoice that our ancestors have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquest not by destroying but by promoting the wealth, the number and the happiness of the human race.” (emphasis is mine).

Yes. That was, and still is, how they saw us.

Their honourable conquest.

And we were not colonised you say?

Related Article

Continuity and discontinuity: Prof Zainal Kling and Malaysian history

by

Clive Kessler
(Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia.)

Read here for more

It is not my objective to argue the historical facts of this issue, to take sides.

On the facts, Farish Noor and Art Harun are clearly right and Prof Zainal Kling, however ingenious the hair-splitting technicalities that he invokes, is WRONG.

But that is not the end, or even the heart, of the matter.

We must ask, what is the purpose, and what are the practical effects, of Prof Zainal now making his seemingly fanciful argument?

Prof Zainal’s argument is simply wrong, marvellously eccentric and absurdly counterfactual historically. But it is wonderfully clever, cunning and “very strategic”, politically.

By denying that Malaya, meaning the Malay states, was ever colonised by the British, Prof Zainal opens yet another front for struggle over the now increasingly contested question of Malaysian national sovereignty.

There is no doubt that, as one of the world’s nations, Malaysia exists. So it has sovereignty. But the grounding of its modern national sovereignty is a contested, and now ever increasingly inflamed, question.

Where does Malaysia’s national sovereignty lie, on what foundation is the sovereignty of the modern nation-state grounded?
In the people themselves, who are the nation, and upon whom, under the doctrine of popular sovereignty, all modern democratic nations are founded?
Or in the Federal Constitution, which is the self-declared basis of the nation’s common character, legal order and political life?
Or in the Sultans and Malay Rulers? And if so, by virtue of their recognised standing in the Federal and state constitutions?
Or on some other grounds?

With Prof Zainal’s recent comment, we are drawn back to this aspect, understanding, or (as some would have it) attempted revisionist redefinition of the national sovereignty question.

From 1986 and throughout the 1990s until 2008, the notion of Ketuanan Melayu, the idea or assertion that Malay political ascendancy had somehow been written into the constitutional foundations of the nation as part of an originating “social contract”, took shape and grew in strength.

The results of the 2008 elections came as a surprise, even shock, to many. To those determined to uphold the notion of Malay ascendancy, they were a threat and a challenge.

Was the primacy, as they saw it, of the Malay stake in the nation now, and henceforth, at risk?

From that time, and with the growth of new Malay political pressure groups such as Perkasa, a new determination to assert Malay primacy and national political ascendancy was voiced.

As part of that response, some new understandings of the ideas of Ketuanan Melayu and national sovereignty began to be developed and promoted.

Ketuanan Melayu, some now ventured to suggest, was not the crude “ethnosupremacist” idea (that, to some, the NEP seemed to suggest and underwrite) of the categorical superiority, or greater national entitlement, of Malays over non-Malays among the state’s citizens.

It had to do with the historical foundations and “public personality” of the national political order, of the nation.

It had to do with the origins of the independent federation of Malaya and later Malaysia as the direct lineal descendant, by a clear line of succession, from the various Malay states of the pre-British phase of the peninsula’s and region’s history.

This line of argument was further developed by, or at least on behalf of, the Malay Rulers and royal houses themselves by YM the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin, in a pre-Merdeka Day address at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 2009.

On that occasion Raja Nazrin recalled the Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu of August 5, 1957. Through that solemn declaration the nine Malay Rulers signified their assent to the constitutional arrangements of the new nation that was about to be born.

Their Wasiat, as they understood it, was not just a legal will or testament — the last political testament of the old political order, the ancien régime on the Malay peninsula.

It had, for them, an older historical meaning and also looked forward to newer times.

For them the term was not just a technical legal or constitutional instrument; it also had powerful connotations suggesting a sacred heirloom or legacy.

By their Wasiat their Rulers affirmed their consent to Merdeka and gave it their blessing. The new nation born of the “Merdeka moment” was in that way stamped with their great prestige.

Yet their action, in their royal eyes, implied something more than simply a stamp of kingly approval.

The daulat that the Rulers embodied, they implied, was not merely sacred royal prestige. Their royal consent and blessing suggested — or has subsequently been read to suggest — that the daulat of the Rulers was in fact sovereignty, in the technical jurisprudential sense.

This view, whether held at the time or retrospectively asserted, holds, or again further implies, that from pre-colonial times and throughout the years of British control, the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers, or “Malay sovereignty”, had continued: uninterrupted and unbroken, unimpaired and undiminished.

Those who wish to maintain this position can, it seems, do so in either of two ways. They may argue that there was never any diminution of effective Malay royal sovereignty, understood as ultimately authenticating power and “reality-creating” authority, under British rule. That is a difficult position to sustain.

Or they may argue that, while the Malay Rulers and their quasi-sacred political position had in fact been eclipsed under the British, that diminution was entirely without force or meaning, since British rule was itself fundamentally illegitimate. Hence its effects and implications for Malay royal sovereignty can be ignored, or set aside as if they had never been.

In either case, throughout the years of British administration and control, Malay royal sovereignty, some suggest, had continued: either in full force but hidden or else dormant and, so to speak, “underground”, only to awake and surface again at the moment of national independence.

However bizarre and counterfactual they may seem to some, Prof Zainal’s recent comments on Malayan history do not come from nowhere. They are not simply an individual eccentricity or folly.

Prof Zainal, with his recent intervention, is simply the latest Malay political commentator, activist and practical ideologist who has sought to affirm this notion of the continuity of Malay sovereignty.

His position seems to be an artful combination of the two possibilities noted above. He seems to hold that British colonial rule was illegitimate and therefore not entitled to be of any ultimate consequence; and that pre-colonial Malay sovereignty therefore persisted — was never interrupted, severed or broken — throughout the illegitimate British interlude.

Prof Zainal’s position, and that of those who are of the same mind in these matters, is that not merely Malay sacred royal daulat but “sovereignty” in the modern technical jurisprudential sense had survived in the hands of the Malay Rulers, unimpaired and undiminished, throughout the “British years” from 1874 to 1957.

More than that, having remained with them, in their traditional custodianship, this sovereignty could be, and in historical fact was, passed on by the Malay Rulers (as they asserted in their Wasiat of August 5, 1957) to the new independent nation.

In that way, a new nation was born, but born as the vehicle and instrument of a continuing sovereignty that was far older. It embodied a moral authority and sovereignty of far greater political and cultural authenticity than anything that the departing British might have managed through its Colonial Office to fabricate.

This view, which seems to be that of Prof Zainal’s, or to underlie it, has profound implications for the continuing nature, now and well into the future, of the Malaysian nation, for its political character and the underlying foundations of its sovereignty.

The idea that the British never ruled, or governed, in Malaya may seem absurd.

But it is a very inventive and resourceful way, in the political context suddenly created by the national elections of March 2008, to argue — whatever those results may have been, and whatever outcome future elections may yet disclose — that the nation’s sovereignty, both in its historical origins and its contemporary character, is a distinctively Malay sovereignty.

The argument is one that seeks to assert, and place beyond any partisan dispute or political challenge, the notion that Malaysia is still Tanah Melayu, a nation embodying Malay sovereignty, and a nation inscribed in whose innermost nature is the principle of Malay primacy.

This, like it or not, is the new post-NEP and post-2008 notion of Ketuanan Melayu.

That, at all events, seems to be, either explicitly or by implication, the position of Prof Zainal and those who are of the same mind.

As for the controversy that his views have prompted, the central question is not whether they are historically correct (which is contestable) but whether they can be made to prevail politically.

That too is perhaps contestable. That is a matter for all the people of Malaysia to determine.

There is no other way, no basis other than common and ever renewed consent, to found and sustain a nation.

We WERE a British Colony: A Response to Zainal Kling and National Council of Professors

2011-09-13T06:18:00.004+08:00

Kangkung Professor

A Response to Zainal Kling

by

Ahmad Fuad Rahmat
Research fellow, Islamic Renaissance Front

Read here for more

Dr. Zainal Kling together with National Professors’ Council (MPN), which claims up to 1500 members, recently argued that Malaysia was never colonized by the British.

As reported in Malaysiakini and Berita Harian, their argument in essence reads as follows:

Malaya was a British protectorate, not a colony.
But the British did have administrative powers in the fields of finance and the exploitation of Malaya’s natural resources.
Despite this, Zainal still maintains that Malay sovereignty (kedaulatan Melayu) was still protected.
Therefore, what is now Malaysia (with the exception of Malaka and Penang) was never colonized by the British.

The problems with Dr. Zainal’s argument are as follows:

1. The argument is illogical

Colonialism entails the exploitation of the wealth and potential of a nation by another. The scenario is that one nation becomes subjugated by the power and authority of another nation. By the MPN's own admission Malaya’s natural resources and financial authority was exploited by the British “in a breach of trust” rendering Malaya’s actual political power and capacity effectively impotent.

If a nation is exploited in such a manner then in effect that nation’s sovereignty was violated. Since this was the case in Malaya, as was presented by the facts already in MPN's reasoning, then Malaya was by definition colonized by the British.

At any rate, the remaining question is that if Malaya was merely a British protectorate ('dinaung') then why were the British also exploiting it?

2. Malay sovereignty was NOT protected under Perjanjian Pangkor. For it gave the British legal mandate to advise and interfere in local affairs

This has been explicitly admitted in Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) textbooks for decades: that much is even admitted in the Pemuda UMNO website.

At any rate, some facts are undisputable:

The perjanjian was written in English.It was signed on a British boat.

Article 6 of the perjanjian reads as follows:

“That the Sultan receives and provides a suitable residence for a British Officer to be called Resident, who shall be accredited to his Court, and whose advice must be asked and acted upon on all questions other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom.”
(See H.S. Barlow's Swettenham, p. 45)

The collection of taxes was to be overseen and managed by the British Resident.
Due to British pressures and political manoeuvring Sultan Ismail was deposed in place of Sultan Abdullah.

3. They do not understand what sovereignty means

Sovereignty in a basic sense means power.

In terms of the modern nation state, political sovereignty basically means that the absolute power and control of a nation and its territory rests in the state. Thus, a country is said to be independent because it has ostensibly gained its sovereignty.

Sovereignty in a basic sense means power. Political sovereignty means that the absolute power and control of a nation and its territory rests in the state.

What this means is that the finances and the natural resources of the state is a part of its sovereignty. Dr. Zainal, for some reason, assumes that because the British left the crumbs of Malay culture and religion under the Sultan’s rule this ought to mean that kedaulatan Melayu was safeguarded.

The British, coming all the way from Europe eyeing our wealth, natural resources and economic potential first and foremost, of course had little concern for how we prayed and conducted our superstitions and cultural practices. The British residents had what mattered more in determining the sovereignty of a nation: its economics and an influence in the political system.

4. The argument assumes that colonialism had to be direct

But colonialism is rarely direct. Just look at the basics of history.

It is the nature of modern European colonialism that the total size of the colonies is much greater than the size of the colonizing nation. This was the case for Britain as much as it was for France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Portugal.

For example: The small nation of Portugal managed to amass the amount of land that covers the size of Brazil. The Dutch did the same in Indonesia, and Spain did the same in the Spanish-speaking Americas. This is to say little of the size and global reach of the British Empire. This applied in all cases of modern European colonialism: much of the globe was overtaken by countries that were small.

The point is that the colonizing nations could not have maintained their global presence for centuries by military power or direct rule alone. They needed other means to legitimize their presence while being outnumbered in foreign lands and cultures.

The methods of securing that presence varied: a common strategy is to convert the colonized into the ideology or religion of the colonizers, typically to convince the colonized that they were inferior.

Another typical approach was for the colonizers to work with their agents and partners from among the colonized, either as business partners or co-administrators to help facilitate and expedite the exploitation process.

In other words, colonialism had no problems working with a local ruling class as advisors or bureaucrats, or in Malaysia’s case functioning in the guise of being a protector, or serving as “residents”. In fact, that only made colonialism more efficient since the colonizers would have direct local partners to protect and legitimize their presence.

Conclusion

In concluding we ought to recall that Dr. Zainal and the MPN's arguments were made in direct response to Mohamad Sabu’s recent attempts to broaden the scope of Malaysia’s history of anti-colonial struggles.

By concluding that the British were never actual colonizers of Malaysia, he sought to discredit the Malaysians, in particular, the Malaysian left who had made the British – instead of the Communists or to a lesser extent the Japanese - the chief villains in the struggle for Malaysia’s independence.

The lesson to be noted here is not just the deeply ideological nature of Dr. Zainal and the MPN's arguments, but the deeply ideological nature of any struggle for decolonization and independence.

The left-right distinction that is slowly surfacing in these debates should remind us that independence is more than just about simply removing a foreign conqueror. What the visceral reactions we are seeing clearly highlight is that the struggle is still much about the principles of what a just society ought to be.

Some are content with the way Malaysia turned out, while some believe that there are higher possibilities beyond this.

Memory is where freedom really begins. We can only make the right choices for the future based on what we can recall of our past successes and mistakes.

In other words, we are only as good (or bad) as what we want to remember and forget.

RELATED ARTICLE

Zainal Kling: A Spin Doctor Gone Awry

by

Khoo Kay Peng

Read here for more

National Professor's Council member Zainal Kling council said that the movement, which included the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), are “traitors” as they had allegedly wanted to form a republic and to unseat Malay rulers.

He alleged that these communists' goal was not to liberate Malaya from British rule, which had recognised the role of the Malay rulers, but to establish a communist country. He added that “all Malay nationalists” had also “joined forces, cooperated and abetted with communist fighters” to establish a republic.

"It is because of this that we cannot accept their struggle as (the communists) wanted to wrest power in a manner which was not legitimate,” he said.

Zainal's allegations are serious and they must be scrutinized to avoid unscrupulous distortion of our nation's history. As an ardent student of history, I hope Zainal's allegations were not driven by any political or personal interest.

He had made some serious allegations:

Malaysia was never colonised, only Malacca, Penang and Singapore.
British recognized the role of Malay rulers
All Malay nationalists had joined forces, cooperated and abetted with communist fighters to establish a republic

Zainal's allegations may put the Malay rulers in an embarrassing position.

First, WHY were the British allowed almost total control over the economy and raw materials of the nation if this country was never colonised?

In fact, the post-colonial New Economic Policy was introduced to address the economic imbalances caused by the British colonial rule. One of its objectives was to eradicate identification of economic function to race.

If the Malay states were never colonised, then the Malay rulers should be held accountable and answerable for the socio-economic neglect and discrimination of the Malay community.

Why make Chinese the bogeymen of Malay's economic distress?

If Zainal is right, the British were the good guys because they recognised and supported the Malay rulers' supremacy. Umno, which was established by a number of Malay nationalists, must be the bad guys because "they had collaborated with communist fighters to establish a republic".

Malay nationalists opposition to the Malayan Union was another testimony of their struggle against the colonial power and to defend the special position of their community.

If Zainal's allegations were driven by his desire to help Umno nail Mat Sabu, he has opened up another controversy for the party. Worse, his statement was made in Putrajaya signalled his political intention.

If Zainal is right, we should only celebrate Independence Day in Malacca and Penang. We should pull out our membership from the Commonwealth and disband Umno.

If not, Zainal's professorship must be reassessed to ensure that he fits the intellectual requirement of the title. It is time for the Barisan government to employ and engage the right people.

It is the present government and it has all necessary resources to hire the best and to provide the best governance to the people. The lost of popularity of the Prime Minister and his administration is self inflicted.

Why spend millions and get pseudo intellectuals who feed on peanuts?

What had happened to some PhD holders in the establishment? One is trying to push the blame of Bersih 2.0's mismanagement to the police and this one has unwittingly turning Malay nationalists into traitors.
.

UMNO in Panic Mode: UMNO's Version of Malaysian History is Being Debunked Fast

2011-09-06T00:36:00.004+08:00

Read here for more

Recognising History Would Make Umno Irrelevant

by

Dato' Mohd.Ariff Sabri bin Hj. Abdul Aziz

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad said UMNO hasn’t got leadership. My take on that statement is that it is the damnest indictment on Prime Minsiter Najib Tun Razak’s leadership.

UMNO is now reduced to the stature of a beggar – scrounging at the supposed faux pas committed by PAS deputy president Mat Sabu.

What has Mat Sabu actually said that caused so much consternation?Mat Sabu mentioned the name of Mat Indera, the Batu Pahat Malay born in Peserai who led the attack on the police barrack at Bukit Kepong.

The barrack was commanded by an English man representing the colonial government then. I think we are missing the point here. Mat Sabu wasn’t glorifying the communists or communism. He didn’t even say anything about communism. He was asking his audience to take a relook at the treatment of history on the role of Mat Indera.

To Mat Sabu, history has unjustly treated Mat Indera and we, the public, have accepted the official version of history – hook, line and sinker. Was Mat Indera a simple terrorist sans a greater purpose and therefore deserving the description of a villain and terrorist?

Vilifying Mat Indera

It now seems the preferred version of revised history is to see and value Mat Indera as a freedom fighter bent on kicking out the British imperialists. Certainly the people in Mat Indera’s kampung in Batu Pahat refused to accept the vilification of Mat Indera’s memory.

The criminalisation of Mat Indera is part of the indoctrination and propaganda carried out by British imperialism. Mat Indera joins the list of so many other freedom fighters who dared rise up to challenge Britsih hegemony.

Nowadays the Malayan people could no longer accept nor tolerate the infamy enforced on people like Pandak Endut, on Tok Janggut and Mat Kilau and so many others. Mat Indera certainly doesn’t deserve to be dumped into the dustbin of history as just “one of those” terrorists.

Why is UMNO concerned?

Over the last few days, I had the opportunity to finish reading the memoir of one Shamsiah Fakeh – Memoir Shamsiah Fakeh- Dari AWAS ke Rejimen Ke-10. If you recall, her name re-emerged with some notoriety recently when the Bersih 2.0 marchers on July 9 were said to be influenced by her actions.

Shamsiah was a member of Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) – a left-leaning Malay political party formed in 1945. It was the first political party that openly declared its mission to be that of securing independence for Malaya.

In that sense, PKMM preceded UMNO in its commitment to secure Merdeka for the Malayan people. UMNO leaders at that time scoffed and chided and were dismissive of the manifest desire to gain independence.

They often derided those who wanted independence as fanciful dreamers who couldn’t even manufacture a needle What is then alarming about Mat Sabu’s faux pas is the fear that it may lead to a widespread revision of history.

If it snowballs into a widespread revision of history, then UMNO’s actual http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrole MAY itself be diminished. And it will no longer enjoy an unchallenged and monopolistic place in our nation’s history.

Politically it will also mean that UMNO will find it increasingly difficult to claim absolute legitimacy as the nation’s only political force to have fought for Merdeka. Its own heroes will be brought down to size.

Related Article

Johor Govt's 2004 Book, "Pengukur Nama Johor" Vindicates Mat Sabu

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

A book published by the Johor government in 2004 names insurgent Mat Indera as a freedom fighter and lists him as a celebrated Johor hero.

