Why PKR's "Allah Representative in Parliament" is a Danger to OUR Way of Life. And PKR /Anwar is Doing NOTHING About This Chap!

Enough is Enough!



Malaysians Must Make Sure
Zulkifli Noordin (PKR MP- Kulim Bandar Baru)
who was a PAS REJECT
is made a ONE-TERM MP.

Quote:

"...The antics of Zulkifli Noordin are well documented.This guy fashioned himself as the defender of Islam.

I do not have any qualm if anybody wants to defend his marbles and his pussies. It is none of my business. But if by defending Islam it means that he could impose his personal values and beliefs on me, and others, well, I bleeding well have a problem with that!

During one Federal Court hearing, in one of those conversion cases, this guy actually stood up in open Court and questioned the "Muslimness" of Malik Imtiaz just because he disagreed with what Imtiaz was saying.

Later, he and some thugs were involved in stopping a discourse on conversion to Islam which was going on at the Bar Council auditorium.

Why, may I ask, has there been no action taken by PKR against THIS guy for having blatantly gone against the principles of the party time and time again?

Is PKR condoning him? Or tacitly approving what he has been doing?

Or is PKR only good at talking and frothing at the mouth with nice little speeches about freedom and Constitutionalism?

Why is Zulkifli Noordin so enthusiastic in pursuing this Islamic state agenda?

And why, for heaven sake hasn't PKR done anything to THIS guy?.."
-Art Harun

Zulkifli Noordin and PKR - the Lame and the Lamer

by

Art Harun

Read here for more

I read with absolute disbelief what the Bandar Baru Kulim MP, Zulkifli Noordin had proposed in his private member bills at the Parliament.

I am even more astounded - not to mention bitterly angry - that PKR has not seen it fit to read the riot act in full DTS 6.1 mode to Zul Noordin.

The antics of Zul Noordin are well documented. During one Federal Court hearing, in one of those conversion cases, this guy actually stood up in open Court and questioned the "Muslimness" of Malik Imtiaz just because he disagreed with what Imtiaz was saying. Later, he and some thugs were involved in stopping a discourse on conversion to Islam which was going on at the Bar Council auditorium.

This guy fashioned himself as the defender of Islam. I do not have any qualm if anybody wants to defend his marbles and his pussies. It is none of my business.

But if by defending Islam it means that he could impose his personal values and beliefs on me, and others, well, I bleeding well have a problem with that!

I believe Zul Noordin was given a show cause letter by PKR over the Bar Council fracas. What has happened to that show cause letter? Was there a disciplinary proceeding brought against Zul Noordin? If so, what was the recommendation? Why, may I ask, has there been no action taken by PKR against this guy for having blatantly gone against the principles of the party time and time again? Is PKR condoning him? Or tacitly approving what he has been doing? Or is PKR only good at talking and frothing at the mouth with nice little speeches about freedom and Constitutionalism?

This is what Zul Noordin is proposing in the Parliament. He is proposing that the Federal Constitution be amended as follows:

1. Article 3 be amended to include the following words, namely, "Islam is the religion for the Federation, including in terms of the law and syariah."
   
   
2. Article 4 of the Federal Constitution must be amended to add in the words “the Constitution is the primary law of the Federation and except for the Islamic law and syariah, any other law that is passed and that contradicts it must be void for as long as it is contradictory.
   
   
3. Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution on the question of changing the religion for Muslims be amended to include the words "“including changing his/her religion except for Muslims which must comply with the Islamic law and syariah. For the followers of Islam, the question of converting into or abandoning Islam must be determined by the Syariah Court which has absolute power over it”.

Malaysia Today - quoting a Bernama report - quoted Zul as saying that Article 3 must be amended "to ensure that the facts on the position of Islam were not manipulated and misinterpreted by certain groups to give the impression that Malaysia was a secular state."

He also was quoted as saying:

“The fact is that Malaysia is not a secular state, but a nation that puts Islam as the religion for the federation, thus the amendments to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, as suggested, will clarify the position with regard to the status of the country without any doubt.”

It doesn't take a law professor to tell us the far reaching consequences of the proposed amendments, if passed. It will practically put Syariah law above the Federal Constitution itself! This is because the proposed Article 4 would only render void any law, OTHER THAN SYARIAH LAW, if such law contradicts the Federal Constitution. What will that make Malaysia? I shall leave it to your imagination.

So, what if one day, after the amendment, the Parliamentarians, by a majority, decide to have a Consultative body (the Islamic Syura Council) to govern this country. It is against the Federal Constitution of course. But it is not void because Article 4, after the amendment, say that Islamic and Syariah law which contradicts the Federal Constitution is not void.

Wouldn't Malaysia then be ruled by the Syura? And mind you, non-Muslims cannot be a member of the Syura. El fantastico!

This lunacy must stop! And I wonder why PKR is not even moving a blinking finger! Is PKR full of nutters?

And I would advise Zul Noordin and his ilk - lest they would repeat their statement that Malaysia is not a secular country like a cheap scratched CD - to at least read our history. And don't just read like a parrot but please understand it as well.

What does our history say about this?

First of all, the Reid Commission considered whether to make Islam the religion of the State. This is because, the Alliance Government - and this means the 3 main parties, namely, UMNO, MIC and MCA - submitted a memorandum to include such provision. If the Alliance, which consists of MCA and MIC unanimously said so in the memorandum, might I ask whether the MCA and MIC would have agreed that Malaysia be made an "Islamic state" rather than a secular country? Go figure! This is what the Reid Commission report says:

"In the memorandum submitted by the Alliance it was stated – “the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religions and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.”

And what was the Commission's view on this request? Well, Zul et al, this its view:

"There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the States with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the Federation by legislation or otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims. The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis."

From the above, it is clear that the Commission initially decided not to mention that Islam shall be the religion of Malaysia in the Constitution. That was because the Federal Constitution, as drafted then, did not affect the position of Islam at all.

It is of paramount importance to know what had swayed the Commission's decision. This will give a clue:

"The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that Counsel for the Rulers said to us – “It is Their Highnesses’ considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the Federation.

Their Highnesses are not in favour of such a declaration being inserted and that is a matter of specific instruction in which I myself have played very little part.”

Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid is of opinion that a declaration should be inserted in the Constitution as suggested by the Alliance and his views are set out in his note appended to this Report."

So, here we go. It was the view of the Council of Rulers that there shall be no provision in the Federal Constitution to the effect that Islam shall be the religion of the Federation.

Isn't that clear enough as to the status of Malaysia now?

It is clear that the fact that Islam is the official religion wasn't even supposed to be in the Federal Constitution.

And who wanted that? None other than the Council of Rulers. Is it possible than to argue that Malaysia is supposed to be a non-secular country or an Islamic state (whatever that may mean!)?

However, what happened was the Reid Commission was not unanimous on this issue. A member of the Commission, Mr Justice Abdul Hamid, was of the opinion that the view of the Alliance in their memorandum should be given effect. He therefore wanted that it be mentioned in the Constitution that Islam is the religion of the state. And that was all.

He did not suggest that Malaysia was to be a non-secular country.

This non-secularity only arose when people like Zul Noordin wake up in the morning after a bad dream started to be delusional! And the party (ie PKR) of which he is a member is lame enough not to do anything to him!

For the sake of clarity - lest I would be accused of being unclear - this is what Mr Justice Abdul Hamid said in his "note of dissent" in the Reid Commission report:

"It has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the State...

As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted in the Constitution either after article 2 in Part I or at the beginning of Part XIII.

“Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practice and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim.”

A provision life one suggested above is innocuous. Not less than 15 countries of the world have a provision of this type entrenched in their Constitutions."

Mr Justice Abdul Hamid then noted that:

Among the Christian countries, which have such a provision in their Constitutions, are Ireland (Art. 6), Norway (Art. 1), Denmark (Art. 3), Spain (Art. 6), Argentina (Art. 2), Bolivia (Art 3), Panama (Art. 1), and Paraguay (Art. 3). Among the Muslim countries are Afghanistan (Art. 1), Iran (Art. 1), Iraq (Art. 13), Jordan (Art. 2), Saudi Arabia (Art. 7), and Syria (Art. 3).

Thailand is an instance in which Buddhism has been enjoined to be the religion of the King who is required by the Constitution to uphold that religion (Constitution of Thailand (Art. 7)). If in these countries a religion has been declared to be the religion of the State and that declaration has not been found to have caused hardships to anybody, no harm will ensue if such a declaration is included in the Constitution of Malaya.

In fact, in all the Constitutions of Malayan States a provision of thus type already exists. All that is required to be done is to transplant it from the State Constitutions and to embed it in the Federal.

So, YB Zulkifli ibnu Noordin, may I ask since when has Malaysia become a non-secular country?

Do you need further evidence?

Well, let me reproduce what a British parliamentarian said when debating the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill (which was later passed and effectively and legally established Malaysia as a sovereign country).

"On religion, the Reid Commission recommended, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) pointed out, that there should be no mention of State religion in the Constitution.

It is now inserted in Article 3, but is so watered down by the later Articles that I do not think there can be any real fear of a non-secular State being created.

I think the Secretary of State has resisted pressure put on him for the creation of a non-secular State, and the present provisions should satisfy other religious communities, although there is this mention of the State religion." - Mr Graham Page (Crosby).

