Tuesday 28 December 2010

PAS Youth SUPPORTS UMNO's Ketuanan Melayu Policies

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

A Vote for PAS
is a Vote for
UMNO's "Ketuanan Melayu"




PAS Youth is sidling closer to Umno-linked NGOs' views on the definition of 'ketuanan Melayu', agreeing that Malay rights should neither be questioned nor politicised.

Both sides spoke during a forum titled 'The Polemic of Malay Supremacy' organised by PAS Youth in Kajang last night.

However, the virtual ideological alliance between PAS with UMNO-friendly GPMS and MPM may backfire, as the 100-strong crowd last night gave PAS's Ahmad Sabki's views a rather LUKEWARM reception.

Former Perlis Mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin who believes that instead of imposing silence on the issue, the phrase ketuanan Melayu should be DISCARDED altogether.

The Islamic scholar said.
“I am rather surprised by the response by PAS on this matter, or perhaps I am still unclear on what is being said (by Ahmad Sabki) on the issue.”
PAS Youth vice-chief Ahmad Sabki Yusof at a PAS forum on the issue last night said,
“Ketuanan Melayu is not about lordship but about being owners or the original inhabitants of the land.

The special RIGHTS of the Malays as defined in Article 153 of the constitution is fair and appropriate. It has been upheld by all races.

The only problem is the policy or implementation of the special rights to help Malays, that he said is problematic in its implementation and should be adapted to current situations."
His statement was greeted enthusiastically by Umno-linked NGOs Federation of Malay Students' Union (GPMS) and Malay Consultative Council (MPM).

GPMS vice-president Ezaruddin Abd Rahman, with one hand placed on Ahmad Sabki's shoulder, responded:
“If this is PAS' view on ketuanan Melayu, then we of the GPMS have no worries and no problem to cooperate and work together with PAS on this issue. "
It is a non-issue, it's appearance is a political tremor, used by politicians for political gain,” chimed in MPM secretary-general Hasan Mad, mirroring both PAS's Ahmad Sabki and UMNO's Ezaruddin earlier comments on the topic.

The trio agreed that the problem arose because no one has defined the phrase 'ketuanan Melayu'.

Hasan also stated that because of the vagueness in the meaning of ketuanan Melayu, the issue was being played up by politicians for their political games and muddied by academicians and writers who continue to write their narrow responses to the topic based only on their expertise, and not holistically.

All three agreed that the matter of Malay rights should not be questioned and should be left alone and not be used by anyone for politic polemic.

They believe that while Ketuanan Melayu is NON-EXISTENT in any documentation, it is in spirit the incarnation of the principles of the special rights of the Malays accorded in the constitution.

Malays a chosen race?

Former Perlis Mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin's urging for the return to Islamic principles however received rousing cheers and clapping by the mainly PAS crowd, hinting perhaps at the sentiments of the Islamic party's grassroots on the issue.

“I worry that when you use 'Melayu' or the race as motivation, you will lose sight of the real fight, which is for Islam.This may even mirror the chosen race philosophy of the Jews. Ketuanan Melayu will NOT save the Malays, but Ketuanan Islam can,” cautioned Mohd Asri.

If there is any 'ketuanan' to be used, said the former Perlis Mufti, it must be ketuanan Islam, albeit not 'supremacy' but the application of the inclusive Islamic justice that is fair to all, said the religious scholar.

Friday 24 December 2010

Tuesday 21 December 2010

Purposely Misleading Malaysian Schoolchildren Through History Textbooks

Read here for more article by DR RANJIT SINGH MALHI


"....WE all know WHY History is a must-pass.

(So) make sure your kids are FIRMLY grounded in YOUR Religion and Culture otherwise you are gonna have a rude shock soon..."

- A reader of The Malay Mail

As an advocate of 1Malaysia which stresses national unity and ethnic harmony, I view with concern the substantially lopsided and biased content of our current Form 1-5 History textbooks.

To make matters worse, there are more than 10 factual errors and contradictions in our current Form 1-5 History textbooks.

The Education Ministry should immediately appoint a multi-ethnic Advisory Panel to ensure students are learning Malaysian and World History that is generally objective, well-balanced and wholly accurate.

The trend of “rewriting” Malaysian history started in 1996 with the formation of the Jawatankuasa Penerbitan Buku Teks Sejarah Tingkatan 1 and Tingkatan 2.

Its members (more than 15 for each committee), including the writers and consulting experts of the textbooks, were all drawn from ONE ethnic group. (sic. Malay)

Indeed, all 17 authors of our current Form 1-5 History textbooks are drawn from ONE ethnic group. (sic. Malay)

Hence, it is not surprising that our students are now primarily learning History as viewed through the lens of one ethnic group (sic. Malay).

This does not augur well for the creation of a truly united and prosperous 1Malaysia.

Our current History textbooks are biased in the sense that they DOWNPLAY the roles of the non-Malays in the development of our nation and its independence.

As an example, the previous textbooks used to adequately mention the contribution of the Chinese and the Indians in the development of the tin mining and rubber industries.

Now it is given scant attention.

  • There is also lopsided emphasis on Islamic Civilisation. I personally counted that about 39% of the content of the current Form Four History textbook (compared to 15% in the earlier textbook) deals with Islamic Civilisation.

    Hence, the recent statement by the new Education director-general that the weight of the Islamic Civilisation in the current Form Four History textbook is the same as the earlier textbook is inaccurate and misleading.

    He ( the new Education director-general) must have been misinformed by his officials.

  • Interestingly, the current textbook has reduced more than 25% the amount of text related to Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism as compared to the earlier textbook. Our History textbooks are also biased because they do not tell the whole truth.

  • For example, why can’t we state categorically that the founder of Malacca (Parameswara) was a HINDU prince from Palembang who died a Hindu. We must be proud of our multi-religious and multi-cultural heritage.

  • The earlier Malaysian History textbooks do mention the role of Yap Ah Loy (Kapitan China of Kuala Lumpur from 1868 to 1885) in developing Kuala Lumpur. The current Form 2 History textbook has just one sentence (not even in the main text) on Yap Ah Loy: Yap Ah Loy antara orang yang bertanggungjwab membangunkan Kuala Lumpur (Yap Ah Loy is one of the people responsible for developing Kuala Lumpur).

  • As for Gurchan Singh, his wartime exploits were contained in a textbook, Heroes of Malaya, which was widely used in Malayan schools in the 1950s. Indeed, our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was among those who grieved at Gurchan’s death in 1965 and personally offered condolences to his family.
The Education Ministry should also review the current teaching of History in schools.

History is an interesting subject which has been made uninteresting by teachers.Most students have a natural curiosity about the past and how the present came to be.

Unfortunately, many teachers adhere religiously to the lecture and note-taking method of teaching History. Worse still, very few teachers ask higher-order questions.This is the major reason why most students view History as a boring subject.

In short, what is boring is not History per se but the way History is being taught.

The teaching and learning of History should be geared towards enhancing deep learning, critical thinking, information literacy and presentation skills of our students and not merely just for memorisation and to pass exams.

History should be taught in a lively and interesting manner using various instructional strategies (such as discussions, debates, group presentations, document studies and video clips) and not be limited to the traditional lecture method.

Students should not be mere spectators in the teaching and learning process; active learning should be promoted.

In our quest to create 1Malaysia, all of us have a moral duty of ensuring that our students study History that is not only accurate but generally objective and well-balanced.

Let us all work towards creating a truly united, harmonious and prosperous Malaysia wherein every ethnic group is treated equitably under the Malaysian sun.

Kuala Lumpur.

Friday 17 December 2010

Concerned Mother Exposed Hidden Islamisation Agenda in History Books of Malaysian Schoolchildren

Read here for more in Malaysia Today



"...We want to know WHY our school curriculum has been allowed to be written from such a RELIGIOUS SLANT by a group of writers of only one religious background.

We want to know the reason for this sudden but quiet change in the school syllabus a few years ago.

We want to know WHY our children are COMPELLED to disproportionately focus and digest so much on ONE religion WITHOUT a balanced perspective of others?

We must demand for an immediate and urgent revamp and re-writing of the entire history curriculum for our schools and universities.

We must insist that POLITICS and RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION be strictly kept OUT of our textbooks.