Speaking to Malaysiakini today, PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu said this was revealed in the book titled "Pengukir Nama Johor."

“The book has five pages on Mat Indera and he is essentially called a freedom fighter. It states that he is not a communist,” Mohamad, who is widely known as Mast Sabu, said.

Under fire for describing Mat Indera as a hero for attacking the Bukit Kepong police station in 1950, he said the foreword of the book was written by Johor Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman.

“This is why I said that Umno is digging its own grave on this issue,” added mat Sabu, who is due to hold a press conference on the matter tomorrow.

Five pages of the book are dedicated to Mat Indera while the remainder are biographies of 21 other key historical figures from Johor.

These include the late Sultan Ismail and former Umno chairperson Sulaiman Ninam Shah.

Also included in the Johor Heritage foundation published book is a biography of Bajuri Siraj, who turned Mat Indera in to the British for a reward.

Mat Indera's photograph is featured on the cover of the book

The section on Mat Indera was written by Ismail Adnan, who once served as deputy director of Institut Kepimpinan dan Latihan Semangat Dato' Onn.

The book is edited by former Universiti Malaya media studies lecturer Abu Bakar A Hamid and Teacher of the Year 2002 award recipient Md Ismail Zamzam.

'Pious and hardworking man'

Contacted by Malaysiakini today, Abu Bakar said Mat Indera is described in the book as someone who was “pious and a tahfiz” (someone who has memorised the Quran).

“The author used this as a basis to conclude that it is unlikely that he had turned into a communist,” Abu Bakar said.

He added that Ismail had written the section based on several credible sources and his own research.

Interestingly, Abu Bakar revealed that his own father had also served alongside Mat Indera at Sekolah Agama Parit Setongkat in Muar, Johor, in the 1940s.

“My father was the headmaster and Mat Indera was a teacher there. My father remembers him to be a hardworking and pious man who had a good voice,” he said.

At the same time, Abu Bakar revealed, in his memoir published by UKM, once Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) chairperson Abdullah CD named Mat Indera as one of his platoon members.

In the memoir, Abdullah said that Mat Indera had led the insurgency against the Bukit Kepong police station and was later “poisoned” before he was captured and hanged to death.

“This public and intellectual discourse about history is a good thing, but I urge politicians to stay out of it. There is no need to make a lot of noise for nothing. Even in academia there are differing views, so we conduct more research and present our findings. The case (of Mat Indera) is not yet closed,” Abu Bakar added.

MAT INDERA'S CONNECTION WITH DPM MUHYIDDIN YASSIN'S FAMILY

Read here for more

A strange irony of history has emerged to suggest a link between the alleged communist leader of the attack on the Bukit Kepong, on the one hand, and a top Umno politician who has of recent expressed among the harshest criticisms of his memory.

According to PAS, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin's father Mohammad Yassin was actually the teacher of 'Mat Indera', the pre-Merdeka nationalist implicated in the deaths of police officers and civilians following an attack on the Bukit Kepong police station in 1950 during the communist insurgency.

The irony goes even further with the revelation that Mat Indera may even, at one point, have sought the hand of Muhyiddin's elder sister.

“Mat Indera wanted to marry the sister of DPM Muhyiddin Yassin, but Mat Indera's father was not agreeable to it,” Johor PAS Youth chief Suhaizat Kaiat wrote on his Facebook page after meeting with Mat Indera's younger brother Johan Shah at the latter's home in Penjara Air Molek, Johor Bahru.

According to Suhaizan in his Facebook posting, Mohamad 'Mat' Sabu and Johor PAS commissioner Dr Mahfodz Mohamed were present at the meeting with Johan.

“It was the British who accused Mat Indera of being a communist,” said Suhaizan further. Mat Indera was eventually captured and executed by the colonial authorities.

Suhaizan's remarks following a barrage of attacks on Mohamad Sabu following a speech in which he described Mat Indera as the real hero in the Bukit Kepong incident, not the Malay police officers, as they were serving to enforce the laws and administration of the British colonial government.

Muhyiddin has been among the more vociferous of Mohamad Sabu's critics following the latter's remarks.

Recounting his meeting with Johan, Suhaizan said he was told that Johan, his father, stepmother and grandfather were tortured by the British colonialists before being banished to Singapore between 1950 to 1954.

“People were afraid of the British”, said Suhaizan, which is why nobody defended Mat Indera when the latter was prosecuted by the British.

Among the other facts that Suhaizan said were related by Johan were:

- Mat Indera was the second eldest child of eight children. His mother died when Johan - the youngest - was two years old;

- The British offered a 25,000-dollar reward for Mat Indera's capture before the Bukit Kepong incident. After the incident, the reward was raised to 75,000 dollars;

- Mat Indera arrived at the site of Bukit Kepong during the last moments of the incident, and was not involved in the attack on the police station;

johor pas youth visit mat indera brother johan shah 060911 mohamad mat sabu- Mat Indera saved the life of one police officer by the name of Yusof Rono;

- Mat Indera was appointed by the then-Johor government as a religious studies teacher. He was issued a uniform and official songkok. He had studied under a renowned religious scholar by the name of Tuan Guru Fadil;

- Mat Indera was hanged to death at Kampung Jambu Air in Taiping in the year 1953, and was buried separately from the other graves in the cemetary;

- Mat Indera never married.

In a statement, Johor PAS Youth said it will hold a press conference tomorrow together with Johan at the party's national headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

MALAYSIA: TV-3 Lies and Misleads to Worsen Islam vs Christianity Controversy

2011-08-28T03:36:00.006+08:00

Read here for more in malaysiakini

TV3 News on Proselytisation of Muslims by Christians in Tuition Centre is a FAKE

QUOTE:

"It was pretty clear the qariah and the surau reported on TV3 does NOT exist. TV3 cooked up the FALSE news and at the same time poked fun at Muslim places of worship with that name Al-Musyrikin.

The tuition centre has been there for years for the purpose of teaching Christianity to the children living in the area who are Christians.They comprise students who are Chinese, Indian and a small number of Christian Indonesians. There are NO Muslims who attend Christianity classes there.

The TV station is maliciously spreading FALSE news aimed at stoking religious and racial tensions, that at the same time had ridiculed Islam."
-Fariz Musa

An NGO has lodged a police report against TV3 for allegedly FABRICATING news of a tuition centre in Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur, trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, on account that the SURAU whose members were shown protesting the centre appears to be NON-EXISTENT.

The TV station was maliciously spreading false news aimed at stoking religious and racial tensions, that at the same time had ridiculed Islam.

The group, Jingga 13, said the private TV station on Aug 21 aired a report during its main news bulletin (Buletin Utama) alleging that the tuition centre had been spreading Christianity to its Muslim students.

The news clip showed footage of a group of about 50 from the Qariah Surau Al-Musyrikin led by a Mustapha Kamal Mohd Yusof - believed to be an Umno branch leader in Seputeh - gathered in front of the centre, protesting the proselytisation of Muslims.

NGO, Jingga 13 Coordinator, Fariz Musa said,

“The (TV3-news) report is meant to portray that there are efforts to spread Christianity through the tuition classes, to the point that it has caused the surau members to protest. Jinggo 13's checks suggest that NO such surau exists in the area.

From Jingga 13's investigations in the vicinity of the tuition centre in the Jalan Klang Lama squatter area, and from speaking with the locals there, we found that NOT a single surau exists in the area. The tuition centre is located in a squatter area populated mainly by Chinese and Indians, along with some foreign Indonesians.

It was pretty clear the qariah and the surau reported on TV3 does NOT exist.

The name of the reported surau itself is suspect, and appears to be aimed at poking fun. The name of the surau 'Al-Musyrikin' that was reported looks like it was intentionally conjured up.

It is indeed impossible that someone would call their house of Allah with a name such as 'Al-Musyrikin' (non-believers). It's pretty clear that TV3 cooked up the false news and at the same time poked fun at Muslim places of worship with that name Al-Musyrikin.

The residents in the squatter area had said that the tuition centre has been there for years for the purpose of teaching Christianity to the children living in the area who are Christians. They comprise students who are Chinese, Indian and a small number of Christian Indonesians.

There are NO Muslims who attend Christianity classes there."

Meanwhile, the news report concerned has apparently been removed from TV3's website.

Selangor Palace is NOT Helpful as a Solution for Selangor OR the Nation

2011-08-23T18:23:00.005+08:00

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has been dealt a major blow after the Selangor sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah today said that the syura (consultative) council announced yesterday was redundant.

In a statement from the Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (Mais) signed by the sultan's private secretary Mohamad Munir Bani, it was clarified that the sultan had NEVER recommended that the syura council be established.

It was also explained that the sultan had only advised that in addition to Khalid and the state mufti Tamyes Abdul Wahid, the Selangor deputy mufti Abdul Majid Omar also be included in a meeting with the church.

Mohamad Munir said that the sultan was subsequently "shocked" upon hearing of news reports that the council was established on the his advice, and had expressed his wish to clarify that were NOT true.

"The sultan's position on the syura council or the setting up of inter-religious dialogue (is that), they were never assented to as the state already has the Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (Mais), Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais) and the Selangor Mufti Department," said Mohamad Munir.

Yesterday, Khalid announced the establishment of the council to "resolve" the controversy which had emerged from a Jais raid on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC), accused of proselytising Muslims.

Khalid had in a statement said that the idea to form the syura council came from the Selangor sultan when they discussed the matter last week.

"I appreciate His Highness' advice regarding how best to resolve this matter satisfactorily,” Khalid said in a statement.

The controversy surrounding the Aug 3 raid by Jais has backed the state government into a corner, as Khalid's administration maintained its silence amidst brickbats from Christian groups and BN leaders.

Christians leaders and NGOs slammed Jais for allegedly carrying out an unlawful raid on the DUMC premises, while BN leaders chastised the state government for failing to control a department that is under its administration.

Jais, however, have denied that it conducted a raid, saying they did not barge in on the dinner and merely questioned a group of Muslims who attended the event on suspicion that they were being proselytised.

MUSLIMS and CHRISTIANS in a CHURCH Together.... Praying to the Same God, Using Different Books

2011-08-21T22:07:00.006+08:00

Read here for more

Chaldean Cathedral, Kirkuk, Iraq

1st June 2011
Kirkuk, Iraq

Iraqi MUSLIM LEADERS have joined their Christian counterparts for prayers at a CHURCH in Kirkuk, in a public bid to ease tensions in the disputed northern city.

Around 1,500 people -- including Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen -- gathered at the Chaldean Cathedral late on Tuesday (31st May) , singing Christian hymns before reciting prayers and verses from the Bible and the Koran.

"Christians and Muslims have gathered together here in Kirkuk, which has suffered from deadly violence that has scared us all in recent weeks," said Louis Sakho, Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk, scene of deadly unrest last month.

"It is appropriate for Christians and Muslims to pray together for peace and stability in our country and our city, which has been shocked by recent events."

Sakho added he hoped to hold similar prayers in Sunni and Shiite mosques in future, "to have a firm and true fraternal stand for peace, stability and security in our city."

Adnan Sayid Fattah Agha, the head of the Kurdish Kakiyah tribe, noted the event "brought us back to the original reality -- Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen together. Their lives and their destiny are one, living together."

Kirkuk lies at the centre of a swathe of territory claimed by the central government and Kurdish regional authorities.

General Zulkifeli, as Chief of the Malaysian Arm Forces, How Ridiculous and Ignorant Can You Be ?

2011-08-19T16:24:00.006+08:00

Read here for more

Tak Masuk Akal

General Zulkifeli Mohd Zin
Chief of Malaysian Arm Forces

Quote

"General (Zulkifeli) does NOT understand the concept of loyalty in the context of a country and its people.

The General must understand that the Armed Forces belong to the people. There is NO need to be loyal to the ruling government.

He should not follow the example of the IGP (inspector-general of police Ismail Omar) and his deputy (Khalid Abu Bakar), who have issued various statements that insulted the rakyat and went against the constitution.

What happened in the context of postal votes is criminal."
- Constitutional Expert, Professor Aziz Basri

General Zulkifeli 'shames' the Malaysian military, says constitutional expert.

A senior law lecturer today tagged Armed Forces chief General Zulkifeli Mohd Zin as "a shame" to his colleagues for questioning the loyalty of parties involved in the expose of an alleged postal vote manipulation.

Constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari said the general "does not understand" the concept of loyalty in the context of a country and its people, slamming the latter of making "empty denials".

"Loyal to whom? Political parties need not be loyal to the Armed Forces. Everyone must be loyal to the country and its symbol, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong," he said in a statement.

Aziz was responding to a statement by Zulkifeli yesterday, who said that those who had claimed the military's rank-and-file were involved in electoral fraud were traitors.

Aziz, a law professor with the International Islamic University of Malaysia, (UIA), stressed that the Armed Forces is a branch of the federal civil service, which means its only loyalty lies with the COUNTRY and the KING.

"There is no need to be loyal to the ruling government. It is compulsory for the civil service to be neutral, and not side with the ruling party. The Armed Forces simply needs to carry out the government's orders in line with the law. What happened in the context of postal votes is criminal," he said.

Aziz pointed out that the burden of responsibility finally falls on the Armed Forces to prove beyond reasonable doubt that postal vote manipulation has never happened in the military.

He stressed that rather than sniping at the PAS' Youth wing for raising the issue, Zulkifeli should at the very least launch a probe to verify the claims.

"The Armed Forces should thank DPP (PAS Youth). PAS are merely representing the rakyat who want elections that are clean and free of fraud. The Armed Forces must prove it is clean, not demand that the rakyat be loyal to the Armed Forces. The general must understand that the Armed Forces belong to the people. He should not follow the example of the IGP (inspector-general of police Ismail Omar) and his deputy (Khalid Abu Bakar), who have issued various statements that insulted the rakyat and went against the constitution," Aziz said.

PAS Youth, meanwhile, said it was shocked by Zulkifeli's accusation of treason against the wing for hosting a series of confessions by four ex-military personnel who revealed cases of postal vote manipulation while they were in service.

Mohd Adram Musa, the deputy chair of the wing's democratic reform and mobilisation committee, said it was never the intention of PAS to "use" ex-military personnel to dish out exposes", adding that they themselves had voluntarily stepped forward to reveal the foul play.

"It is impossible for PAS Youth to use former military personnel who are instilled with discipline and high self-esteem during training and while in service. Indirectly, the Armed Forces general has insulted the four ex-servicemen (who made the recent claims).

"I am confident that there are many other former military personnel who will come forward to expose postal vote manipulation in future... PAS Youth will give them all the space they need," Adram said.

He also slammed Zulkifeli for disregarding the evidence put forward by the four ex-servicemen, saying that the general should have instead arranged to get the information directly from them and subsequently form an investigative body that would in turn present its recommendations to the government.

"Blaming PAS Youth in this postal vote issue is not a wise move. I am very sure the general was not given the true information regarding postal vote manipulationPAS Youth is ever ready to explain this issue to the general... we are not traitors. If we were traitors, we would not give space for a discussion with the Armed Forces general," Adram added.

Must Watch Video Clip: The Confession of Fraudulent Practice of Postal Votes in the Military

2011-08-19T03:33:00.004+08:00

Four more ex-soldiers admit to postal vote fraud

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Four ex-military personnel have confessed to committing election fraud - the same way an ex-army man said he did so earlier this month.

The four, who had served at army and air force bases across the country, say they marked thousands of postal votes in three separate general elections between 1978 and 1999.

The four:

Major (Rtd) Risman Mastor ,
Kamarulzaman Ibrahim,
Mohamed Nasir Ahmad and
Mohd Kamil Omar .

They said they were ordered by their commanding officers to mark postal votes for the hundreds and thousands of personnel who were out in the field.

Their expose today is the second after an ex-army man came forward earlier this month, making a similar claim that he was ordered to mark postal votes for other personnel.

Kamarulzaman, who was a clerk working at the Terendak army camp in Malacca, said he was ordered to spend three days marking thousands of ballot papers during the 1986 general election.

The 53-year-old said he was given three pens of different colours, which he used alternately to sign the postal votes in the absence of the army personnel who were on their tour of duty.

“For example, I would use a blue pen to sign for one serviceman and a black pen to sign for his wife. I was also ordered to mark votes for the opposition,” he said at a press conference hosted at the PAS headquarters by the party's youth wing.

When asked how many postal votes he signed, Kamarulzaman said he could not remember the exact number but was sure that it ran into the thousands.

“If you want to say how many, let's just say my hand went numb (from signing the ballot papers). I basically voted for soldiers from all over the country.”

Kamil, a retired Air Force commando based at the Butterworth Air Force base, claimed he was offered a “reward” if he complied with the order to mark a box full of postal votes during the 1999 general election.

The 21-year veteran however refused to carry out the order, saying that he realised it was not right for him to mark ballots for his colleagues.

“They gave me a box, and expected me to mark all the ballots in 30 minutes. I realised it was wrong,” said the 49-year-old, adding that he has no idea what the “reward” was since he did not carry out the order.

Nasir, 50, who was a clerk based in Sandakan during the 1986 general election, said he and another colleague were told to split over 900 postal votes between them to be marked on behalf of their fellow soldiers.

He pointed out that being in the military, orders are orders and that soldiers were “not too bothered” about politics.

“Even after retirement, we didn't care so much about politics. But when Bersih came about, we started to realise that what we did was not right,” he said.

Risman stressed that this practice went as far back as the 1978 general election, when he and nine others were ordered to go through around 200 sacks - each containing 10 postal votes - during his time at the Kampung Sawah army camp in Port Dickson.

“I did it just that one time... I don't remember the figures but I believe there were about 10 (ballots) in each sack. In effect there were just 10 of us actually voting,” he said.

RELATED ARTICLE

Army Denies Allegation of Fraud of Postal Voting by the Military

Read here for more

Armed Forces chief General Zulkifeli Mohd Zin today described those claiming that its rank-and-file had been involved in electoral fraud as an act of betrayal.

In an emotional statement issued this afternoon, Zulkifeli slammed those making the allegations and questioned their “loyalty” to the Armed Forces of Malaysia (ATM).

He said,

“The actions can be interpreted as treachery and it should stop immediately. The ATM is the nation's wall of defence that should be supported by all levels of the people, regardless of ethnicity, religion and political position...

“It is hoped that the ATM is not made a scapegoat by those seeking to advance their own interests... the people should show their support and appreciation for the contributions of the ATM.In this context: 'How can we be loyal to you if you are disloyal to us'?"

Yesterday, four ex-military personnel confessed to committing election fraud at a press conference organised by opposition party PAS.

The four - Major (Rtd) Risman Mastor, Kamarulzaman Ibrahim, Mohamed Nasir Ahmad and Mohd Kamil Omar - said they had marked thousands of postal votes in three separate general elections between 1978 and 1999.

