The High Court here today ruled that S. Banggarma, a 28-year-old ‘HINDU ’ mother of two is a MUSLIM.
As such she should refer her case to the Syariah Court to resolve any disputes arising from her ‘conversion’ to Islam.
Judicial Commissioner Yaakob Sam ruled:
“Based on the documents produced by the relevant authorities in the court, I'm satisfied that the plaintiff is a Muslim.
So her case should be referred to the Syariah Court".
Banggarma, who fled the welfare home at 16, discovered her ‘Muslim’ status when seeking to register her marriage to fisherman S Sockalingam in Tanjung Piandang, Perak in 2000.
Due to her contentious "conversion" , Banggarma could NOTregister Sockalingam as the father of her her children - Kanagaraj, nine, and Hisyanthini, three, until today.
Banggarma’s birth certificate revealed that she was born a Hindu on Aug 13, 1982 in Keratong, Pahang to plantation workers B Subramaniam and Latchumy Ramadu.
Born in 1982, Banggarma resorted to the courts to declare that her FORCED CONVERSION to Islam at the age of seven in 1989 was illegal.
Banggarma, whose Muslim name is Siti Hasnah Vangarama Abdullah, instantly brushed aside the verdict as “unfair and unrealistic” and said,
‘I will fight till the end.
I was born as a Hindu, lived as a Hindu and will die as a Hindu.”
Banggarma claimed:
she was unwittingly converted by the state Islamic religious authorities while she was staying in a welfare home in Kepala Batas, Penang.
she was converted at an age in which she could NOT have had the thinking capacity and competence to comprehend and undergo a religious conversion ceremony.
her parents could not have converted her to Islam, as alleged by the religious authorities, because her father originally put her in a HINDU orphanage centre in 1988.
her originating summons that the civil courts can adjudge her case since it was not a case of renunciation but one of declaring the process of conversion as null and void.
Banggarma's lawyer, Gooi Hsiao Leung said:
Banggarma was taken away from the orphanage by Perkim officer-in-charge Raimi Abdullah, on Dec 27, 1989
Raimi Abdullah then put her under the care of Rumah Kanak-Kanak Taman Bakti in Kepala Batas.
Banggarma was then FORCIBLY and UNWITTINGLY converted to Islam by PERKIM'S Raimi Abdullah the very next day.
Banggarma was converted WITHOUT her parents’ consent which contravened Article 12.4 of the Federal Constitution.
Banggarma, who fled the welfare home at 16, discovered her ‘Muslim’ status when seeking to register her marriage to fisherman S Sockalingam in Tanjung Piandang, Perak in 2000.
The defendants in the case were Perkim president Dr Mahathir Mohamed, Perkim officer-in-charge Raimi Abdullah, Penang Islamic Religious Affairs Council and the Penang City Kadi.
The defendants counter-claimed by producing to the court:
a document issued by the Pahang Islamic Religious Affairs Council showing that both Banggarma's parents converted to Islam in 1983.
a statutory declaration purportedly made by Subramaniam the same year that he planned to convert all his children to Islam.
The Islamic authorities said the documents proved that Banggarma was a ‘Muslim’ and as such, her case should be referred to the Syariah Court as stipulated under Article 121A of the Federal Constitution.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah recently hurled a potent yet distressing contention that we have become “a sick country” as a result of being fractured and divided along communal lines.
Merely days later, we get another unambiguous and ominous illustration of precisely how desperately the country’s health is deteriorating. Judicial Commissioner Yaakob Sam declared that Banggarma, a 28-year-old ‘Hindu’ mother, is officially a ‘Muslim’ – and not as she herself insists, a Hindu.
According to Yaakob Sam, the document verifying Banggarma’s status, who was a Hindu, that she was converted to Islam – at the age of eight, and while in an orphanage – is indeed valid to substantiate the fact that she is a Muslim.
This, of course, despite her adamant insistence – and what any reasonable person ought to be able to infer – that as an abandoned eight-year old in an orphanage, she could not and should not be deemed as having been competent to have made such a decision voluntarily.
To add salt to the wound, Yaakob Sam’s so-called civil judgment also asserts that Banggarma’s dispute about her forced conversion ought to be taken up by the Syariah court.
Herein lies the absurdity of our judiciary. These and other such cases revolving around disputes about individuals’ religious status is precisely how our secular courts have capitulated on their constitutional responsibility and mandate.
If indeed Banggarma insists that she is not a Muslim – and never has been a practicing one – despite what the conversion papers claim, where and what is the legal basis for transferring jurisdiction of the case to the Syariah court?
Further, if by her insistence, she is not a Muslim, is it not the case then that our civil courts have in fact failed in protecting her from being subjected to a religious court she does not believe in – and one that ought not to have jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate on her matter?
Even more perplexing is the absurdity of the civil court’s capacity to affirm based on the conversion papers – the very documents which Banggarma is claiming are invalid given the age and circumstances under which she was apparently converted – that she is a Muslim.
If indeed there is a huge cloud over the circumstances surrounding her conversion when she was eight years old, the civil courts should be responsible and minimally judicious by thoroughly examining and resolving any dispute surrounding the circumstances of someone who was clearly not a Muslim prior to the disputed conversion.
This should be the bare minimum a civil court ought to be expected to resolve before reverting and subjecting someone to a religious court. Yet, Yaakob Sam seems to have been unconcerned about the critical and central issue of the child’s status and conditions under which she was converted back in 1988 – a perfectly legitimate concern of the civil courts to examine and resolve. Instead, the commissioner chose to simply take the documents of conversion at face value and declare that based on the claims in the conversion papers, she is a Muslim.
The implications of such judgments ought to be chilling – that is, if you care about whatever credibility there may be left in our civil judicial system. Rather than keeping the lines between the civil and Shyriah courts clear, decisions such as these in fact deprive individuals, and especially children, who have been potentially victimised from receiving adequate and proper consideration in the civil courts.
For all practical purposes, in rendering this decision, the court has refused to exert its proper and constitutional role in protecting those – and especially the most vulnerable in our society - who might have been discriminated against on the basis of religion.
Imagine the absurdity of this legal situation where the civil court is asserting that it has no jurisdiction in deliberating the merits and the circumstances surrounding Banggarma’s conversion, but it is nonetheless exercising judicial authority in affirming that she is a bona fide Muslim.
Through such a ruling, it has as a matter of fact, exercised authority on a religious matter and yet at the same time ignored its responsibility and duty to exercise judicial due process over a civil matter of potential discrimination.
The least the court owes us all – and Banggarma - is the opportunity to explore and adjudicate on the merits of the claims of alleged victimisation and discrimination.
The persistence of such judicial posture, or more precisely, the lack thereof, further compounds the rapidly diminishing faith and confidence of the common person in the credibility of the civil courts. We’re left to ponder if such persistent capitulation and, for all practical purposes, emasculation of the civil court vis-a-vis the Shyriah court isn’t ultimately a sad commentary of the erosion of our civil rights.
But such are the realities and ailments of our judiciary.
"... Memanglah orang Melayu di Singapura minoriti.
Mantan perdana menteri Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, yang secara bersahaja mengingatkan Melayu Malaysia agar tidak menjadi seperti Melayu Singapura.
Masyarakat Melayu di Singapura tentunya TAHU apa yang telah berlaku pada mereka.
Pertama sekali, kita telah menjadi masyarakat yang amat berlainan berbanding 45 tahun lalu.
Kita telah membangunkan identiti dan falsafah hidup kita sendiri yang berbeza daripada saudara kita di seberang Tambak.
Kita mungkin pakai pakaian sama, makan makanan sama, berucap dalam bahasa sama dan mengamalkan budaya sama.
Tetapi persamaan itu BERAKHIR di situ.
Kita SEKARANG adalah sebuah masyarakat yang mendokong sikap mahu berdikari, atau berdiri atas kaki sendiri.
Kita TIDAK percaya kepada pendekatan selalu diberi bantuan atau terlalu bergantung kepada bantuan pemerintah. Dalam erti kata lain, kita tidak mahu mentaliti menopang (crutch mentaliti).
Kita benar-benar YAKIN bahawa sebuah masyarakat yang mempunyai mentaliti menopang akan menjadi masyarakat dua 'M' - MANJA dan MALAS.