The Reid Commission later, in its proposal remarked at paragraph 57 as follows:

"There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State, and every person will have the right to profess and practice his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by State law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion."

Apart from that, we also have judicial pronouncements by our Courts on the matter.

Zul Noordin is a practising lawyer. I would therefore presume that he knows his law.

May I bring his attention to what Tun Salleh Abas said in Che Omar bin Che Soh v. PP [1999] 2 CLJ 780;

"For example, the establishment of the Federated Malay States in 1895, with the subsequent establishment of the Council of States and other constitutional developments, further resulted in the weakening of the ruler's plenary power to such an extent that Islam in its public aspect had become nothing more than a mere appendix to the ruler's sovereignty.

Because of this, only laws relating to family and inheritance were left to be administered and even this was not considered by the court to have territorial application binding all persons irrespective of religion and race living in the state. The law was only applicable to Muslims as their personal law.

Thus, it can be seen that during the British colonial period, through their system of indirect rule and establishment of secular institutions, Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law of marriage, divorce, and inheritance only.

In our view, it is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word 'Islam' in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void.

Far from making such provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter."

Later, Justice Dato' Gopal Sri Ram, in Saravanan Thangathoray v Subshini and Another [2007] 2 CLJ 451, after referring to the above passage said:

"It follows from the dichotomous approach adverted to by Lord President Salleh Abas that our Constitutional jurisprudence is secular..."

The position is very clear. Malaysia is a secular country. It is not an Islamic state.

The Reid Commission said it.
The British Parliament in its debate said it.
Our Courts said it.

Which part of the word "secular" does Zul Noordin have problem of understanding?

Now, accepting that that is what the Federal Constitution provides, would it be too far fetched to say that all of us reasonable minded Malaysians would want this country to remain what it is?

If so, why is Zul Noordin and some high priests in PAS so enthusiastic in pursuing this Islamic state agenda?

And why, for heaven sake, hasn't PKR done anything to THIS guy?

Lame, if you asked me!
-Art Harun

Federal Court Will Rule on the Perak Crisis on Nov. 5th: "Perak PR and Nizar, DON'T Hold your Breath!"

Pakatan MB Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin said,

“IF the court rules in MY favour than I shall seek the consent of the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the state assembly and call for fresh elections. I believe it is the Perakians who will ultimately decide the political future of Pakatan Rakyat in the state.” Read here for more

There WON'T be any surprises from this apex court.

If Malaysians expect surprises, go take a cold shower and get real!!

Its an UMNO Judiciary, Stupid !!!

The Malaysian Judiciary is headed by a Chief Justice who was a former UMNO member, former UMNO Legal Adviser and former Chairman of UMNO Disciplinary Committee!! Read here and here and here for more
(In the Malaysian Judiciary website, the Profile Description of the Chief Justice is a HALF-TRUTH. In describing himself, he OMITTED his deep and long involvement in UMNO. Read here)

See Below:
How UMNO Buttressed its Hold on Power
Using Malaysian Tax-Payers' Funded Institutions



And to Top it ALL,
UMNO has the Perak Royalty Fully on Its Side
in this Constitutional Crisis




What Constitution (Perak and Federal) are you talking about ?

They were torn to pieces by the UMNO-led Government and discarded by the Perak monarchy long ago !!

La ilaha illallah, Ezam Mohd Nor, Bagaimana Kau Boleh Jadi Bodoh Sehingga Macam Ini ?

Read here for more in Malaysia Today

Kesian,
Orang Cergas dan Cerdik
Hingga Jadi
Orang Berkurangan Akal


Oh, Ezam, What Happened to You?

by

Gryphon Malx

The remarks of Ezam Mohd Nor, the former chief of PKR’s youth wing, makes me want to laugh.

Indeed, I wonder how a seemingly intelligent fellow like him could say such ridiculous things.

He challenges the president of PKR to sack the leader of the party, who happens to be her husband. Putting aside the family ties of the two Datuk Seris, why on earth should the president of the main opposition party give two hoots (or any hoot for that matter) about what a political has-been and traitor to the cause has to say about her leadership. If anything, she’d rather listen to a sincere and concerned rakyat more than anyone else.

I guess Ezam has forgotten that, ultimately, the justice PKR was fighting for is for the rakyat, not politicians or political parties.

I find it odd that he brings up the issue of morality as a basis for his reason leaving and, at the same time, attempt to defend and identify with the notorious state assemblyman for Port Klang who just resigned and became an independent who supports BN.

If we use morality as the yardstick, isn’t Umno widely known to be corrupt and morally bankrupt? Indeed, the party is led by a leader who is tainted with the murder of a Mongolian interpreter, not to mention that he is also a “whipped” man, whom everybody knows (including the Minister Mentor of Singapore) kowtows to his infamous wife.

So, is Ezam saying that it’s not okay to sodomise but it’s okay to murder?

Hmmm, I wonder what he meant when he said that good leadership must be based on strong morals and Islam. As fas as I know, Islam does not condone corruption or murder.

So, I must ask: What is going upstairs BETWEEN Ezam’s EARS?

Oh, I nearly forgot. I also vaguely remember that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that four witnesses are required before anybody is indicted for any crime. Moreover, I don’t recall trial by state-controlled media as being accepted in any hadith.

So, whence comes your wisdom to accuse and judge the leader of PKR, Ezam?

Now, let’s talk a little bit about the judicial process that Ezam mentioned. What did he say? He insinuated that when someone makes applications that happen to delay the commencement of a trial, that person is most probably guilty of the charge.

Erm, did he selectively forget that it was the prosecution who first delayed the hearing by insisting on having the case transferred to the High Court. As far as I know, the most senior judge in the Sessions Court is a very good and credible judge. Is the AG saying that a member of the legal and judicial service who was most probably promoted by himself not fit to hear such a case?

This does not make any sense especially when the AG indicates that there is strong evidence of the crime. Indeed, if the evidence is so strong, it must be irrefutable by any reasonable layperson. Then, why is the prosecution so reluctant to share the documentary evidence with the defence when it is clearly required by law to do so? I’m no genius but it looks like the prosecution is the one guilty of delaying the hearing of the case!

Coming back to the Port Klang Adun, if I am not mistaken, he resigned because he knew he was going to be sacked by PKR. Everybody knew that he was neglecting his constituency and that he was cavorting with Umno people. I heard PKR made many attempts to set him on the right track (some would say “the straight path”) but he seemed to enjoy drinking, karaoke sessions and whatnot more than servicing his constituents and legislating in the state assembly.

Now that Ezam has openly defended the Port Klang Adun, I wonder if this is a case of birds of a feather flocking together .... I pity the Port Klang Adun for picking such people as buddies.

Come on, Ezam. We all know you felt left out and didn’t get the attention you thought you deserved despite being such a good boy compared to some other people in the PKR.

I don’t know much about what transpired when you resigned but I also heard from an old mutual friend that you had planned all along to undermine PKR and the youth wing. Indeed, the same friend already predicted you would set up an NGO to expose so-called corruption.

If you really are a reformasi warrior who’s worth our attention, and if you had real doubts about your leader, not to mention if you really want to pursue the cause of justice through PKR (which you are now asking the president to make as her top priority), then you should have stayed and contested for a top leadership position and show your comrades what evidence you said you had.

Speaking of which, I think your so-called efforts to expose corruption are lame, and mediocre at best.

Despite being the assistant or secretary of the former deputy prime minister, you don’t seem to have anything substantial in the six boxes you keep mentioning. Are you sure you didn’t mistakenly pick up FedEx boxes left behind by the courier?

I recall hearing your speech at the Permatang Pauh by-election last year where you revealed a supposedly damaging letter from the former DPM to a former prime minister of Malaysia. You know what you succeeded in doing in that speech?

You showed people how good you were at marketing — all the banners and handbills, convincing people that you had in your possession a letter from the PKR candidate that proved how treacherous he is, was a masterstroke.

Alas, your revelation merely showed that the PKR candidate was very concerned for his family and still harboured hopes that the former PM in question was a gentleman and will not harm the former’s family.

My word, Ezam, if you can’t even decipher such a simple and straightforward letter, then you are indeed not fit to lead any organisation, much less the PKR youth and Gerak. And I think the immediate former prime minister was an even bigger fool to take you into Umno.

Lastly, Ezam, you must be wondering who I am. Well, frankly, who I am does not matter.

What really matters is YOU and YOUR FAMILY. If indeed you believe that Islam is the way and that Allah is the Compassionate and the Merciful, and that He will redeem your soul, then I suggest you seriously reflect on what you have done.

Put your hand on your heart and ask yourself whether you are actually on the straight path.

Above all else, be honest with yourself. And whether you like it or not—or believe it or not—God exists and He knows.

The Die is Cast for PAS: Change the Leadership of Hadi Awang and His Team OR PAS Goes Into Political Oblivion

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

PAS has crossed the Rubicon

by

Hazlan Zakaria

Political analyst Abdul Aziz Bari today predicted that PAS will soon be hit by a political tsunami which was started by party spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, known as 'Tok Guru'.

A tsunami, Abdul Aziz implied, which will bring significant changes to the Islamic party and its leadership line-up.

"The die is cast. Tok Guru has made his stand clear and whatever happens tomorrow, change will take place. It is inevitable. Either within this immediate future or in the next party elections," said the political analyst.