According to the four, they were ordered by their commanding officers to mark postal votes for the hundreds and thousands of personnel who were out in the field.

Their expose yesterday was the second after an ex-army man came forward earlier this month, making a similar claim that he was ordered to mark postal votes for other military personnel.

Zulkifeli countered the allegations, stressing that the Armed Forces has always respected the freedom of its troops to cast their votes, as enshrined under the Elections Act 1958 and section 16 of the Election Regulations (Postal Votes) 2003.

“The Armed Forces denies that there is any manipulation as claimed,” he said in a written statement, issued to the media at today's press conference.

“The voting process carried out by the Armed Forces is clean, transparent and professional without any interference by all levels of the Armed Forces' leadership.”

Zulkifeli also accused “irresponsible parties” of trying to sully the Armed Forces' image by “poisoning the minds of the rakyat and erode their trust and support” in the Armed Forces – which he described as “apolitical”.

In what appears to be an indirect attack on the opposition – which has been highlighting several allegedly dubious arms acquisitions by the country – he claimed that there have been clear efforts to leak out military secrets and to spread false information regarding the efficacy and capabilities of the Armed Forces' weapons systems.

“Such actions will not only expose military secrets to interested parties who want to know the Armed Forces capabilities, but even worse, it has shaken the confidence of Armed Forces personnel,” he said.

A Malaysian Senator, as DEFENDER of ISLAM, Becomes ARSONIST, Threatens to Burn Down Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider News Portals

2011-08-12T23:32:00.015+08:00

Read here for more

A POTENTIAL
ARSONIST-PARLIAMENTARIAN

(in the holy month of Ramadhan)

Quote

".....Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider, we are giving you a very last warning. Our warning is a serious one.If you do not stop this rubbish, we are going to burn you down!"
- Malaysian Senator Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor (12 August 2011)

UMNO Senator Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor said today he will wage war IN DEFENCE of ISLAM, including burning two online news portals, which he claimed to be agents against Islam.

He said,

"We are saying here that we will launch an all-out WAR to DEFEND our faith (Islam) if they (anti-Islam elements) do not stop (and) use their agents - Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider - which were biadap (rude) towards the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS).

Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider, we are giving you a very last warning. Our warning is a SERIOUS one.

If you do not stop this rubbish, WE are going to burn you down!"

The former ally of PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim - now the opposition leader's bitter foe - blamed the news portals for "Jais' woes" for their coverage of the Selangor religious enforcement body's raid at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) compound last week.

Ezam issued his threats at a highly-charged rally of some 200 people inside the compound of the Selangor state mosque in Shah Alam.

Also present were Kulim Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Nordin and Umno Youth exco member Lokman Noor Adam , who was clad in a red Patriot T-shirt.

Zulkifli, also a former ally of Anwar, echoed Ezam's warning, calling on Muslims working in the news portals to “repent”.

“I see representatives from Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider here, I would like to tell them, particularly Muslims, to repent.

"You are being barua (running dogs) of propagandist and enemy of Islam. Don't be running dogs of kafirs (infidels) that go against us,” he said.

The group, armed with banners, chanted “Long Live Islam” and “Takbir” as they protested against apostasy among Muslims.

One banner read “Faith Sale, Religion Sale” with a picture of Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad's head protruding out of a toilet bowl. Another banner read “Ban English language Bibles”.

Several of the protesters donned masks of state exco leaders while displaying placards, one of which read “(Selangor Menteri Besar) Khalid Ibrahim is head priest”.

Earlier, Ezam launched a broadside against those he deemed disrespectful of Islam, in which he placed prominent figures in the Selangor state government in the same group.

“We have no problem with non-Muslims. But we have big problems with non-Muslims who are disrespectful to us and our religion, we have big problems with non-Muslims who proselytise to Muslims.

“We have big problems with them more so if they are government excos - Ronnie Liu, Teresa Kok, Xavier (Jeyakumar), Elizabeth Wong, we have big problems with you. You better stop before we go all out,” Ezam said.

Later, Zulkifli reaffirmed his support for the Jais raid on DUMC, claiming that there was evidence that showed the dinner event, at which 12 Muslims were present, was intended to proselytise.

“We urge the authorities to take action against DUMC. According to our information, the church is illegal and has not been approved,” he said.

Zulkifli added that he and like-minded protesters would be lodging police reports against DUMC throughout the state from tomorrow onwards, on top of seeking an audience with the sultan to urge action be taken against proselytising.

Bishop Tells Malaysian Christians: Use YOUR Vote in Next Election to STOP Being Vilified by Those in Power

2011-08-07T01:00:00.006+08:00

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Quote

"...It's depressing - this continuing trial of Malaysian Christians by innuendo and insinuation.

Those papers (Berita Harian and Harian Metro) are owned by the powers-that-be (read UMNO-BN) who only recently elected to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican.

Only through the ballot box can we bring this continuing vilification of Christians in Malaysia to a shuddering halt.

Christians should press for proof and, if and when, it is unavailable, express clearly their disgust at the next general election.

The days of Christians in Malaysia being supine objects of the machinations of duplicitous politicians are over....."
- Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing

Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing, said today he was NOT surprised that “hard upon accusations by Jais of Christians proselytising Muslims comes unsubstantiated print media stories seemingly validating those claims.”

He was commenting on on the stories in today's editions of the Berita Harian and Harian Metro that quote a couple of Muslims claiming that they have been targeted by Christian groups as potential converts.

Bishop Dr Paul Tan is the head of the Catholic Church in the Melaka-Johor diocese, who is concurrently president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia.

The prelate advised Christians to press for proof by Jais (Selangor Islamic Affairs Department) that Christians are targeting Muslims for conversion, and that IF such proof is not proffered soon, to act on what that implied at the next general election.

Bishop Tan said,

“It's depressing - this continuing trial of Malaysian Christians by innuendo and insinuation.

Need we be surprised? I'm NOT surprised the stories in those papers do not have anything more than hearsay to back them.

Those papers are OWNED by the powers-that-be who only recently elected to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican.

I don't know whether to laugh out in scorn or cry out in pain at their duplicity and the naivety of those who help them think that publicly expressed good intentions are a sufficient proof of sincerity.

Only through the ballot box can WE bring this continuing vilification of Christians in Malaysia to a shuddering halt.

Christians should press for proof and, if and when, it is unavailable, express clearly their disgust at the next GENERAL ELECTION.

The days of Christians in Malaysia being supine objects of the machinations of duplicitous politicians are OVER.”

"Mahaguru58" aka Zainol Abideen, Indian SUFI Muslim Penchant for Religious Bile Against Non-Muslims

2011-07-12T10:58:00.011+08:00

This pretentious SUFI Muslim, ZAINOL ABIDEEN aka "MAHAGURU58" , a wannabee Malay, attacks Hj Zaid Kamarudin's Islamic credentials because Hj Zaid Kamarudin is part of BERSIH STEERING COMMITEE and working closely with Datuk Ambiga Sreenvasan.

He spills his usual filth in his blog as a Muslim by calling Datuk Ambiga, "seorang MUSUH umat Islam seMalaysia yang nyata"

Of Hj Zaid Kamarudin, this foul-mouth disgraceful SUFI Muslim had this to say,

"Zaid menjadi pisau bermata dua tetapi demi menjaga hati sesama NGO Muslim, mereka terpaksa buat buat tak nampak akan jalan yang dipilih Zaid bersama sama dengan pihak kuffar yang menentang usaha gerakan dakwah Islamiyyah seMalaysia"

Read here more of his unIslamic garbage in MAHAGURU58 BLOG

Related Article

Fatwa dari Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaaan di atas tariqat sufi ini di sini:( http://www.mail-archive.com/islah-net@yahoogroups.com/msg06556.html)

“Keputusan Fatwa Muzakarah Jawatankuasa Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Agama Islam:"

a)Tariqat Naqsyabandiah Al-Aliyyah di bawah pimpinan Syeikh Nazim bertentangan dengan fahaman akidah Ahli Sunnah Wal-Jamaah dan menyeleweng dari ajaran Islam. Pengamal ajaran ini hendaklah segera bertaubat.

b) Semua negeri dikehendaki memfatwa dan mewartakan bahawa tariqat Naqsyabandiah Al-Aliyyah di bawah pimpinan Syeikh Nazim diharamkan dan tidak boleh diamalkan oleh umat Islam kerana ia bercanggah dengan ajaran Islam yang sebenar."

Mahaguru58 ini mengikuti sebuah tarikat bernama “Tariqat Naqsyabdi Al Aliyyah ".

Ini diakui oleh Mahaguru58 sendiri dalam artikel yang beliau sendiri tulis. (http://mahaguru58.blogspot.com/2006/07/tariqat-naqsyabandiah-sufi-mureeds.html).

Kalau Benar Mahaguru58 Masih Mengikut Tariqat Ini, Minta Beliau Bertaubat

Blogger "Mahaguru58" posing with his SUFI mentors

9th July 2011 SATURDAY - Malaysia's D-Day for Democracy

2011-07-09T02:07:00.041+08:00

CLICK HERE FOR MORE PHOTOS OF THE BERSIH RALLY ON 9 JULY 2011

READ FOR MORE in MALAYSIAKINI

6.45pm: IPK KL - Ambiga Sreenevasan has been released from detention. KL CID chief Ku Chin Wa said that the police would decide whether to take action against her after investigations are concluded.

6.30pm: Police say 1,401 protesters were arrested during the day-long operation, including 13 children.

4.40pm: Pudu - Suhakam commissioner Muhammad Sha'ani B Abdullah condemns the authorities for their harsh handling of the protesters.The police force has not only disrespect the people's rights of assembly but also compromise the safety and health of the public by firing tear gas into the Tung Shin hospital compound.When asked how can the people respond to such violations, he said Malaysians should choose representatives who can protect their rights.

4.50pm: Fadiah Nadwa Fikri of Lawyers for Liberty says that the police have invoked section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code - denial of access to lawyers - at Pulapol (Police Training Centre), where she says 1,000 people are being detained.
According to her, this is a violation of Article 5 of constitution.

4.21pm: Bersih committee to call press conference at 4.45pm at Midah Hotel.

4.10pm: Light Rail Train (LRT) stations still closed, according to RapidKL - Pasar Seni, KL Sentral, Masjid Jamek and Dang Wangi.

4.01pm: PDRM Facebook - Among the top leaders arrested are:
Mahfuz Omar - KL Central
Salahuddin Ayub - KL Central
Mohamad Sabu - Jalan Mahameru
Fauziah Salleh - KL Central
Tian Chua - KL Central
S Ambiga - KL Central
Hadi Awang - KL Central
Azeez Rahim - Jalan Bukit Bintang

4pm: Istana Negara - The Bersih 2.0 delegation of about 20 people led by A Samad Said were stopped from marching to the palace gates by the police about 200m away.Negotiations with the police failed and the group agreed to disperse. However, Samad said he needed to rest and the group left him alone with the police before leaving the area.

3.50pm: Istana Negara - A small group of Bersih 2.0 steering committee members are marching towards the palace from Midah Hotel. They are awaiting clearance from the palace to submit Bersih 2.0's petition.

KL Hilton - In an impromptu press conference, PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar, N Surendran and PAS deputy secretary general Syed Azman condemn the police's brutality that they allege has caused injury to several Pakatan leaders.They say besides PKR de-facto chief Anwar Ibrahim, who has been sent to Pantai Hospital, PAS Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad and Bersih 2.0 leaders Maria Chin Abdullah and A Samad Said have also sustained injuries.

3.50am: Pasar Seni - Bersih leader Wong Chin Huat, after reading out the eight demands of Bersih 2.0, call on the crowd to disperse.The crowd begins to disperse peacefully but many of them still chanting 'Reformasi' and 'Bersih' under the Pasar Seni LRT station.The police responded by firing another round of tear gas into the crowd.

The crowd of about 600 people are now urging the police to show restraint, yelling out “Sabar! Sabar!” (Calm down! Calm down!) at the officers, but more are surging towards the historic stadium despite coming up against police barricades. Some Bersih leaders are trying to get the demonstrators to hold a sitdown, but are unable to make themselves heard above the roar, while earlier cries of “Reformasi!” appear to be weakening.But the cheer picks up each time a new group of demonstrators successfully makes it past the police barricade and into the stadium compound.

3.49pm: Pudu - The group of Bersih 2.0 supporters caught in a pincer between two police cordons in Tung Shin Hospital have now dispersed after police rushed in and begin to arrest dozens.Most have fled using the back roads and alleys in small groups to make their escape while a hardcore few holed up in the upper parking lot of the hospital. The police subsequently fired tear gas canister at them and the last remaining holdouts were either arrested or left voluntarily.At least 50 were arrested as police broke up the Tung Shing hospital crowd.

3.40pm: Titiwangsa Lake Gardens - About 20 Perkasa members are seen at a restaurant in Titiwangsa Lake Gardens, following the goings-on of the Bersih 2.0 rally through the television. However the group's president Ibrahim Ali and his deputy was nowhere to be seen.

3.38pm: Pudu - The 2,000-strong crowd at Pudu have now been denied safe passage to Jalan Sultan, and riot police have fired both water cannons and tear gas on the protesters assembled in front of the Tung Shin hospital. The crowd is now sandwiched between two FRU blockades.The police started spraying the crowd after negotiations broke down between police and Pakatan MPs R Sivarasa and Ngeh Khoo Ham, following confusion over what the crowd is required to do.It was learnt that the crowd were told to only use one side of the road and march peacefully, while it was understood that the police had wanted them to disperse into smaller groups before they would be allowed to march.It is believed that Sivarasa has been detained, though it is unknown where he is being taken to.

3.37pm: Pasar Seni - The triumphant group from Stadium Merdeka marched down Jalan Sultan towards Central Market, but they were attacked by tear gas by police near the Pasar Seni LRT Station.This has forced then to retreat down Jalan Sultan.

3.25pmThe 300 Umno Youth supporters at Jalan Bukit Bintang in front of Federal Hotel begin to disperse after negotiation with the police.Claiming moral victory despite only being able to proceed 200m along Jalan Bukit Bintang - still far from their Stadium Merdeka destination - Umno Youth exco Megat Omardin said that their message have been conveyed.Umno Youth Petaling Jaya Utara chief Arman Azha told Malaysiakini that exco Lokman Noor Adam as well as 20 of their members have been arrested.

3.20pm: Pudu - Police have agreed to give safe passage to the thousands of protesters assembled at Pudu up till Jalan Sultan on condition that they only use half of the road and march peacefully. The accord was met after Pakatan parliamentarians R Sivarasa and Ngeh Khoo Ham negotiated with the police, who also decided to allow the crowd to chant as they march. The crowd has begun to march from Pudu towards Jalan Sultan, thanking the police for allowing them safe passage. The 2,000-strong crowd also began singing Negaraku as they march.

310pm: PDRM Facebook - The total number of people arrested as of 2.30pm has reached 672.

3.00 pm: The crowd disperses into Tung Shing Hospital and a nearby Chinese school. Police are firing tear gas into the hospital in attempts to disperse the protestors.
There is brief respite as Subang MP R Sivarasa tries to negotiate with the police to allow protestors to move back to Masjid Negara.

2.56pm: Puduraya - At Jln Hang Jebat near Stadium Merdeka, 3,000 Bersih supporters are gathered here attempting to move over to Stadium Merdeka nearby.They meet a blockade with barbed wire. The crowd, growing by the minute, groups i front of the cops and chant at them.Led by PAS election director Hatta Ramli and PKR Johor chief Chua Jui Meng, the crowd calls for the police to remove the barricades to no avail.
The two leaders give a short speech each telling the crowd they have accomplished their mission in arriving at the stadium, despite being unable to enter.They thank the police and tell the crowd to return to Central Market.

2.55pm: There's a standstill between the Umno Youth's Patriot rally and the FRU with neither side budging.About three arrests were made when Umno Youth tried to break through the FRU line, breaking out into a scuffle before a tear gas canister was fired. Khairy Jamaluddin is subsequently arrested. Water cannons and tear gas have also been fired at the remaining Umno Youth supporters, pushing them back 50m from where they originally were.The group has thinned out to about 200 people.

2.50pm: KL Sentral - PKR vice-president N Surendran told Malaysiakini Anwar is bleeding from the head and injured one of his knees.

2.45pm: KL Sentral - Anwar Ibrahim tweets that he has suffered a minor injury and that his two daugthers - Nurul Izzah and Nurul Hana - has been arrested during the melee.Bersih 2.0 chief Ambiga Sreenevasan confirms that she has been arrested.

Bukit Bintang - The Umno Youth group have stopped in front of Royale Bintang Hotel where they are walking towards another Bersih group at the Jalan Pudu-Bukit Bintang intersection.

Puduraya - The crowd here is breaking up into smaller groups. They are believe to be taking separate routes towards Stadium Merdeka.

2.43pm: Pandemonium breaks out at KL Sentral as police fire tear gas in a closed environment as Bersih 2.0 and opposition leaders attempted to exit the station via Brickfields.The tear gas forced protesters back into the station, which has been locked down. Journalists outside KL Sentral were barred from entering the station, making it difficult to verify the status of the situation. It was however confirmed that a group of Pakatan leaders and individuals were arrested in the chaos, including Batu MP Tian Chua, Pantai Dalam MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, Kuala Selangor MP Dzukefly Ahmad, artist Wong Hoy Cheong, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang's son and three other supporters.

2.41pm: PDRM Facebook: As of 2pm, 644 arrested - 597 males and 47 females.

The Bersih group moves towards Maybank, and walk just 500 metres in front of the Patriot group. It is evident that despite their differences, there is some coordination with the Bersih group when scores of Umno Youth exco seen stopping their members from clashing with the Bersih group. However, some are insistent at pressing forward, baying for blood.

2.30pm: Brickfields - The Pakatan Rakyat and Bersih 2.0 crowd has managed to emerge from KL Sentral and have entered Jalan Tun Sambanthan where they are met by almost 1,000 supporters.Bersih 2.0 chief Ambiga Sreenevasan, Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang and other personalities are spotted among the crowd.
While proceeding towards the city centre, they were pelted with tear gas cannisters and chaos ensued. Many of the top leaders including Ambiga, fellow Bersih 2.0 steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah and five MPs have been arrested.

2.20pm: Puduraya - The 10,000-strong crowd led by PAS leader Dr Hatta Ramli and PKR leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin has regrouped and move towards town centre.However, the police fire yet another round of tear gas to disperse the crowd.

2.18pm: Pudu-Bukit Bintang - As the drizzle starts, the crowds raise their hands and cheer again, and retreat towards Bukit Bintang.Penang deputy chief minister II P Ramasamy's political secretary Satees Muniandy reports, “I'm at Jln Pudu. Rain is God's blessing. The crowd is building up especially under the bridge. Thousands are not leaving despite water cannons, tear gas.”