We must no longer allow our school syllabus to be hijacked for political and religious propaganda.

Until then, it is unacceptable to even think that History should be made a compulsory pass subject in SPM.

- A Concerned Mother

School History Textbooks - Historical Facts or Political and Religious Propaganda?


"A Concerned Mother"

When one picks up a history book, one would expect to read a fair account of events as they actually happened in the past. Definitely, one would expect the most accurate record possible of history as it unfolded through the decades, written as objectively as possible.

A most reasonable expectation indeed when the book in question is a major textbook prescribed by our Education Ministry for our students nationwide.

A book that is instrumental in shaping the young minds of our future generation. The issue takes even greater prominence when the content of that book is going to decide whether our students pass or fail in a major exam on which their future hinges.


Lay hold of the Form 4 history textbook that our children are compelled to digest.

Read it for yourself.

Take a good hard look while the storm is brewing in the teacup. And it is brewing for good reason.

Be shocked at what the syllabus writers have managed to QUIETLY incorporate into our school syllabus just a few years ago, UN-NOTICED by most people, even parents of affected students.

This is no typical history textbook. Simply because the syllabus writers have not confined its content to history.

Instead they have extended its boundaries seemingly to push a certain agenda.

In the process, our history textbooks seems to have taken on a quest of its own - to win the hearts and minds of our children for that particular agenda.

We have to take note that all 4 writers of the textbook comes from only ONE race and religion, WITHOUT representation from other faiths and races.
  • I write as a concerned mother who cares about what my children are being fed in school.

  • I write as a troubled citizen who cares about the younger generation that will one day helm the nation.

  • I write based on my own personal review of the Form 4 history textbook and this review is based on the hard facts of the content of the textbook, without any intention to offend any religion, its prophet or believers.
I will leave the review on the accuracy of the history to historians, who are already speaking out on the historical errors and distortions contained.
  1. The first fact to note is the overwhelming proportion of the Form 4 history textbook being devoted to Islamic civilization (100 PAGES) while the other religious civilizations are barely given a passing mention (460 WORDS).

    Out of 10 chapters, 5 bulky chapters are devoted to Islamic history and civilization, which constitutes at least half a year’s study. This certainly is a disproportionate emphasis on one religion, to the exclusion of all other religious civilizations.

    Most of us would not mind our children understanding more about Islamic civilization. But it has to presented fairly accurately within a balanced perspective.

    Do we want to mislead our children to believe that there is only one important civilization in the entire history of the human race and the rest are insignificant?

    Are the other major civilizations not worth studying in equal if not greater depth?

    Giving our children a correct and broad worldview can only benefit our nation in the context of a globalized world. Otherwise, our nation will be producing people with an extremely narrow worldview and an incomplete and distorted view of world history. That is to our own loss.

  2. Secondly, this history textbook seems to seek to influence the young minds of our children who come from various faiths, to follow the prophet of one particular religion.

    There is a detailed study of the life of the prophet Muhammad (pg 102 – 107). He is repeatedly praised throughout the chapters. Students are then repeatedly exhorted throughout the book, to emulate him as a ROLE MODEL in life (pg 106, 111, 124, 133, 137, 138).

    We respect the Muslim belief in the greatness of their prophet. However, we have to respectfully suggest (with no offense intended whatsoever to the prophet) that teachings that encourage students to follow any prophet would more properly belong to a religious class meant for students who already subscribed to that particular faith. It has no proper place in a major history textbook for students of other faiths. In a plural society like ours, the religious sensitivities of other faiths must surely be respected.

  3. Thirdly, throughout the pages of the textbook, history seems to have been written from a religiously biased viewpoint. Other religions seems to be cast in an unfavourable light.

    Consider some statements found in the textbook:-
    (1) Islam is described as a religion easily acceptable and not confined to any race, nation or geography (pg 185).

    (2) Islam can be accepted by many people because of the purity of its teaching (pg 110).

    (3) The uniqueness of Islam resulted in many people embracing the religion (pg162, 163, 185).

    (4) The conversion of some Arab leaders to Islam in 629 AD is described as “an act done after rational investigation into the truth of Islam” (pg 133).

    (5) Islamic social policies are described as so attractive that European Christians converted to Islam during the Byzantize era (pg 163).

    (6) Islam requires rational thinking and therefore is accepted by all levels of society. (pg 185).
    Sadly, biased religious viewpoints are being unfairly shoved onto our children as established facts within the framework of a narrow religious perspective.

  4. Fourthly, the history textbook itself dwells on the TEACHINGS of the religion.

    Whilst the children have to study Islamic concepts (pg 185), no space is given to a balanced comparison with the teachings of other religions. Our youth are therefore taught the virtues of one religion to the exclusion of others.

    Why not have a balanced approach and allow our children to learn the basic tenets of all major world religions? Allow them to engage in comparative studies.

    Will it not be healthier to promote better understanding among the races which has positive effect on nation building?

  5. Fifthly, the textbook also promotes Syariah law as suitable and practical for a multi racial nation.

    It cites the example of the success of the multi racial community in Madinah governed by the Madinah Charter. The formation of an Islamic government in Madinah is stated to thus prove that Islam can be practiced in a wholesome daily living and should be emulated by the Malaysian society.

    Syariah law is hailed as just, complete and perfect, and can be followed by all communities (pg 128). There is mention of social justice under Islam (pg 128); equal treatment to all people under Islam (pg 110, 128); purity of the struggles of Islam (pg 112); fairness, integrity, consideration and generosity of Islamic economic principles (pg 128).

    Perhaps the fifth ground raises the most questions and rings loudest the alarm bells.

    It makes us wonder why our school history syllabus is written in a way that seems to be condition the minds of our youth to accept Syariah laws as the basis of our legal system in the future?

    Is there a deliberate political and/or religious agenda at play?
Our Education Minister owes us an explanation.
  • We want to know why our school curriculum has been allowed to be written from such a religious slant by a group of writers of only one religious background.

  • We want to know the reason for this sudden but quiet change in the school syllabus a few years ago.

  • We want to know why our children are compelled to disproportionately focus and digest so much on one religion without a balanced perspective of others?
We must demand for an immediate and urgent revamp and re-writing of the entire history curriculum for our schools and universities.

There should be a panel of qualified historians from all races and faiths working reviewing the syllabus. Feedback must be obtained from the public.

We must insist that politics and religious indoctrination be strictly kept out of our textbooks.

History should be what it is – an objective and accurate record of past events.

We must no longer allow our school syllabus to be hijacked for political and religious propaganda.

Until then, it is unacceptable to even think that History should be made a compulsory pass subject in SPM.

Monday 13 December 2010

Lies, Fiction and Propaganda in History Books in which Malaysian Schoolchildren are FORCED to Learn

Read here for more in the SUN.

(Malaysian school) history textbooks are biased and littered with errors, claim two authors and academicians.

Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi and Ng How Kuen, who write history textbooks for Chinese schools, say their experience with officialdom does not augur well for the teaching of history in our classrooms.

Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, author of secondary school history textbooks since 1990, and adviser to the Ministry of Education (MOE) on history textbooks, said such material were littered with factual errors and distortions.

He said that when he pointed out the errors and distortions, a ministry official labelled him “anti-national”.

Dr. Ranjit was commenting the announcement that the history syllabus is being reviewed and that the subject will be made a compulsory pass in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia from 2013.

He showed the Sun history textbooks with errors and exaggerated facts.

He said,
Secondary school history textbooks have been used to promote POLITICAL interests. It should be a scholarly pursuit and not politically-motivated.

FIVE out of 10 chapters of the Form Four history textbook deal with Islamic history as compared to ONLY ONE chapter in the earlier textbook. The intention of the earlier syllabus was to expose our students to World History.

The coverage of important historical events such as Renaissance and Industrial Revolution has been REDUCED by more than half.

Certain historical personalities, such as Yap Ah Loy (the third Kapitan China of Kuala Lumpur), were NOT given due recognition.

Yap played a MAJOR role in the development of Kuala Lumpur as a commercial and tin-mining centre, particularly after the fire of 1881.
The Form Two history textbook had only ONE sentence on Yap as 'one of the persons responsible for developing Kuala Lumpur'.