Abdul Aziz said that, that when reference is made to the current PAS senior leadership, "We are dealing with politicians here who are NOT that influential".

1. PAS secretary-general Mustafa Ali, he explained, LOST in the Alor Limbat state seat, long considered a PAS stronghold, which speaks volumes of Mustafa's influence at the moment.
   
   
2. The situation is no different with deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa and Selangor commissioner Hassan Ali, said Abdul Aziz who pointed out that even president Hadi Awang had to struggle to win the Marang parliamentary seat and lost Terengganu in 2004.
   
   Elaborating further, he said,
   

   "We know that the PAS organization in Terengganu - under both Hadi and Mustafa - is in a mess.
   
   Nasha does not have any grassroots. He is from Negri Sembilan and has been given seats by Kedah and Kelantan. He has not been serving the constituencies and this makes him unpopular".

'Don't underestimate Tok Guru'

Compare this, said Abdul Aziz, with the fact that the grassroots and the sympathizers are solidly behind Tok Guru who has managed to retain his seat and keep Kelantan in PAS control since 1990.

So wide spread is Tok Guru's influence, Abdul Aziz explained, that "Tok Guru is seen as someone pious not just by PAS but even by Umno members in Kelantan".

Any comparison between 'Tok Guru' Hadi and 'Tok Guru' Nik Aziz is a mistake, claimed the political analyst.

"Hadi is nowhere near him; indeed it is an insult to compare him with Tok Guru."

While many may tend to underestimate the mild mannered Kelantan MB, Abdul Aziz reminded everyone, "Don't underestimate Tok Guru. Time and again he has proved himself to be a wily politician".

'No split or splinter in PAS'

Commenting on some analysis of a possible splinter party to be formed or a split in PAS, Abdul Aziz says, "I don't agree. History, as well as, the situation at the moment simply state otherwise. There is no indication that a splinter party would emerge or that the party will split".

Even if a split or splinter were to occur, Abdul Aziz pointed out, that PAS splinter parties all died a premature and untimely death like Berjasa in the 70s and Hamim in the 80s.

The political analyst also explained that "All the PAS leaders who left the party or joined Umno did not survive long and even Umno did not bother to look after them".

He named Othman Abdullah in 1960s, Mohamed Nasir in late 1970s, Asri Muda in early 1980s and Nakhaie Ahmad (former sectary general) in mid 1980s, as examples.

More over, Abdul Aziz explained, "PAS is a party with ideology. It is not a pragmatic party like Umno where the members gather around leaders. And of course they now see the danger sign that the party is losing ground".

This, he says, will squarely pit the present leadership, Hadi (right) & Co, against the members, many of whom find Hadi's complicity in the pro-Umno issue as simply unforgivable.

Abdul Aziz further claimed that Umno's media in attacking Tok Guru and its apparent support of Hadi & Co will backfire and expose them as "the weak bunch of men" that they are, as it reinforces Tok Guru's strength.

The bottom line here, according to the political analyst, is that there is nothing to stop the move started by Tok Guru.

"I do not see how the problematic leaders can contain it. What's more is when the public is behind Tok Guru. Change is simply a matter of survival for PAS," concluded Abdul Aziz.

Dear Malaysian Muslim Fanatics, Beyonce Knowle's Bellybutton is the LEAST of YOUR Worries

by

William Pesek
(William Pesek is a Bloomberg News columnist.)

Read here for more in BLOOMBERG

As investment barometers go, Beyonce isn’t normally mentioned, except in Malaysia.

The nation has an unfortunate knack of making global news for the WRONG reasons:

Sodomy trials involving former finance ministers, anti-capitalism tirades by prime ministers, murder investigations involving high-ranking officials.

Malaysia really could have its own CSI crime drama.

Singer Beyonce Knowles entered the fray this week by canceling a concert a second time after Malaysia’s conservative Muslims criticized her raunchy stage clothes and dance moves.

If that doesn’t bug you, what’s with this related (Islamic) movement to ban everything from YOGA to FACEBOOK?



The plight of this particular pop star won’t be affected. She will make millions performing somewhere else.

You won’t find many Beyonce CDs in my collection. And folks are free to object to her bellybutton shaking before their eyes on moral grounds.

Too bad there isn’t similar, if not more, outrage over the REAL problems facing Malaysia.

Here are five.

1. Shaking the global crisis.
   
   Malaysia is ruing the day it decided to put off badly needed changes to its economy. They include relying less on exports and dismantling four-decade-old affirmative-action policies leaving the nation less competitive and spooking investors.
   
   Prime Minister Najib Razak has stepped up efforts to do that since taking the reins in April. He has to make up for much lost time after five years of drift and complacency under Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
   
   The world won’t wait for Malaysia. It is competing in a region where China, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are evolving rapidly.
   
   Malaysia’s economy was also hit by the U.S. recession. Najib, who has unveiled 67 billion ringgit ($20 billion) in stimulus initiatives, said last month the government will be more prudent in spending and make subsidies more targeted as growth returns.
   
   That’s all well and good, yet the slow pace of action appears more disturbing than anything Beyonce may do.
   
   
2. Corruption.
   
   Transparency International ranks Malaysia behind Jordan, Cape Verde and Macau in its Corruption Perceptions Index..
   
   It’s a reminder that 12 years after the Asian crisis, Southeast Asia’s third-biggest economy needs to be far more aggressive in cleaning up politics and business. Granted, the days of Washington officials singling out Malaysia for “crony capitalism” are over -- events at Enron Corp. and American International Group Inc. saw to that.
   
   For Malaysia, though, the phenomenon makes the economy less efficient and keeps growth from being more widely shared.
   
   
3. Creeping Islamic fundamentalism.
   
   It’s always a sensitive point to raise, yet one that foreign investors view with trepidation both in Malaysia and neighboring Indonesia.
   
   A case in point: A 32-year-old mother may soon be caned in Malaysia as punishment for drinking a beer. Lawmakers in Indonesia’s Aceh province last month approved the stoning to death of adulterers and the flogging of gays.
   
   Malaysia has long been a shining example of how Islam and modernity can co-exist. Kuala Lumpur is a place where micro- miniskirts comfortably exist next to women in headscarves. It’s where one of the most respected women in global finance, Zeti Akhtar Aziz,, runs the central bank.
   
   It’s a difficult balancing act to appeal to a Muslim- majority population while protecting the rights of Buddhist, Christian and Hindu minorities.
   
   The risk is that investors stop considering Malaysia a model of moderate Muslim democracies. Headlines generated by the Beyonce flap won’t help that.
   
   
4. Becoming Japanese.
   
   The United Malays National Organization is clinging to its five-decade hold on power at all costs. It has led to a Japan-like dynamic of leaders being more focused on shoring up the party than the nation.
   
   Japan recently elected a new government for only the second time in half a century, and the people want change.
   
   Misplaced priorities are a key reason why Malaysia has been slow to streamline the economy and encourage the kind of entrepreneurship that will create well-paid jobs. It’s also why leaders have been timid about scrapping productivity-killing quotas that benefit only ethnic Malays.
   
   
5. Spin over substance.
   
   Hey, I’m a huge Malaysia fan. Aside from being an incredibly beautiful country, it’s a uniquely multiethnic place with a vibrancy that’s hard to resist.
   
   My concern is that Malaysia is often too much about grand plans and marketing campaigns, too little about tangible economic change.
   
   Spin won’t attract more long-term investment. That will take the kind of assertive and forward-looking policies the nation hasn’t enjoyed for years.
   
   Yes, the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index has risen 46 percent this year. That gain pales in comparison with 113 percent in Indonesia, 94 percent in Vietnam, 63 percent in Thailand and 56 percent in Singapore.

Taste and decorum are in the eye of the beholder. Look no further than protests in recent years in Indonesia over the sale of Playboy magazine, or in the Philippines over the “The Da Vinci Code.”

Nor are Beyonce’s moves for everyone.

I just wish there were similar outrage over the failure of governments to get economies closer to their potential. That’s the real outrage here, not a pop diva’s skimpy attire.

Saranan TG Nik Aziz Nik Mat Tepat: "Perlu Ada Perubahan Dalam Pemain-Pemain Penting Yang Menduduki Kerusi Kepimpinan PAS diperingkat Pusat"

UPDATE: 25 Oct 2009

PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat is firm about the party having an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) which insiders see as a way of deposing president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang for leaders warmer towards a full-fledged opposition pact.

Nik Aziz said he was not bothered that some states were against the idea and that what was important to him was to save the party. “I will not change my mind on this,” the Kelantan mentri besar told reporters after opening a new mosque in Kampung Pasir Hor near here today.

The EGM is seen as the popular leader’s way to force Hadi to decide where the party’s fortunes lie despite the conservative line among its members.

While PAS has championed on its “PAS for All” slogan, there are elements who remain conservative and talk about banning beer sales and other punitive laws. Nik Aziz has blasted these leaders and has asked why Hadi has not stamped out such talk and quashed efforts to get closer to Umno.

Nik Aziz is virulently opposed to any form of cooperation with Umno as the Islamist party was part of Barisan Nasional formed in 1974 but quit later due to a clash of wills that led to PAS losing Kelantan in 1978. Read here for more

-- END OF UPDATE

Read Here the views of Tok Guru Nik Aziz in his Blog or read BELOW after the main article.

" PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has urged the party to hold a special muktamar (EGM)to weed out “problematic leaders” whom he said have made the party look inconsistent.