Kita TIDAK mahu dilabel sebagai masyarakat yang manja dan malas.
Inilah sebabnya masyarakat Melayu kita sentiasa berusaha gigih demi meraih dana membina masjid, madrasah dan bangunan-bangunan lain kita sendiri dalam negara Singapura yang terbatas tanahnya selain nilai tanah yang tinggi.
Meritokrasi telah terbukti sebagai sistem yang baik dan adil. Ia mendorong kita bekerja keras dan menjadikan kita bangga akan pencapaian kita.
Kita telah melihat bagaimana sistem ini telah memberi manfaat dengan bertambahnya bilangan doktor, peguam, majistret, jurutera, pemimpin korporat dan karyawan lain dalam kalangan kita.
Kita, orang Melayu di Singapura, seharusnya bangga dengan pencapaian kita kerana kita meraihnya melalui kerja keras...." -Mohd Guntor Sadali
Berikut sedutan ucapan Editor Berita Harian dan Berita Minggu, Encik Mohd Guntor Sadali, di majlis Anugerah Jauhari Berita Harian 2010 di Hotel Shangri-La Rabu lalu.
Memanglah orang Melayu di Singapura minoriti. Namun golongan minoriti ini berlainan daripada minoriti lain di dunia.
Begitu juga, ada yang melihat Singapura sebagai satu titik merah di kawasan Asia yang besar. Tetapi ia bukan titik merah sembarangan.
Adalah satu kesilapan besar untuk menyamakan saiz dengan keupayaan, seperti silapnya andaian bahawa golongan minoriti dan kecil itu lemah dan tidak penting.
Piala Dunia yang baru lalu membuktikannya. Sedang Sepanyol menjadi juara dunia, kuasa kecil bola sepak, Switzerland, merupakan satu-satunya negara dalam pertandingan itu yang menewaskan Sepanyol.
Sudah 45 tahun berlalu sejak Singapura meninggalkan Malaysia, namun masih lagi kedengaran ulasan kurang elok dari seberang Tambak mengenai masyarakat Melayu setempat.
Yang terbaru datangnya daripada mantan perdana menteri Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, yang secara bersahaja mengingatkan Melayu Malaysia agar tidak menjadi seperti Melayu Singapura.
Beliau tidak menjelaskan apa makna sebenar hujahnya, cuma komen ini dibuat dalam konteks kemungkinan Melayu Malaysia hilang kuasa di Malaysia. Sekali lagi beliau tidak menjelaskan kuasa jenis apa, cuma agak selamat menyatakannya sebagai kuasa politik. Apa yang telah berlaku kepada orang Melayu di sini sepanjang empat dekad lalu?
Apa yang mendorong Dr Mahathir untuk melahirkan keprihatinannya dan memberi peringatan kepada Melayu Malaysia? Saya musykil.
Masyarakat Melayu di Singapura tentunya tahu apa yang telah berlaku pada mereka. Pertama sekali, kita telah menjadi masyarakat yang amat berlainan berbanding 45 tahun lalu. Kita telah membangunkan identiti dan falsafah hidup kita sendiri yang berbeza daripada saudara kita di seberang Tambak.
Kita mungkin pakai pakaian sama, makan makanan sama, berucap dalam bahasa sama dan mengamalkan budaya sama. Tetapi persamaan itu berakhir di situ.
Kita sekarang adalah sebuah masyarakat yang mendokong sikap mahu berdikari, atau berdiri atas kaki sendiri. Kita tidak percaya kepada pendekatan selalu diberi bantuan atau terlalu bergantung kepada bantuan pemerintah. Dalam erti kata lain, kita tidak mahu mentaliti menopang (crutch mentaliti).
Kita benar-benar yakin bahawa sebuah masyarakat yang mempunyai mentaliti menopang akan menjadi masyarakat dua 'M' - Manja dan Malas.
Kita tidak mahu dilabel sebagai masyarakat yang manja dan malas.
Inilah sebabnya masyarakat Melayu kita sentiasa berusaha gigih demi meraih dana membina masjid, madrasah dan bangunan-bangunan lain kita sendiri dalam negara Singapura yang terbatas tanahnya selain nilai tanah yang tinggi.
Sepanjang masa lalu, kita telah meraih jutaan dolar dan menjadi pemilik bangunan-bangunan ini. Melalui usaha kita sendiri dan bantuan badanbadan lain, kita juga telah membantu golongan memerlukan bukan sahaja dari segi kewangan malah juga melengkapkan mereka dengan kemahiran baru agar mereka dapat meraih pendapatan bagi sara hidup mereka.
Namun bagi Dr Mahathir, apa semua yang telah kita lakukan dan capai tidak mencukupi. Beliau mengambil pandangan negatif dalam perubahan sikap dan minda kita, justeru mengingatkan Melayu Malaysia agar usah menjadi seperti kita.
Apa pula tentang kuasa? Bagi Melayu di Singapura, kuasa bukanlah bermakna menghunus keris. Bagi kita, ilmu itu kuasa. Malah kita percaya ilmulah merupakan kuasa sebenar.
Penekanan berterusan oleh masyarakat tentang pentingnya pendidikan dan meraih ilmu telah mendorong pembentukan institusi seperti Mendaki, Angkatan Karyawan Islam (AMP), Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud (LBKM) dan banyak lagi.
Badan-badan bantu diri ini bukan sahaja menyediakan bantuan kewangan kepada pelajar memerlukan, tetapi juga membimbing pelajar kita agar memenuhi potensi mereka. Pada masa yang sama, badan-badan ini juga membantu menangani masalah sosial yang dihadapi masyarakat.
Sekali lagi, semua ini kita lakukan sendiri.
Kanak-kanak Melayu menghadiri sekolah sama seperti warga Singapura lain dengan satu matlamat sama - meraih pendidikan menyeluruh, dan tentulah mendapat keputusan peperiksaan yang baik.
Ya, memang ini mencabar. Seperti kanak-kanak lain, pelajar Melayu kita tiada pilihan selain bekerja keras. Ini satu hakikat kehidupan di Singapura yang telah kita terima - bahawa tiada jalan pintas bagi meraih kejayaan.
Kita tidak percaya kepada penerimaan layanan istimewa kerana ini akan hanya mengurangkan nilai pencapaian kita dan merendahkan harga diri kita.
Sistem meritokrasi yang diamalkan di sini memanglah satu sistem mencabar tetapi mendorong kita bekerja keras dan mengelakkan kita daripada menjadi manja dan malas.
Apa pun, Dr Mahathir dan beberapa pemimpin Melayu di seberang Tambak tidak suka dengan cara kita lakukan di sini dan telah memberi amaran kepada Melayu Malaysia agar tidak menjadi seperti kita.
Bagi kita, kita tidak boleh memandang ke belakang.
Meritokrasi telah terbukti sebagai sistem yang baik dan adil.
Ia mendorong kita bekerja keras dan menjadikan kita bangga akan pencapaian kita.
Kita telah melihat bagaimana sistem ini telah memberi manfaat dengan bertambahnya bilangan doktor, peguam, majistret, jurutera, pemimpin korporat dan karyawan lain dalam kalangan kita.
Kejayaan dan pencapaian sebilangan mereka inilah yang mahu ditonjolkan dan diraikan Berita Harian apabila kita melancarkan Anugerah Jauhari 12 tahun lalu.
Malam ini kita mempunyai seorang lagi contoh model bagi masyarakat kita.
Kita, orang Melayu di Singapura, seharusnya bangga dengan pencapaian kita kerana kita meraihnya melalui kerja keras.
Memang benar apa yang kita capai sejauh ini mungkin bukan yang terbaik, dan kita masih ketinggalan berbanding bangsa lain. Masih terdapat sebilangan besar anggota masyarakat kita yang menghadapi masalah sosial.
Kita telah mencapai banyak kejayaan, namun perjalanan kita masih jauh lagi. Tetapi kita tidak harus berputus asa. Kita boleh lakukan lebih banyak lagi secara sendiri jika masyarakat kita bersatu dan berpadu.
Dalam isu-isu kritikal, kita harus berseru dengan satu suara.
Kita perlu saling membantu dan mengukuhkan dan pada masa yang sama mendekati masyarakat lain dalam negara Singapura yang berbilang bangsa dan agama.