There is also NO mention of freedom fighters such as Gurchan Singh (“Lion of Malaya”) and Sybil Karthigesu who resisted the Japanese Occupation of Malaya (Gurchan secretly distributed a newspaper during the Japanese occupation while Sybil, who was tortured by the Japanese, and her husband treated wounded guerillas of the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army).

The most glaring example of bias was related to the downfall of the Malay Sultanate of Malacca.

The 1996 Form One textbook stated inter alia that a few Indian merchants lent their junks to the Portuguese in their attack on Malacca. I know of NO historical evidence to support this fact.

Six CHINESE captains agreed to lend their junks to the Portuguese due to their hatred for Sultan Mahmud who had earlier detained them and their men to help attack Aru. The Portuguese used only one junk provided by one of the Chinese.

It is NOT right to assume that students will study history seriously and will be more patriotic after clearly understanding the Federal Constitution and the social contract.

Patriotism thrives when citizens have a ‘sense of belonging’ and perceive themselves being treated equitably."
Ng How Kuen, meanwhile, fears that making history a compulsory pass subject would mean one would have to subscribe to one’s version of events or risk failing the entire examination.

Ng, whose textbooks are still used in Chinese-medium primary schools, however stressed that it was timely to review the syllabus. “We always had to follow the curriculum given by the MOE and therefore the ruling parties have the UPPER hand in defining our history.”

As an example, he said when writing on the fight for independence, the contributions of the communists were LEFT OUT.

He said history books should be written by historians and NOT teachers as the former were not bound by the curriculum.

“Students DO know the truth but as textbooks are written according to approved curriculum, students end up learning history that is skewed,
said Ng.

Friday 10 December 2010

Nazri Did the RIGHT Thing: He Defended Rapper NAMEWEE Against Racist Attacks



NAMEWEE Meets Nazri for Film Production

Read here for more in malaysiakini article by S Pathmawathy

Related Article:
Video Clip: NAMWEE's Problems with Racist FINAS on 1Malaysia Film. WHERE IS MCA?
Rapper Wee Meng Chee, popularly known as NAMEWEE today held a short meeting with de facto Law Minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz over difficulties in obtaining government grants for his movie.

Wee met Nazri today at Parliament to inform him about the new film, titled Nasi Lemak 2.0, and his futile eight-month effort to secure government grants.

He had previously claimed that the government's requirement for much of the script to be in Bahasa Malaysia to qualify for grants as discriminatory and not in line with the 1Malaysia spirit.

Wee had also produced a video, taken off his blog since, showcasing a three-minute rap song, with profanities cast against incidents of racism in Malaysia.The video was specifically targeted at the heads of a school in Kedah and another in Johor, both of whom had allegedly uttered racial slurs against non-Malay students.

During the 10-minute meeting, Wee expressed his wish to personally inform Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak about the predicament faced by him and other film makers.

At a press conference later, Nazri said that he would raise the matter with the premier during Friday's cabinet meeting.

Nazri also defended Wee, whose numerous music videos have irked conservative Muslims, especially the Malay rights pressure group Perkasa.

The minister said Wee was merely trying to address the grouses of the younger generation and was NOT being racist.

Nazri said,
"I met this young man today and nothing of what he has done is against the law. I think the Malay mainstream media, bloggers and the community has misunderstood him. I hope they will give him a chance.

He is young. If he does something wrong, don't just jump the gun and come to your own conclusions from what other people say.

I have to save this young man because... the Malay community is very upset over a statement I made in Parliament that action will be taken against the two principals and they argued why no action is not taken against Namewee. Only the principals and the aggrieved parties that Namewee had offended could take any action against him.

But I think Namewee has been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented by some of the media... and I think the principals also want to prevent this issue from blowing out of proportion.

This young man is typical of his age. I don't look at him as a racist, I don't think he's even a politician, so we shouldn't be dragging him into something which, in the first place, he doesn't want to get involved in," said Nazri, adding that Wee had been "gravely misunderstood".

He is only interested in music and how it can give messages to his peers.

We know that he has over 70,000 fans, and he has given me his explanation of what he has done (to rectify his mistakes).

I think he has potential, we can help, and he will be able to become an artiste one day," he added.

Wee did not intend to create enemies. He told me he was nervous about coming here, but I told him he had done nothing wrong, that he didn't have to worry."
Looking quite relieved after the meeting, Wee insisted that he is a "patriotic Malaysian" and complained that mainstream media "always chooses" to highlight his controversial videos and "made me into someone that I am not, like a hantu (ghost)".

Wee told reporters:
" I admit that some of my videos are controversial, especially when dealing with social issues, but I honestly have no intention of hurting anyone.

And if I ever had offended some of you, please accept my apologies.

I hope that in future you will give me a chance (and) go check out my other videos to get to know the real Namewee.

Or, alternatively, please choose not to watch my videos again."

Wednesday 8 December 2010

Malaysian Islamic Authorities APPROVE Child Marriages

Read here for more article by Rahmah Ghazali


".... When a mainstream newspaper puts a front-page photo of a 14-year-old bride with no comment at all, then there is something seriously sick with OUR society.

Despite signing on to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) we are still allowing child marriages to happen with the pretext that religion allows it.

I have to ask, what sort of parents match-make their underage daughter to an older man, albeit one who is a family friend?

It is entirely sick that there are religious officials (JAKIM) who view child marriage as the answer to “social problems”.

What problems are they talking about? Is sex outside marriage the greatest evil there is?

Is not child marriage with its virtual enslavement of girls, its proven physical damage to girls’ bodies and the utter lack of preparedness for a life of responsibility not a bigger social evil?

Paedophilia is paedophilia no matter what the garb (is worn).

In other countries, society is moving towards banning child marriages altogether.

Even in super-conservative Saudi Arabia, a member of the Senior Council of Ulema said that the Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl some 14 centuries ago CANNOT be used to justify child marriages TODAY.

In the 21st century when we’re trying to become a modern nation, why are we not ashamed that we find excuses to allow child marriages?

It is now time to just ban this outright and become civilised...."

-Marina Mahathir
(read Marina's full article below)

Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) sees NOTHING WRONG in child marriage.

Jakim stressed that the practice or child marriage was now widely accepted and considered “reasonable”.

PhotobucketJakim director-general, Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz (right), said child marriage should not cause any problem, especially if the wedding was bound "by the love between couples”.

"The public may have objected to this idea at first, but now it (child marriage) is already widely accepted as a reasonable move," he said.

He said that given the growing social problems among Muslims, such type of marriage should be ENCOURAGED

According to news reports, 14 year old schoolgirl Siti Maryam Mahmod married 23-year-old schoolteacher Abdul Manan Othman last Saturday, after being given permission in a Syariah Court.

Sisters-in-Islam (SIS) Opposes Child Marriages

Civil rights groups have described such practice as “unacceptable” and have continuously called for restraint by religious courts empowered to approve underage marriage.

Activist group, Sisters in Islam (SIS), which disagreed with underage marriage, proposed that the government raise the minimum age of marriage to 18 years for all Malaysians.

SIS spokesperson Yasmin Masidi said in a statement yesterday that the onset of puberty did not mean that the person has attained sufficient maturity for marriage.

Yasmin said,
"While the Quran does not state a specific age as the age of marriage, Surah an-Nisa' 4:6 requires that when orphans reach the 'age of marriage' or a 'marriageable age', they can be tested for 'sound judgment' or maturity of mind'.

This indicates that a marriageable age is linked to soundness of judgement and maturity, where a child below 18 could not be said to have the life experience necessary to assume marital responsibilities.

There is no sound reason why her family and her intended groom cannot wait until she reaches the age of majority before asking for her consent to marry.

Malaysia should emulate other Muslim-majority countries which are already taking steps to address child marriage as a problem.

A man was jailed in Indonesia for sexually abusing a minor after he married a 12-year-old girl, and even Saudi Arabia is mulling over a ban on child marriage.

Studies on child marriage point to harm suffered by children, particularly girls: the loss of childhood and adolescence, denial of freedom and personal development, difficulty in accessing education, health problems due to early pregnancies and abuse."
The marriage of the 14-year-old child is only the tip of the iceberg as many more cases of child marriage go unreported.