The statement was made to back a similar call by Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, who blamed the conservatives in the party for causing the embarrassing defeat in the Bagan Pinang by-election.

Abdul Aziz described Selangor PAS chief Datuk Hasan Ali — who attempted to ban the sale of beer and to empower mosque officials to act as moral police — as a liability to PR, urging the party to take disciplinary action against the state executive councillor.

“ In the Selangor dispute, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang was SILENT which led to some people in the party equating him with former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,” said Abdul Aziz in his commentary published in Malay tabloid Sinar Harian."Read here for more

Puak-Puak Fraksi-UMNO
Yang Merosotkan PAS Dengan Pengundi


Have NON-Muslims Abandoned PAS? Or Has PAS abandoned the NON-Muslims?

by

Dr. Farish Noor

Excerpts: Read here for more

Malaysians of all walks of life and ethno-religious backgrounds are now asking the same question:

Which is the real PAS?

1. The PAS that is represented by the moderate progressives made up of the likes of Husam Musa, Khalid Samad, Hatta Ramli, Dzulkefly Ahmad?
   
   
2. Or the PAS that is led by conservatives like Mustafa Ali, Hassan Ali, Nashruddin Mat Isa and the like?

Judging by the PAS general assembly elections earlier this year, it would seem that the moderates in PAS have been effectively marginalised within their own party.

We need to remember that the election results of 8 March 2008 (was) a call for change and consistency. PAS hopped on the same Pakatan Rakyat bandwagon with the promise of reform and democratisation, and it was on that basis that it received the support of the non-Muslims of the country.

For the umpteenth time, we repeat this claim:

The vote swing in 2008 was NOT an endorsement of an Islamic state to be slipped in through the back door.

Yet over the past one and a half years, what have we seen?

• Hasan Ali’s unilateralism in Selangor has cost PAS the goodwill and trust it took the party years to cultivate, and his deafening silence over issues such as the death of Beng Hock and SELCAT lent the impression that the leaders of the Islamic party are more concerned about the sale of beer, courting couples and the bottom of Ms Beyonce Knowles than the political future of the country.
  
  
• Furthermore some - though not all - of PAS’s leaders have also remained mum over recent controversies such as the ‘cow head’ protest in Selangor; and the treatment of minority groups such as the Ahmadis in Selangor as well.

So in the midst of all this, it is hardly surprising if the Malaysian public is now asking: ‘will the REAL PAS please stand up?’

PAS should remember that in the current climate of Malaysian politics, it too needs to change and reform with the times we live in. Gone are the days where empty Islamic rhetoric and promises of paradise will win PAS votes.

Moreover, PAS today has to live and work in a Malaysian society where the Malaysian electorate are more connected, clued-up and informed than ever before thanks to better communications and information technology.

One is reminded of the rumblings and grumblings in PAS in the early 2000s, when some of the more hot-headed members of the party were seen complaining about the non-Muslims and non-Malays of the country following the elections of 1999.

In his book UMNO Tidak Relevan (2000), the PAS writer Hussein Yaakub then wrote:

“Keadaan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa orang Cina tidak mempunyai pendirian tetap dalam politik dan mereka boleh ditarik ke sana ke mari oleh pemimpin-pemimpin dalam masyarakat Cina yang ada kepentingan peribadi di negara ini.

Benarlah apa yang dikatakan oleh ahli perniagaan Cina bahawa masyarakat Tionghua lebih mementingkan keamanan dan perniagaan daripada segala-galanya.

Ini bererti, orang-orang Cina memikirkan soal wang, cari makan dan kekayaan sahaja tampa memikirkan soal moral, maruah dan keadilan.” (pg. 120)

In the same book, Hussein Yaakub also registered the derogatory comments made by other PAS leaders immediately before and after the 1999 election.

One leader, Haji Malik Yusof (PAS state assemblyman for Tahan, Pahang), stated:

‘Saya melihat orang Cina tidaklah begitu terikat dengan kepartian sangat. Mereka hanya hendak aman dan boleh berniaga.’ (pg. 121)

Few of these PAS leaders appeared to have considered the negative effects of their own comments, and the consequences on Malay–Chinese and Muslim–non-Muslim relations in the country.

PAS today has to realise that it cannot have its cake and eat it.

PAS may want to entertain its aspirations to be a national party, but to be a national party means living with the realities of multiculturalism in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.

No, a substantial section of the Malaysian public does not want to see public executions, floggings and amputations in public:

We are more concerned about good governance and transparency and the rule of law instead.

If and when PAS forgets this, and starts going on its holier-than-thou moral bandwagon, it will invariably lose the support of many of us.

And before PAS starts sulking in the corner, PAS’s leaders need to remember:

It was not the Malaysian electorate that abandoned PAS, but PAS that abandoned us.

-Dr. Farish Noor


RELATED ARTICLE

From Tok Guru Nik Aziz's Blog

PAS : Keperluan Muktamar Khas Luarbiasa?

by

Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat
Spiritual Leader of PAS

Latarbelakang:

Jarang sekali hati saya menjadi tidak sedap sepanjang melibatkan diri dalam kepimpinan Islam. Hati saya pernah bergolak dizaman bekas Presiden PAS yang mahsyur iaitu di zaman Allahyarham Dato’ Haji Mohamad Asri.

Di peringkat itu, saya terpaksa bersuara dan menunjukkan sikap saya yang ada sebahagiannya dirakamkan melalui buku saya yang berjodol “kemuncup dalam perjuangan.”

Di waktu itu, saya masih ingat betapa sukarnya saya untuk memilih antara menegur atau mendiamkan diri. Namun, setelah teringat bahawa Nabi SAW juga pernah ditegur oleh Allah SWT, maka, saya memutuskan untuk berdiri dengan santun dan saya pun katalah jua apa yang munasabah untuk dikata.

Saya memilih untuk mengambil sikap ini berasaskan adanya hujah nas yang memboleh, bahkan dalam keadaan-keadaan tertentu bersifat wajib untuk berbuat demikian. Sampai ke hari inipun saya masih berpegang dengan pendirian ini.

Untuk lebih terpimpin, mari kita terlebih dahulu perhatikan tiga petikan surah dan latar peristiwa disekitar tiga kisah ini. Ia ada dirakamkan didalam kitab suci al-Quran.

i). Dalam peristiwa Badar setelah perang berakhir yang memberi kemenangan kepada tentera Islam, terdapat sejumlah 70 tawanan perang. Apabila Nabi SAW membuka perbincangan, apa yang patut dibuat dengan tawanan-tawanan perang ini, Saidina Umar berpandangan, mereka semua perlu dibunuh manakala Sadina Abu Bakar pula berpendapat lebih baik mereka dibenarkan bebas setelah diambil wang tebusan.

Ditakdirkan Allah, keputusan yang ada dilangit adalah selaras dengan syur yang dikemukakan oleh Saidina Umar. Ia berbunyi:

“Tidak patut bagi seorang Nabi mempunyai tawanan sebelum ia dapat melumpuhkan musuhnya di muka bumi. Kamu menghendaki harta benda duniawiah sedangkan Allah menghendaki (pahala) akhirat (untuk mu) dan Allah Maha Perkasa lagi Maha Bijaksana. Kalau sekiranya tidak ada ketetapan yang telah terdahulu dari Allah, nescaya kamu ditimpa seksaan yang besar kerana tebusan yang kamu ambil.” (Surah Al-Anfaal Ayat 67 – 68)

Dari sini, jelas bahawa tidak ada sesuatu yang pelik dalam tradisi menegur pemimpin didalam Islam.

ii). Peristiwa kedua ialah sewaktu Nabi S.A.W. bersumpah tidak akan meminum sejenis madu dari bunga tertentu kerana menerima teguran dari salah seorang dari isteri baginda S.A.W. sewaktu berada di rumah salah seorang isterinya. Dalam peristiwa ini, sekali lagi Nabi S.A.W. di tegur dengan lafaz berbunyi:

“ Hai Nabi, mengapa kamu mengharamkan apa yang Allah menghalalkannya bagi mu; kamu mencari kesenangan hati isteri-isteri mu? Dan Allah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang." (Surah At-Tahriim Ayat 1)

iii). Dalam surah ‘Abasa, sekali lagi kita dapat saksikan teguran Allah S.W.T. ke atas Nabi S.A.W. yang dilihat tidak memberikan layanan kepada seorang buta ketika Baginda didatangi oleh pemimpin Quraish yang turut berada di dalam majlis yang sama pada waktu itu. Teguran Allah S.W.T. berbunyi:

“ Dia (Muhammad) bermuka masam dan berpaling, kerana telah datang seorang buta kepadanya. Tahukah kamu barangkali ia ingin membersihkan dirinya (dari dosa). Atau dia (ingin) mendapatkan pengajaran, lalu pengajaran itu memberi manafaat kepadanya. Adapun orang yang merasa dirinya serba cukup, maka kamu melayaninya.” (Surah ‘Abasa Ayat 1 – 6)

Apa isunya?

Isu yang ada di hadapan kita sekarang ialah isu kepimpinan.

Biar saya mulakan begini. Saya boleh bersetuju dengan sebahagian dari tulisan Dr. Aziz Bari yang ada tersiar dalam akhbar Sinar Harian pada 19 Okt. 2009 di mukasurat N16.