Singapura yang berjaya dan makmur hanya boleh bermakna sebuah masyarakat Melayu yang berjaya dan makmur.
Bolehkan kita melakukannya? Meminjam cogan kata kempen Presiden Barack Obama, 'Ya, kita boleh'.
-Mohd Guntor Sadali Editor Berita Harian dan Berita Minggu, Singapura
"We (SABAH) did NOT join Malaysia. WE HELPED to FORM Malaysia. People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge THIS fact and NOT continue to distort our history.
The historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all.
Academicians in Peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement. So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the Federation right.
Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simplya transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya.
Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years TOO EARLY or us.
The British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. -Simon Sipaun, Former Vice-Chairperson Human Rights Commission (Suhakam )
Nearly 47 years after the formation of Malaysia, former Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-chairperson Simon Sipaun is convinced more than ever that he was right to have opposed, from the very beginning, the idea of Sabah being in the new federation.
"Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years too early for us," Sipaun told 500-odd participants at a closed door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward', in Kota Kinabalu over the weekend.
The forum was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), an ad hoc apolitical movement dedicated to "reversing the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak".
Sipaun felt, back in 1962 as now, that the British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. Alternatively, Sabah should have been independent first for a similar period of time before considering, if at all, Malaysia as an option.
He was 25 years old at that time but didn't hesitate to make his views known to Donald Stephens, the Huguansiou (paramount chief) of the KadazanDusunMurut.
He conveyed his views to Stephens through a community leader known to be close to him and raised several other issues as well.
Sipaun was gratified to find that Stephens was in complete agreement with him. Apparently, Donald Stephens himself had already concluded that Malaysia was NOT for Sabah.
Sipaun's objections ran across a broad spectrum.
He warned that Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simply"a transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya".
He preferred that Sabah should experience being a truly independent and sovereign state, favouring self-rule initially, followed by full independence.
He also cautioned that Sabah, like Sarawak, did not have people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
Even so, he suggested going to the negotiating table alone i.e. without the British if the UN referendum showed that the people wanted the new federation with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
It later transpired that the UN referendum found that :
only a thirdof the people in Sabah, as in Sarawak, favoured Malaysia and
an equal number was OPPOSED
while the remainder wanted independence FIRST before considering the new federation as an option.
Among other ideas, he suggested that Sabah propose that Malaysia be a loose arrangement. In any case the new federation would be an artificial one, and urged that Stephens win an escape clause"in the event that Sabah found itself short-changed".
"What puzzles me to this day is why Stephens changed his mind and opted for Malaysia," said Sipaun. "This was after he met Lee Kuan Yew."
Light shed on mystery why Donald Stephens changed his mind
Sipaun's open query to the audience was later resolved when Dusun activist Raymond Tombung offered to shed some light on the mystery.
According to Tombung, he recently posed the question to Lee - now Minister Mentor in Singapore - during a courtesy call on him.
He was greeted by ten seconds of pin-drop silence during which the Singapore leader just hung his head, eyes cast downwards. Lee, regaining his composure, simply gave a non-answer: "Stephens has a mind of his own. It's not easy to convince him on anything."
Tombung, not disclosing his sources, swears that Stephens changed his opposition to Malaysia after Lee convinced him that he (Lee) would eventually be prime minister of the new federation and that the Sabah leader would be his number two in Kuala Lumpur.
Tombung disclosed that Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and Kota Kinabalu lawyer and social activist Nilakrisna James were also present when he questioned Lee on the Stephens mystery i.e. why he eventually dropped his opposition to Malaysia.
What gets on Sipaun's nerve TODAY is the fact that the historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all.
"It took nearly 47 years before the federal government officially acknowledged that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963," said Sipaun. "So, we are celebrating this great event for the first time this year. Better late than never."
History must be allowed to record, continued Sipaun, that Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia and that Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour and why.
"We did NOT join Malaysia but helped to form Malaysia," said Sipaun. "People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge this fact and not continue to distort our history."
He expressed his disappointment that even academicians in peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
"I even posed this question once to renowned historian Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim and he was very evasive,"disclosed Sipaun."He simply told me that this matter could be discussed. He never answered my question."
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement, pointed out Sipaun. "So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. Why can't we be honest with ourselves? We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the federation right."
CigMA activist Harry Manicit from Kudat chipped in from the floor to much applause: "We didn't negotiate with Johore, Selangor or the other states but with Malaya. So, Malaysia is one federation, three components."
In his concluding remarks, Sipaun called for a fair deal for Sabah or else "history will repeat itself".
Among others, he called for the civil service to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation, Borneonisation of the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak honoured, negotiated contracts stopped, the economic cake enlarged rather than quarreling about how to share it, the illegal immigrants in Sabah - "created by the federal government" - be redistributed among all states in peninsular Malaysia, and Sabah rights be restored.
Sipaun also moderated the question-and-answer sessions after the other speakers.
He was assisted by former federal deputy minister Kalakau Untol from Tuaran. Kalakau recently quit the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko) to join Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
".... Aku Melayu. Aku juga Muslim. Tapi aku BENCI kepada PERKASA.
Adakah ini bererti aku mengkhianati Melayu? TIDAK sama sekali.
Menentang PERKASA bererti aku mahu melihat bangsa Melayu hebat di mata dunia. Aku menentang PERKASA kerana mereka suka menutup sejarah.....kerana aku tidak suka bagaimana mereka cuba MEMPERBODOHKAN orang Melayu.
Lagi tebal kebodohan Melayu lagi berkuasalah UMNO. Apabila berkuasanya UMNO maka lagi senanglah mereka merompak harta rakyat. Apabila harta rakyat dirompak maka PERKASA mengharapkan sedikit sebanyak harta itu diberikan kepada mereka.
Aku masih ingat wajah Ibrahim Ali ketika sambutan hari Raya di rumah Anwar Ibrahim. Muka sedih dan tidak berdaya datang memohon simpati. Datang ke rumah Tuan Guru Nik Aziz meminta pertolongan agar diberi kerusi Pasir Mas.
Bila sudah menang. Memang melepaskan anjing. Sekarang dicubanya menggigit Anwar Ibrahim dan TG Nik Aziz. Menyalak tak tentu hala.
PEERKASA cuba menjadi HERO untuk orang Melayu. Tapi dalam masa yang sama, telah mencemarkan maruah orang Melayukerana telah menyebabkan bangsa - bangsa LAIN menyampah dengan bangsa ini. Mereka telah menganggap orang Melayu sama saja kurang ajarnya dengan PERKASA dan UMNO .
Kadang - kala tindakan mereka yang menggunakan nama agama suci ini juga telah menyebabkan penganut agama lain menjadi bertambah jauh daripada Islam.
Dari isu kalimah Allah hingga masuk dalam masjid. Semuanya diMelayukan oleh PERKASA dan UMNO .
Sedangkan zaman Nabi Muhammad s.a.w tidak pernah jadi begitu. Islam tidak diArabkan hatta Islam itu sendiri bercanggah dengan naluri asal orang Arab.
Aku begitu geli dengan mereka ini. Geli sifat munafik yang mereka tonjolkan. Mulut kata perjuangkan untuk bangsa dan agama tapi dalam masa mereka rela bersama - sama orang yang melakukan rasuah.
Aku Melayu. Malu aku apabila dicalitkan najis kebebalan PERKASA dan UMNO atas nama Ketuanan Melayu. Malu aku apabila orang sebangsa aku sanggup jadi pak turut Perkasa dalam isu yang sengaja khas direka oleh PERKASA dan UMNO.
Melayu JANGAN jadi layu.
MELAYU harus tunjukkan kepada bangsa - bangsa LAINbahawa: -- Kita sebenarnya cerdik. -- Kita mampu berubah. -- Kita mampu berfikir secara waras. -- Kita boleh bertolak - ansur dalam sesuatu perkara. -- Kita tidak gila macam Perkasa dan Umno. -- Kita tidak bodoh seperti Umno dan Perkasa...."
Aku Melayu. Aku juga Muslim. Tapi aku BENCI kepadaPERKASA.
Apakah tindakan aku membenci Perkasa seperti mana aku membenci Yahudi Zionis ini bererti aku pengkhianat Melayu?