According to Deputy Women, Family and Community Development Minister Heng Seai Kie last October, 16,000 girls aged below 15 in the country tied the knots.


Malaysia Minister REJECTS Call to End Child Marriage

From AFP Newswire. Read here for more

Malaysia’s law minister on Wednesday shot down calls to ban underage marriage, despite an uproar over the recent wedding of a 14-year-old Muslim school girl.

Siti Maryam Mahmod wed 23-year-old teacher Abdul Manan Othman last weekend in a mass wedding at a major mosque, after being given permission in an Islamic Sharia court.

Malaysian Muslims below the age of 16 are allowed to marry as long as they obtain the permission of the religious courts. Sharia law runs in parallel with civil law in the multi-ethnic country.

Nazri Aziz, a minister in the premier’s department in charge of legal affairs, said the government has no plan to review laws allowing for underage marriages because the practice is permitted under Islam.

“If the religion allows it, then we can’t legislate against it,” he told a press conference.

“Islam allows it as long as the girl is considered to have reached her pubescent stage, once she has her menstruation,” he added.

However, Siti Maryam’s marriage has sparked criticism including from Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, who insisted the government did not condone the practice.

Activist groups have also called for the laws that allow underage marriage to be repealed, saying that the practice is widespread with some 16,000 Malaysian girls aged below 15 already married.

“The onset of puberty is no indication of sufficient maturity for marriage,” pressure group Sisters in Islam said this week, citing a passage in the Koran which also requires “maturity of mind”.

No marriage of a minor child can be deemed acceptable,” said the group’s spokeswoman Yasmin Masidi.

Muslim Malays make up about 60 percent of the country’s 28 million population and on certain issues, including family law, they are subject to Islamic justice.



Raja Petra Kamarudin

Read here for more

The Jakim director-general,Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz has decreed that child marriages are kosher.

Imagine children of the age of 14 can get married but they are not old enough to vote. You can trust them to have children and raise a family but you can’t trust them to vote.

And they say we are insulting Islam.

Is Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz now going to defend slavery? Slavery is LEGAL in Islam and has never been banned.

Ask any ulamak and he or she can tell you that Islam never banned slavery. Therefore, you can legally keep slaves.

The hadith also says that a man can have sex with his female slaves. According to the hadith, a slave is a man’s property and you can do whatever you like with your property. You can therefore have sex with your slave.

(But) sex outside marriage is illegal in Islam. In fact, all you need to do is to be alone with a woman or girl who is not your wife and that is enough to get you arrested -- even if you did not lay a finger on her.

Let’s hear what Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz has to say about this since he feels marriage with a minor is ALLOWED in Islam.

In the old days kids of 10 or 11 went to war and at 14 or 15 they were veteran soldiers and at 18 were considered old (by 40 many were already dead). That was more than 1,000 years ago. So at 14 they got married, even in the west.

Times, however, have changed.

Today, although slavery has never been banned in Islam, no one keeps slaves any longer.

Should a marriage of a 14 year old therefore also be allowed?

If the answer is yes then slavery should also be allowed in Malaysia and the slave owners can have sex with their property, the slaves.

Aiyah, when I talk like this they make police reports against me and detain me without trial. But how not to talk like this when those songkok-clad people keep making silly statements?
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

Marriage Is Not about Legalising Sex


Marina Mahathir

Read here for more

WHEN a mainstream newspaper puts a front-page photo of a 14-year-old bride with no comment at all, then there is something seriously sick with our society.

Despite signing on to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) we are still allowing child marriages to happen with the pretext that religion allows it.

What has child marriage got to do with discrimination against women? When child marriages occur, it is almost always girls who are the ones married off, rarely ever boys.

And in almost all cases, they are married to much older men, sometimes old enough to be their grandfathers. Child marriage is therefore never one of equality because how can a child ever be an equal partner to her adult husband?

One might argue about the presumption of equality in marriage; that wives should be, by default, inferior to their husbands. Even if this is a valid belief (and it is not), doesn’t a girl child have even more odds stacked against her than an adult wife?

A child bride is even more dependent on her husband than most adult wives, being less educated and unable to earn her own income. Her entire future is in his hands, to be decided as he wills.

I have to ask, what sort of parents match-make their underage daughter to an older man, albeit one who is a family friend? Do they have so little ambition for their child?

I know how parents, especially mothers, fall “in love” with young men they think would be ideal for their daughters, but is it so important to grab a man as a husband for such a young daughter instead of waiting for her to grow up and, who knows, find a better one herself later?

Or is the idea to control your child’s life to such a degree that you dictate her future before she can even acquire the means to decide on her own?

It is entirely sick that there are religious officials who view child marriage as the answer to “social problems”.

What problems are they talking about?

Is sex outside marriage the greatest evil there is? Is not child marriage with its virtual enslavement of girls, its proven physical damage to girls’ bodies and the utter lack of preparedness for a life of responsibility not a bigger social evil?

Every day in the papers we see endless horrifying results of irresponsibility in marriage; abandoned wives and children, domestic violence, child abuse.

Aren’t those greater issues?

Has anyone even noticed that in cases of child abuse, the parent perpetrators are invariably young and saddled with several young children who they obviously view as a hindrance to their enjoyment of life?

Go visit an orphanage and see the many children there who are not orphans but have been either discarded by their parents or have been placed there by the courts because of abuse by their own parents.

Is marriage only about legalising sex? And therefore if anyone is in “danger” of having illegal sex they should be married off regardless of age?

Indeed, when we think of child marriages as a way of fending off “social evils”, who do we think is the would-be perpetrator of that evil? Is it not the groom? So, if he does legally what in all other cases would be called rape, he is all right?

In other countries, society is moving towards banning child marriages altogether. Even in super-conservative Saudi Arabia, a member of the Senior Council of Ulema said that the Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl some 14 centuries ago cannot be used to justify child marriages today.

Sheikh Abdullah Al-Manie said that circumstances today are different from the days when the Prophet married Aisha. (Other scholars have also argued that Aisha was not nine but 19, which seems to indicate some defensiveness about this issue.)

In Indonesia, a Muslim cleric who married a 12-year-old girl was jailed four years for sexual abuse of a minor.

He said he was not going to sleep with her until she reached puberty, but few in the predominantly Muslim nation of 237 million were mollified, especially when he went on to say he also intended to marry two other girls, aged seven and nine.

Paedophilia is paedophilia no matter what the garb.

But of course we in Malaysia have to be different. Once upon a time we talked about how our grandmothers married very young but we also dismissed this as an old-fashioned practice.

In the 21st century when we’re trying to become a modern nation, why are we not ashamed that we find excuses to allow child marriages?

It is now time to just ban this outright and become civilised.
-Marina Mahathir

Tuesday 7 December 2010

"Ketuanan Melayu": Tindakan Bacul Umno dan Perkasa

Siapa Yang LEBIH Derhaka ?

Read here for more

Read here for more

Umno dan Perkasa, yang mengheret institusi Raja-Raja Melayu dengan mentaklikkan “Ketuanan Melayu” sebagai “Ketuanan Sultan” adalah satu tindakan yang bacul.

Setiausaha Agung Saifuddin Nasution Ismail berkata demikian sebagai merujuk kepada pelbagai kenyataan yang dibuat berkenaan isu ketuanan rakyat, terutamanya daripada kalangan pemimpin Umno.

Beliau berkata dalam satu kenyataan semalam,
"...oleh sebab mereka tidak mampu berdepan dengan persoalan penting membicarakan kaedah terbaik membela orang Melayu terbanyak seperti yang ditimbulkan PKR, lalu mereka cuba menggunakan institusi Raja-Raja Melayu.

Tindakan seperti inilah sebenarnya yang menghina institusi Raja-Raja Melayu kerana ia tidak menghormati kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu yang memayungi seluruh rakyat jelata tidak mengira kaum, agama dan pegangan politik."
Namun, katanya, tindakan Umno dan Perkasa itu bukanlah perkara baru. Rekod mereka mencalarkan kedudukan institusi Raja-Raja Melayu di mata rakyat sudah diketahui umum.

Menurut beliau, krisis-krisis perlembagaan yang melemahkan institusi Raja-Raja Melayu dalam tahun 1983 dan 1993 dicetuskan oleh Umno.