Antara lain, beliau mengemukakan teguran dan saranan seperti berikut :

“Dalam konteks sekarang Pakatan perlu dibenarkan membentuk kerajaan di peringkat Persekutuan supaya kita dapat membezakan kelainan mereka melaksanakan Perlembagaan.

Fungsi Dewan memantau kerajaan. Dalam sistem demokrasi berparlimen yang kita amalkan kerajaan pada hakikatnya dimiliki Dewan.

Dengan itu mungkin sudah sampai masanya Pas membuat langkah drastik, sama ada mendisiplinkan Exco Selangor, Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamad Ali atau menyingkirkannya terus.

Bagaimanapun, ini tidak mudah untuk berlaku kerana Hasan dilihat mewakili golongan yang pro-Umno dalam PAS seperti Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dan Nasharuddin Mat Isa dan penyokong mereka.

Dalam kekecohan di Selangor Abdul Hadi membisu sehingga di dalam parti sudah ada yang berkata bahawa Abdul Hadi adalah watak bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dalam PAS. Sementara itu Nasharuddin membela tindakan Hasan itu secara terbuka.

Saya fikir ada beberapa tokoh tertentu dalam PAS yang boleh merubah keadaan. Beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini imej dan kemampuan Menteri Besar Kedah, Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak agak menonjol dan kelihatannya beliau mempunyai kemampuan untuk memimpin parti.”

Saya tertarik dengan kelicikan Azizan menyiku Azman Shapawi, Naib Ketua Pemuda PAS dalam isu penjualan arak beberapa bulan lalu. Dalam pada itu organisasi PAS di Kedah dikatakan lebih baik daripada apa yang ada di Terengganu.

Buat masa ini, hanya 32 peratus pengundi yang yakin dengan kemampuan Pakatan. Jika PAS kekal dengan kapten yang ada ini (sokongan) mungkin akan berkurangan.”

Pandangan Saya

Atas pandangan inilah saya berfikir dan terus berfikir. Setelah berfikir sambil berdoa, maka saya berpuashati untuk mengatakan begini :

Kalau Umno boleh buat sesuatu dengan mengadakan Mesyuarat Agong Khas dan MCA pun boleh mengadakan EGMnya sehingga sempat menggugurkan Presiden dan Timbalan Presidennya.

Demikian juga dengan PKR yang telah membuat pindaan Perlembagaannya melalui Kongres Khas mereka.

Maka kita?

Walaupun isu MCA benda lain, iaitu rasuah, kita lagilah tidak payah khuatir untuk adakan Muktamar Khas kerana kita bukan membawa isu rasuah .

Isu kita ialah isu dua tiga kerat pemimpin bermasalah.

Masyarakat India pun boleh menentang Samy Vellu dengan mewujudkan parti lain.

Maka pelik apa, kita panggil mesyuarat parti yang tergempar misalnya; mungkin dipanggil muktamar khaslah.

Kalau nak kirakan, kitalah yang sepatut buat dulu. Demi “tajdid” kita perlu buat Mesyuarat Agong Luarbiasa ini. Bila Mesyuarat Agong tak mahu tukar Presiden, misalnya maka tidak mengapalah. Kita pakat-pakat belalah.

Begitu juga dengan isu-isu disekitar Hassan Ali atau Mustafa Ali yang tak habis-habis dengan nak bekerjasama PAS dengan Umno ke arah kerajaan Perpaduan atau UG (Unity Government).

Tenggelam-tenggelam, timbul, kemudian dihidupkan. Kemudian dimatikan pula bila nampak orang marah.

Apa ni?

Tidak boleh jadi ni, kita duk “ghok-ghak” (kacau) begini. Orang boleh terima atau tak boleh terima, bawa ke Muktamar Khaslah; senang cerita. Biar tentu sah, nak ikut yang mana.

Kita nak kekal yang mana dan buang yang mana.

Dengan Muktamar Khas yang boleh menjelaskan dan memutuskan banyak perkara ini, puak-puak atas pagar yang membuat swing votes dan mempengaruhi keputusan pilihanraya juga akan berpuas hati samada nak swing atau tak nak swing lagi kerana mereka sudah dijelaskan oleh keputusan Muktamar Khas berkenaan. Mereka jelas.

Biarlah kita ambil mandat baru sekali lagi.

Mesyuarat biar ringkas;ambil sehari penuh atau dua hari penuh misalnya tetapi prosesnya mesti ringkas, dan keputusannya adil, telus, tepat, terus dan jelas. Undi perlulah sulit dan dilakukan di atas kertas .

Untuk kali ini, saya dengan kuat merasakan bahawa perlu ada perubahan dalam pemain-pemain penting yang menduduki kerusi kepimpinan PAS diperingkat pusat. Kalau nak kata ini persiapan ke arah PRU ke 13 pun, kata gi lah. Dan memang betul begitulah.

- Tok Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat
Mursyidul Am PAS/Menteri Besar Kelantan
Bertarikh : 02 Zulkaedah 1430 / 21 Okt. 2009


Kritikan Professor Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari

by

Khalid Samad
PAS MP for Shah Alam

Read here for more

Saya telah berkesempatan membaca kritikan Prof. Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari yang bertajuk Pengajaran Dari Bagan Pinang dan seterusnya membaca pula respon dari Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat dan juga Ketua Penerangan PAS Selangor. Bagi saya semua teguran dan komen tidak kira dari siapa perlu dinilai dan pertimbangkan secara objektif.

Respon yang mengatakan bukan bidang kepakaran orang yang memberi komen adalah merupakan satu respon yang kurang bijak. Silap-silap apabila ditanya balik kepakaran kita, kita pula yang tidak boleh jawab! Takkanlah apabila berkecimpung dalam politik, maka kita secara automatik menjadi pakar politik?

Lagipun saya sejak dari dulu berpegang kepada dasar “undzur ila maa Kaala walaa tandzur ila man Kaala” atau lihat pada apa yang dikatakan dan jangan lihat pada siapa yang mengatakannya. Ini merupakan sebagai pegangan para Sahabat sehingga teguran orang tua yang daif sekalipun tidak diketepikan dan diperlekehkan begitu sahaja. Sebaliknya didengari dan diberikan penghargaan sewajarnya. Tidak mengapa kalau kita tidak bersetuju dengan pandangan yang dikemukakan, tetapi janganlah sehingga memperlekehkan.

Kita hujjah balik, point demi point. Dengan itu kita dilihat sebagai berhemah dan berilmu serta terbuka dan juga tawaddu'.

Bagi menyanggah tulisan Prof. Aziz, PAS perlu memahami apa sebenarnya yang disampaikan oleh beliau. Bagi saya, beliau ingin PAS menginsafi bahawa kekalahan di Bagan Pinang mungkin disebabkan kelemahan-kelemahan tertentu, khususnya diperingkat kepimpinan PAS itu sendiri.

Kerana apa?

Ini kerana kekalahan itu lebih teruk dari kekalahan yang dijangka dan lebih teruk dari kekalahan pada 2008. Ini memberi isyarat bahawa sokongan terhadap PAS dan PR semakin merosot. Persoalannya, adakah ini benar? Sekiranya benar, apakah faktor-faktornya? Sekiranya tidak, maka apakah pula jawapannya?

Respon bahawa PAS hanya mempunyai 3 cawangan hanya mampu menjelaskan mengapa ianya sukar untuk PAS menang di Bagan Pinang. Tetapi PAS juga hanya mempunyai 3 cawangan pada 2008. Oleh itu, respon ini tidak menjawab mengapa prestasi kali ini merosot. Menang mungkin sukar, tetapi mengapa merosot?

Oleh yang demikian PAS perlulah 'disect' pendapat Prof. Aziz, sekiranya kritikan tersebut ingin disanggah. Dengan itu perlulah dikenal pasti faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan kemerosotan ini, khususnya di kalangan bukan Islam, mengikut pandangan Prof. Aziz itu.

Seterusnya diulas semula dengan mengemukakan point yang dapat menyokong pendirian PAS dalam perkara ini, sekiranya tidak bersependapat. Secara ringkasnya, menurut Prof. Aziz, faktor-faktor ini adalah:

1. Tindakan PJ Selangor berhubung SelCAT dan isu-isu lain yang ditonjolkan oleh beliau sepanjang pentadbiran PR Selangor. Tindakan-tindakan ini dianggap menyebabkan orang bukan Islam mempertikaikan keikhlasan PAS bersama PR di Selangor kerana sering menimbulkan konflik dan bersikap unilateral. Ia tidak menzahirkan semangat 'kesepakatan' dan 'kesetia-kawanan'.
   
   
2. Seterusnya, mengikut pandangan beliau lagi, kelemahan pimpinan PAS Pusat, khususnya Timbalan Presiden dan Presiden, dalam mendisiplin PJ Selangor apabila masalah sebegini berlaku juga dilihat dengan penuh sangsi oleh pengundi bukan Islam.
   
   
3. Seterusnya, Prof. Aziz beranggapan PJ Selangor perlu didisiplinkan atau terus disingkirkan untuk mengembalikan keyakinan pengundi.
   
   
4. Keengganan untuk mengambil tindakan sebegini, mengikut Prof. Aziz, adalah kerana sikap 'pro-UMNO' pimpinan-pimpinan PAS.