2.10pm: Puduraya - The police are increasingly harsh towards protestors. Some are dragged on the road. One protestor was bleeding from the head.Some police officers were seen punching and pushing protestors who were trying to flee. In one incident, several protesters were forced to jump off a six-foot high ledge to evade capture.

1.59pm: Puduraya - Police fired tear gas on an estimated 10,000-strong crowd, which converges in Puduraya, in front of Menara Maybank. Part of the crowd came in from Masjid Jamek while others are from Petaling Street.Police had to resort to using tear gas after the water cannon failed to stop their advance. People in the crowd appear to be recovering from the tear gas and are coming back together to continue with their march.

1.59pm: Police fired tear gas on an estimated 10,000-strong crowd marching in front of Menara Maybank along Jalan Tun Perak. The crowd came in from Masjid Jamek and were en-route to Puduraya.Police had to resort to using tear gas after the water cannon failed to stop their advance. People in the crowd appear to be recovering from the tear gas and are coming back together to continue with their march.

1.57pm: Malaysia Hotel - Khairy Jamaluddin appears at the Umno Youth rally and gives out a short speech. He said that Bersih 2.0 cannot be supported because it is infiltrated by opposition parties.He then leads the crowd in a march towards Stadium Merdeka. They will likely bump into a section of the Bersih 2.0 crowd.

1.55pm: It begins raining in Kuala Lumpur.

1.52pm: Masjid Jamek - There are at least four police trucks stationed at Masjid Jamek LRT station.Crowd has been dispersed by the police tear gas for now, but it is expected they will be regrouped later.

1.43pm: Masjid Jamek - A group of about 10 general duty police officers with gas masks chased after the protesters who ran helter skelter into Masjid India area.

1.40pm: Menara Maybank - Water cannons unleashed on more than 1,000 protestors.

1.38pm: LRT Masjid Jamek - A police officer with loudhailer announced: “Perhimpunan hari in tak ada kebenaran jadi diminta semua bersurai serta merta atau kami suraikan dengan kekerasan.”The officer also gave three minutes for the crowd to disperse.
This was met with “takbir” and jeers from the crowd, numbering about more than 500 people.

1.35pm: Press statement by IPK KL.Thus far, 540 people have been arrested (479 male, 58 women, three juvenile) have been arrested for further investigation.
Among the arrested, 11 were wearing yellow Bersih T-shirt and one was wearing a red Patriot T-shirt. Meanwhile, three individuals believed to be leaders or organisers of the rally were also arrested. They are PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, and party veeps Salahuddin Ayub, Mahfuz Omar.

1.33pm: Jalan Tun Perak - PAS leader Dr Hatta Ramli with a loudspeaker tells the crowd of at least 4,000 that party vice-president Mahfuz Omar and about 300 others have been arrested."The rakyat's struggle requires sacrifices... Those under 40 here have never seen real democracy in this country," he said.The crowd reply with "Allahuakbar".There are traffic marshals from Bersih also directing the crowd to make way for vehicles passing through.

1.30pm: Malaysia Hotel - About 500 Umno Youth members have gathered at Jalan Bukit Bintang. They are all wearing red T-shirts with the word 'Patriot'. These T-shirts are also being given out to the public, including tourist.The Umno Youth rally is aided with a pickup truck. Speakers would give speeches from the back of the truck and throw down T-shirts.Among those present are Umno Youth leaders Arman Azhar, Reezal Merican Naina Merican, Zaki Zahid but there is no sign of the movement's leader Khairy Jamaluddin. His officers insist he will show up later.The group is currently stationary and chanting "Hancur Bersih" and "Who are me? Patriot!". They narrowly missed a Bersih 2.0 procession by about 10 minutes.

1.22pm: Petaling Street - The group of a few thousand which is marching to Stadium Negara turn back to Jalan Tan Cheng Lock after encountering a roadblock.A large group of Sarawakians are chanting 'Hidup Sarawak', receiving applause from the rest.

1.21am: Top Bersih leaders Ambiga Sreenevasan, Haris Ibrahim, Wong Chin Huat and A Samad Said are in Hilton Hotel. They are with politicians William Leong, Kamaruddin Jaafar, Zaid Kamaruddin, Syed Azman Syed Nawawi and Tian Chua. They join Anwar Ibrahim who is in the hotel.It is confirmed PKR deputy president Azmin Ali has been arrested and was brought to Pulapol (Police Training Centre). Earlier, PAS vice-presidents Mahfuz Omar and Salahuddin Ayub were also arrested.

12.51pm: Hilton Hotel - PKR leaders Nurul Izzah Anwar, Syed Husin Ali, Lateefah Koya arrive in Anwar Ibrahim's hotel room. Local and foreign media are at the lobby.

12.55pm: Pudu Plaza - DAP leader Teresa Kok is defying her ban and leading protesters to start the march towards Merdeka Stadium.The crowd is shouting, "Bersih, bersih," "Hidup rakyat" , "Rakyat sudah bangun," and "Daulat Tuanku."The have at press time reached Shaw Parade, with no sign yet of any police interference.
The crowd soon swells to two thousand, with the DAP-led march cleverly sticking to tourist spots at Sungei Wang and Low Yat Plaza past Federal Hotel to foil police action.They are also sending motorcycle recces to keep them informed of police presence ahead.

12.50pm: About 3,000 to 4,000 people are marching from Petaling Street in downtown Kuala Lumpur to Stadium Negara.They are chanting "Bersih, Bersih, Pilihanraya" and "Hidup, Hidup, Rakyat".Six middle-aged protestors began a rendition of Negaraku, which immediately received a strong response from the crowd, which sing along.

12.20pm: Pudu Plaza - At Jalan Landak, Pudu, some 200 people have started to gather, preparing for the rally.Police are scattered about, searching the protestors' bags and belongings without any further action.A small quarrel breaks out between protestors and Pudu security personnel when they try to chase them away.Some foodstalls and restaurants are still operating, and a durian stall is seen offering protestors a taste of their wares.DAP leaders who have shown up include Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun, PJ Utara MP Tony Pua, Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching, Bukit Bendera MP Liew Ching Tong, Segambut MP Lim Lip Éng, Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham, Selangor exco Ean Yong Hian Wah, Lukut Adun Ean Yong Tin Sin, Pasir Pinjir Adun Thomas Soo, Bahau Adun Teo Kok Seong.

--------------------------------------------
9.35am: Masjid Jamek - Seven people have been detained. It is unsure why. Reporters are now allowed to get near the truck where they are held. "You cannot be here. Please speak to my officer if you want to enter this area," said a police personnel.

9.30am: Maju Junction - Four men are being whisked away by the police after police found a yellow shirts in one of their bags.

9.25am: Kampung Baru - Another 18 males have been brought to the police truck, joining the nine detained earlier. The truck is parked in front of the Kampung Baru mosque, has locked up by the mosque committee about ten minutes ago.

9.00am: Stadium Merdeka - The route to the stadium from Jalan Maharajalela is being blocked with a barbwire barricade. Journalists who wish to enter the area must registered with the police.

8.40am: Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman - Bar Council's monitoring team hits the streets donning black suits and a "Observer" tags on their jackets. "We will monitor the rally and take photographs if necessary. There are about 100 observers from Bar Council. Some of them are also providing legal aid," said HR Dipendra, who leads a team of 15 observers.

8.45am: PAS headquarters. PAS' top leaders are believed to be holed up here.A group of unidentified men has set up a video camera opposite the PAS building.

As of 8.30am, LRT services are operating as usual, without any stations inaccessible.

8.10am: Tune Hotel - The Jalan Sultan Ismail and Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman interchange is being manned by about 100 police personnel who are inspecting all vehicles entering the area. Tourist appear to be having trouble finding taxis.

7.50am: Masjid Jamek - Heavy police presence. Road in front of the mosque has been sealed off.

7.45am: Masjid Negara - A dozen FRU jeeps and a water cannon truck is stationed at the Jalan Keretapi roundabout oppositite the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court complex. No roadblocks are visible, but there are many police personnel in the area.

MALAYSIA'S MOMENT OF TRUTH : 2pm, July 9, 2011 (Saturday) Stadium Merdeka:

2011-07-08T20:17:00.005+08:00

CLICK HERE ON LOCATION AND TIME OF BERSIH RALLIES AROUND THE WORLD

Below is Bersih 2.0's statement in full:

2pm, July 9, Stadium Merdeka:
Malaysia's Moment of Truth

Malaysians from all walks of life have travelled a very long road to reach this defining point in our nation's history.

With less than 24 hours to our intended peaceful gathering, our resolve to walk the last, most difficult mile as one united people in pursuit of clean and fair elections and a better Malaysia for all is firmer than ever.

Our reason for gathering is pure and simple – to demand the electoral roll be cleaned, that the postal voting system be reformed, that indelible ink be used, a minimum 21 day campaign period be instated, free and fair access to media for all be provided, public institutions be strengthened, and for corruption as well as dirty politics to be stopped.

The authorities have put obstacle after obstacle where they only needed to provide sincere cooperation to win the trust and confidence of the people.

Having faced half hearted offers of stadiums, arrogance regarding meetings as well as denials of permits, arrests, detentions and so much more, we feel that we have done all that is humanly possible to demonstrate sincerity and good faith in dealing with the government – but we have only been met with reversed decisions and stone walls.

There are no walls however, that will arrest the advance of the cause of peace and justice.

Come the 9th of July, we will uphold our constitutional right to converge peacefully on Stadium Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur.

No government agency has any right whatsoever to prevent Malaysians from exercising their freedom of movement and access to our capital city. No threat or intimidation can overturn this fundamental truth.

Malaysians have now seen for themselves the degree of paranoia and lack of principled leadership that seems to have gripped the government. It is thus all the more imperative that patriotic Malaysians rise now and take this stand together to save Malaysia from slipping further into this insane darkness.

Since the beginning of Bersih 2.0, we have witnessed nothing but the utmost bravery and commitment to peace and justice demonstrated by ordinary Malaysians from every walk of life.

Inspired by this example, the Bersih 2.0 leadership reiterates our own unyielding commitment to our shared cause, and to being at Stadium Merdeka at 2pm tomorrow.

We will meet at the carpark, and trust that the doors will be opened for us.

This is Malaysia's single most important defining moment in recent history, and we are fully confident that the rahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifkyat will heed the call to safeguard the principles Malaysia was founded on and together ensure that we pass down to our children a nation that is just, democratic and united in love for one another.

PEOPLE, THE CHOICE IS YOURS

Read here for more in FREE MALAYSIA TODAY

Tomorrow is the big walk.

It is open to all Malaysians who believe in upholding democracy. Democracy is a big word but it has a simple meaning: it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

It is the people who are the masters of the country. The destiny of the country lies in their hands. Only they can decide which way they want the land of their birth to move.

They do this by casting their votes at the appointed time. They speak through the ballot box. They choose representatives of good character to sit in Parliament to champion their interests. But in the course of time, things can go wrong. Like what is happening now.

The government is NOT on the side of the people wanting to exercise their right to a peaceful assembly for a cause that strenghtens, and not wrecks, public institutions.

When thousands of ordinary men and women show up for the “Walk for Democracy” tomorrow, be it on the streets or in a stadium, they are not waging war against the government.

They have no reason to do so.

They are not rebels pouring out of the jungles or coming down from the mountains to capture the capital and set up another government. They are just plain ordinary citizens who wish to support a non-governmental organisation fighting for clean and fair elections. What is wrong with that?

But what is wrong with the government? Why is the state acting irrationally? Why does it see red in yellow? Suddenly everything has turned ugly. The government we elected to represent us has become our enemy.

Now it is state power versus the will of the people. The state says the rally is illegal. Bersih is illegal. Bersih T-shirt is also illegal. Everything connected with the movement is unlawful. Even the meeting at the palace between the King and Bersih does not appear to be legal. The state is doing everything in its power to make the people hate Bersih – and love the government.

It is plain for all to see that the people are not taking the bait. Acting harsh and repressive is clearly not going to win the government any brownie points.

Malaysians love peace but at the same time they do not like to be bullied into submission. Times have changed. People can think for themselves and separate truth from lies. In the Bersih story the government does not come out smelling sweet, innocent, clean.

The show will go on tomorrow and history is in the making. Do you want to take a stroll? It is up to you, the people, to decide the course of history. The government would prefer you not to go, but you do NOT need to heed its advice.

Then again you can be arrested for wearing a yellow Bersih T-shirt or simply anything yellow. You can be roughed up, beaten, tear-gassed at a hint of trouble.

The walk may turn into a rout. The risks are there. You are defenceless citizens up against the might of the state.

The crackle of a gunfire may ring out but the government must know the sound will reverberate all over the world.

People, the choice is yours.

The UMNO-Led BN Govt Gone MAD... ...

2011-07-08T03:23:00.005+08:00

The WALL STREET JOURNAL

Read here for more

RUNNING SCARED IN MALAYSIA...

by

John Malott
(Mr. Malott was the United States ambassador to Malaysia from 1995-98)

The Malaysian government has pulled out all the stops to prevent an opposition rally this weekend.

This week, army units conducted crowd control exercises with banners that said, "Disperse or we will shoot!" The police set up roadblocks and arrested Malaysians simply for wearing yellow T-shirts, the signature color of Bersih, a coalition of 62 nongovernmental organizations that demands changes in Malaysia's electoral system.

To date, the police have arrested over 250 supporters of Bersih, claiming that they are "waging war against the king."

Then something unprecedented happened. Malaysia's King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, allegedly the target of Bersih's campaign, intervened. He called on both Prime Minister Najib Razak and Bersih to resolve their differences in a spirit of harmony and cooperation, for the good of the nation.

There was a collective sigh of relief in Malaysia.

The leader of Bersih, Ambiga Sreenevasan, an attorney and former president of the Malaysian Bar Council, met with the king and announced that the "Walk for Democracy," as it was called, was cancelled. She said that she was ready to meet with the government to discuss Bersih's concerns about electoral fairness.

Prime Minister Najib then offered an olive branch, saying, "We are willing to provide a stadium for them to rally in … from morning until night," an offer that Ms. Ambiga and Bersih immediately accepted.

Then Mr. Najib backed off. His government says that because Bersih is still illegal, it cannot apply for a permit. It also has banned Bersih's leadership from entering Kuala Lumpur on the day of the rally.

On Thursday, he joined a gathering of martial artists who said that their 50,000 members will "wage war" against Bersih. Donning their militant uniform, Mr. Najib said, "If there are evil enemies who want to attack the country from within, you, my brothers, will rise to fight them."

Mr. Najib has undermined the authority of the king, who gave Bersih and its concerns credence by meeting with its leadership and calling for a negotiated solution. The political situation in Malaysia is a fast-moving target, and each day brings new developments. Ms. Ambiga and Bersih now say that because of Mr. Najib's actions, they will go ahead with their assembly, no matter

Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. Bersih's main issue is not freedom of assembly but the fairness of Malaysia's democratic process. Bersih's backers ask how anyone can be opposed to free and fair elections.

It's an easy question to answer. The United Malays National Organization, of which Mr. Najib is president, is the longest continuing ruling party in the world, and it is running scared.

In the last general election in 2008, Malaysia's opposition took 47% of the popular vote. That year Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the party of Mr. Najib's nemesis Anwar Ibrahim, went from one seat to 31. The establishment parties in Malaysia's neighboring states are also in retreat. The opposition scored a major victory in Thailand last weekend, and in Singapore opposition candidates made surprising gains. No wonder Mr. Najib and company are worried.

Many observers of Malaysian politics believe that electoral reform will lead to the ruling party's defeat, and that is why UMNO is afraid of Bersih. In the last election in 2008, the party received only one-third of the nation's votes. UMNO rules only because of its coalition with other political parties, which it increasingly marginalizes, that represent the Chinese and Indian minorities.

Mr. Najib and his allies say that the opposition's gains in 2008 prove that Malaysia's elections are free and fair. Impartial observers disagree. Academic studies have enumerated how the Election Commission gerrymanders electoral districts to benefit the ruling party.

The U.S. Department of State's human rights report bluntly states that opposition parties are unable to compete on equal terms with the governing coalition because of restrictions on campaigning and freedom of assembly and association.

"News of the opposition," the U.S. says, is "tightly restricted and reported in a biased fashion."

In the recent state elections in Sarawak, the government announced $390 million in local projects during the run-up to the polls. Prime Minister Najib was caught on video tape telling one village gathering that the government would give them 5 million ringgit ($1.5 million) for a local project on Monday, but only if they elected his candidate on Sunday.

Who would win elections in Malaysia that truly are free and fair?

The U.S. State Department reports that despite the many election irregularities during the 2008 elections, "most observers concluded they did not substantially alter the results."

But unless the electoral reforms that Bersih is calling for are made, we will never know.

Despite the government's intimidation, thousands of Malaysian citizens of all races and religions are expected to exercise their constitutional right to assemble and call for free and fair elections.

Tomorrow's protest represents a brave step in what not just Malaysians but also the international community should hope will begin the country's transition to full democracy.

Mr. Najib should display his own courage and ensure that a peaceful rally that seeks the fundamental rights of democratic peoples everywhere does not turn into a bloody confrontation.

RELATED ARTICLES

Faced with mounting pressure that a rally will be held this weekend, the Public Services Department (PSD) has issued a circular barring civil servants from participating in an illegal assembly or any movement which may hurt the security of the nation.

The letter dated June 30 and signed by the PSD director-general, Abu Bakar Abdullah, did not name which rally.Three are planned for this weekend, organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0), Perkasa and Umno Youth.Read here for more
Khairy Jamaluddin accused the city police today of reigniting tensions over the Bersih rally by getting a court order barring him and 90 others from entering the city on Saturday.

The Umno Youth chief arrived home from a volunteer mission to Gaza this evening to find himself “outlawed from the city he lives in.”“Instead of working on a solution they have taken the solution away,” the Rembau MP said of the court order that denies Bersih’s hopes of holding its rally in Stadium Merdeka.

“The situation is in limbo. Nobody knows what is next,” he said, adding that the Umno Youth leadership would meet tomorrow morning to discuss its options.Earlier today, Khairy had posted on micro-blogging site Twitter that he has “just landed back in KL after trying to break Israeli blockade of Gaza only to find that I’ve been blockaded from KL. Excuse me if I say WTF?” Read here for more
The police have placed a restriction order on 91 individuals, including organisers of the Bersih 2.0, Perkasa and Umno Youth's Patriot rallies. The order is to stop any of the 91 from being present at several spots in Kuala Lumpur on July 9.
"This means that anyone (on the list) caught present at these areas will be arrested on sight," said the city deputy police chief Amar Singh.