Aku membenci Perkasa BUKAN kerana hebatnya Ibrahim Ali bermain drama.
Aku membenci Perkasa kerana aku tidak suka bagaimana mereka cuba MEMPERBODOHKAN orang Melayu.
Pertubuhan yang dianggotai oleh manusia - manusia yang cerdik cuba menyeret orang Melayu turut sama menjadi bodoh seperti mereka.
Inilah perkara utama kenapa aku benci kepada Perkasa.
Mereka menjerit kepada ketuanan Melayu. Mereka menjerit jangan undi DAP. Jika undi DAP maka hilanglah kuasa orang Melayu. Undi DAP lihat apa yang terjadi kepada orang Melayu di Pulau Pinang.Satu perkataan yang khas buat mereka. BODOH!
Jangan cuba tutup sejarah. Jangan cuba gelapkan sejarah.
Jangan jadi perangai Munsyi Abdullah yang menutup sejarah sebenar Malaysia dengan karya dongeng yang membodohkan rakyat Malaysia.
Orang Melayu di kampung Berembang merupakan pengundi tetap Umno. Kubu kuat Umno yang sukar ditembusi oleh PAS ataupun PKR. Namun lihat apa yang terjadi kepada mereka. Rumah mereka dirobohkan disaat anak - anak penduduk kampung Berembang menanti untuk peperiksaan. Pasangan uda dan dara yang akan melangsungkan perkahwinan. Surau di kampung Berembang dirobohkan. MANA PERGI PEJUANG - PEJUANG MELAYU yang menjerit ketuanan Melayu.
Jangan jadi bangsat wahai Perkasa. Aku dan ribuan anak muda Melayu menangis melihat suara, tangisan dan jeritan anak - anak kecil Melayu melihat rumah mereka dirobohkan.
Mana kalian semua ketika mereka menagih simpati? Mana kalian semua ketika surau di kampung tersebut dirobohkan? Mana keris - keris yang bersedia dihunuskan ketika mereka menangis? DI MANA SEMUA ITU?
Sudah pasti kita semua mendengar hujah mereka "Oh, rumah itu rumah haram." Oh alangkah pembohongnya mereka. Alangkah bangsatnya perangai mereka. Jika yang dirobohkan rumah itu hasil kerja-tangan Pakatan Rakyat, maka bersiap - sedialah gendang perang ditiupkan. Walaupun Pakatan Rakyat menggunakan hujah yang sama, namun itu salah bagi mereka. Jadi jadi manusia munafik atau perangai seperti Yahudi Zionis kepada pemimpin Perkasa. Jijik aku melihat sifat dan akhlak kalian semua.
Aku Melayu, tapi aku menentang Perkasa. Adakah ini bererti aku mengkhianati Melayu. Tidak sama sekali. Aku menentang Perkasa kerana mereka suka menutup sejarah.
Perkasa mewarisi ilmu menipu daripada Munsyi Abdullah dan sebagainya. Apabila sejarah ditutup maka secara tidak langsung ia boleh menyebabkan sesuatu kaum atau agama musnah sama sekali. Menentang Perkasa bererti aku mahu melihat bangsa Melayu hebat di mata dunia. Bangsa Melayu dianggap bangsa penyayang oleh bangsa Cina, India dan lain - lain. Bukannya lagi sebagai sebuah bangsa yang mengharapkan Umno atau Perkasa dan bukannya hanya tahu marah tapi tidak mahu berubah.
Jika benar Malaysia ini milik orang Melayu, maka buktikan dahulu dengan mencampak Umno dan Perkasa. Hanya dengan mencampak mereka sejauh - jauhnya barulah Melayu boleh kembali gemilang dan hidup bersama - sama dengan bangsa yang lain. Jauhkan anasir penghasut dalam Malaysia. Aku Juga Se-Orang Muslim
Aku seorang Muslim dan Melayu. Aku cuba menjadi Muslim yang baik walaupun tidak sebegitu sempurna. Idola aku Nabi Muhammad s.a.w merupakan contoh terbaik aku. Dari kehidupan peribadinya hinggalah kepada cara Baginda s.a.w mentadbir negara. Apabila aku melihat wujud kumpulan - kumpulan melampau yang cuba mencemarkan nama baik agama ini maka aku harus bangkit lawan.
Perkasa cuba menjadi hero untuk orang Melayu. Tapi dalam masa yang sama, telah mencemarkan maruah orang Melayu kerana telah menyebabkan bangsa - bangsa lain menyampah dengan bangsa ini. Mereka telah menganggap orang Melayu sama saja kurang ajarnya dengan Perkasa dan Umno. Kadang - kala tindakan mereka yang menggunakan nama agama suci ini juga telah menyebabkan penganut agama lain menjadi bertambah jauh daripada Islam.
Dari isu kalimah Allah hingga masuk dalam masjid. Semuanya diMelayukan oleh Perkasa dan Umno. Sedangkan zaman Nabi Muhammad s.a.w tidak pernah jadi begitu. Islam tidak diArabkan hatta Islam itu sendiri bercanggah dengan naluri asal orang Arab. Aku begitu geli dengan mereka ini. Geli sifat munafik yang mereka tonjolkan.
Mulut kata perjuangkan untuk bangsa dan agama tapi dalam masa mereka rela bersama - sama orang yang melakukan rasuah, terang - terang menindas rakyat dengan menaikkan harga minyak dan harga barang.
Ketika zaman Nabi Muhammad s.a.w Abdullah bin Ubay merupakan ketua munafik pada zaman tersebut. Selepas kewafatan baginda s.a.w, lahir seorang lagi iaitu Abdullah bin Saba'. Masuk Islam namun dalam masa yang sama berniat menghancurkan agama ini dengan mencetuskan persengketaan sesama Islam.
Di Malaysia, wujud seorang individu yang perangai sama macam dua insan yang dilaknat ini. Permainan menempel muka dengan muka pengemis yang menimpa simpati. Aku masih ingat wajah Ibrahim Ali ketika sambutan hari Raya di rumah Anwar Ibrahim. Muka sedih dan tidak berdaya datang memohon simpati. Datang ke rumah Tuan Guru Nik Aziz meminta pertolongan agar diberi kerusi Pasir Mas. Bila sudah menang.
Memang melepaskan anjing. Sekarang dicubanya menggigit Anwar Ibrahim dan TG Nik Aziz. Menyalak tak tentu hala. Cuba memecah-belahkan undi orang Melayu. Dahulu sanggup turun ke jalanraya menentang kenaikan harga minyak di KLCC. Sekarang, diam takut menikus. Bacul dan jantan yang tiada telur apabila kuasa dan duit sudah diberikan. Lagi bangsat daripada Yahudi Zionis.
Aku Melayu, melihat gelagat Perkasa yang sememangnya menipu dan cubaan membodohkan orang Melayu menyebabkan aku merasa cukup jijik. Melayu bodoh maka senanglah mereka menjilat tangan Najib kerana jika Melayu jadi bodoh maka Umno akan terus berkuasa.
Operasi membodohkan Melayu harus dilaksanakan secepat mungkin. Lagi tebal kebodohan Melayu lagi berkuasalah Umno. Apabila berkuasanya Umno maka lagi senanglah mereka merompak harta rakyat. Apabila harta rakyat dirompak maka Perkasa mengharapkan sedikit sebanyak harta itu diberikan kepada mereka.
Aku Melayu dan aku faham sejarah. Suruh ahli - ahli kumpulan Perkasa baca balik buku teks sejarah tingkatan tiga (walaupun tak sampai 10% betul). Melayu berasal dari mana. China. Jadi apa perlu kita bergaduh. Sedangkan kita serumpun. Itu belum dikira manusia berasal dari Nabi Adam. Perkasa jangan jadi keldai. Cukup kamu seorang keldai tapi jangan diseret sama orang - orang Melayu menjadi keldai juga. Cukup kamu semua yang bodoh tapi dibodohkan minda orang - orang Melayu.
Aku Melayu. Malu aku apabila dicalitkan najis kebebalan Perkasa dan Umno atas nama Ketuanan Melayu. Malu aku apabila orang sebangsa aku sanggup jadi pak turut Perkasa dalam isu yang sengaja khas direka oleh Perkasa dan Umno. Sudahlah kita dibebalkan dengan sejarah rekaan Munsyi Abdullah, British dan Thailand sekarang kita sekali lagi dibengapkan oleh Perkasa dan Umno.