Sekiranya ada pihak ingin mengulas pendapat Prof. Aziz tersebut, maka inilah sebenarnya isu-isu dan cadangan-cadangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh beliau. Isu dan cadangan INILAH yang perlu diberi tumpuan oleh Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat dan Ketua Penerangan PAS Selangor.

Bukan soal kepakaran Prof. Aziz!

Mana-mana pendekatan yang mempersoalkan kepakaran Prof. Aziz tidak akan menjawab isu-isu yang ditimbulkan beliau serta bacaan beliau berhubung kemerosotan sokongan bukan Islam terhadap PAS dan cara menanganinya. Dengan itu ia akan memberi persepsi bahawa tiada pihak di dalam PAS yang mempunyai jawapan yang boleh meyakinkan dan ini akan memburukkan lagi imej PAS.

Secara peribadi, saya sendiri tidak bersetuju dengan semua yang dinyatakan oleh Prof. Aziz. Namun saya tidak sekali memandang remeh pendapat beliau ini dan merasakan satu jawapan yang lebih 'bernas' perlulah dikemukakan oleh PAS.

Saya sendiri tidak akan memberi respon kepada analisa yang dikemukakannya hari ini. Saya ingin menunggu respon yang dari pimpinan PAS yang lain terlebih dahulu dan hanya akan saya ulas sekiranya perlu.

Tuan-tuan sebagai pengunjung juga dijemput untuk memberi respon dan pandangan terhadap isu-isu yang telah dikemukakan oleh Prof. Aziz ini. Sementara itu, tulisan Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man (Naib Presiden PAS) dan Mohamed Hanipa Maidin (AJK PAS Pusat) boleh juga dijadikan rujukan.

WaLlahu 'Alam
KHALID SAMAD

A Reader's Feedback:

Read here

As a non-Malay I would say Professor Bari is 100% correct!

His points from 1 to 4 is exactly the sentiments of me and my colleagues (we are from Seremban, Negeri Sembilan).

I think YB Khalid and other more rational-minded leaders in PAS must pressure the Presiden and Naib Presiden of PAS to deal sternly with Hassan Ali.

But here is my two sen.

The Presiden and Naib Presiden are of the same mindset as Hassan Ali or are maybe on the same faction, so how could they ever sack Hassan Ali??

I think these three PAS leaders are the biggest problem for PAS as far as I am concerned and this is the sincere view of myself and surely other non-Malays.

In PKR, we have similar people like Zulkifli Noordin. Mark my words, if these people are not dealt with quickly and properly we will see the sad end of Pakatan Rakyat and this will be the greatest regret in the history of Malaysia we will all one day cry over.
-Wong Kok Foo

FEEDBACK from Malaysiakini Readers.

Read here for more

X Roy:
Nik Aziz Nik Mat is a man of honour. He has no need for a Datukship, he's Tok Guru and the Guru speaks. It is because of the likes of Nik Aziz that we, the NON-Muslims, voted PAS in. The way Abdul Hadi Awang and Hasan Ali are behaving will take the votes away from PAS at the next election.

Maggie Lim:
Good job, Tok Guru. All parties should do the same, kick out the troublemakers. PKR has one too. Anwar should follow Nik Aziz's lead. Giving excuses not to take action will only make the rakyat angry and reject Pakatan Rakyat in the next elections.

Reality check:
During the Bukit Gantang by-election in Perak, we have Indian and Chinese friends proudly carrying and displaying the green PAS flag. But after this Umno 'mole' Hasan Ali appeared, many like me have lost their taste for PAS .I think Hasan has reversed all the goodwill built up by the good PAS leaders. He has done much damage to PAS image. PAS should gift Hasan to Umno.

Ahmad Kamal:
My respect for Nik Aziz has grown over the years since the reformasi in 1998. Nik Aziz and the late Hj Fadzil Noor are rare leaders in PAS and in the opposition history of the country. Fadzil Noor's speeches during reformasi were priceless. Nik Aziz has lived long enough to understand the political priorities of the day.

Habib Rak:
I must congratulate Nik Aziz. He had taken effort to explain his objectives and why he is doing it. This is how all leaders should be. I shall look forward to a PAS EGM that will reassess some of it current leaders in particular. To all PAS members, I hope you shall vote for a united and strong Pakatan Rakyat.

Chandroosubra:
This world is going through changes and this change is one of the Charles Darwin theory - evolution. So get rid of those who are not aligned to Pakatan.

Duke:
Pakatan leaders, don't take non-Malay voters for granted. I can tell you that we are beginning to lose faith in you. It would be better to vote for Barisan Nasional than to see a PAS-Umno government.

Gk:
There must be something seriously wrong with the PAS election system the last round where people deemed losers before balloting emerged winners. It is best that PAS get rid of these problematic leaders. These are 'white ants' that can eat up the strong foundation of PAS, and lead to the collapse of PAS and Pakatan Rakyat if they are not removed.

Md Imraz Muhammed Ikhbal:
I couldn't echo Tok Guru any louder. Thorns within the flesh will have to be removed lest they shall become cancerous. A fresh line-up of leaders will inject a new blood into this Islamist party and perhaps rejuvenate it to manifest the true meaning of Islam - not the chauvinistic imposition of religious standards unto others but rather a democratic advocacy of righteousness and morality.

Pah Eng Cheong:
Very good, PKR and DAP should also do likewise to sack the 'dead wood' in their camps. There are still a lot of 'loose cannons' in PAS that must also go. These are the kind of people that cause Pakatan to fall.

Louis:
Nik Aziz, the most respected political leader in Malaysia. There is really no need to call for a PAS EGM. Just ask those three recalcitrant politicians to leave and join Umno.

Here is Why MCA is and Will Always be UMNO's Lap-Dog

Believe It or Not:
MCA Sought President of UMNO's Blessing/Approval
for Plan to Solve its Internal Party Problems

UMNO's Obedient Chinese Lap Dog
According to a Malaysiakini report, MCA vice-president Dr Ng Yen Yen and another CC member Ti Lian Ker hatched out a plan to get the two MCA leaders (Ong Kee Kiat and Chua Soi Lek) together. They even went out to contact Chua in Singapore on Sunday to get him to return to Kuala Lumpur.

Chua reportedly returned on Monday and immediately they both met face to face and talked for several hours. The talks came out with a unity plan proposal.

• What did they propose to do with the unity plan?
  
  
• Did they go back to the grassroots or go back to their respective supporters to brief on the Unity Plan and to get the blessing of the grassroots?

NO, instead the MCA LEADERS went to brief Najib Abdul Razak of their proposal first and then to get his blessing.

Najib Abdul Razak as PRIME MINISTER has NO business with the internal politics of its component partners in Barisan Nasional. The internal squabbling in MCA as nothing to do with the running of government. It means the leadership squabble within MCA has nothing to do with Najib as PRIME MINISTER.

The reason MCA involves Najib is to get the blessing of the PRESIDENT of UMNO.

Did Najib or Abdullah Badawi in their internal UMNO politics ever get the blessing of MCA or from the President of MCA?

Question need to be asked by MCA grassroot members on why their own party leaders have to go crawling to the President of UMNO for blessing of their unity plan?

Anyway, it was reported another MCA source said initially Najib Abdul Razak, (read:President of UMNO) was sceptical about the plan when briefed about it. Only after some convincing explanation by Chua Soi Lek, who was already rejected by MCA EGM as Deputy MCA President, that UMNO President Najib finally gave his blessing to MCA' s unity plan.

For MCA leaders to say they went to see "the Prime Minister for his blessing/approval" is intended to mislead the MCA grassroot members.

The MCA leaders went to see Najib as PRESIDENT of UMNO, (read: to get the BLESSING of UMNO) to solve their internal party problems.

• Why go to the President of UMNO, and not to MCA membership or their respective supporters in MCA?
  
  
• Since when was the MCA constitution amended requiring the internal affairs of MCA to get the approval/blessing of the President of UMNO? Or has that been amended ?

While the Mandarin-speaking Chinese supporters and the "towkays" of MCA look to their elected representatives for leadership for the Chinese community, we have instead these two MCA leaders turning to UMNO to solve their internal party problems..

It confirms the views of almost all Malaysian Chinese voters since March 2008. It is UMNO, not the Chinese community, that dictates the internal politics of MCA and thus dictates the future of the mandarin-speaking MCA members.

It is a fantasy and a wet dream of the Chinese community to expect MCA to stand up to UMNO !!!

It is a concocted myth that its leaders lead MCA. It is the UMNO President who leads MCA. MCA 's survival as a political party depends on how UMNO moulds MCA into the form that it suits UMNO's racial politics.

MCA, a SENIOR (?) partner in Barisan Nasional ? Think Again !

MCA is an UMNO lap dog and will always remain an UMNO lap dog in the name of the Chinese community even after the present leadership crisis in MCA is over.

Non-Muslims Take Note: UMNO Has Already Made Malaysia into an Islamic State by Default

Read here article in The Guardian UK by Maznah Mohamad

Quote

"... Concerned by its losses (at the 2008 General Election), the UMNO has staked a claim to the defense of Islam in Malaysia.

The formula is simple: Portray Islam as being threatened by infidels, and then have the UMNO ride to the rescue of the besieged Muslim community.

AFTER Iran or Saudi Arabia, Malaysia's Sharia court system is probably the MOST extensive in the Muslim world, and the accompanying bureaucracy is not only big but has more bite than the national parliament .