Full list of 91 individuals

Perkasa

Ibrahim Ali
Rahman bin Abu Bakar
Syed Hassan Syed Ali
Irawah Fahmi Ideris
Roslan Kassim
Sharifuddin Abd Hamid
Dr Zubir Harun
Ameir Hassan
Ahmad Saad
Ahmad Zaini Ismail
Muhammad Zaid Md Arip
Abdullah Mansor
Zaira Jaafar
Norkhaila Jamaludin

Pemuda Umno

Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar
Megat Firdouz Megat Junid
Reezal Merican Naina Merican
Megat Zulkarnaian Omardin
Rizalman Mokhtar
Tengku Azman Tengku Zainol Abidin
Lokman Noor Adam
Abdul Azeez Rahim
Ungku Saleh Ungku Jamal
Arman Azha Abu Hanifa
Tun Faisal Ismail Aziz

Bersih

Ambiga Sreenevasan
Mohamad Sabu
Hishamuddin Md Rais
Khairul Anwar Ahmad Zainuddin
Maria Chin Abdullah
Chua Tian Chang
Kamarulzaman Mohamad
Dr Mohd Hatta Md Ramli
Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud
Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh
Teresa Kok
Badrul Hisha Shaharin
Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin
Arutchelvam Subramaniam
Wong Chin Huat
Ong Boon Keong
Enalini Elumalai
Haris Fathillah Sathiasingam Mohd Ibrahim
Khalid Yunus
Zulkifli Noordin
Dr Zubir Harun
Abd Hadi Awang
Anwar Ibrahim
Lim Kit Siang
Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat
Nurul Izzah Anwar
Kohila Yanasekaran
Zaid Kamaruddin
Khoo Teng Swee
Fadiah Nadwa Fikri
Yap Swee Seng
Salahuddin Ayub
Mahfuz Omar
Nasarudin Hasan
Mazlan Aliman
Dr Syed Azman Syed Nawawi
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad
Dr Mujahid Yusof
Khalid Abd Samad
Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin
Azman Shapawi Abd Rani
Suhaizan Kaiat
Nor Azli Musa
Mohd Firdaus Jaafar
Loke Siew Fook
Lau Wen San
Mohd Azmin Ali
Mat Shuhaimi Shafie
Satipul Bahari Amamt
Wan Hassan Mohd Ramli
Mohamad Izzudin Hilmi Mohd Zaini
Mohd Shazni Munir Mohd Ithnin
Muhammad Hilman Idham
Mohd Shukri Che Ab Razab
Mohd Syukri Kamaruddin
Ahmad Syazwan Muhammad Hasan
Choo Chon Kai
Sarasvathy Muthu
Soh Sook Hwa
Nurul Izham Nurul Anuar
Abd Rahim Osman
Mohd Sibri Ismail
Mohd Lukam Muda
Prof Kamaruddin Kachar
Mohd Noor Nordin Abdullah

Bersih 2.0 RALLY WILL TAKE PLACE at STADIUM MERDEKA on SATURDAY 9th July at 2 pm

2011-07-07T04:56:00.009+08:00

FOLLOWING FULL STATEMENT FROM:

Steering Committee
Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH 2.0)

Bersih 2.0 WILL happen at Stadium Merdeka on July 9th (SATURDAY)

Bersih 2.0 is disappointed in the manner in which the Prime Minister and his cabinet has reneged on their offer to provide a stadium for us to hold our peaceful gathering.

As members of civil society that are committed to principles of integrity, we fully intend to abide by the advice of Tuanku DYMM SPB YDP Agong and hold our gathering in a stadium to state our demand for clean and fair elections.

We have chosen Stadium Merdeka as the best venue for this event, due to its symbolic nature and central location, and we will not for one moment be swayed from our decision to gather there peacefully.

If the Prime Minister is a man of his word, he will make the appropriate arrangements for the event to proceed peacefully at Stadium Merdeka.

Whether or not the government abides by their principles, we the Malaysian people will always uphold ours. Our determination to exercise our constitutional right to gather peacefully for a just and reasonable cause is unwavering.

Recent statements by the Deputy IGP seem to indicate that the police fully intend to take action against us if we do anything on July 9th beyond staying at home.

However, patriotic Malaysians who want nothing but the ability to choose our leaders through genuinely democratic means will never be cowered by the unjust and immoral exercise of power.

Our first and foremost responsibility is to our future and our children, and we have resolved that they shall inherit a nation ruled by not by fear, but by the principles of justice.

Whatever happens between now and then, the rakyat will gather peacefully in an orderly fashion to call for clean and fair elections at Stadium Merdeka on the 9th of July at 2pm.

We are coming, we will be peaceful and together, we will build a better Malaysia.

Steering Committee
Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH 2.0)

The Steering Committee of BERSIH 2.0 comprises:

Ambiga Sreenevasan (Chairperson), Andrew Khoo, Arul Prakkash, K Arumugam, Dr Farouk Musa, Haris Ibrahim, Liau Kok Fah, Maria Chin Abdullah, Richard Y W Yeoh, Subramaniam Pillay, Dr Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat, Yeo Yang Poh and Zaid Kamaruddin.

-----------

RELATED ARTICLES

Information and culture minister Rais Yatim said that the cabinet had decided the Bersih 2.0 rally could not be held in any stadiums within Kuala Lumpur, casting fresh doubt it would go ahead at all."Their application to hold the rally in Kuala Lumpur, such as in Stadium Merdeka, Stadium Negara dan Stadium Bukit Jalil will not be entertained." Read here for more
The management of Stadium Merdeka has refused to allow the facility to be used for the Bersih 2.0 rally on Saturday.Read here for more
Dewan pemuda PAS Pusat mengulangi komitmen mereka untuk menghantar 30,000 ahlinya dari setiap negeri ke himpunan aman Bersih 2.0 yang dijadual diadakan di Stadium Merdeka pada Sabtu ini."Kami akan pastikan jumlah asal 30 ribu pemuda dari setiap negeri akan dicapai.Kita harap jangan luntur semangat dan batal hasrat menyertai himpunan tersebut walaupun telah ditukar ke stadium," kata ketuanya, Nasruddin Hassan kepada Harakahdaily hari ini.Read here for more
Pemuda PAS Johor akan mengerahkan lebih 30 ribu ahli dan penyokong untuk hadir secara beramai-ramai ke Perhimpunan Bersih 2.0 yang akan diadakan di Stadium Merdeka, Sabtu ini.Mereka tidak perlu bimbang untuk hadir kerana himpunan itu bukan himpunan haram, sebaliknya himpunan halal yang dilindungi oleh Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Malaysia dan tidak bertentangan dengan Akta Polis 1967.Ketua Pemuda PAS Johor, Suhaizan Kaiat berkata, tambahan pula, Jawatankuasa Bersih 2.0 tidak perlu mendapat permit daripada pihak polis untuk mengadakan perhimpunan dalam stadium kerana kawasan tersebut adalah kawasan persendirian.Read here for more
Rakyat TIDAK harus BERUNDUR tuntutan Bersih

Read here for more

Senator Mumtaz Md Nawi menyifatkan Bersih 2.0 menempa satu kejayaan awal apabila Yang di-Pertuan Agong memberikan ruang untuk mereka mengadakan perhimpunan di stadium pada 9 Julai ini.

Sambil mengucapkan tahniah kepada sekretariat Bersih 2.0 yang bersifat terbuka untuk sebarang rundingan, Mumtaz berkata, Bersih 2.0 menunjukkan pendirian yang jelas iaitu ingin memastikan lapan tuntutan mereka didengar untuk diambil tindakan.

"Ini menunjukkan sikap terbuka pihak Bersih 2.0 nak menyelesaikan isu. Ia bukan masalah nak menunjukkan bantahan sahaja.

"Kalau memang tujuan mereka nak berjalan, mereka akan teruskan di jalan raya tapi kerana tujuan untuk menyelesaikan masalah.

"Ini satu tindakan matang dan rasional pihak Bersih 2.0 dalam menghormati Yang di-Pertuan Agong, bersikap terbuka, dan sekurang-kurangnya sudah nampak satu kejayaan apabila diberi satu ruang untuk dengar tuntutannya secara terbuka," kata beliau ketika ditemui di lobi Dewan Negara hari ini.

Naib Ketua Dewan Muslimat PAS Pusat itu juga berkata, sikap Bersih 2.0 ternyata berbeza dengan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) yang sudah menutup pintu rundingan dan menafikan segala dakwaan ketidaktelusan yang berlaku.

"Kenyataan SPR seolah-olah mereka tidak akan meminda apa-apa pun. Prosedur SPR sepatutnya boleh dipertingkatkan.

"Jadi keengganan mereka untuk berikan satu ruang untuk perbincangan menyebabkan wujudnya satu gabungan yang dianggotai 80 NGO ini.

"80 NGO nak kemukakan tuntutan pun mereka seolah-olah menutup pintu perbincangan. Inilah yang tak selesai masalah," katanya.

Justeru katanya, rakyat tidak harus berundur sebaliknya turun beramai-ramai menyatakan lapan tuntutan tersebut.

"Kita mahu kuantiti (peserta himpunan) yang ramai untuk menunjukkan bahawa ada ramai yang nampak SPR tidak telus dan kita tidak boleh berundur.Kita ada ketua negara iaitu Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Bila Yang di-Pertuan Agong beri arahan begitu (berhimpunan dalam stadium) kita akur.Akurlah kerana tujuan kita bukan hanya nak menujukkan kuantiti yang ramai yang tidak berpuas hati dan mahukan perubahan tetapi yang penting kualiti dan hasilnya," katanya.
BERSIH and the Inane Responses

Read here for more in "SAKMONGKOL AK47" blog

"....By asking the elections commission to conduct itself properly shows that Bersih accepts that the means to unseat a government is through the voting system.

But the voting system is in need of better supervision and that's where the demands on the election commission come to the fore.

This aim should be supported. Some people will show their support by participating in the rally. Some will not do so. It's a matter of choice.

The right to express their wishes must be upheld by the government.

If Perkasa and other groups supportive of the sitting government are allowed to gather and demonstrate, that right must also be given to others. If the Bersih planned rally is wrong in law, then the same judgment applies to the rallies carried out by supporters of the sitting government.

Our laws are clear. If people break the law, irrespective of who they are, they must be brought to before the forces of the law. We have the institutions to deal with that and we certainly don't need a third line of defense. Can any secret society and gangster organizations apply to be a bona-fide 3rd line of defense?

The problem here is that the elections commission is seen as a pliant tool for one side of the contestants.

It doesn't answer questions with solutions but gives all sorts of excuses. People accept the principle of elections as a means to establish governments. But they also want that means to be above board. They accept they are powerless unless they act collectively and speak as a voice. The powerless are striking back demanding that competition to get power to form governments be carried out fairly and in even handed manners.

The body that oversees elections is conducted fairly and transparently is the elections commission.

We mustn't lose sight of the object of the current disputes now.

Bersih's objective is to call upon the election commissions to conduct itself as it's chartered to do. This isn't a rally threatening the sovereignty of the Agong or to strike fear at Malays.

The election commission is an independent commission. It's not just another government department answerable to the Chief Secretary or even to the PM. It's the custodian of fair and transparent conduct of elections and it must guard this role jealously. It does so jealously from the meddling and intervention of interested parties. It must also rid itself of any perceptions of being a submissive tool for those holding power at the moment.

Its responses to criticisms therefore mustn't be evasive. It has to avail itself to the latest methods and technology that upgrade the participation of people in an electoral process. If the use of indelible ink is good for participatory democracy it must adopt the method as a natural development without having to be at pains defending its non-usage. If making voting compulsory and its cost effective doing so, then it must do so.

People are now diverting their attention to debating whether the planned assembly of people in the Bersih Rally should be allowed or otherwise. The real issue has and is always the conduct of the elections commission.

The watching majority must be dismayed at the response of our police. The police with all the sophisticated instruments of crowd control and other suppressive means appear to have admitted that they are powerless to control the crowds.

What have we spent public money for then? The idea of a police is to keep the peace. In keeping the peace, it must conduct its business in a professional manner and be fair minded. If Bersih is not allowed to hold rallies, then other parties must also be disallowed.

In Penang, the police have given permit for some people to hold a rally? In Rembau, some people consisting of ex policemen were given permit? Ibrahim Ali was even given a permit to denounce a rally that has not taken place. He is a clairvoyant extraordinaire- can see the future. In ancient times, people like Ibrahim Ali got burnt at the stakes. Shall we roast Ibrahim Ali then?

Let's not forget the object of the issue. It's the election commission. It answers to the Agong and therefore should not be seen as working for an interested party. What's the problem with clearing the electoral registers off dead people? How can it apply its resources and time to restructure how postal votes can be seen to be fair and transparent? How can it monitor and apply strict rules to election spending and election funding etc.?

These are important issues to those looking at elections as a means to exercise their democratic rights to elect a government of their choice. This isn't an issue whether public demonstrations or going on a march as practices that are good only elsewhere but not suitable in Malaysia. The need to express publicly the collective wants and demands is part and parcel a democracy.

DPM Muhyiddin Yassin, How Stupid Can You Be?

2011-06-29T07:05:00.004+08:00

Read here for more

Muhyiddin Yassin’s IDIOCY!

by

Marian Mokhtar

Of all the comments about Bersih, none are more despicable than those of Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin who claimed that our reputation would be tarnished because the proposed Bersih march was politically motivated and threatened national security.

Surely not!

Bersih does not pose any threat to national security but is a threat to Muhyiddin, Umno and its cronies.

If the rakyat goes ahead with electoral reform and democracy is restored in Malaysia, then these people in Umno, and those who are closely associated with Umno, will lose everything. Some will lose their freedom.

Did Muhyiddin ever consider why he and his colleagues in Umno/BN allowed democracy to be destroyed in Malaysia, in the first instance?

Did he think that after 54 years, the rakyat would sit around and watch their country disintegrate?

It is all very well to call the Bersih rally illega, l but what about the illegal machinations with which Umno/BN has conducted itself and the way it bulldozes the rakyat’s concerns.

There are several reasons why Malaysia’s reputation is tarnished and none involve Bersih.

Many of the reasons have racial and religious undertones.

We have seen the cow-head incident and the Interlok book, test our Hindu brethren. We then saw our Christian brothers being subject to vilification by the ban of the word Allah, the removal of religious symbols in the presence of senior Cabinet ministers and how a child was whipped for eating pork sausages at school.
Sections of the community were also accused of planning to topple the government to pave the way for a Christian prime minister.
However, when Malay and Muslim extremists disturbed the peace and called for a jihad, they were just given a rap on the knuckles.
When the prolonged bombardment of sex, videos and lies did not achieve the desired effect on the rakyat, ministers then decided that we were communists intent on sabotaging the nation. Even wearing Che Guevera t-shirts became a crime.
Now people are being arrested for wearing or selling yellow T-shirts.A few years ago, people were arrested for wearing black T-shirts, for distributing birthday cakes and for assembling under a raintree – Perak’s Tree of Democracy.
Now that Bersih is attempting to restore true democracy to the land, Muhyiddin’s suggestion that Ambiga Sreenevasan is a national threat is laughable.
Would he consider former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed who refuses to relinquish power and who has his hand up Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s back and manipulates him like a glove puppet, a threat?
What about Mahathir’s agent provocateur, Ibrahim Ali, the president of the NGO Perkasa who despite his seditious talk, manages to elude arrest?
It is said that Ibrahim Ali will be charged with sedition but we know that this is merely a last ditch attempt to appease us. The authorities realise that Bersih will continue with its march and the rakyat is determined to call for free, fair and clean elections.
The Election Commission (EC) is as much to blame for the decline in Malaysia’s state of affairs as the government.If only the EC did not have a puppet who is in Najib’s pocket, as its leader, and if only it did half its duties, then Malaysia might not have fallen into the abyss.
Muhyiddin has the brass cheek to suggest the EC is not aware of our protestations of vote-rigging, of abuse of postal voting and the shambolic way the ruling party intimidates or ‘coerces’ people into voting for them.All our complaints were brushed aside.
Muhyiddin who attracted scorn when he declared he was ‘a Malay first and Malaysian second’ does send out mixed messages and perhaps, is not aware of what he is saying:

As the Education Minister, Muhyiddin changed the language in which Science and Mathematics were taught in all our schools.

In international forums, our poor grasp of the English language is evident.To arrest the decline in English, Muhyiddin arranged for English speaking teachers from around the world, including the Peace Corps, to come to Malaysia to teach English.

Are there sufficient numbers to reach out to all schools? Are these people going to turn our education system around?

Why did he choose to ignore the untapped talent of thousands of the older teachers who were schooled in the old ways and who speak good English.

Why enlist foreigners at the expense of these able teachers? Is it because the majority of the English speaking Malaysian teachers are non-Malays?

Muhyiddin said that because of Bersih, tourists will stop visiting, investors will sidestep us and that our ‘image globally as a peaceful and developed country’ will be tarnished.How shortsighted is he?

Muhyiddin’s policies just prove that Umno has no political will to change or to accept reform.

If Bersih achieves its aims then there will be renewed business opportunities, more growth, increased investment in the nation and less theft of the rakyat’s money.

Corruption, abuse of power, nepotism and cronyism will be brought to manageable levels. Hopefully, our institutions like the EC amongst others, will regain their integrity.

The first Bersih rally in 2007, when 50,000 took to the streets in a peaceful march, was marred when the police used heavy handed tactics and turned chemical laced water from water cannons onto the crowds and also attacked them with tear gas and baton charges.

Bersih is not a threat to national security but is a real threat to Umno/BN. Umno/BN is the real threat to national security

Please join the rally on 9 July and exercise your democratic right to free, clean and fair elections.

The police are going to be sent to the rally. This time, they should join the march, instead of turning against it.They should do this to regain their reputation which Mahathir trashed and most importantly, for their own families and their childrens’ futures.

The Egyptian army did it and so can the Malaysian police.

PAS Warns the Police: Don't Make Malaysian Citizens Hate the Police Force!

2011-06-28T09:50:00.004+08:00

Read here for more

Jangan sampai rakyat benci polis

Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man mengingatkan polis bahawa tindakan mereka kebelakangan ini yang menangkap orang yang memakai baju Bersih 2.0 sewenang-wenangnya akan menyebabkan ketidakpuasan hati rakyat, yang asalkan tertumpu pada Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) akan bertukar kepada pihak polis.

Tuan Ibrahim dalam satu kenyataannya hari ini berkata:

“Tindakan polis kebelakangan ini akan menyebabkan rakyat yang asalnya tidak berpuas hati dengan SPR bertukar kepada polis.

Tindakan menangkap mereka yang memakai baju Bersih atau menjual baju Bersih adalah nyata bertentangan dengan peraturan dan undang-undang.

Atas alasan apa mereka ditangkap dan peruntukan mana yang digunakan (untuk menangkap mereka)?

Sekiranya mereka dapat melakukan (mengasingkan dua kumpulan penyokong) di hari penamaan calon, mengapat tidak di Bersih 2.0?

Kalau polis gagal mewujudkan buffer zone maka rakyat akan menganggap polis gagal menjalankan tugas sebenar iaitu menjamin keselamatan rakyat.

Polis seharusnya melaksanakan tugas dengan adil dan saksama kepada semua rakyat.”