Melayu jangan jadi layu. Melayu harus tunjukkan kepada bangsa - bangsa lain bahawa kita sebenarnya cerdik. Kita mampu berubah. Kita mampu berfikir secara waras. Kita boleh bertolak - ansur dalam sesuatu perkara. Kita tidak gila macam Perkasa dan Umno. Kita tidak bodoh seperti Umno dan Perkasa.
Aku Melayu dan Islam. Aku memilih untuk menolak Umno dan Perkasa. Kalian semua bagaimana?
Mohamad Sabu,Ahli Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat, menyifatkan pendapat yang mengatakan jika Umno kalah, maka Melayu juga kalah atau mundur adalah tahyul dan merupakan satu tafsiran mengarut.
Katanya, kepimpinan Umno lazimnya membuat kenyataan tahyul itu bahawa sekiranya Umno kalah dalam pilihan raya nanti, masyarakat Melayu akan hidup dalam suasana kelam kabut atau tertekan sebagaimana zaman Jepun.
Padahal, jelasnya jika Umno kalah, maka PAS dan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) iaitu parti yang seagama dengan kepimpinan Umno pula akan memegang tampuk pemerintahan serta meneruskan kelangsungan perjuangan tetapi berlainan pendekatan untuk membela rakyat.
"Bila Umno kalah, PAS dan PKR pula yang akan teruskan perjuangan tapi kali ini bukan macam Umno yang berkepentingan dan kroni, kita akan urus tadbir negara dengan baik," tambahnya semasa berucap dalam program ceramah anjuran Dewan Pemuda PAS di Dataran Kompleks An-Nadhoh, Penanti malam tadi.
Katanya, pemimpin Umno sanggup menggertak supaya orang Melayu jangan mengundi PAS atau PKR yang digambarkan sebagai petualang bangsa kerana kononnya menggadai maruah kepada kaum lain.
"Sekarang ini biarlah Umno dan Barisan Nasional (BN) nak gelarkan apa pun, kita jangan peduli. Kita patut pandang ke depan dengan satu matlamat mendaki Putrajaya kerana jalan tersebut boleh menyelamatkan maruah negara yang sudah tercalar di mata dunia," tegasnya.
Rakyat, ujarnya wajar menilai kepimpinan PAS di Kelantan, Terengganu sebelum tewas pada pilihan raya ke-11 lalu dan terkini di Kedah, adakah gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawab mentadbir dengan baik.
Jawapannya, kata beliau pasti lebih cemerlang berbanding Umno dan BN kerana pentadbiran mereka penuh dengan penyelewengan, pembohongan fakta dan penipuan.
"Sebagai kepimpinan parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat, saya lihat sudah ada kemahiran dan pemimpin tidak melatah seperti sebelum pilihan raya 2004 yang mana DAP lari keluar yang akhirnya kita kalah sebagai pakatan pembangkang," katanya.
Namun, katanya kini Umno memainkan rentak yang sama iaitu isu Melayu untuk bersatu dengan PAS.
Menurutnya, mereka menggunakan mufti untuk kepentingan politik sempit padahal peranan mufti menasihati tingkah laku kepimpinan Umno yang terlalu banyak penyelewengan sehinggakan rakyat terpaksa menolak kerajaan BN pada pilihan raya umum ke-12 lalu.
"Mufti pun jadi kalut sekarang ini nak satukan PAS dan Umno. Saya dengar 'geli' bila sebut tentang kerjasama PAS dan Umno. Nak kerjasama macam mana, depan ajak elok dengan senyuman sampai ke telingga tapi di belakang mereka panah kita dengan anak panah berbisa.
“Lupakanlah kerjasama tu kerana yang penting biar Umno karam manakala kita daki Putrajaya bersama parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat yang lain," tegas beliau. menyifatkan pendapat yang mengatakan jika Umno kalah, maka Melayu juga kalah atau mundur adalah tahyul dan merupakan satu tafsiran mengarut.
Former MCA President and Transport Minister Tun Ling Liong Sik was today charged in the Kajang Sessions Court over his involvement in the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.
He is the second MCA president to be placed in the dock after Tan Koon Swan. Today’s prosecution of Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik over his role in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, has sent shockwaves through the MCA, leaving party leaders stuttering in response.
Dr Ling is believed to be the first Tun in the country to face such prosecution.
Ling is charged with misleading the cabinet between Sept 25 and Nov 6, 2002, ( Section 418 of the Penal Code). into agreeing to purchase 999.5 acres of land on Pulau Indah for a project, now known as PKFZ, at a price of RM25psf on a deferred payment method for a 15-year period, at a 7.5 percent interest rate . The cumulative interest paid would total RM720 million at the end of the repayment period.
He was also offered an alternative charge, under Section 417 of the Penal Code, for the same offence.
According to the charge sheet, the Finance Ministry had already valued the land at RM25psf - inclusive of compounded interest - and this fact was withheld from the cabinet by the accused.
Ling pleaded not guilty to both charges and Sessions Court judge Suzana Hussin set bail at RM1 million. Mention has been fixed for Sept 3.
As Ling needed time to post bail, he was released on personal bond for today and given time to post bail at the Sessions Court tomorrow.
He was represented by counsel RR Sethu. Ling appeared in court at 4.45pm, accompanied by his wife Ena and two sons.
PKFZ, a commercial and industrial project south of the capital, was conceived as a RM1.82 billion venture constructed over 1,000 acres.
However, costs are now expected to balloon to RM12.5 billion, making the affair one of the country's biggest financial scandals and a major embarrassment for the government.
Investigations into the project's financial records since then have revealed instances of corruption, cases of conflict of interest as well as breach of trust.
Last November, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had recommended in its report on the PKFZ controversy that former transport minister Chan Kong Choy and former Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager OC Phang be probed for criminal breach of trust.
This was over the wrongful issuance of three letters of support by Chan and three letters of undertaking by Phang without Finance Ministry approval.
PAC said that it was informed by the attorney-general that the letters were implicitly a form of guarantee from the government to ensure that there would be allocations for PKA to enable it to meet its obligations under the development agreement.
The 12 protesters involved in the infamous cow-head protest last year (SEE VIDEO CLIP BELOW) were ONLY fined RM1,000 each by the Shah Alam Sessions court today, after pleading guilty to an alternative charge of taking part in an illegal assembly.
SEDITION ON PUBLIC DISPLAY ON THE STREET OF MALAYSIA
WATCH THIS VIDEO CLIP
Quote
".... These guys played with fire, stirred up religious sentiments, instigated racial disharmony. They should have been sent to prison under ISA.
Just as everyone predicted, the UMNO -linked-and-endorsed 'cow's head' mob were let off with nothing more than a silky caress on the wrist by the 'judiciary'.
With their crimes amply documented in print, photo and on video, this pathetic verdict is the best that the court could come up with? If this was done by non-Muslims, the whole case would be different. Well done, BN, this is your 1Malaysia.
There really is no longer any point in saying that this makes a mockery of the Malaysian justice system - because there no longer exists a justice system to mock anyway.
When such blatantly malicious and provocative actions are allowed to go unpunished - and are openly endorsed by the home minister himself - they merely add further proof that Najib's '1Malaysia' is nothing more than a hypocritical public relations exercise and that Umno is nothing more than a mob of corrupt, racist thugs hiding behind the tattered fig leaf of pseudo-nationalistic ethnocentrism.
The kangaroo courts have again showed the rakyat the kind of twisted minds that sit on the judiciary. This verdict is an insult to all those who profess the Hindu religion.
1Malaysia, 2 systems. One for Umnoputras and one for others. Umnoputras can get away with murder. The rest will be severely punished, even with ISA.
The rot starts from the court house.. ..."
The 12 protesters involved in the infamous cow-head protest last year were fined RM1,000 each by the Shah Alam Sessions court today, after pleading guilty to an alternative charge of taking part in an illegal assembly.
Four of them however were granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from additional sedition charges byjudge Hasbi Hasan, after the prosecution decided not to pursue the case.