The number of Islamic laws instituted has quadrupled in just over (10) ten years.

It is no longer accurate to think of the PAS as a fundamentalist party and the UMNO as moderate.

The UMNO's more radical turn is being matched by the PAS's attempts at moderation. The PAS is aiming for the most unlikely of voters: NON-Muslims, who account for 40% of Malaysia's population and are increasingly alienated from the UMNO.

UMNO finds itself squeezed between an Islamic lobby that presses for greater "Talibanization" of the country and the rising voices of international critics.

As a young Islamic radical, Anwar Ibrahim used to ask: How does one Islamicize government?

Now Anwar has to figure out HOW one GOVERNS it..."
-Maznah Mohamad

Malaysia has reached a state where it is impossible to distinguish moderates from radicals.

by

Maznah Mohamad

Read here in The Guardian UK

In Malaysia's current political climate, it is no longer possible to distinguish Islamic radicals from Islamic moderates. Despite official boasting about the country's diverse population and commitment to pluralism, Islam and the government have essentially merged.

For two decades, the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) government invested enormous public resources in building up a network of Islamic institutions. The government's initial intention was to deflect radical demands for an extreme version of Islamic governance.

Over time, however, the effort to out-do its critics led the UMNO to over-Islamicize the state.

The UMNO's program has put Sharia law, Sharia courts, and an extensive Islamic bureaucracy in place, a collective effort that has taken on a life of its own. The number of Islamic laws instituted has quadrupled in just over ten years.

After Iran or Saudi Arabia, Malaysia's Sharia court system is probably the most extensive in the Muslim world, and the accompanying bureaucracy is not only big but has more bite than the national parliament.

Islamic laws in Malaysia are based on religious doctrine but codified and passed as statutes by state parliaments. Not much debate attends their enactment, because a fear of heresy keeps most critics from questioning anything deemed Islamic.

While the UMNO still trumpets its Islamic advocacy, the party is facing difficult choices, particularly as it wishes to maintain foreign investment in an increasingly polarized environment.

For example, Minister of Home Affairs Hishammuddin Hussein recently held a press conference to support Muslims who demonstrated against the construction of a Hindu temple in their neighborhood. The protestors paraded a severed, bloodied cow's head in the street, then spat and stomped on it. This was an offense to Malaysia's Hindus, who consider the cow a sacred animal.

Just a week earlier, a young mother by the name of Kartika was sentenced by Malaysia's Sharia court to six lashes by cane and fined $1500 after she was caught drinking beer at a hotel.

Although the sentence is still in limbo, Hishamuddin publicized his acceptance of the punishment by inviting the official floggers to his office to demonstrate how an Islamic caning would be carried out. They used a chair as a mock target, leaving him satisfied that Islamic caning can be appropriately used as a punishment for women.

Ironically, Hishamuddin Hussein is far from an Islamic hard-liner. The son of Malaysia's third prime minister and a cousin of the current prime minister, he is widely considered modern, moderate, and cosmopolitan.

A true hard-liner is Nik Aziz, the chief minister of Kelantan state, who is also the spiritual leader of Malaysia's largest Islamic party, PAS, which now controls two state governments. However, Nik Aziz opposed the anti-Hindu protest, even calling a group of anti-Muslim protestors in the United Kingdom more civilized in their approach.

Hence, it is NO longer accurate to think of the PAS as a fundamentalist party and the UMNO as moderate.

Party strategies are leading them in unexpected directions. The UMNO's more radical turn is being matched by the PAS's attempts at moderation. The PAS is aiming for the most unlikely of voters: non-Muslims, who account for 40% of Malaysia's population and are increasingly alienated from the UMNO.

The UMNO, meanwhile, is intent on dividing the opposition coalition, of which the PAS is a member. The coalition is currently led by former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and has picked up political momentum from real gains in last year's general election.

Concerned by its losses, the UMNO has staked a claim to the defense of Islam in Malaysia.

1. The "cow head" protest, which was led by UMNO members, quickly fuelled racially-charged manipulation of public sentiment. The formula is simple: portray Islam as being threatened by infidels, and then have the UMNO ride to the rescue of the besieged Muslim community.
   
   
2. The caning of Kartika, on the other hand, is not an example of political manipulation, and for this reason is perhaps even more worrisome.
   
   Her sentence was roundly supported by modernist Muslim intellectuals, who insisted that the punishment was justly applied and cannot be questioned because it has divine sanction. These are not politicians, but former idealists who are happy that their goals of Islamicizing the state are being realized. Most are anti-UMNO and support the PAS.

As a result, the UMNO finds itself squeezed between an Islamic lobby that presses for greater "Talibanization" of the country and the rising voices of international critics, who cannot be ignored, because the party needs both radical supporters and foreign investors to stay in power.

Balancing these two constituencies is becoming increasingly difficult for the UMNO. Islamic politics has now taken on a life of its own.

But the Opposition will also be forced to figure out the role of religion in Malaysia, if ever they get an opportunity to form a government.

As a young Islamic radical, Anwar Ibrahim used to ask:

How does one Islamicize government?

Now he has to figure out how one GOVERNS it.

ARRESTED: US Government Scientist Who Became a Spy for Israel

Quote

"...The nature and extent of Israeli spying in the U.S. is not a subject you’ll see the (US) "mainstream" media very often touch with so much as a 10-foot pole, but when it does the results can be ominously disturbing.

I, for one, haven’t forgotten Carl Cameron’s four-part series on Israeli spying in the U.S., broadcast by Fox News in December 2001.

According to Cameron, his sources in law enforcement told him the Israelis had been following the 9/11 hijackers and had foreknowledge of their plans but somehow neglected to tell us. And then there were those dancing Israelis, leaping for joy at the sight of the Twin Towers burning…

US relationship with Israel is encompassed by the terms of the "special relationship," which has so far consisted of the U.S. giving unconditional support to Tel Aviv’s every action, no matter how brutal [.pdf] or contrary to our interests – and tolerating, to a large degree, its extensive covert operations on U.S. soil (or, at least, keeping quiet about them).

On a deeper level, however, the tensions in this one-way love affair have frayed the specialness of the relationship almost to the breaking point.This is the DARK side of the "special relationship," so dark that hardly anyone wants to acknowledge it, let alone consider its implications.

-Justin Raimondo

Stewart D. Nozette, 52, a scientist with the US Government, was arrested Monday afternoon on a charge of attempted espionage after authorities accused him of passing classified information to an undercover FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence operative.

In early September, an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer called Nozette, and the scientist said he would be willing to work as a spy, authorities said. Over the next few weeks, the agent paid $11,000 in cash, left in two installments in a post office box in the District. Nozette took the cash and questions left by the FBI agent, authorities alleged.

He returned, the FBI said, with envelopes containing classified information he recalled handling. That included details about U.S. satellites, early warning systems and defense strategy, the FBI wrote in court papers.

The meetings with the FBI agent were taped. At one point, Nozette said he knew how to handle the Israeli's cash. "You buy consumables," he told the agent, according to a partial transcript of the conversation in a District hotel suite Sept. 4. "Cash is good for anything."

Nozette has held multiple government research jobs and gained notice for working on a satellite radar system that detected ice on the moon in 1994. Nozette also conducted research in recent years for the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, authorities said.

The scientist held security clearances as high as top secret and had access to classified material as recently as 2006, authorities said. His access to such material was suspended that year after the NASA inspector general launched an investigation of his firm's billing practices, court records show. From 1989 through 2008, Nozette worked as a consultant for an aerospace firm owned by the Israeli government.

Nozette also was president of a nonprofit group, Alliance for Competitive Technology, that he founded in 1990. The group and Nozette had contracts from 2000 through 2006 to provide technology to the U.S. government, including NASA. In 2006, the NASA inspector general began an investigation of Nozette and his firm based on allegations that they submitted false expense claims, court records show. READ HERE FOR MORE

RELATED ARTICLE

The Dark Side of the ‘Special Relationship’ between Israel and the US

by

Justin Raimondo

(Justin Raimondo is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).

He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles:A Magazine of American Culture.)

Read here for more

A silent battle has been raging right under our noses, a fierce underground struggle pitting the U.S. against one of its closest allies. For all its newsworthiness, the media has barely noticed the story – except when it surfaces, briefly, like a giant fin jutting above the waves. The aggressor in this war is the state of Israel, with the U.S., its sponsor and protector, playing defense. This is the dark side of the "special relationship" – a battle of spy vs. spy.

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard – now serving a life sentence – stole secrets so vital that an attempt by the Israelis to get him pardoned was blocked by a massive protest from the intelligence and defense communities. Bill Clinton wanted to trade Pollard for Israeli concessions in the ongoing "peace process," and he was only prevented from doing so by a threat of mass resignations by the top leadership of the intelligence community.

The reason for their intransigence: among the material Pollard had been asked by his Israeli handlers to steal was the U.S. attack plan against the Soviet Union. According to Seymour Hersh, then-CIA director Bill Casey claimed Tel Aviv handed over the information to Moscow in exchange for relaxation of travel restrictions on Soviet Jews, who were then allowed to emigrate to Israel.

The Pollard case is emblematic – but it was just the beginning of a years-long effort by U.S. counterintelligence to rid themselves of the Israeli incubus. Law enforcement was – and presumably still is – convinced Pollard was very far from alone, and that a highly placed "mole" had provided him with key information. In his quest to procure very specific information, Pollard knew precisely which documents to look for – knowledge he couldn’t access without help from someone very high in government circles.