Beliau turut mengecam tangkapan polis terhadap aktivitis yang memakai atau menjual baju Bersih 2.0 sebagai satu yang amat bertentangan dengan hak asasi manusia dan nilai undang-undang.

Kebelakangan ini, Bersih 2.0 bukan saja tidak diberi ruang bernafas oleh para pemimpin Umno BN yang tidak berhenti-henti mengecam perhimpunan pada 9 Julai ini.

Malah, katanya pihak polis sudah turut serta untuk menghalang perhimpunan Bersih 2.0 daripada berlaku dengan melancarkan gerakan di seluruh negara bagi menghalang badan pemantau pilihanraya itu daripada mempromosi perhimpunannya.

Sehingga kini, 81 orang telah ditahan polis dan jumlahnya dijangka meningkat ketika Gabungan Pilihan raya Bersih dan Adil (Bersih) memperhebatkan lagi kempennya dalam tempoh dua minggu sebelum perhimpunan.

Sehubungan itu, Tuan Ibrahim, yang juga Pesuruhjaya PAS Pahang mengingatkan polis bahawa perhimpunan Bersih 2.0 pada 9 Julai ini bukan perhimpunan untuk menentang polis, tetapi untuk membaiki sistem pilihan raya.

Mengenai kekhuatiran ramai bahawa akan wujud pertembangan tiga kumpulan yang berhimpun pada 9 Julai ini iaitu Bersih 2.0, Pemuda Umno dan rakan akribnya Perkasa, Tuan Ibrahim berkata ia adalah tugas polis untuk mengelakkan pertembungan itu daripada berlaku.

Beliau turut menyarankan polis untuk mewujudkan buffer zone untuk mengelakkan pertembugan dua kumpulan.

RELATED ARTICLE

Police Stood By and Watch While UMNO Youth Thugs Threatened to Burn Down PKR Hq

Read here for more

A group of Umno Youth members gathered in front of their arch nemesis PKR's headquarters in Petaling Jaya late last night in a noisy demonstration, threatening to burn down the building.

PKR Youth deputy information chief Rozan Azen Mat Rasip, who was also there, confirmed that Lukman had explicitly threatened to burn down the party headquarters if they were to continue participating in the July 9 rally. Rozan said Lukman also threatened (PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim) and (Bersih 2.0 steering committee chairperson) S Ambiga for supporting the rally.

Rozan said that he saw about 20 heavily-armed police officers on stand-by at the protest although no arrest were made. "That's why we're puzzled," he said, urging the police to investigate the case under criminal intimidation.

About 300 people, according to PKR estimates, had converged in motorcycles and demanded that PKR withdraws its support from the Bersih 2.0 march on July 9.

PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who rushed to the HQ after being alerted by party members, said that he arrived at about 11pm and observed the demonstration from a distance.

"How do I know they are Umno members? First of all, they were carrying Umno flags and they were wearing their red 'Patriot' T-shirts,” he told Malaysiakini when contacted.

“I could also see (Umno Youth exco Lukman Adam) and (former Perkasa Youth chief Arman Azha Abu Hanifah) leading the group."

Saifuddin also said that when he got there with several party members, they had recorded the fiery speeches made by Lukman to the Umno Youth crowd.

"He said that he wants to burn down the PKR HQ. He can deny it all he wants, but we have the recording," he said.

About 50 PKR Youth members were there to monitor the demonstration.

According to Rozan the Umno Youth group converged in two locations - first at a petrol station in Shah Alam, second at the Batu Tiga toll on the Federal Highway - before making their way to the PKR HQ in Tropicana, based on information from pro-Umno blogs.

He lodged a police report at the Tropicana police station, just a few doors down the road from the HQ, at about 11.40pm almost immediately after the crowd had dispersed.

Meanwhile, Lukman and Arman were unreachable for comment.

Though Bersih 2.0 - which stands for the Coalition of Free and Fair Elections - claims to be a politically non-partisan group, PKR is expected to mobilise tens of thousands of its members from all around the country for the massive rally on July 9.

Malaysians ARE Still Living Under FOUR States of Emergency Rule of this UMNO-Led BN Government since 1964

2011-06-24T05:09:00.005+08:00

Read here for more in ARTiculations Blog

Malaysia is under 4 states of emergency, mind you!

by

Art Harun

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Malaysia, and please do NOT unfasten your seatbelts.

For the uninitiated, allow me to put on record that Malaysia (including when we were Tanah Melayu) has seen 5 state of emergencies altogether.

The 1st time was in 1948 when the communist insurgency resulted in 11000 people being killed. This was lifted.
The 2nd time was in 1964 during the Indonesian confrontation.
The 3rd time was in 1966. This was limited to Sarawak following the dismissal of the Ketua Menteri.
The 4th time was in 1969 following the 13th May incident.
Lastly, it was in 1977, which was limited to the state of Kelantan to deal with the political crisis there.

The LAST 4 emergencies have NOT been lifted till TODAY

The ONLY reason why these proclamations of emergencies have not been lifted is because the government is desirous of maintaining all these draconian laws and regulations.

These regulations provide shortcuts to the likes of the police. Why bother investigate a case thoroughly when they can detain any person without trial and banish them to a certain district?

The continuous existence of states of emergencies in Malaysia is repugnant to the notion :

that Malaysia is inching towards a the status of a developed state;

that we are a liberal and tolerant society;

that we are a country practising democracy with a vibrant society able to engage in a public and civil discourse over whatever issues which are important for nation building.

Repugnance and Inconsistency of Emergency Rule to Federal Constitution

What is so frightening about state of emergencies, you may ask.

This is the most frightening. Article 150, Clause 6 of the Federal Constitution allows the Parliament to pass any law and His Majesty the King to promulgate any ordinance during state of emergencies and those laws and ordinances will be valid even if they are repugnant or inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

In other words, during an emergency, any kind of law would be valid. Which means, the Federal Constitution may be ignored, side-stepped or just plain torn, shredded and burned. Which finally mean, you and I, citizen of Malaysia, do not have any kind of recognisable right during an emergency.

Various emergency regulations have been promulgated and used since 1969. These regulations give wide and really draconian powers to the police and government.

The followings are just some examples.

Firstly, a person may be detained without trial and banished to a certain area without trial.
Secondly, In the EMERGENCY (ESSENTIAL POWERS) ORDINANCE, 1969(Ordinance 1 and Ordinance 2) ESSENTIAL (DISPOSAL OF DEAD BODIES AND DISPENSATION OF INQUESTS AND DEATH INQUIRIES) REGULATIONS, 1969 for example, regulation 3 ( b ) provides as follows:
“where a Magistrate or a Coroner responsible for holding a death inquiry or inquest on the body of any person is satisfied that such person has been killed as a result of operations for the purpose of suppressing disturbances by the Police or the Malaysian Armed Forces or as a result of injuries caused by disturbances, the Magistrate or the Coroner, as the case may be, may dispense with the holding of a death inquiry or inquest on the body of such person.”

That would of course mean no police killing could come under scrutiny during an emergency.
Thirdly, the Home Minister can ban any kind of printing material which he deems it as prejudicial to public order. He can even open all postal packages, read all telegrams, articles and printed matters and detain those material under the ESSENTIAL (NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS) REGULATIONS, 1969.
Fourthly (hold on really tight to your seats for this one), under the ESSENTIAL (PROHIBITION OF ACTIVITIES RELATING TO ELECTIONS)
REGULATIONS, 1969, elections may be suspended, during which suspension, regulation 2 provides:
“Notwithstanding any written law to the contrary. for so long as the elections are suspended all activities relating to elections are hereby prohibited.”
Fifthly, there is such a thing called the ESCAR, namely, the Emergency and Security Cases Regulations which, among others:
- permits the Attorney General to choose whichever Court he likes to try a security case. The Court may sit in any place or state regardless of where the alleged offence took place.
- if the Court is satisfied that a witness is afraid to testify, the witness can testify in a manner that he or she cannot be seen or heard by the Counsel of the accused! Now, tell me, how the hell is the accused going to defend himself against such witness?
- hearsay evidence may be tendered and admitted by Court.

The above are but examples of the extreme powers that the State has during emergencies. Powers such as these are open to abuse and there is no mechanism to check this abuse. These regulations are not challengeable in any Courts of Law. Actions taken by the State under those emergency regulations are also not usually challengeable in any Courts of Law.

Nobody in their sane mind would say that Malaysia, in reality, is in a state of emergency now. Chaos, maybe.

In a state of dream, perhaps.
State of denial, obviously.
State of incorrigible stupor, maybe too.

But emergency? Excuse me.

I read a Malaysian Insider report that three youths are suing the police for placing them under detention without trial under the Emergency Ordinance 1969 for allegedly stealing motorcycle. If it was true that the 3 youths have been stealing motorcycles, the obvious right thing to do in any civilised society is to have them produced before the Court and charged.
An obvious case of abuse of emergency ordinance is the case of the Kelantan’s claim for the petroleum royalty. The case for the government rests on the definition of state’s waters as defined in Section 4 (2) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969, which provides that a state's waters is only within three nautical miles from its shores. (source: this article).

That is a classic abuse of emergency laws. How can an economic claim be settled by reference to a rule which is made to cater for a state of emergency?

A POLICE STATE

The police force is a law unto themselves in Malaysia. This has to stop immediately.

Lest Malaysia would be viewed dimly by the international community. We are not a police state, yet. But we surely are displaying obvious symptoms of one.

According to a MalaysiaKini report, Dato’ Ambiga, the chairperson of BERSIH, YB Khairy Jamaluddin, the UMNO Youth Chief and Dato’ Ibrahim Ali, the Perkasa war general, have all been summoned to Bukit Aman by the police. So the Home Minister said.

The summoning of Dato’ Ambiga and YB Khairy Jamaluddin* is but an example of the police force acting at their whim and fancy.

These two persons have not committed any offence.

Nor have they, under the law, attempted to commit any offence.
What power does the police force have to summon them to Bukit Aman?
Why are they being summoned? What if they did not appear in Bukit Aman?
What would the police do?

*as for Ibrahim Ali, there is obviously a reason, or even several reasons, to summon him.

Amaran pada Perkasa, Pemuda PAS Jadi Perisai Kepada Rakyat Bukan Melayu

2011-06-20T19:22:00.001+08:00

Read here for more

Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat (DPPP) memberi amaran kepada Presiden Perkasa, Datuk Ibrahim Ali dan ahli-ahli pertubuhan itu agar menghentikan tindakan samseng mereka dan ugutan kepada rakyat Malaysia khususnya kalangan bukan Melayu yang mahu menyertai Himpunan Bersih 2.0.

Ketua penerangannya, Riduan Mohd Nor menegaskan, Pemuda PAS bersedia menjadi perisai kepada rakyat pelbagai kaum yang hadir dalam perhimpunan Bersih 2.0 sekaligus menolak sebarang tindakan provokatif yang cuba diadakan oleh Perkasa untuk menimbulkan suasana tegang dan huru-hara.

DPPP, katanya kesal dengan risalah perkauman yang diedarkan Perkasa yang menyebut "Awas!!! Ambiga Wanita Hindu yang Merbahaya".

“Ini sudah melampau dan jelas satu penghinaan kepada Pengerusi Bersih, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan dan kaum lain,” tegasnya dalam kenyataan kepada Harakahdaily.

DPPP juga, ujarnya kesal kerana Ibrahim dalam ucapannya di Kelab Sultan Sulaiman turut memberikan amaran kepada Kaum Tionghua supaya membeli makanan tambahan untuk disimpan di rumah jika Himpunan Bersih 2.0 tidak dihentikan kerana Perkasa akan lakukan apa sahaja bagi menghentikannya.

“Mereka mahu lakukan apa? Pukul orang India, pecah rumah dan kedai orang Cina? Bakar rumah ibadat? Atau pijak kepala babi dan lembu di Dataran Merdeka?” soalnya.

Soalnya lagi, siapa Perkasa yang mahu melawan kebangkitan rakyat.

Tambahnya, apa tujuan mereka membuat ugutan kepada kaum bukan Melayu kerana negara ini milik semua dan rakyat berhak turun ke jalan raya untuk menyatakan tuntutan mereka secara aman.

Katanya, DPPP yakin bahawa Perkasa bekerja untuk Umno yang kini terdesak untuk menahan asakan Bersih 2.0.

Mereka, ujarnya memperkudakan Ibrahim dan ahli mereka dalam Perkasa untuk mewujudkan suasana huru hara.

Menurutnya, Perkasa cuba mengumpan supaya pihak polis membuat tangkap awal termasuk mengunakan akta ISA, malah mereka cuba mencabar polis untuk menangkap pemimpin mereka sendiri sebagai korban untuk menunjukkan keadilan polis dalam bertindak, walhal yang mahu membuat huru hara adalah pelampau Perkasa sendiri.

Beliau berkata, DPPP melihat Perkasa cuba untuk mewujudkan 13 Mei kedua, mereka mahu Operasi Lalang berulang.

Tambahnya, ugutan-ugutan ekstrim mereka menunjukan bahawa mereka memang kumpulan pelampau yang wajar diambil tindakan oleh pihak polis.

“Kenapa pihak polis berdiam bila Perkasa membuat ugutan?” tanya beliau.

Beliau mengharapkan polis tidak menutup mata dan telinga hanya kerana Perkasa melaungkan slogan yang kononnya mahu membantu Menteri Dalam Negeri di dalam menghadapi Bersih 2.0.

Pemuda PAS, katanya memberikan jaminan kepada orang-orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu bahawa Himpunan Bersih 2.0 akan berjalan dengan aman dan selamat.

Beliau mengingatkan semua peserta dilarang membawa sebarang senjata atau melakukan kerosakan dan provokasi.

Menurutnya, peserta Bersih 2.0 yang akan hadir diminta menghormati peniaga dan penduduk Kuala Lumpur serta menjaga kebersihan sepanjang himpunan berlangsung.

“Ayuh semua rakyat, semua anak muda. Jangan hirau, jangan takut pada pelampau Perkasa.

“Tunjukan kuasa rakyat, bersama kita perkukuhkan desakan rakyat untuk memastikan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil dilaksanakan di negara ini,” katanya.

MAFIA Style Execution by Malaysian Police of Three Malay Youths

2011-06-10T05:42:00.003+08:00

Read here for more and HERE

Post-mortem reports on three youths showed they were kneeling when they were shot by policemen last year, a legal rights group said today.

Muhammad Hanafi Omar, 22, Muhammad Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, 15, and Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20, were gunned down by the police after a high-speed car chase in the early morning of November 13 last year in Glenmarie, Shah Alam.

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) claimed today that the three were executed. Human rights lawyer and LFL co-ordinator N. Surendran told reporters at the PKR headquarters here that according to the reports received two days ago, the police did not fatally shoot the three victims in self-defence as claimed.

It was murder in cold blood, according to a lawyer for the families of three youths whom police shot dead in Glenmarie last year.Police shot them at close range, he said.

The families of the murdered youths
consoling each other

Surendran said the police testimony is dubious, as supported by the post-mortem report.

The shooting happened last November. Police said they shot Syamil, Khairul and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22, from a distance. They alleged that the three were members of a criminal gang called Geng Minyak and that the shooting occurred after they had robbed a petrol station.

The police said they shot the youths after they had tried to attack them with a parang.

Lawyer Surendran said,

“Based on scientific findings, the police version is false. The police have lied. The police version says that they were rushed with parangs and therefore they were shot.

If the police are rushing from the front, how can the bullet enter the side of the head. So the medical evidence is completely contradictory to what the police claim and we’re talking about Datuk A. Thaiveegan, acting police chief, unless the bullets can bend and hit the head.

The clear scenario that emerges is all three were arrested or were taken into custody.

They were then made to kneel, whatever it was, at a level lower than the shooters. They were then shot, executed by the police officers.”

The police claimed they had shot the suspects in self-defence when they charged at the officers with machetes at the end of a pre-dawn car chase.

Selangor acting police chief Datuk A. Thaiveegan had reportedly defended his officers’ actions by describing the three dead as “seasoned criminals” who were allegedly involved in at least three armed robberies in Selangor the week prior to their shooting.

The Killing of Muhammad Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, 15

According to the oforensic reprt on Shamil, he had two wounds consistent with gunshot wounds, the first injury mark on the forehead, and the second, on the right side of the chest.

“Both gunshot wounds entered 45 degrees into the back and right side of the body. There were no signs of self-defence,” the report said, adding that there was gunpowder residue on the chest wound.

According to the chemist report, there was also gunpowder residue on the victim’s jacket.

The Killing of Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20

As for Hairul, the cause of death was gunshot injuries to the head and chest.

‘“Post-mortem examination showed that he received two shots, one at the left side of the head and exit at the right side of the head. The other shot was on the front part of the left side of the chest and exit at the back of the right side of the chest.

“The weapon used was from a single-fired rifled weapon such as a pistol. There was no evidence to show that the weapon was fired during contact or at near distance,” it said.

“It shows clearly that Shamil Hafiz was kneeling or squatting when the shots were fired from a higher direction. Only that explains why it was 45 degrees,” he said.

As for Hairul Nizam, he said according to the doctor who examined his body, the bullet track was directed “inwards, downwards, and to the right”.

“Again, Hairul must have been kneeling and the shot came from top. So, that means they were arrested, taken into custody and then executed. Scientific evidence is clear,” he said.

The Killing of Hanafi Omar,22

Although Hanafi Omar’s post-mortem report has not been received yet, there was a visual identification made when the body was seen by the family.

He said there were two shots — to the side of the head and one to the torso — and just like Hairul Nizam, the shot entered from the side of the head.

Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein Onn's Brother, Haris, Still Owns 180,000 Shares in Liberal Technology

2011-06-09T06:41:00.006+08:00

Read here for more in The Age (Australia) by Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie andHERE

Home Minister Hishamuddin Says He is Ignorant of Link to his Brother, Haris Hussein Onn in the Scandal

Malaysian company, Liberal Technology, accused of being hired by Australian company Securency for political leverage said yesterday that Haris Hussein Onn, the cousin of the prime minister Najib Razak, and its purported link to Malaysia’s top leadership, sold his shares in 2006.

Liberal Technology Sdn Bhd said in a response to the June 6 The Age article, that Haris ceased to be a shareholder of the company when he sold his stake of 180,000 shares on September 4 2006 to a Shazal Yusuf.

It also said that in its last annual return on June 30 last year, it had listed Hafidzuddin Che Din and Mohamed Hanif Che Din as the sole shareholders of the company with 500,000 shares each.

But Companies Commission data shows OTHERWISE. Companies Commission of Malaysia records show the minister's brother, Haris Onn Hussein, to be Liberal Technology's LARGEST individual shareholder, WITH 180,000 shares.

The Age asked the company yesterday why its records still showed Haris Onn Hussein as a shareholder. Liberal Technology did NOT respond.

Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister,Hishamuddin Hussein Onn says he had NO idea a company associated with his brother (Haris Hussein Onn) was hired as an agent by troubled Reserve Bank of Australia firm Securency.