The four - Ibrahim Sabri, 43, Ahmad Mahayuddin Abd Manaf, 37, Ahmad Suhairy Zakaria, 31 and Mohd Hilmi Ali, 41 - maintained their innocence and were supposed to go through separate trials to hear their cases related to the desecration of the cow-head - deemed offensive to Hindus.
The deputy public prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusoff decided not to submit further evidence in both cases as two other protesters, Eyzva Ezhar Ramli, 32, and Mohd Azmir Mohd Zain, 36, had already plead guilty to similar charges.after pleading guilty to an alternative charge of taking part in an illegal assembly.
The group were initially charged under Section 27(5A) of the Police Act 1967, but were offered an alternative charge under Section 143 of the Penal Code which carries a lower penalty of six months' jail or fine. The group looked visibly relieved when Hasbi read out her judgment, though Eyzva and Azmir appeared expressionless, given the additional punishment meted out to them.
The 12 nevertheless proceeded to congratulate one another and their lawyers at the end of the trial, clearly happy that the whole affair had ended.
In a Reuters report, critics said the light sentences may further strain race relations between Muslims, who make up the majority of the country's 28 million population, and minority Hindus and Christians who complain of discrimination.
"Going (forward), this will become a political issue for the country's minorities and further reinforce their unhappiness," said James Chin, a politics professor at Monash University in Kuala Lumpur. Read here for more in Malaysiakini MALAYSIANS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JUDGMENT.
The cow-head protesters' actions were supported by some politicians, including the home minister. The punishment is too soft and will not deter such a crime again. Secondly, there's been a lack of transparency in this. I would like to know why the four have had their charges dropped. Finally, what about those who supported the protest openly, such as Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein. If his actions were not illegal, the least he should do is to issue a public apology for his actions and swear not to repeat them in future.
This must be the joke of the year. These guys played with fire, stirred up religious sentiments, instigated racial disharmony. They should have been sent to prison under ISA. The ISA should not be used against reporters and politicians, but against those who initiate racial and religious hatred. The rot starts from the court house.
Regardless of the punishment, do you think they feel any remorse at all? The four who were found to be innocent congratulated each other publicly, presumably because justice was served when it came to them. But did they think about justice for the Hindus who had to face this ugly protest made against their right to practise their religion in that neighbourhood?
Syabas, Barisan Nasional. Now we all know the government sanctioned punishment for insulting another religion and threatening violence. Hooray!
What kind of justice is this - the four refused to plead guilty and they were set free? What kind of justice system are we practising?
So this is the punishment? One week in jail and RM3,000 fine for inciting racial tension? If a pig-head were paraded in the streets the next time by some insensitive Chinese, the punishment would be just one week's jail and RM3,000 fine or just a RM3,000 fine?
They were slapped with a fine only, no ISA, and even the charges were changed to allow a lower penalty. If this was done by non-Muslims, the whole case would be different. Well done, BN, this is your 1Malaysia.
Only RM1,000 fine? Great, at least when Umno pays the fine for them, not that much of our taxpayers money will be siphoned out of the nation's coffers. This is classic eye-wash by the government. If we the rakyat remain ignorant and dumb, then rest assured that we'll all vote Umno again into power. Thereupon, Umno can continue to orchestrate some more cow-head protests and continue to let the kangaroo courts perform the eye-wash they're so great at.
An absolutely disgusting verdict. Even in the face of compelling and irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, the judiciary refuses to do justice. It is no surprise why FDI is in the negative. There is no justice for the non-Umno entities in Malaysia. Only by kicking out Umno will justice prevail once again.
I am sure BN demanded this lenient fine. This will raise investors confidence as more FDI (foreign direct investments) will arrive to start up cow-farming to cater for higher demand of cow heads since the punishment for such acts are pretty reasonable.
1Malaysia, 2 systems. One for Umnoputras and one for others. Umnoputras can get away with murder. The rest will be severely punished, even with ISA. The rakyat are totally fed up. I will definitely want to see a change. If BN retains power after 13th general election, we may as well get ready to quit this country and migrate as we have no locus standi here.
I studied 'civilised' law so that I can uphold justice. Now it seems to have been a big mistake because Malaysia practices the 'law of the jungle'.
To all BN component parties except for Umno, are you blind to the insidious and slow cultural and religious genocide that has been going on for the last 30-plus years? Now we know that some people can trample on your religious icons, insult your religion and probably firebomb your house of worship and get away with a relatively light sentence of illegal assembly and disorderly behaviour.
The kangaroo courts have again showed the rakyat the kind of twisted minds that sit on the judiciary. Everyone has a limit to condoning things, and this is the beginning of the end. This verdict is an insult to all those who profess the Hindu religion. Indians of the Hindu faith, do you still want BN to represent you?
"Eyzva Ezhar was ordered to serve his week in jail after he completes his current jail time. He is currently serving time in a prison in Jelebu for a previous drug conviction ". So the 'defenders' of Islam are made up of the dregs of society, low-level scum found in the drains and back lanes of Lorong Haji Taib and Chow Kit.
Just as everyone predicted, the Umno-linked-and-endorsed 'cow's head' mob were let off with nothing more than a silky caress on the wrist by the 'judiciary'. With their crimes amply documented in print, photo and on video, this pathetic verdict is the best that the court could come up with?
There really is no longer any point in saying that this makes a mockery of the Malaysian justice system - because there no longer exists a justice system to mock anyway. When such blatantly malicious and provocative actions are allowed to go unpunished - and are openly endorsed by the home minister himself - they merely add further proof (as if any more were needed) that Najib's '1Malaysia' is nothing more than a hypocritical public relations exercise and that Umno is nothing more than a mob of corrupt, racist thugs hiding behind the tattered fig leaf of pseudo-nationalistic ethnocentrism.
Extremists like Perkasa will now see this as an open license to further insult and inflame race relations.
No wonder there is no racial equality in Malaysia today. These troublemakers are so lightly punished for a crime against social stability that it really makes a mockery of the entire justice system. I say shame on the judge and shame on those perpetrators for their insulting crime against the Indians. Imagine what would happen if a wild boar head is thrown and dragged to the front gate of a mosque?
Far from being a deterrent, the sentence only encourages future behaviour like this.
As expected.
The protestors in the cow-head incident were just slapped witha small fine! To the Hindus, the cow is SACRED! By stepping on it, the protetsors were trying to look down on the sacred cow; and the religion that goes with it! Yet, there charges of sedition were dropped! Compare this incident with the seditious speech by one UMNO man in Penang. Nothing happened to him except suspension from UMNO while the news reporter from Sin Chew was locked up under ISA!" Protection for her ?"
I am totally ashamed of our judiciary and home ministry and the people who helm it. These are criminals of the lowest level. These are the brutes who shd be under ISA. God save this country from bigots, extremists, thieves and liars in high places. Rest assured, God is watching. You shall burn in hell!!
I am sure MIC especially 'UMNO thamby' could'nt wait to kiss the hands of these 4 holy "Cow Heads"! MIC you are just a BORN LOSER....
So I assume, Najib, that cow head protesting is a small offense under the 1 Malaysia concept.
The whole trial is an eyewash to show that something is done. Haven't the people expected the verdicts? Had the trouble-makers been from the other camps, God would have to help them! Don’t we know we have kangaroo courts in this Umno-led BN government?
"..... Orang UMNO sendiri lupa bahawa Dato Onn Jaafar sendirilah yang pada akhirnya yang menentang UMNO.
Apabila Dato Onn Jaafar KELUAR daripada UMNO dan menubuhkan Parti Negara lalu bertanding dalam pilihanraya umum di Johor Bharu pada tahun 1955 Dato Onn telah kalah.
Lalu pada pilihanraya tahun 1959 PAStelah memberi laluan kepada Dato Onn Jaafar untuk bertanding di kubu kuat PAS ketika itu iaitu di Kuala Trengganu lalu Dato Onn telah memenangi kerusi tersebut.
Inilah sejarah yang sering dilupakan oleh rakyat malah orang UMNO sendiri....." Read here for more
Tapi kenapa aku membenci tindakan sesetengah tindak - tanduk pemimpin Umno yang mengaku diri mereka memperjuangkan Melayu.
Adakah dengan langkah aku membenci Umno maka aku mengkhianati Melayu?
Aku benci kepada Umno kerana mereka sering kali memperbodohkan Melayu.