Umno aibkan Raja-Raja Melayu

"Lebih malang, dalam kedua-dua siri krisis perlembagaan yang disusun oleh Umno itu, berlaku serangan-serangan yang bertujuan mengaibkan Raja-Raja Melayu dalam akhbar-akhbar dan media milik mereka," terang Saifuddin yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bachok.

Tegas beliau, ada beza yang besar di antara cakap-cakap seorang dua rakyat jelata yang dituduh mempersoalkan kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu, dengan satu gerakan tersusun yang dilaksanakan secara besar-besaran oleh sebuah parti politik yang mengaku mempertahankan Ketuanan Melayu.

"Saya beri amaran supaya Umno dan Perkasa jangan lagi cuba memfitnah PKR dan Pakatan Rakyat dalam perkara ini. Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat yang diluluskan pada 19 Disember 2009, secara jelas mempertahankan kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan Bumiputra dan institusi raja berpelembagaan," ujar beliau.

Menurut beliau, ini dinyatakan dalam Fasal 1 Perkara a(i)
“Pakatan Rakyat akan mempertahankan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana di negara ini serta melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak serta kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain sejajar dengan Perkara 153”; dan Fasal 1 Perkara a(ii) “Pakatan Rakyat akan mempertahankan peranan dan tanggungjawab institusi raja berpelembagaan”.
Makanya, kata beliau, PKR ingin membawa kembali polemik “Ketuanan Melayu” ini kepada perkara dasar yang diulas oleh Presiden Dato’ Seri Dr Wan Azizah Ismail tempuh hari.

Melahir anak Melayu beriman

Saifuddin Nasution Ismail berkata,
"Perkara dasar yang disentuh ialah wacana kaedah terbaik untuk melahirkan anak bangsa Melayu yang beriman, boleh berdikari, berprinsip dan berdaya juang supaya mereka kekal bermaruah dalam kerangka masyarakat pelbagai kaum di negara ini dan arus globalisasi mutakhir.

Apakah kaedah Umno yang memperkecilkan kebolehan anak Melayu, dengan menakut-nakutkan mereka dan menimbulkan rasa curiga terhadap semua yang bukan Melayu, akan berjaya melahirkan anak bangsa Melayu yang bermaruah?

Apakah “Ketuanan Melayu” yang berpaksikan kepada sistem kroni dan mendokong rasuah dengan menghamburkan kekayaan negara kepada beberapa kroni rapat Umno (tanpa mengira kaum) akan melahirkan golongan peniaga Melayu yang berdaya maju?

Apakah budaya rasuah yang berleluasa dalam Umno akan menjamin kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu tidak akan dijual suatu hari nanti?

Apakah anak bangsa Melayu yang membesar dengan perasaan curiga akan dapat mengambil pendekatan positif menunggang arus globalisasi untuk menjadi pemimpin antarabangsa? "
Umno abai kebajikan rakyat terbanyak iaitu Melayu

Katanya, persoalan yang dibawa oleh PKR adalah persoalan jatidiri dan kaedah terbaik membina jatidiri tersebut. Kaedah “Ketuanan Melayu” yang dibawa oleh Umno dan Perkasa bukan sahaja terbukti gagal membina jatidiri orang Melayu, malah menyebabkan kebajikan rakyat terbanyak (terutamanya golongan berpendapatan rendah yang majoritinya orang Melayu) terabai.

Saifuddin berkata, sehingga kini, selepas tiga dekad “Ketuanan Melayu”, 75% dari bilangan keluarga yang pendapatan isi rumahnya di bawah RM2,000 adalah orang Melayu.

"Golongan ini jugalah yang dikategorikan sebagai golongan 40% paling miskin di Malaysia, seperti yang dihuraikan Perdana Menteri sendiri dalam Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10."

Ujar beliau, selepas tiga dekad “Ketuanan Melayu”, rakyat terbanyak juga yang dibebankan dengan pemotongan subsidi sedangkan subsidi korporat sebanyak RM19 bilion setahun (dalam bentuk subsidi gas kepada penjana bebas) tidak disentuh.

Umno dan Perkasa tidak melahirkan sedikit keluhan pun apabila bantuan kepada rakyat termiskin, yang rata-ratanya orang Melayu ditarik setiap enam bulan untuk menampung perbelanjaan boros kerajaan membayar perunding antarabangsa, sedangkan tidak ada satu mekanisme pun diperkenalkan untuk menyalurkan kembali rasionalisasi subsidi kepada golongan termiskin ini.

"Ketuanan Melayu" benteng Umno kian rapuh

Justeru, PKR yakin bahawa polemik “Ketuanan Melayu” ini adalah benteng terakhir Umno dan Perkasa yang kian rapuh dan ditolak rakyat.

Demi melahirkan Malaysia yang majmuk, mengamalkan toleransi dan berdaya saing, PKR akan konsisten membawa gagasan Ketuanan Rakyat melalui bangsa yang bermaruah – kerana kami yakin gagasan ini tidak dapat dijawab oleh Umno dan Perkasa.

Berucap pada Kongres Nasional ketujuh PKR itu, Wan Azizah berkata konsep Ketuanan Melayu hendaklah ditolak kerana ia telah diselewengkan oleh segelintir elitis Melayu bagi mengekalkan kuasa politik mereka.

Saifuddin menjelaskan persoalan yang dilontarkan oleh presiden itu adalah mudah; iaitu kaedah bagaimana yang boleh menjamin kelangsungan dan darjat orang Melayu yang akan dihormati dan bermaruah, dalam kerangka masyarakat pelbagai kaum yang ada di Malaysia dan arus globalisasi yang deras meninggalkan kita.

Saifuddin menegaskan:
"Kaedah sedia ada dibawa oleh Umno – iaitu mengabui mata rakyat mengenai hak mereka (melalui Umno) untuk terus berkuasa tidak kira prestasi mereka dan kebajikan rakyat keseluruhannya, terutamanya nasib orang Melayu.

Konsep “Ketuanan Melayu” yang dilaungkan secara terbuka dan dibisikkan secara senyap ini oleh Biro Tata Negara (BTN) dan agensi-agensi lain, menakut-nakutkan orang Melayu bahawa perubahan kerajaan kepada pakatan politik yang lain akan menyebabkan orang Melayu hilang kuasa.

Apabila orang Melayu hilang kuasa, maka nasib orang Melayu akan terjejas dan akan tertinda."
Ketika diminta mengulas mengenai Ketuanan Melayu baru-baru, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Nazri Abdul Aziz berkata, ketuanan Melayu merujuk kepada "Ketuanan Sultan" dan bukan bermaksud kuasa Melayu yang mengatasi bangsa-bangsa lain.


Pengkhianatan UMNO terhadap Bangsa dan Tanah Melayu

PhotobucketBicara Minda Ustaz Haji Idris Ahmad, Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat yang telah dititipkannya pada tahun 2009.


Umno Perak terutama Dato’ Zamri ketika Pakatan Rakyat memerintah Perak antara orang yang lantang menuduh Dato’ Seri haji Nizar boneka kepada China DAP kerana beri tanah kepada orang China di Perak.

Modal yang sama juga sedang difitnah oleh jentera Umno/BN kepada pengundi Bukit Gantang. Fitnah kalau undi Pas/Pakatan Rakyat bermakna menggadai tanah orang melayu kepada bangsa asing.

Ini adalah jawapan kepada Dato’ Zamri dan kuncu-kuncu Umno, bahawa yang khianat tanah orang Melayu ialah pemimpin Umno, bukan Pas, bukan DAP dan bukan PKR.

Fakta yang Dato’ Seri haji Nizar kemukakan sudah cukup untuk membuktikan Umno pengkhianat kepada orang Melayu bukan Pakatan Rakyat. Sebagaimana kita sudah buktikan Umno kepala bapa penderkahaka kepada Raja-Raja Melayu.

Sekarang fakta menunjukkan Umno yang khianat tanah orang melayu dan rakyat di negeri Perak.