The brothers (Hishamuddin and Haris) are COUSINS of Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak. Their late father Hussein Onn was Malaysia's prime minister between 1976 and 1981.

Malaysian' POLITICAL ROYAL FAMILY
(INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH HIGH LEVEL POLITICS)

(High Flying Businessman)

(LEFT) The Brother, Hishamuddin Hussein Onn, (Home Minister)
(RIGHT) The Cousin, Najib Razak, the Prime Minister

Malaysia's Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein- who is negotiating the asylum seeker swap deal with the Gillard government - also told Malaysia's Sun Daily newspaper this week that he did not think an Australian company would engage a company linked to politically-connected figures in the hope of furthering its business interests in Malaysia.

n the June 6 article ‘Securency money trail nudges Malaysia’s political royalty’, The Age claimed that Securency had hired Haris Onn Hussein in 2009 with the hope that he would offer it access and influence over Malaysia’s top politicians and also said that in 2006, the Malaysian finance ministry told cigarette and alcohol manufacturers that they would need to buy security labels provided by Liberal Technology to legally sell their products.

The Age claimed that Securency, a leading supplier of plastic dollar bills, had hired Datuk Haris Onn Hussein, who is Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s brother and the cousin of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, in an effort to win banknote contracts.

The report noted however that Securency has not won any banknote contracts in Malaysia since its last major one in 2004 and added that it is not suggesting that Najib or Hishamuddin are involved with Sucerency’s deals.

The Age said that Securency, which is 50 per cent owned by the Reserve Bank of Australia, has been under investigation by the Australian Federal Police and the British Serious Fraud Office for allegedly bribing public officials in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria to win banknote supply contracts.

Securency’s managing director, Myles Curtis, and chief financial officer, John Ellery, were forced out of the company in March last year while its deputy chairman, English businessman Bill Lowther, resigned in October following his arrest by the Serious Fraud Office.

The Age report comes at a sensitive time as Malaysia and Australia are about to seal a deal on a refugee swap and the Melbourne paper said that Australia’s international relations could be harmed if foreign officials allegedly linked to Sucerency’s bribes are named.

The Najib administration has also been pushing the message of reform and transparency in an effort to improve Malaysia’s business climate and boost the country’s competitiveness.

Securency is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police and Britain's Serious Fraud Office for allegedly bribing public officials in Vietnam, Malaysia, Nigeria and Indonesia in return for winning polymer banknote supply contracts.

Liberal Technology's official corporate records obtained yesterday from the Companies Commission of Malaysia list Haris Onn Hussein as the holder of 180,000 shares.

Hishamuddin Hussein Onn's BROTHER, Haris Hussein Onn, Hired by Australian Firm to Gain Influence and Access to Malaysia's Top Politicians

2011-06-06T23:00:00.005+08:00

Read here for more in The Age

Malaysian' POLITICAL ROYAL FAMILY
(INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH HIGH LEVEL POLITICS)

(High Flying Businessman)

(LEFT) The Brother, Hishamuddin Hussein Onn, (Home Minister)
(RIGHT) The Cousin, Najib Razak, the Prime Minister

"Securency" Money Trail nudges Malaysia's Political Royalty (ie Najib and Hishamuddin)

by

Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie

June 06 2011

THE Reserve Bank firm Securency hired a company owned by a close relative of Malaysia's Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister - the two men with whom the Gillard government is negotiating to swap asylum seekers - to help win banknote contracts.

The revelation comes amid growing sensitivity within the federal government about the Australian Federal Police investigation of Securency and the potential for Australia's international relations to be harmed if foreign officials allegedly linked to the RBA firm's bribes are named.

The Age has learned that Securency signed Kuala Lumpur firm Liberal Technology as its Malaysian agent in 2009.

The biggest individual shareholder in Liberal Technology is businessman Haris Onn Hussein. Haris Onn Hussein is well connected - his cousin is the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, and his brother is Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, who is expected in Canberra soon to sign the deal under which Australia will transfer 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia and accept 4000 refugees in return.

Securency hired Haris Onn Hussein in the hope he would offer it access to, and influence over, Malaysia's top politicians.

It is a common in parts of Asia for the relatives of politicians to be hired by foreign companies as agents.

The Age understands that some officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other agencies are keen for the AFP not to identify certain foreign dignitaries or their relatives who are alleged to be linked to Securency in order to protect Australia's broader overseas interests.

Securency, half-owned and supervised by the Reserve Bank, has for two years been investigated by the AFP and the British Serious Fraud Office for allegedly bribing public officials in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria to win banknote supply contracts.

Under Australian law, it is a criminal offence for a company or individual to pay, or offer a benefit to, a foreign government official or their close relatives to obtain a business advantage.

Australia is yet to prosecute a foreign bribery case, but Securency - which has four RBA-appointed directors on its board - may be the first, given the two-year AFP investigation and the arrest and questioning of some employees and agents last year. No charges have yet been laid.

Haris Onn Hussein and Hishammuddin Tun Hussein are political royalty in Malaysia.

Their father, the late Tun Hussein Onn, was Malaysia's prime minister between 1976 and 1981. He was succeeded as prime minister by Mahathir Mohamad. Their grandfather, Dato Onn Jaafar, was the founder of Malaysia's ruling United Malays National Organisation political party.

Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is vice president of UMNO.

Haris Onn Hussein owns shares in or sits on the board of several companies that have benefited from Malaysian government concessions.

In 2006, the Malaysian finance ministry told cigarette and alcohol manufacturers that they would need to buy security labels provided by Haris Onn Hussein’s Liberal Technology to legally sell their products. Haris Onn Hussein is also associated with a company given a 34-year concession to operate a major Malaysian toll road.

Under Securency’s corporate structure, its board should have been informed and approved of Mr Haris Onn’s company being signed as an agent.

The Age can also reveal Securency engaged Malaysian state MP and a former UMNO branch treasurer, Dato Abdullah Hasnan Kamaruddin, as another agent. Mr Kamaruddin was the UNMO party treasurer in Dr Mahatir’s home state of Kedah, a position that gave him substantial influence.

Despite engaging the extremely well-connected Liberal Technology as agent in 2009, Securency is believed not to have won any further banknote supply contracts.

The company won its last major Malaysian contract in 2004. At that time, Mr Razak was the country’s defence minister and Hishammuddin Tun Hussein the education minister. It also won a smaller contract in 1998.

The Age is not suggesting Mr Razak nor Hishammuddin Tun Hussein were involved in Securency’s deals.

The company’s 1998 and 2004 contracts involved another Malaysian agent, businessman, arms broker and former UMNO official, Abdul Kayum Syed Ahmad.

He has since been arrested and questioned by Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission over the Securency deals and his use of commissions paid by the RBA firms.

The AFP began investigating Securency in May 2009 after The Age revealed its payment of tens-of-millions-of-dollars in commissions to politically connected middlemen to win contracts in Nigeria, Vietnam and India.

The company wired millions of dollars into tax haven bank accounts in an effort to conceal the beneficiaries of its payments in an apparent breach of the RBA’s rules.

The AFP and Britain's Serious Fraud Office have conducted several raids on the offices of Securency and its British half-owner, Innovia Films. Properties owned by serving and former executives and agents have been raided and several arrests made. No charges have been laid yet.

Securency’s managing director, Myles Curtis, and chief financial officer, John Ellery, were forced out of the company in March last year. Securency’s deputy chairman, English businessman Bill Lowther, resigned in October following his arrest by the Serious Fraud Office.

RBA governor Glenn Stevens has defended his bank’s appointees who have chaired and sat on the Securency board since 1996, telling a federal parliamentary committee in November that he had not seen any evidence to suggest they had acted inappropriately.

The RBA plans to sell Securency.

Islamic Women's Group, Global Ikhwan, Wants to Teach Malaysian Women on How to Behave Like Prostitutes

2011-06-05T17:34:00.008+08:00

Read Here for more in Malaysiakini

The vice-president, Dr Rohaya Mohamad (left) of "The 'Obedient Wife Club', launched today, urged its members to be "whores in bed" and obey their husbands to curb social ills like divorce and domestic violence.

She said that the club was formed in line with the Prophet's teachings that the wife performs her daily prayers, fasts during Ramadan, maintains her chastity properly and be obedient to the husband.

Islamic group Global Ikhwan held the club's inaugural meeting in Templer's Park, giving women tips on how to keep their men satisfied and prevent them straying. The event was officially launched by Selayang Umno deputy chief Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim at a golf club in Templer's Park this morning.

Rohaya said 30 percent of the club members were in polygamous marriages while the rest were in monogamous relationships and that the club was open to non-Muslims.

More than a year ago, Rohaya was the prime mover of a Polygamy Club whose leader was the late Ustaz Ashaari Mohammad of the former Al-Arqam.

Vice President of Global Ikhwan , Dr Rohaya Mohamad
Dr Rohaya, 46, has worked in Health Ministry for 15 years and written speeches for former minister Dr Chua Soi Lek. Her own husband has THREE other wives.

Its vice-president, Dr Rohaya Mohamad , said that for a man to be faithful to his wife, she must “be good in bed”.

Said Rohaya:

“If the wives need our help we can train them on sexually satisfying positions. It is important to be a good sexual worker so that the husbands do not go to prostitutes.

We are an open organisation and will allow all races to come forward and seek our help to be obedient to their husbands. The club's slogan is 'Remain a virgin spiritually, mentally and physically.

A good wife is perceived to be prim and proper - you just take care of the children - but not much is emphasised on fulfilling sexual needs of the husband. If he needs sex, obey him.

You must satisfy your husband. A good wife should be a whore in bed.

A wife who obeys and fulfills her husband's sexual needs will always be loyal to her. In this rapidly developing world, women are already being treated as sex objects... in magazines, on TV... so why can't they be sex objects to their husbands?

It is legal and permitted by God. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore in bed to your husband?

Women must understand that men and women are created differently and men have more sexual needs, and it is for this reason that men can have four wives according Islam.

All problems start at home, and wives must take charge of looking after their husbands and children well".

Rohaya said that the international edition of the club was launched on May 1 in Amman, Jordan and they have about 200 members from Syria, Egypt and Jordan. In Malaysia, the membership totaled about 1,000.

Rohaya said that the international edition of the club was launched on May 1 in Amman, Jordan and they have about 200 members from Syria, Egypt and Jordan. In Malaysia, the membership totaled about 1,000.

She said that tomorrow, she and some of her members will leave for Rome, London, Frankfurt, Paris and other cities for business and to also explore the possibility of setting up more Obedient Wives Clubs in these cities.

CRITICISMS FROM WOMEN'S GROUPS

The club has come under criticism from women's groups who say the onus on keeping a family together is being unfairly placed on women.

"With obedience comes submission, which may lead to domestic violence and marital rape," Women's Aid Organisation head Ivy Josiah told AFP.

"We should really be forming equality in marriage clubs," she added.

Women's rights group Empower said the club was a step back for the progress of the equality movement.

"We cannot go back to caveman days where the man pulls the woman by the hair and takes her to the cave to have his way. We must recognise that women contribute a lot more than just being a sex toy," the group's executive director Maria Chin Abdullah told AFP.

In 20http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif10, a study by a Muslim activist group found men in polygamous relationships find it difficult to meet the needs of all their wives and children, and that the result is often unhappy and cash-strapped families.

WHAT MALAYSIANS ARE SAYING

Read here and here

Now you know why our government hospitals are a meshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifs.....The kampong bumpkins who are more interested in bonking like whores are in charge while their MCA masters are bonking China dolls in cheap hotels.....
Such a warp logic. If you are good "whore", your husband will want more of your "whores". But if you can no longer "whore" and satisfy him later, he will still discard you and go for the 2nd wife, and then 3rd wife and then 4th. If that is fulfilled and he wants more, he will the tarak the first one or the not so good "whore" and go for the 5th one and so on and so forth. And you ladies cannot say no because you want to be obedient wife. Fikiran senget
I can understand why the husband has 4 wives ...
Wow the 'whoring' club is officially openned! I just cant believe it! What a wonderful world! That means many whores will find jobs Particularly those older and with lots of experience to coach Just think we will have no more wandering husbands and we all live happily ever after.
Guess Rohaya wasn't a whore in bed and that's why her husband had to find 3 more wives..
Is this a latest UMNO joke? Dr Rohaya is such an expert on sex yet her husband has 3 other wives!!! She must be lousy at her job or in bed that he has to indulge sexually elsewhere. Yet she is trying to teach other women how to do it! This club is an insult to women and bringing Islam back to the dark ages!
I found this is the MOST INSANE CLUB in the world. What kind of mind these ppl are thinking? Stupid stupid stupid.
My wife read this stupid club article and asked a pertinent question... is Rosmah Najib's 'whore in bed'? Hmmm...maybe Dr Rohaya should have surveyed Rosmah's opinion. I wonder if '4 wives' applies to Najib as well. So far we know his taste is quite exotic, extending to Mongolian recipes, yes?
Perhaps RPK is right. To these people, Islam is all about SEX.
This is really very degrading to women. Men do not want a wife to satisfy him in bed only. He needs a home out of a house, not a whore in bed, he wants intellectual challenge and not a dumbwit woman, he wants the woman to be quiet when he wants silence, he wants the woman to love his parents and not nag at him on when his parents are going back home, and in the same way, the husband should also reciprocate. This is really disgusting especially coming from a Dr and a muslim as well.
It looks like Obedient Wives Club is another chapter in the search for sex obsession. We have enough of sodomy, sex video clips, peeping Toms, khalwat, incest, hotel raids . Now we have another to join their ranks. It appears that some people have nothing more important to do in life: it is sex, sex, sex .Instead of going for superficial things, go for substantive things: boost the economy, make all GLCs progressive and profitable, reduce snatch-thefts, reduce crime rates , reduce rape cases, reduce the prices of houses, reduce the prices of foodstuff, reduce pollution, reduce the stench in public toilets, reduce traffic congestion, reduce suicide rates, reduce corruption rate, reduce excess in Cabinet posts, reduce overseas trips for Ministers and their wives, reduce racism, reduce religious intolerance, reduce deaths in police cells. All these reductions will make Malaysians happy and contented; not sex, sex, sex!
No wonder CSL was such a great performer! He had good assistants like Dr Rohaya!
Shouldn't this club's President-For-Life be the notorious boor and sexist Bung Mokhtar Radin? He's tailor-made for the role.

Professionals Will Now Dictate the Future Direction of PAS

2011-06-04T13:42:00.004+08:00

Read here for more

THE NEW PROGRESSIVE TEAM
TO LEAD PAS INTO THE FUTURE

Mohamad Sabu sah menang kerusi jawatan timbalan presiden PAS dalam percubaan kali kedua dengan menewaskan dua calon termasuk penyandangnya Nasharudin Mat Isa, sekali gus menyaksikan barisan kepimpinan parti itu kali ini dikuasai kumpulan profesional.

Mohamad Sabu melambai ke arah perwakilan selepas diumumkan menang jawatan timbalan presiden. Mohamad, bekas naib presiden, memperoleh 420 undi — keputusan yang dilihat menarik perhatian banyak pihak di dalam dan luar parti itu.

Nasharudin yang menyandang jawatan itu sejak 2005 hanya menerima 224 undi manakala seorang lagi calon Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man mendapat 399 undi.

Pemilihan PAS diadakan setiap dua tahun sekali.

Selepas tewas pemilihan 2009 Mohamad yang mesra dipanggil “Mat Sabu” dilantik sebagai ahli jawatankuasa kerja PAS pusat.

(photo courtesy of Malaysian Insider)

Di peringkat naib presiden Salahuddin Ayub dan Datu Mahfuz Omar mengekalkan kerusi masing-masing dan Datuk Paduka Husam Musa kembali dipilih ke jawatan itu.

Salahuddin menerima undi terbanyak iaitu 753, Husam di tempat kedua dengan 660 undi manakala Mahfuz 616 undi.

Tiga lagi calon iaitu Idris Ahmad, Datuk Mohd Omar Abdulalh dan Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin masing-masing menerima 491, 321 dan 217 undi.

Dalam pada itu, kerusi ahli jawatankuasa kerja pusat yang menawarkan 18 tempat, dua pertiganya dikuasai oleh kumpulan profesional atau sering dilabel sebagai puak Erdogan.

Seramai 53 calon bertanding kerusi ahli jawatankuasa kerja pusat kali ini.

Pengerusi Anak Mazlan Aliman mendapat undi terbanyak iaitu 804 dan disusuli oleh:
Dr Hatta Ramli (765),
Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar (739),
peguam PAS Hanipa Maidin (735),
Menteri Besar Kedah Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak (721),
Ahli Parlimen Kuala Selangor Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (702),
Ahli Parlimen Parit Buntar Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa (651),
Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam Khalid Samad (643),
Abdul Ghani Shamsuddin (579),
Amiruddin Hamzah (576),
Ahli Parlimen Kuala Terengganu Abdul Wahid Endut (556),
Datuk Abu Bakar Chik (527),
Exco Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan Datuk Mohd Amar Abdullah (470),
Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed dari Johor (449),
Ahli Parlimen Kota Raja dan
Timbalan Ketua Muslimat Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud (445),
Pesuruhjaya PAS Selangor Datuk Dr Hasan Ali (437),
Abdul Ghani Abdul Rahman (430) dan
bekas ketua Muslimat Nuridah Salleh (416).

UMNO' S Act of Desperation... and Went Begging to PAS's Tok Guru Nik Aziz

2011-05-30T16:59:00.004+08:00

Read here for more in malaysiakini

PAS has again alleged that Umno had recently approached spiritual adviser Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, up to five times and with an offer of three ministerial posts, to persuade the Islamic party (PAS) to form a unity government with BN.

According to the PAS' Pasir Puteh MP Muhammad Husain, Nik Aziz revealed these latest overtures at a gathering of the Kelantan diaspora in Dengkil, Selangor.

"Yes, it is true. He said there were five meetings. It happened recently. It was related to cooperation between PAS and Umno," said Muhammad Husain, who was at the gathering.

He also claimed that the Nik Aziz, who is Kelantan menteri besar, had told the gathering that PAS had been offered three ministerial posts if it agrees to form a joint government with BN.

Nik Aziz, a respected Islamic scholar, has been a vocal critic of cooperation with Umno, constantly reminding members and leaders about PAS' BAD experience in having formed an alliance with Umno in the 1970s.

The idea of forming an unity government with Umno has been raised at almost all party polls in recent years although delegates had rejected the proposal at the 2008 Muktamar (annual assembly).

According to Muhammad, Nik Aziz had downright REJECTED the latest deal as PAS already has a pact with DAP and PKR under Pakatan Rakyat.

He said Nik Aziz told the gathering that Umno had been attempting to convince PAS since April last year when Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was toying with the idea of both Malay-centric parties working together.

Muhammad said the gathering attracted about 500 people, including PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution and parliamentarians Abdul Aziz Abdul Kadir (PKR-Ketereh), Abdullah Sani (PKR-Kuala Langat).