Lihat sahaja laungan Ketuanan Melayu tapi yang merampas tanah - tanah orang Melayu adalah mereka.
Yang merobohkan Kampung Berembang adalah mereka.
Yang menutup mata untuk penduduk Kampung Tanjung Tokong Pulau Pinang adalah mereka.
Yang merampas biasiswa untuk Bumiputera adalah mereka.
Tapi dalam masa yang sama mereka juga menjerit "HIDUP MELAYU!", "INI TANAH MELAYU!", "JANGAN RAMPAS HAK MELAYU!", dan sebagainya.
Kenapa masih ada yang mempercayai Umno memperjuangkan Melayu. Kenapa masih ada yang terus - menerus memberi undi kepada Umno?
Aku Melayu, tapi aku tidak pernah sesekali memberikan undi aku kepada Umno kerana aku yakin Umno tidak pernah mempertahankan Melayu.
Mereka hanya menggunakan nama Melayu untuk merompak harta negara. Mereka mencandukan orang Melayu dengan slogan - slogan yang cukup enak untuk didengar.
Buktinya?
Lihat sahaja rumah Khir Toyo. Hartanya puluhan juta. Hasilnya kerana terus menerus memperbodohkan Melayu. Apabila Melayu khayal dan terus seronok menyokong Umno, maka lahirlah Istana Kaya Raya Khir Toyo.
Apakah itu tidak cukup untuk membuka mata orang Melayu?
TIDAK ! Orang Melayu disajikan dengan orang Cina nak rampas tanah Melayu. Orang Cina akan buang hak - hak Melayu. Tanah orang Melayu akan dirampas oleh Cina. Sokong parti pembangkang orang Melayu akan musnah.
Maka orang Melayu sekali lagi terpedaya dengan dakyah dan tipu muslihat bangsat Umno ini. Sedangkan yang berusaha untuk menghalau orang Melayu di tanah mereka sendiri adalah orang Umno.
Apakah itu tidak cukup memperlihatkan betapa bangsatnya Umno?
Aku Melayu, apabila melihat betapa bangsatnya penipuan Umno terus aku membenci Umno.
Aku yakin Umno tidak pernah ikhlas mahu membantu orang Melayu. Umno hanya mempergunakan sensitif orang Melayu untuk mengekalkan kuasa mereka dan terus - menerus mengKAYAkan sanak - saudara mereka.
Atas sebab itu aku yakin, Umno harus dimusnahkan jika tidak, orang Melayu terus akan mundur di kampung. Orang Melayu tergadai tanah mereka. Orang Melayu terus - menerus nasib mereka tidak dibela.
Namun sayangnya, hanya segelintir sahaja yang berfikiran seperti aku. Masih ramai lagi disana yang terpedaya dengan tipu muslihat Umno.
Kenapa mereka masih tidak berubah? Kerana maklumat tidak sampai. Menjadi tanggungjawap kita menyampaikan maklumat untuk mereka.
Aku Melayu apakah dengan penulisan ini aku dianggap mengkhianati Melayu? Silakan.
Aku mahu melihat Melayu bebas dari pengaruh Umno yang bangsat ini. Sedangkan Nabi Muhammad s.a.w pun digelar pengkhianat oleh puak Jahiliyyah Quraisy. Jadi aku akan terus - meneruskan mengatakan Umno pengkhianat Melayu. Buang Umno maka Melayu selamat. Percayalah
Events leader to and after Blogger Andrew Breitbart lied by editing a video clip of Shirley Sherood's speech in March 2010 intend to smear her reputation and which led to the Secretary of the US Dept of Agriculture to wrongly call for her resignation.
READ TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO CLIP BELOW
Andrew J. Breitbart( born February 1, 1969) is an American blogger, publisher-commentator for the Washington Times, author, and an occasional guest commentator on various news programs.
He may be best-known for serving as an editor for the Drudge Report website. He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and was employed by her as "the primary developer" of her website, the Huffington Post.
He currently runs his own news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and five other websites: Breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace
Shirley Sherrod was a United States Department of Agriculture Georgia State Director of Rural Development, and who was forced to resign after a heavily edited video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010.
In the video, Sherrod (an African American woman) described her own attitude, while employed at a private advocacy firm in 1986, when a white farmer sought her help after his farm was about to be foreclosed.
The decision to fire her was revisited after the full version of the video, which presents the context for Sherrod's excerpted remarks, was made public. The event ignited debates regarding racism in the United States, the reporting practices of the Fox News Channel, and the decisions made by the administration of President Barack Obama.
Sherrod has since received an apology from the administration, and has been offered another job with the Department of Agriculture.
On Monday Shirley Sherrod was called racist and forced to resign. Now the White House is begging her to return
It began, like so many political brouhahas these days, with a video posted on a website – a clip from a speech by a mid-level black official of the US Department of Agriculture in which she mused on an incident from a quarter of a century ago, long before she joined the federal government.
But in the space of a couple of news cycles, Shirley Sherrod's life story was rewritten – TWICE/
First she was branded an unreconstructed racist and sacked. Within barely 24 hours however, she was offered a new job by the Government, this time hailed as a symbol of racial reconciliation and redemption.
In the same blinks of the news cycle, the right saw a seeming propaganda coup transformed into an own goal; the Agriculture Department was obliged to issue a cringing apology; and the Obama White House, not for the first time, had clumsily stumbled into a controversy on race – the very issue this President was supposedly uniquely placed to overcome.
Utterly forgotten amid the fracas were two genuinely important political events: passage of an extension of jobless benefits that will help millions of Americans brought low by the recession, and the signature of the most sweeping financial regulatory reform in 75 years.
Welcome, in short, to US politics in this hot and ill-tempered pre-election summer of 2010. Depending on how you look at it, the story began either 24 years ago or at the start of this week.
On Monday morning, the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a two-and-a-half minute video extract of a speech made in March 2010 by Ms Sherrod, the Agriculture Department's (USDA) director of rural development for Georgia, in which she apparently admitted having discriminated against a white farmer.
Within hours she was receiving abusive messages. Inevitably the controversy was seized upon by Fox News, mouthpiece of the conservative movement, which denounced the "shocking" video and demanded Ms Sherrod's resignation.
It hardly needed to ask. That afternoon she was travelling when Cheryl Cook, a deputy undersecretary at the USDA called to inform her that the White House, no less, wanted her out, because her comments were causing a furore on the cable networks.
"They called me twice," Ms Sherrod explained. "The last time, they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and submit my resignation on my BlackBerry, and that's what I did."
Not for the first time, political accusation, conviction and assassination, internet-style, had taken less than half a day.
Even the NAACP, the venerable US civil rights group that had organised the meeting at which Ms Sherrod spoke, praised her ousting – a move probably not unconnected with its accusation a few days earlier that the right-wing Tea Party movement, darling of Fox News among others, had racist elements in its ranks.
Alas, in this particular assassination it quickly became apparent that the wrong person had been put to the sword. The clip, it emerged, had been lifted entirely out of context from a speech that lasted 43 minutes.
Far from venting reverse racist spleen against whites, the 62-year-old Ms Sherrod was telling her thoroughly uplifting life story – of how her father had been murdered by white men in 1965, at the height of the civil rights struggle; how she had married her husband Charles, a civil rights campaigner committed to non-violence; and how she had become the director of a non-profit group that helped black farmers, in an era when the USDA was notorious for its discrimination against blacks.
Yes, she admitted to her NAACP audience, she initially had had her doubts when the white farmer and his wife approached her back in 1986, desperate for help. But help them she did, as she came to understand that economic and financial pressures were the same for everyone, regardless of the colour of their skin.
In the event, she became friends with the farmers she saved from ruin. "If we hadn't found her we would have lost everything," Roger Spooner, now 82, says. "She's always been nice and polite and considerate," adds his wife, Eloise. "She was just a good person."
By this point in proceedings it was clear – even to right-wing diehards convinced that black officials in the Obama adminstration, from the President down, are waging a war of revenge against whites – that the original story didn't quite stand up, that the vilified racist was in fact an exemplar of racial harmony.
By Wednesday Bill O'Reilly no less, that most pugnacious of Fox hosts, was apologising to Ms Sherrod "for not doing my homework".