Kerajaan PR hanya memberi tanah 102,000 lot kampung tersusun (kebanyakan Melayu) melibatkan 7,000 ekar. Manakala 47,000 lot kampung baru (kebanyakan China) dan sebilangan kecil kampung adat (orang asli). Jumlah yang diberi kepada orang China adalah 3,000 ekar sahaja. Itupun tanah yang sudah diduduki orang China lebih daripada 70 tahun lalu.
Melayu sangatkah Umno, sehingga buat bising fasal tanah 3000 ekar yang diberi kepada orang China yang memang haknya untuk dapat kerana mereka adalah rakyat di negara ini, mereka bukan China Singapura atau China Vietnam.

Kalau Umno tuduh Pakatan Rakyat boneka China dan khianat tanah orang Melayu kenapa tanah yang dipohon oleh Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Latif (Pondok Pak Teh Kroh Grik Perak) sejak 1996 telah diluluskan oleh Exco PR pada 2008 sebanyak 45 ekar.

Kalau kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Dato’ Seri Haji Nizar boneka China sudah tentulah permohonan ini tidak diluluskan. Adakah pemimpin Umno ingat Pak Teh ini China Taiwan sehingga permohonan beliau tidak diluluskan. 12 tahun Pak Teh menunggu kelulusan.

Tiba-tiba kerajaan yang kononnya boneka China meluluskan permohonan tersebut walaupun tidak sampai sepuluh bulan memerintah. Manakala Umno yang mendakwa tonggak orang Melayu telah kianat kepada bangsa sendiri walaupun tanah itu untuk kegunaan pondok.

Ini fakta menunjukkan Umno penjahanam tanah orang Melayu.

Ampun Tuanku, Patek Pohon Derhaka


Haris Ibrahim

Read here for more

I was born in the town of Batu Gajah, in the state of Perak.

It does not matter that I now live in Pahang.

Perak is still my home state, and Sultan Azlan Shah is still my Sultan.

I have read today, in Malaysiakini, a report that His Royal Highness had said that questioning the special rights of the Malays in this country conflicted with the Federal Constitution.

His Royal Highness is also reported to have said that the
“Malay Rulers who sit on their thrones today are not just inheriting the power to rule but also the responsibilities towards Islam and the Malay race, ensuring that the legacy continues”

and that

“It would be most unfortunate for the race and religion if real history is erased and the facts altered. If this is allowed to go on, it would be pointless to regret if one day the Malays find themselves marginalised and Islam relegated to the periphery” .
  • I am saddened by these words that have been attributed to my monarch.

  • I am saddened because my monarch, who rose to the highest judicial office in the land, must surely know that there are no special rights guaranteed to anyone in the constitution based on ethnicity. Were it otherwise, it would offend the religion of Islam and my monarch, as the head of Islam in Perak, would be obliged, as a Muslim to condemn such a provision as such.

  • I am saddened because the words attributed to my monarch suggest that His Royal Highness might have overlooked that he is monarch to all in his state, and not merely the Malays.

  • I am saddened that His Royal Highness has not noticed that so many of his subjects, Malays and non-Malays, have long been marginalised by the political leaders in UMNO who, in the guise of trying to uplift the lot of the Malays, have in fact robbed the rakyat blind.

  • Finally, it saddens me that His Royal Highness does not see that Islam, as a way of life of peace, attained through the surrender of the self to the Will of the Almighty, and manifested through the extension of friendship, goodwill, love and kindness towards all men and women, created equal in the sight of Allah SWT, and founded on the precepts of justice and equality, has long been pushed to the periphery in this nation.
I pray that Allah SWT will guide His Royal Highness to the truth.


(read here in Malaysiakini for more)

  • Who among the royal households that can seriously be taken as an example of practicing, righteous Muslims? That the Muslim Malays can look up to? The Malay rulers are the protectors of Islam as enshrined in the constitution, do we really understand what this really mean?

    Islam calls for justice, equality, respect, treat everyone the way you want to be treated, and most of all Islam is against 'asabiyah', which is racism. So if you are protecting Islam, you should stay as far away as you can from 'asabiyah' as this is one of the diseases that will bring Islam down, and with it the Malay Muslims. Allahu'alam.

  • Non-Malays and our more enlightened Malay brethren are not questioning and have never questioned this special position nor the paramount position of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia.

    Rather we are questioning the misinterpretation of Article 153 by Umno and their sidekicks like Perkasa to serve their own agenda. We are questioning the antiquated concept of 'ketuanan Melayu' which has no place in a modern democratic society.

    Their Royal Highnesses are duty bound under the constitution to protect the legitimate interests of the other races as well. Power to 'ketuanan rakyat'.

  • If Malays who questioned the special rights are traitors, what do we call those Malay leaders who manipulated the rights to enriched themselves?

  • Most of the royalty in Malaysia are beholden to BN because they have done something wrong and could be punished by the authorities or they want some favours or contracts.

    We know of a sultan who lost several millions at a casino overseas and was bailed out by the BN government. Recently, we read of the problems of a hospital contract given to the close relation of another sultan. This sultan now makes statements which are somewhat critical of Pakatan Rakyat and are designed to make Najib Razak happy.

    In the case of the Perak sultan, his almost Perkasa-like statements suggest that he is going all out to endear himself to Najib. It could be because he is eyeing some very big negotiated contracts for Gamuda, in which his family has a big stake, and hoping for Najib's help in ensuring the normal succession plan is not followed and thus his son, Nazrin, succeeds him.

  • Who is questioning Malay rights and the Malay rulers? These statements seem only to come out from Umno and some sultans. No one else. We have the utmost respect for our Agong and our sultans. Also, I remember reciting the Rukunnegara by heart in my school days and I still believe in it.

    I also believe the special rights of the rulers, the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak are firmly entrenched in the constitution. So why this controversy? I also believe that the rulers are rulers over all subjects in their states and that includes all Malaysians.

  • The constitution was drafted on the basis of a report from the Reid Commission. The commission, which had been formed to lay the groundwork for a constitution in the run-up to Malaysia's pending independence, released the report in 1957 as the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957 or The Reid Commission Report.

    The Reid Commission reported that Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay rulers had asked that "in an independent Malaya, all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed."

    He also stated that "For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays."

  • How about Dr Mahathir Mohamad who 'stripped' Raja-Raja Melayu of their immunity and privileges? After which, it was 'chop and signed' by Sultan Azlan Shah. Is he considered a traitor as well?

  • There was a time when I held the sultan of Perak with highest esteem. That was when he served as Lord President. His meteoric rise in the judiciary to hold the highest office was most deserving and I used to enjoy reading his judgment especially when he convicted former Selangor MB Harun Idris.

    But after becoming the sultan of Perak, he is a changed man. What he utters now is bordering on racism and his concept of Malay rights and supremacy is against all tenets of Islam because Islam does not discriminate against races.

    I am really surprise how material wealth, power and position can totally change the gentle and respected demeanor of a once great personality.

  • As rulers or sultans, they need to stay above politic and race. They should be the catalyst of unity and not the other way around. They need to earn respect from the people and not to demand it from them.

    As someone rightly said, without the people, there is no sultan. The sultan should be the protector of the rakyat. So we look forward to the sultan's neutrality and that he stays above politics and race.

  • Goodness, Malays who question special rights are traitors? Then what do you call the Malays who allow the invasion of our country by the thousands of illegal immigrants as in the case of Sabah. If this was not bad enough, they were issued with MyKads too.

    What do you call the Malays who remove the immunity and powers of the royalties? What do you call the Malays who called the royalties "binatang"? Do you consider them loyal subjects?

    Comparing the "questioning of the special rights" and putting our country at risk with the invasion of foreigners, it is quite plain where the truth lies. I hope I will wake up from the nightmare soon.

  • Well, I'd say humans who practise or defend racism are traitors to the race too.

Monday 6 December 2010

Video Clip: NAMEWEE's Problems with Racist FINAS on 1Malaysia Film. WHERE IS MCA?


Najib's Hypocritical 1MALAYSIA Concept Rubbished by the UMNO-bureaucrats in FINAS

NAMEWEE's Video Documentary
the Anti-1Malaysia FINAS

We Say,

NAMEWEE should have been facilitated and funded by FINAS to produce his 1Malaysia film, instead of putting questionable roadblocks and run-arounds in his dealings with FINAS.

FINAS can always take the necessary course of action to recover funds through a contractual agreement AFTER the film had been made, if NAMEWEE's film does not meet the requirements.