This was confirmed by others who were at the high-tea event, and who also expressed shock at Nik Aziz's revelation.

UPDATED: UMNO Mamaks Are NOT Real Malays and Should Speak on Behalf of KIMMA instead

2011-05-25T02:39:00.017+08:00

UPDATE..27 May 2011

Quote:

"Indians DON'T require representation by the MIC really.They can do so through Nor Mohamad Yakob, Naina Merican, Azeez Rahim, Zambry Kadir et al."
-"Sakmongkol AK47

A Reader's Comment

"...I always find it strange why UMNO MEMBERS are getting darker all the time.

Not only that these DARKER people seem to be more vocal, in fact much more than the ORIGINAL Malays. ...."
-Anonymous

Read here the verbal diarrhoea from the pretentiously religious Blogger "Mahaguru58" aka Zainol Abideen in his response to Sakmongkol AK47's article

- End of Update -

Quote

"... I find myself in strange territory listening to people like Reezal Merican, or Rahim Azeez speak for the Malays.

I would have thought, Malays are better off if THESE people speak on behalf of KIMMA.

(Note: KIMMA = Kongres India Muslim Malaysia, OR Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress =MIMC)

How can we force ourselves to suffer fools by allowing ourselves to consume the hate spewing writings of some bloggers whose Malay-ness are questionable?

Why isn't the peddler of rancid-curry speaking on behalf and FOR KIMMA members?

Jadi jadi lah kita orang Melayu kena tipu.

I think Malays have got enough talented people to speak for ourselves.

Then we have those who pretend they speak for UMNO but are themselves NOT UMNO members.

The REAL UMNO man WOULDN'T speak of an imagined clash of Christians and Muslims or spun the story about Christians taking over this country.

Does a Malay cease to be a Malay if he is not UMNO member?

Being UMNO is NOT an absolute requirement to fight for a Malay cause.

(And) those Malays in power have not helped other Malays.

So if UMNO insists that UMNO is Malay and Malay is UMNO, then by extension, Malays in power do not help the rest of Malays will also mean, UMNO in power does not help the rest of the Malays.

UMNO people must be realistic on this. One doesn't stop becoming Malay if one dismisses UMNO. People are already doing that if you still don't realize it.

Yet the leadership is hyping themselves, aided by a pliant audio visual and print media into believing all is well. Ignorance is really bliss.
-"Sakmongkol AK47"

Talking Malay on False Premises

by

"Sakmongkol AK47"

Let us demolish one pet belief of UMNO people and those who think they speak for UMNO.

It's time for the REAL Malay to speak for the Malay.

Where have the real Malays gone?

How can we force ourselves to suffer fools by allowing ourselves to consume the hate spewing writings of some bloggers whose Malay-ness are questionable?

( CHINESE Muslim Convert Wannabe Malay)

Blogger "Mahaguru58"
Why isn't the peddler of rancid curry speaking on behalf and for Kimma members? He looks more kitol-ish that the person he castigates as Kitol. Why isn't the gold nugget seller doing the same? We thank you but no thanks.

Jadi jadi lah KITA orang MELAYU kena tipu.

I find myself in strange territory listening to people like Reezal Merican, or Rahim Azeez speak for the Malays. I would have thought, Malays are better off if these people speak on behalf of KIMMA.

I think Malays have got enough talented people to speak for ourselves.

Then we have those who pretend they speak for UMNO but are themselves not UMNO members. Can they have the same thinking dynamics of an UMNO member? And I am not even differentiating between good and bad thinking- just undifferentiated UMNO thinking. Why is this important? It's important because then, what we say can be leavened with realistic assessment. Then we can appreciate the UMNO spirit.
Without the UMNO spirit, what you write is mechanical.

The real UMNO man wouldn't speak of an imagined clash of Christians and Muslims or spun the story about Christians taking over this country. I think Malays are already suffering from an overdose of ghost stories and will NOT want to add to their consumption ,manufactured tales about DAP becoming PM or Christians taking over this country.

Does a Malay cease to be a Malay if he is not UMNO member? Being UMNO is not an absolute requirement to fight for a Malay cause. Even being Malay is not an absolute guarantee that Malay interests are taken care of.

Both require the right Malay with the right values and the UMNO Malay with the right values.

Consider the record before us. From the day we got independence, most of our MBs are Malays. The top bosses in the Police and the army are Malays. The KSUs and TKSUs are almost invariably Malays. The top government officers are Malays. All the District officers are. All penghulus are Malays. All the Kings? All are Malays.

Now, one would be justified into assuming that given the fact that almost all the important orifice bearers are Malays and the governmental institutions we have are peopled by Malays, the lot of the Malays would be greatly improved or would have been vastly improved. Wouldn't it?

Well, in terms of control of the economy, Malay economic interest is just about 20%. That's 20% of the overall wealth being shared by 65% of the population.

We would further imagine that Malays would own more land in this country.
We would also imagine that Malays owned better housing.
Their education would be of higher standard.

With Malays in power, there would have been more rich Malays than rich non Malays. Yet in the top 20 richest in Malaysia, you would find probably one fellow.

In the top 40, you start getting more Malays but you also get more non Malays.

So what conclusion can you deduce from these observations?

The only valid and justifiable conclusion, is having Malays up there does not readily translate into Malay prominence in any of the fields we mentioned.

It follows from here, that positioning Malays in strategic offices is not necessarily beneficial and advantageous to Malays.

The other conclusion is those Malays in power have not helped other Malays. So if UMNO insists that UMNO is Malay and Malay in UMNO, then by extension, Malays in power do not help the rest of Malays will also mean, UMNO in power does not help the rest of the Malays.

UMNO people must be realistic on this. One doesn't stop becoming Malay if one dismisses UMNO. People are already doing that if you still don't realize it. 1.5 million UMNO protested by not voting in UMNO candidates.

That should be interpreted as a rejection of not merely the candidates but perhaps more so of the policies and vision that UMNO projects.

1.5 million Members didn't share in the vision of UMNO. 3.7 million Malay voters didn't subscribe to the UMNO ideals pedaled by UMNO leaders.

Yet the leadership is hyping themselves, aided by a pliant audio visual and print media into believing all is well. Ignorance is really bliss.

Sack the Bastards in UMNO-owned Utusan Malaysia if Najib Wants 1Malaysia to Remain Relevant

2011-05-13T00:31:00.000+08:00

Read here for more

We Say

A Warning by the Government is NOT good enough.

This is NOT the first time Utusan Malaysia has incited racial and religious hatred against Non-Malays and Non-Muslims in the country.

It is done once too often. Malaysians have it enough.

The current Editor-in-Chief and the Editors should be charged by this UMNO-led Government for sedition and for being a REAL threat to national security and to public safety.

If not, they SHOULD be SACKED by the owners of Utusan Malaysia.

Malaysian Voters, especially NON-Malay Voters, should ALWAYS keep in mind at every Election time that the anti-Non Malays and anti-Non Muslims UTUSAN MALAYSIA is owned by UMNO.

And UTUSAN MALAYSIA has always been, and is, a MOUTH-PIECE of UMNO.

UMNO and Prime Minister Datuk Najib cannot have it both ways, by first condoning the religious bigotry and racism in its own media-mouth piece and then wanting Malaysians to unite under the 1Malaysia banner.

Therefore, we urge that UMNO MUST act against these racist and religious bigots in Utusan Malaysia, for UMNO's own good.
-malaysianunplug

OPPOSES

The Home Ministry has slapped UMNO-owned Utusan Malaysia with a warning letter for publishing an unsubstantiated front-page article alleging a Christian plot to usurp Islam as the religion of the federation, which sparked a furore among the country’s majority Muslims and minority Christians.

The ministry today issued a statement that the editor-in-chief of the Umno-owned newspaper, Datuk Aziz Ishak, was invited to the ministry to explain the daily’s violation of the Printing Presses and Publishing Act 1984 (PPPA).

It also warned media organisations against running reports that may cause public unrest or content inconsistent with PPPA guidelines.

On Saturday, Utusan Malaysia carried a front-page article headlined “Kristian agama rasmi?” (Christianity the official religion?), claiming the DAP was conspiring with Christian leaders to take over Putrajaya and abolish Islam as the religion of the federation.

The report, based entirely on unsubstantiated blog postings by two pro-Umno bloggers, charged DAP with sedition for allegedly trying to change the country’s laws to allow a Christian prime minister.

Yesterday, the Penang government filed a formal complaint with the Home Ministry demanding stern action against Utusan Malaysia over the report.

In the complaint, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng sought for Prime Minister Najib Razak to act sternly against the Malay daily to prove that the newspaper does not enjoy full legal immunity.

Today, Lim took the matter further when he called for Najib to axe the Utusan Malaysia editors and reporters responsible for the “false report”.

Najib was also forced today to meet with the church leaders over the issue, after which the prime minister said he was pleased the church leaders had pledged to respect Islam’s position as the religion of the federation.

According to Najib, the church leaders also said Christians had no desire to challenge the provision within the Federal Constitution.

Najib did NOT , however, offer an apology for the report by his party’s (UMNO) mouthpiece.

Zakhir Mohamed aka Big Dog Demanded RM 400 million from Tengku Razaleigh (Ku LI) If Ku Li Wanted to be Prime Minister

2011-05-12T19:50:00.000+08:00

Read here for more

Quote

"... Big Dog asked Tengku Razaleigh (Ku Li) whether he was prepared to spend RM400 million to win the premiership. That, according to Big Dog, was what it was going to cost Ku Li.

Big Dog (said) it is going to cost at least RM400 million to ‘BUY’ 40 Umno divisions if Ku Li wants to become Prime Minister. Big Dog said Ku Li could afford it (and) he is worth much more than that.

Ku Li said that he is NOT prepared to ‘buy’ the premiership.

If he spends RM10 million to buy each of the 40 Umno Divisions (total RM400 million) so that he can contest the Umno Presidency, then what difference would he be to the other Umno leaders who play ‘money politics’?

He wants to become the Umno President and Prime Minister so that he can clean up the party and the government.

So Ku Li REJECTED Big Dog’s proposal, not because he could not afford RM400 million, but because it would not have been ethical to buy the party elections on a platform of trying to get in to rid the party of corruption."
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

Pro-Umno blogger Zakhir Mohamad a.k.a. ‘Big Dog’ a.k.a. ‘Christian PM basher’ is actually quite a delightful character. Many a time have we met for dinner and drinks together with Sallahuddin Hashim a.k.a. ‘A Voice’ a.k.a. ‘Another Brick in the Wall’.

Anyway, there was this one fasting month (Ramadhan) when John Pang (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s strategist) phoned me and asked me to arrange a meeting (followed by a buka puasa) with Umno and opposition bloggers and political activists. The number of 30 was agreed on -- the number of people who should be invited.

I then sat down and worked on the invitation list to make up that figure of 30 and passed it to Tengku Razalaigh Hamzah’s (a.k.a Ku Li) office for them to invite these people.

Almost everyone we invited came. And it was great to see bloggers and political activists from both sides of the political divide sitting in the same room to discuss how to make Ku Li the next Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Nik Azmi Nik Daud a.k.a. Bulat a.k.a. Bul gave his opinion -- which was actually quite a stupid idea and I could see Ku Li cringe with a ‘can you sit down and shut up’ look on his face.

I thought Bul’s idea was most stupid and it sounded as if he had just learned politics yesterday.

No wonder Ku Li has never done well in politics. With Bul as one of his strategists I doubt Ku Li could even win the post of Chief Dog Catcher.

Big Dog then asked Ku Li whether he was prepared to spend RM400 million to win the premiership. That, according to Big Dog, was what it was going to cost Ku Li.

Earlier Big Dog had told me that it is going to cost at least RM400 million to ‘buy’ 40 Umno divisions if Ku Li wants to become Prime Minister.

I said that that was quite a lot of money and Big Dog replied that Ku Li could afford it. He is worth much more than that, said Big Dog.

Ku Li looked hard at Big Dog -- as if he could not believe his ears -- and said that he is not prepared to ‘buy’ the premiership.

If he spends RM10 million to buy each of the 40 Umno Divisions (total RM400 million) just to get 40 nominations so that he can contest the Umno Presidency, then what difference would he be to the other Umno leaders who play ‘money politics’?

He wants to become the Umno President and Prime Minister so that he can clean up the party and the government. If he gets in by using bribery, then how can he later clean up the party and the government when he himself is dirty?

So Ku Li rejected Big Dog’s proposal, not because he could not afford RM400 million, but because it would not have been ethical to buy the party elections on a platform of trying to get in to rid the party of corruption. You can’t get in using corruption and then scream that you are against corruption.

Some of you may remember that I wrote about this some years back. I said then that the task ahead of Ku Li is to get his 40 nominations. If he can get 40 nominations, winning the Presidency is easier. It is getting the 40 nominations which is difficult.

In that sense Ku Li maintained his principles although after the meeting Big Dog grumbled that Ku Li is so rich but so kedekut (stingy). He could afford RM400 million easily, lamented Big Dog. If he hopes to win the Umno Presidency without paying any money then good luck to him, said Big Dog.

Big Dog and I met Ku Li a couple more times, once around midnight in his private residence.

But try as we may, we could not get Ku Li to agree to all the different ideas that were bandied about on how he could get his 40 nominations and go on to contest and win the Umno Presidency, which would be the route to becoming the new Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Some ideas were actually quite seditious and treasonous and Ku Li once chided one of the chaps who proposed it and told him that what he was proposing could end up with all of us being charged for treason with a death sentence thrown in. (Yes, some of the ideas were actually quite dangerous and could have ended with us sitting in death row if someone had talked).

Anyway, in the end nothing happened and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi a.k.a. Pak Lah resigned and Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister and Ku Li continued sitting in his house waiting for the day when he would become Prime Minister.

Well, at least he is not RM400 million poorer, which would have happened had he listened to Big Dog.

I must admit that Umno politics is far more interesting compared to opposition politics and I must also admit that I enjoyed myself immensely running with that pack of wolves. Learned a lot as well, which of course we can now use against them.

Malaysia Has NO Official Religion... Even Islam, Yet PM Najib REFUSES to Accept This Constitutional Fact

2011-05-11T18:00:00.005+08:00

PM Najib is Ignorant of the Federal Constitution or Deliberately Misleading Malaysians by Repeating Islam is the OFFICIAL Religion of Malaysia

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said everyone must accept the fact that Islam is the OFFICIAL religion of the country and that it cannot be changed in whatever form.

"This is because the reality is that we have the Federal Constitution and its provision on the position of Islam and the other religions is very clear," Najib told the media after meeting with 22 Muslim leaders and intellectuals in Putrajaya today.

"Under whatever circumstances, the Federal Constitution cannot be amended and as such, no one should be worried or feel uneasy on this matter," he said.
Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Malaysia Has NO OFFICIAL Religion, Says Constitutional Expert
Read here for more

The Federal Constitution has NEVER stated Islam is the country’s “official religion”, says lawyer Syahredzan Johan.

Syahredzan Johan was commenting on the controversy raged over a Utusan Malaysia report that Christians want to usurp the religion’s place in the charter.

The Umno-owned paper and some Malay-Muslim groups, including Umno leaders, have been pushing the view that the country’s highest law proclaims Islam to be its “official” religion and that only a Muslim can be its prime minister.

Syahredzan, who is the Bar Council’s constitutional law committee chief, said Utusan’s reading of the law was wrong and warned the Malay-language daily was pushing what he described as a “dangerous misconception” that could plunge the country into religious and social unrest.

“In terms of the Federal Constitution, there’s only one religion for the federation, no official or unofficial. The Constitution is clear on this. Islam is not the official religion,” he said to The Malaysian Insider when contacted yesterday.

He cited Article 3 as stating

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”

and pointed out the word “official” was NOWHERE in the provision.

Syahredzan said that section of the constitution must be interpreted together with Article 11, which states “

Everyone has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4)’ — which is on Islam — ‘to propagate it’”.

“We need to understand the correct terminology to be used when we say anything about the Federal Constitution,” he said, and added “everyone, from ministers to NGOs to bloggers have been claiming all sorts, which goes to show they do not know what is in the Federal Constitution”.

He observed that by inserting the extra word into the Constitution, the bloggers, ministers and newspaper were reading things that are not there and changing the law.

“And that’s unconstitutional,” the lawyer insisted.

Syahredzan also said while the man-on-the-street could be excused for not being well-versed with the law, ministers and lawyers could not be forgiven because it was not only their job but their duty.

“If it’s normal people, they can be excused for not knowing the Constitution, but we’re talking about ministers, lawyers, the media ... people with influence in society. If they themselves don’t understand how the Constitution works, then we have a serious problem because people might be agitated,” he said.

Syahredzan said he was highlighting this issue because no one else seemed to be doing so.

“It’s a very dangerous thing and it gets played up and because of that, it becomes more than just a constitutional issue, it becomes a bogeyman ... it becomes a religious issue and a social issue and a political issue and a problem. Someone needs to stand up and say this,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

While the young lawyer noted that right-wing Malay rights lobbyists had been making noise about this issue, he said he was unsure if their campaign was deliberate or carried out due to ignorance.

But, Syahredzan stressed, it is time Putrajaya take the lead to correct the misconception to avoid disaster.

“But something needs to be done; the government must state clearly what is and what is not in the Federal Constitution. The government should play the leading role in trying to correct the misconception and not push further misconception,” he said, and volunteered the Bar Council’s MyConstitution campaign to help the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) government help understand the Constitution.

Syahredzan also stressed that Malaysia is a secular country as it is a country that is bound by its constitution, and not the Quran or Islamic legal provisions.

“There are people who argue that our country is Islamic,” he conceded. “But an Islamic state is guided and bound by the Quran and the Sunnah, which then becomes the supreme law of that state,” he said.

He also explained that the whole controversy of changing the official religion from Islam to Christianity, which he noted pro-Malay rights lobbyists had pinned on Article 3, could be carried out with a two-thirds majority of Parliament and did not need the permission of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

“There’s no need for confirmation from the Conference of Rulers either, unlike Article 152 which is on the national language,” Syahredzan said, and cited Article 152 (1) which states “The national language shall be the Malay language”.

Similarly, Article 43(2) — on a Christian becoming prime minister — Syahredzan said it could happen because “the Constitution does not state the prime minister must be a Muslim. All it states is that someone who has the confidence of the majority of Parliament”.

Syahredzan said Islam’s position had become a basic structure of the Federal Constitution and was accepted by all regardless of their creed; adding he did not foresee any change to its position any time in the future.

The lawyer said there were enough safeguards in the Constitution and in the make-up of Parliament, where he observed Muslims outnumbering the non-Muslims, for any change to Islam to be put to the table.

“Why are we under this siege mentality that everyone is out to get us, as if they are afraid Islam is going to be changed?” he asked.

“We have got safeguards to protect Islam,” he said.