In addition, the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted a phone conversation between an Israeli intelligence officer and his boss in Tel Aviv, during which they discussed how to get hold of a letter by then-secretary of state Warren Christopher to Yasser Arafat. The Washington spy suggested they use "Mega," but his boss demurred: "This is not something we use Mega for," he averred.

The search for Mega and his underlings continues to this day, as U.S. counterintelligence attempts to rip up what appears to be a vast Israeli spy operation by its very deep roots.

That’s why they went after Ben Ami Kadish, who handed over U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv and shared a handler with Pollard, and why they indicted Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group.

That’s why they were listening on the other end as Jane Harman promised an Israeli agent to intervene in the Rosen-Weissman case.

And now a new front has been opened up in this subterranean war with the arrest of Stewart David Nozette, a top U.S. scientist who worked for the Pentagon, had access to the most closely guarded nuclear secrets, and was the lead scientist in the search for water on the moon.

Nozette’s case is interesting because of his impressive resume: he held top positions with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and NASA, and he served on the White House National Space Council under George H.W. Bush.

From 1989 until March 2006, he held "Q" clearance, which means he had access to "critical nuclear weapon design information" and vital information concerning 20 "special access programs" – secrets only a very few top government officials had knowledge of.

In other words, this wasn’t just some mid-level schmuck who wanted to sell out his country for cash: he was one of the big boys – the principal author of the Clementine biostatic radar experiment, which allowed U.S. scientists to discover water on the moon – a kind of J. Robert Oppenheimer figure, whose singular contributions to the U.S. space program and its military applications granted him security clearances available to a very select few.

The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint [.pdf] alleging espionage is terse, vague in parts, and brimming with implication. Taking their cues from the Department of Justice press release, most news reports state, "The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf committed any offense under U.S. laws," leaving out the last three words in the DOJ’s sentence: "in this case."

In this particular case, it’s true, prosecutors are going after Nozette for violations that occurred while they were reeling him in, with a federal agent pretending to be a Mossad officer offering him money (not very much, by the way) in exchange for secrets. The real question, however, is what caused them to zero in on Nozette?

A Washington Times piece cites Kenneth Piernick, a former senior FBI agent, who opined:

“He must have made some kind of attempt, which triggered the FBI’s interest in him. They cut in between him and whoever he was trying to work with and posed as an intelligence officer, agent, or courier to handle the issue, and then when he delivered what he intended to deliver to that person, his contact was likely an undercover FBI agent or [someone from] another U.S. intelligence service.”

Yet Nozette may have made more than a mere "attempt." The affidavit alleges that, from 1998 to 2008, he served as a consultant to "an aerospace company wholly owned by the government of Israel," during which time "approximately once a month representatives of the aerospace company proposed questions, or taskings, to Nozette." He answered these questions, and, in return, received regular payments totaling $250,000.

This indicates the Feds had been on to Nozette for quite some time, and with good cause. The affidavit also notes that, at the beginning of this year, he traveled to "a different foreign country" in possession of two computer "thumb" drives, which seemed to have mysteriously disappeared upon his return some three weeks later. What was on the drives – and who were the recipients?

In 2007, federal authorities raided the offices of Nozette’s nonprofit company, the Alliance for Competitive Technology (ACT), purportedly because ACT, having procured several lucrative government contracts, had defrauded the federal government by overcharging.

The affidavit cites an anonymous colleague of Nozette who recalled the scientist said that if the U.S. government ever tried to put him in jail he would go to Israel or another foreign country and “tell them everything” he knows.

Perhaps the real reason for the raid, however, had to do with the FBI’s growing suspicion – if not certainty – he was funneling U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv. ACT is a curious creation, a "nonprofit" group that nevertheless generated over half a million dollars last year according to documents filed with the IRS, with over $150,000 in salary and benefits paid out to Nozette. But it wasn’t just about money. ACT’s mission statement reads like a spy’s dream come true:

"The Alliance for Competitive Technology … has been created to serve the national and public interest by conducting scientific research and educational activities aimed at expanding the utilization of National and Government Laboratory resources.

The National Laboratories possess significant technology, technologists, and resources, of great potential value to growing U.S. industrial organizations, both small and large. Recent changes in national policy (the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1986 and the NASA Technology Utilization Program) have sanctioned the pursuit of technology transfer from these organizations. However, the capabilities and resources present in National Laboratories are often difficult to access by small and medium sized organizations with limited resources.

ACT will research the best mechanisms to facilitate this transfer through focused research on technology transfer mechanisms, and educational and instructive programs on technology transfer from National Laboratories.

In addition, ACT will enable U.S. organizations to utilize the resources of National Laboratories through existing established mechanisms (e.g., the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Technology Affiliates Program).Transfer of commercially valuable technology is significantly enhanced by such direct support of private sector efforts."

In short: ACT is all about technology transfer – from the U.S. to Israel. This, as is well-known, is one of the favored activities of the Israeli intelligence services, which regularly pilfer the latest American technology (especially military applications) to such an extent that a General Accounting Office investigation once characterized the effort as "the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."

ACT had contracts with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Arlington, Va., and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. It is hardly a leap of faith to conclude that vital data flowing from these projects was fed directly into the waiting maw of the Mossad.

Nozette was a key figure in developing and promoting the "Star Wars" ballistic missile defense system. His colleague in the "High Frontier" movement – and the official director of ACT – is one Klaus Heiss, like Nozette an enthusiast [.pdf] of space colonization (who also has some strong views on other subjects).

Contacted by an FBI agent masquerading as an Israeli intelligence agent, Nozette didn’t blink when told his lunch companion was from the Mossad: "Good," he said. "Happy to be of assistance." This was well before the issue of money was raised.

Later in the conversation, Nozette boasted of his top-level security clearances and the range and depth of his knowledge of U.S. secrets, adding, "I don’t get recruited by the Mossad every day. By the way, I knew this day would come." Questioned further by the undercover agent, Nozette said, "I thought I was working for you already. I mean, that’s what I always thought [the foreign company] was – just a front."

Which it no doubt was.

Nozette agreed to be a regular "asset," yet he clearly felt his position was increasingly precarious. He inquired about the right of return and raised the possibility that he might go to Israel. He wanted a passport as part of his payment, in addition to the few thousand dollars the FBI was putting in a post office "dead drop" for him on receipt of stolen secrets.

Well, then, so what? Don’t all nations, even allies, spy on each other? What’s the significance of this particular case

On the surface, our relationship with Israel is encompassed by the terms of the "special relationship," which has so far consisted of the U.S. giving unconditional support to Tel Aviv’s every action, no matter how brutal [.pdf] or contrary to our interests – and tolerating, to a large degree, its extensive covert operations on U.S. soil (or, at least, keeping quiet about them). On a deeper level, however, the tensions in this one-way love affair have frayed the specialness of the relationship almost to the breaking point.

This is not just due to the election of Barack Obama, who is widely perceived in Israel as being biased against the Jewish state. These tensions arose during Bush’s second term, when U.S. policy began to perceptibly tilt away from Tel Aviv.

A particularly telling blow to U.S.-Israeli relations was the decision by the U.S. to clamp down on visa requirements for Israelis entering the U.S.: potential visitors from Israel are now required to undergo an interview, restrictions on their length of stay have been extended, and admission to the U.S. is no longer assured.

In the secret world of spooks spying on one another, the U.S.-Israeli relationship is increasingly adversarial, while in the diplomatic-political realm, it has nearly reached the point of open hostilities.

This is thanks to the objective conditions that determine relations among nations: in the post-Cold War world, Israel necessarily became much less of an asset to the U.S. In the post-9/11 world, as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have so trenchantly pointed out, it is an outright liability.

Our self-sacrificial policy of unconditional support for Israel has earned us implacable enemies in the Arab world and granted our adversaries a priceless propaganda prize – and the growing awareness of this disability is something the Israelis no doubt find disturbing. The distortion of our foreign policy by the power of the Israel lobby is also being widely noted, and this is their real Achilles heel.

In this case, too, the Lobby will no doubt rush to exert their influence to downgrade Nozette’s crime and even depict him as an innocent victim of entrapment. Defenders of the AIPAC duo conjured a vast "anti-Semitic" conspiracy within the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI to explain the alleged persecution of Rosen and Weissman, and the same tactics are bound to be trotted out in this instance.

That is nonsense. The FBI didn’t just pick Nozette arbitrarily and conjure his crimes out of thin air. Their target was already deeply involved with the Israelis, and this is what brought him to their attention in the first place.

The nature and extent of Israeli spying in the U.S. is not a subject you’ll see the "mainstream" media very often touch with so much as a 10-foot pole, but when it does the results can be ominously disturbing. I, for one, haven’t forgotten Carl Cameron’s four-part series on Israeli spying in the U.S., broadcast by Fox News in December 2001.

According to Cameron, his sources in law enforcement told him the Israelis had been following the 9/11 hijackers and had foreknowledge of their plans but somehow neglected to tell us. And then there were those dancing Israelis, leaping for joy at the sight of the Twin Towers burning…

This is the dark side of the "special relationship," so dark that hardly anyone wants to acknowledge it, let alone consider its implications.
- Justin Raimondo