It is obvious FINAS, which is a taxpayer funded agency with its bureaucrats paid by taxpayers (read: non Malay and Malay taxpayers ) are racially biased to block NAMEWEE from producing his film.

The MALAY bureaucrats in FINAS, as well in other govt agencies, keep forgetting their salaries each month to put food on their family tables do come the sweat and the back-aching hard work of MANY non Malay taxpayers too.

FINAS is antithesis to Najib's 1Malaysia concept. In other words, FINAS serves NO purpose to unite Malaysians.

It should be disbanded as a waste of taxpayers' money or replace the racially-biased senior bureaucrats responsible for this fiasco.



Article in Star on 19 March 2010

(Read here for more)

Rapper Wee Meng Chee, better known as Namewee, is seeking funds from the National Film Development Corporation (Finas) to make his first movie titled 1Malaysia, reported Sin Chew Daily.

Wee said this was due to the 1Malaysia initiative started last year by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak under which the Government has allocated RM200mil for the movie, art and entertainment industry.

Wee stressed that he did not mean to challenge Finas but to prove to the Chinese that he would be able to get the funding.

Should Finas not approve his application, Wee said he might try to obtain funding to produce a documentary.

The daily quoted Wee as saying he wanted to prove to the Chinese Malaysians that Finas WOULD fund people from their race.

“A number of friends in the movie industry said there is no way for a Chinese movie to get funds from Finas as only movies with 60% Malay language content can apply for it.They asked me not to dream of it. But I don’t agree,” Wee told reporters.

Wee, who is famous for his song Negarakuku, said he spent a few weeks to complete the script for his first movie 1Malaysia and has translated the script into Bahasa Malaysia.

He will submit the Bahasa Malaysia version of the script to Finas to seek funding.

Sunday 5 December 2010

Mohd Hafarizam Harun, How Stupid and Arrogant Can You Be ?



Umno legal advisor Mohd Hafarizam Harun has suggested that the Internal Security Act (ISA) be invoked to deal with the controversy over the 'ketuanan Melayu' (Malay supremacy) remark by PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. He described Wan Azizah's (left) remark, calling for the notion of Malay supremacy to be abandoned, which she made at the party's congress last Saturday, as a direct challenge to the provisions in the federal constitution and not a form of freedom of expression.

Mohd Hafarizam said police reports could be lodged against Wan Azizah, among others for uttering seditious remarks in questioning the rights, status, position and privileges of the Malays as enshrined in Articles 152, 153 and 181 of the federal constitution.Read here for more

Read here related article, Perak Crisis: BN Lawyer HAFARIZAM Given a Short Lesson 101 on Constitutional Law

What Malaysians Say....

Read here for more
  • Ex-UKEC:
    Now you can see the opinion of Umno lawyers. Every time they cannot counter Pakatan Rakyat's arguments with credible answers, they will call for the government to invoke the Internal Security Act (ISA).Unfortunately these are the people who are going to be made chief judge or attorney-general due to their allegiance to Umno.

  • Not Confused:
    This lawyer is the same one who lost the case in which a supplier of buntings and other election materials sued Umno for non-payment because he failed to turn up in court on the appointed day (how very efficient).

    The case was, of course, reversed on appeal (surprise, surprise). With lawyers like this advising a government which is bankrupt of ideas and common sense, the ruling elite is doomed to be obliterated at some point in the future.

    Race, race, race - that's all we hear about from this God-forsaken government.

  • Cala:
    As a lawyer, Mohd Hafarizan Harun appears to be ignorant of something - that context matters. To propose something as silly as this is like a mindless child throwing tantrums regardless of the consequences. He is being irresponsible and idiotic.

    While Najib Razak is having trouble steering the half-sunken ship of Malaysia into calmer waters, lawyer Mohd Hafarizan is burning the ship by speaking from the narrow lens of a village boy.

    Mohd Hafarizan has two ways to win his arguments, other than of course using the brute force of law:
    i) he can win by relying on ideologies, or

    ii) he can win on the basis of his proposal on efficiency
    The first argument invariably ends up in Thomas Hobbes's social contract concept, a rather weak ground in any debate when the whole world is going for a democratic form of government that sees the dualism of power and responsibility.

    As for the second line of argument, he would find himself in a more embarrassing position for the regime, as doing so will drive away foreign direct investments, something Najib does not want to happen.

    In sum hence, Mohd Hafarizan Harun has failed to convince the audience on why his advice should be heeded.

  • Kassim Muhamad:
    Satu lagi kes nyata dimana otak telah dipindahkan ke tempat lain. Gertak, ancam, ancam dan mengancam. Bukankah lebih manis jika tuan peguam ini cadangkan supaya diadakan perbincangan terbuka supaya seluruh rakyat tahu di manakah dosa besarnya presiden PKR itu?

    Kalau tuan peguam lupa, zaman sekarang orang lebih hormati hujah. Bukankah begitu?

  • KJ John:
    I can only say that Umno idiocrats can only make things worse for their president and PM Najib Razak. Once they detain the president of PKR, I guarantee that they can kiss the next general elections goodbye. So, dear idiocrat legal advisor, pray that Umno is not stupid enough to do your bidding.

  • Anonymous:
    Ketuanan Melayu itu hanya untuk Umno sahaja. Mana boleh rakyat soal. Kalau rakyat sudah tahu, habislah mata pencarian Umno. Jangan soal. Itu satu rahsia. Umno saja boleh cakap pasal Ketuanan Melayu. Kalau rakyat cakap, itu satu sensitive issue. Umno boleh, kroni-kroni rasuah pun boleh. Itulah Najib, satu Umno Malaysia.

  • Kgen:
    Where in the constitution does this nincompoop find the concept of Malay supremacy? Do fools like him even know how to read the constitution? Perhaps Umno should follow this nincompoop's advice and detain Wan Azizah under ISA. Then Pakatan Rakyat will have an easy victory in the coming GE.

    MCA, MIC and Gerakan, open your eyes. Malay supremacy is very much alive and kicking in the Malay supremacist party, Umno.

  • Ave Atque Vale:
    One of the things I have noticed about Malaysian politics is that people who think they are 'important' spout idiocy without thinking beforehand. This is a clear example of that. Yes, put Wan Azizah under the ISA. Then see what happens.

  • Ghkok:
    As far as I know, Wan Azizah wasn't challenging Articles 152, 153 and 181, or any of the other articles of the federal constitution. She was just challenging the concept of 'ketuanan Melayu', which is an invention of Umno, which I believe, in her opinion, is a form of master-slave relationship and therefore should be dropped in favour of 'ketuanan rakyat', which champions the rights of all the people of Malaysia.

  • I Can See:
    Can't everyone see this guy is just an Umno errand boy? Similar to Perkasa, they will start making silly and provoking statements and calls, with one objective: to shut up all opposition leaders whatever it takes and by all means, and at all costs before the general elections. Invoking ISA is what they want, they are just looking for the reasons.

    Meanwhile, Najib is just playing dumb. He is much aware of this, just waiting for the right time to act against those seen as a threat to him. We have to be prepared - the onslaught is coming soon and it's going to be ruthless.

    I pray to Allah to protect all who sincerely fight for justice, so that good will prevail over evil.

  • Gandhi:
    This is the kind of legal advisor who advocates the Malays to be on crutches forever. He is actually worried that he may not do well if he is taken away from some of Umno's legal panels. Keep leaning on the crutches, and the crutches will give way from wear and tear.

  • Compass:
    The PM's "advice" is law, the breach of which is met with a sanction, including detention without trial. That must be jurisprudence taught in Mars. Or Umno-prudence?


Read here for more

Half a brain is better than Hafa-baked-rizam

Here is the evidence that UMNO is represented either by an imbecile or a dishonest, lying lawyer.

“Article 153 is entrenched in the constitution and something which cannot be amended or questioned“ – Umno legal advisor Mohd Hafarizam Harun, as reported in Malaysiakini yesterday.

Article 159 (1) of the Federal Constitution : Subject to the following provisions of this Article and to Article 161E the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by federal law.

Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution : A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Articles 38, 63 (4), 70, 71(1), 72 (4), 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

The constitution provides that Article 153 can,with the consent of the Rulers, be amended.