He wasn't the only one.
Tom Vilsack, the Agriculture Secretary, called with an apology, offering her another job at his department. Albeit more circumspectly, the White House also ate humble pie. "A disservice was done. An apology was owed," said Robert Gibbs, Mr Obama's spokesman.
Given the cable beast's unquenchable need for novelty, the uproar probably will subside quickly; Ms Sherrod's personal 15 minutes of fame will soon be up. But the lessons of the affair ought to linger.
With the exception of the lady herself and the Spooners, who resolutely confirmed what really happened, no-one emerges with credit. Not the right and its media acolytes, in their eagerness for anything with which to smear the Obama adminstration, and further improve the Republicans' already bright prospects for November's mid term elections.
Nor the USDA or the NAACP, which both bought the original story and acted without fully checking the facts.
"We were snookered," [into believing that Ms Sherrod made racist remarks] Benjamin Jealous, the NAACP president, noted ruefully.
And certainly not the White House. It claims it had no direct hand in Ms Sherrod's hasty removal, but her version of events suggests otherwise.
The White House was as guilty as Bill O'Reilly of not doing its homework.
And Team Obama has a wider problem. This is America's first black president, whose moving and perceptive speech on race was a highlight of his 2008 campaign. But for the second time in a year he has put his foot in it on an issue of race.
In July 2009 Mr Obama's statement that the police had "acted stupidly" in arresting the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates led to uproar only put to rest by a "beer summit" at the White House of the various parties involved.
Perhaps a similar exercise involving Mr Obama, Mr Vilsack, Ms Sherrod and the Spooners is in order. (The President and Ms Sherrod are said to have spoken yesterday.)
Either way, it is hard to dispute that this White House is overly fearful of giving the slightest ammunition to the right, however dubious that ammunition's provenance.
Above all, these three days in July have provided a sobering cameo of how news operates in Washington in the internet age.
Politics in America has always been a brutal sport, in which anything – including heavily edited footage of an obscure Agriculture Department official talking about a tiny event long ago – is fair game. But more than ever, the media is part of the process. Talk show hosts become national political candidates, and vice versa.
News is born, explodes and dies at cyberspace speed. No one, it seems, dares take a deep breath to check the facts.
"This is a good woman, and she's been put through hell," said Mr Vilsack, who is said to have offered Ms Sherrod a post at the USDA focusing on civil rights. But Ms Sherrod was dubious yesterday.
"I'm not so sure that going back to the department is the right thing to do," she told CNN.
The Blogging Culprit
And who can blame her?
In America's firmament of conservative bloggers, few stars shine brighter than Andrew Breitbart, who counts Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as friends and considers Matt Drudge a mentor. (Strangely, he also co-founded the liberal Huffington Post website, an association he dropped as his former colleague Arianna Huffington moved to the left.)
His suite of websites, the first of which he started in 2005, has become a key arena for right-wing opinionating in the US and Breitbart has never shied from the limelight.
He cheerfully refers to Barack Obama as a Marxist, is regularly speared by liberal watchdogs for distorting the truth to attack his enemies, and used his Big Government site to air a series of heavily edited videos that led to the demise of the ACORN voter registration group over allegations of fraud.
If the row over the Shirley Sherrod case exposes him to a new level of publicity, it seems unlikely that he will shrink from it. Transcript of CNN- Anderson Cooper 360 Video Clip
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone.
Tonight: BP comes closer to killing the well, but also burying the only hard evidence we will ever have about just how much oil was flowing into the Gulf. We're "Keeping Them Honest" on that.
But we begin tonight with the smearing -- the smearing of Shirley Sherrod. Well, the White House apologized today. So did the guy who fired her. And she has been offered a new job. We will talk to her in a minute to see if she is going to accept that new job.
But the damage has been done. And a woman who gave the speech about the change in her outlook and her heart has been dragged through the mud and has had to prove she is not a racist.
This can happen to anyone. And it is not right. Imagine it happening to you.
The truth is, it can happen to anyone, and the truth does matter.
But we live in an age where that simple fact is increasingly lost, as people on the right and the left, people who view things through the prism of politics and ideology, seek to score points by scoring scalps.
Cable news is part of the problem. There's no doubt about that. The left and the right have their own anchors who only report on the stories that suit their slant. That's their right.
But we think the truth matters.
It's even worse on the Internet, where there are no standards and where anonymity allows for the cruelest expressions of vitriol and hate.
Now, if you watched much of the coverage of Shirley Sherrod today, what seems to have been lost in much of it is the man who first posted this video, which was clearly edited to deceive and slander Ms. Sherrod.
His name is Andrew Breitbart.
Now, I don't know him. I have never met him. But watching him try to weasel his way out of taking responsibility for what he did to Ms. Sherrod today is a classic example of what's wrong with our national discourse.
Andrew Breitbart is a conservative, but of course there are liberals who are just as narrowed-minded and who are also refuse to admit when they are wrong. Breitbart posted the clip on Monday on his Web site. Nearly everything Mr. Breitbart said about Shirley Sherrod was either wrong or somehow slanted to make a larger point about racism in the NAACP.
He initially said her speech showed a government official who allowed racist views to influence her work with a white farmer. But we now know it was a speech about her change of heart 24 years ago, when she wasn't even at the USDA.
Today, Mr. Breitbart could have just apologized, said he was wrong, but he didn't. Bullies never do. Nor do ideologues in our divided country.
Instead, he now claims this was never about Ms. Sherrod; it was about the NAACP and what he says is their racism based on the audience's reaction to her speech.
Here's what he said last night on "JOHN KING, USA."
( VIDEO CLIP, "JOHN KING, USA")
ANDREW BREITBART, PUBLISHER, BREITBART.COM:
This tape is about the NAACP. Its raison d'etre is about nondiscrimination.
And when Shirley Sherrod is talking there in which she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applaud -- with applause -- and the NAACP agrees with me. And it rebuked her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, the fact is, there was no applause when Ms. Sherrod was talking about the white farmer.
And we will talk to members of the audience who were there that night about the reaction that they saw and heard and that they, themselves, had.
You know, Breitbart also said today that there were cheers over racist comments. Again, the facts do not bear him out.
The truth matters.
Now, the closest Mr. Breitbart came to an apology today was this comment.
( VIDEO CLIP)
BREITBART:
I feel bad that they made this about her. And I feel sorry that they made this about her. I'm not sure if that was done because they rushed to judgment or whether they wanted to make it about Shirley vs. me, because that's what it's become.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: He goes on to say he's sympathetic to what Ms. Sherrod has gone through. Notice the passive voice here, because -- his words -- -- quote -- "They went after her, and not the NAACP."
It's like the arsonist saying, I'm sorry, ma'am, for the water damage done by firefighters. He started the fire. Andrew Breitbart said the clip he first posted proved black racism happened now at the USDA and the NAACP.
It didn't.
He said it proved racism in the crowd. You can decide for yourself about that. We will play you the tapes and you will talk -- we will hear from audience members.
He claims to feel sorry for the victim, but blames others acting on his misleading information for hurting her. It was a phony story. It isn't the first and it isn't the first about race. But why let the truth stop you, when you're making political points? That's the way a lot of people seem to think these days on left and the right.
Now, you can blame the media for acting as a conveyor belt. You can blame the Obama administration for being hyper-sensitive about race.
Race-baiters, smear artists and game-players have learned that trumped-up stories about race pay off, because people care about race. But they care more, we think, about the truth. And the truth matters.
It certainly does to Shirley Sherrod and certainly should to all of us. Now, as we mentioned, the White House apologized today. Then so did her former boss at the Agriculture Department, Secretary Tom Vilsack.
Here is what he said.
TOM VILSACK, U.S. AGRICULTURE SECRETARY:
This is a good woman. She has been put through hell.
And I could have done and should have done a better job. I want to learn from that experience. I want the agency and department to learn from that experience. And I want us to be stronger for it.
I want to renew the commitment of this department to a new era in civil rights. I want to close the chapter on a very difficult period in civil rights.\
So, I accept responsibility. And I -- I -- I don't think -- the buck stops with me, as it should.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The FULL VIDEO CLIP OF SHIRLEY SHERROD which Blogger Andrew Breitbart edited a part of the video and accused Shirley Sherrod as a racist.