Contrary to what Hafa-baked-rizam says, Article 153 CAN be amended. Difficult, maybe even practically impossible, but legally possible.

You want more evidence that this Article 160(2) Malay is a liar?

Malaysiakini also quotes him as saying :
“The ISA should be invoked against PKR, DAP or PAS leaders who continue to question the special position and privileges of the Malays because it is now proven that they try to stoke hatred towards the Malays because of the special rights“.
Article 153 (1) of the Federal Constitution provides :
It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
There is NO provision anywhere in the Federal Constitution for privileges or special rights of the Malays.

The Moral Decay of Malays in Perkasa and UMNO

Read here for more

Moral Decay


Johan Brendon

It is getting rather tedious to hear the relentless and pathetic complaining from the Malay supremacists that their special rights are being eroded.

Indeed these zealots are getting desperate, vicious and personal.

The latest salvo from the youth wing of Perkasa Chief - Arman Azha Abu Hanifah accusing the PKR President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail of being a “political prostitute” is a case in point.

The fact that he has no qualms in making such a demeaning remark against a decent woman like Wan Azizah Wan Ismail just goes to show the depth of moral decay amongst the Malay extremists in Perkasa and UMNO.

With such an unkind and nasty attack on a fellow human, one can only hope that they do not claim to be Muslims too.

Muslims are known for their generous spirit and magnanimity. And besides, this bunch of extremists has lost their self respect. Their hatred and vitriol against those who oppose them has gone beyond the norm of what is acceptable in politics.

Just like the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis, they seem to equate racial superiority to patriotism and it is precisely this kind of ‘emotive’ politics which led to genocide in some countries such as Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

The question is - why has Malaysia lost its moral compass? One does not have to look too far to find the answer.

The moral rot in Malaysian politics started the day Dr. Mahathir took power. It is ironic that it takes a half Indian to drum up the frenzy of the Malays’ clamour for supremacy.

As a consequence, they believe to have a god given right not only to be more equal but also more superior than the non Malays.

One is entitled to ask - where is the ‘ethics’ in Dr. Mahathir’s politics? Excuse moi?

What ethics? It seems a stray dog has more principles than this pseudo Malay. As far as Dr. Mahathir is concerned, all that matters is that the end justifies the means. So what has ethics got to do with anything? Dr. Mahathir’s black art in politics would put Machiavelli to shame.

This brings us back to the subject of moral decay.

After more than two decades of Dr. Mahathir’s rule which indulged in nepotism, cronyism, corruptions, judicial interference, ISA detentions, bigotry and racism, is it any wonder his legacy has created a template for governance of which corruption, deceit and underhanded practices are part of the norm. All the sleaze that had gone on before carries over seamlessly and the current conspiracy to murder concerning a Mongolian national and subsequent cover up by the highest echelon of government is an extra bonus.

Compromising the judiciary’s independence is one of the most insidious acts that will not only affect the rule of law but also creates an impression that anything goes in Malaysia. Is that what the slogan, ‘Malaysia Boleh’ really stands for?

There is a real danger that the country is heading the same way as Zimbabwe - whose ruler, Robert Mugabe, is good a mate of Dr. Mahathir. As the saying goes, “birds of the same feathers flock together”. The reader can draw his or her own conclusion about Dr. Mahathir.

Sadly, there are very few good Malay role models in the country. The Prime Minister is certainly not the best person to show moral leadership since he is alleged to be involved in the corruption and murder surrounding the purchase of the infamous French submarines.

With the combined toxic legacy of Dr. Mahathir and a lack of moral leadership of the present government which consists of a Cabinet member who is also a ‘porn star’, it is not surprising to see a new generation of ‘politicians’ who lack moral fibers, decency and self-respect.

The issue is not about ‘ethics’ per se as we know in politics, ethics is often about expediency and consequently ‘ethics’ is sometimes expandable. On the other hand, human decency and morality is certainly not.

The fact that Arman Azha Abu Hanifah, a so-called ‘chief’ (or hoodlum?) of the youth wing of Perkasa is unable to differentiate between good manners and foul-mouthed behaviour, clearly proves the point that the damage is done after years of moral decay.

And one has to assume that the role model of this Young Turk is none other than Dr. Mahathir himself. It is indeed sad and one does fear for the future of Malaysia.

Thursday 18 November 2010

Bijaksana Menteri Pertahanan Zahid Hamidi Macam Lembu

Read here and here for more in Malaysiakini

Otak Lembu
Menteri Pertahanan, Malaysia

Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi reasoned that the low number of Chinese and Indian recruits in the military could be due to lack of patriotism”.

Besides the lack of “patriotic spirit”, Zahid also pointed out other reasons that could have resulted in the poor participation of other races in the MAF.

Maybe it is the fear of tough military discipline, low pay compared to private jobs or no encouragement from families,” he said.

It could also be the result of “lack of backing from their ethnic communities” or “the negative aspersions cast on the MAF”.

M Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) demanded that the minister apologise for the statement that non-Malays lack patriotism. As Zahid had already left the House by then, Kulasegaran branded him a “coward”, given that the minister had been asked to remain in the House.

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia did not order Zahid to withdraw his remarks but instead reprimanded Kulasegaran for his use of the unparliamentary word “coward”.

PhotobucketWhen Rear Admiral (Rtd) K Thanabalasingam (left) ascended to the position of the nation's first ever local chief of Navy, it would have never crossed his mind that his loyalty to the country would be questioned.

Having spearheaded the Navy's mission to protect Malaysia from numerous threats that arose in the 1960s-1970s period, the former naval chief spoke in disbelief at Defence Minister Zahid Hamid's recent statement that patriotism among non-Malays was "not strong enough" for being reluctant to sign up with the Armed Forces.

"I don't understand how such a statement came about... I've been through a lot, and I don't care who says it, it hurts me. I am a Malaysian born and bred, and I intend to die here," Thanabalasingam (left) said when contacted by Malaysiakini.

The 75-year-old veteran who retired in January 1977 after holding the top naval post for nine years and one month, stressed that there has never been a lack of patriotism among non-Malays in defending the nation from threats within, and without.

He recounted how they, along with their Malay brothers-in-arms, fought side-by-side regardless of whether they were in the navy, air force, army or police field force to push back the communist insurgency that spanned some three decades from the 1950s until it ended in 1989, and the perils they braved over the four years of the 1963-1966 Confrontation from Indonesia.

Thanabalasingam stressed that far from being an issue of patriotism, what concerns non-Malays when it comes to enlisting in the Armed Forces is their career prospects should they choose to lay their lives on the line for the country. He pointed out that public perception of the armed forces is mired in the notion that non-Malays, more often than not, are left behind when it comes to career advancement.

No matter what the situation, however, Thanabalasingam said he believes that Malaysians will stand up and be counted among the country's defenders when needed, regardless of race or creed.

He said,
"Even during the Confrontation, there was a lot of action in the Singapore Straits and Malacca Straits. At that time, two of my officers were awarded the PGB (Panglima Gagah Berani), which is the highest award for bravery, for blowing up KKOs (Indonesian Korps Komando Operasi) during an attack.

One officer was an Indian who eventually retired as a commodore, and the other a Eurasian who also later retired as a commodore too.

Why were they awarded PGBs? Because of their bravery in the line of duty.

Today people are more interested in careers. Gone are the days when you just join and follow orders.

People want to see what's in it for them, can they raise a family, educate their children... they want to be able to raise their family comfortably instead of having to struggle to make ends meet

If the conditions are correct, they will join. It has to be proven that they have got a good future and prospects, and there is no discrimination in promotions or selection for senior defence posts or special courses overseas."

If we had a war today, I would volunteer to do whatever I can, even with my condition with a walking stick... many would rally to the cause to defend the nation."

Photobucket Retired airman, Brig Gen (Rtd) Goh Seng Toh (left) was more severe in his rebuke of Zahid's statement, calling it "unfair, stupid and racist".

Goh, 65, said before anyone starts accusing non-Malays of being unwilling to serve the country in the military, the nation's leaders themselves should set an example if they insist on such talk.

Goh went so far as to say that the Armed Forces have done nothing to disprove the perception of race being a key factor for advancement.

Goh, who earned his one star in 1997 - three years before retirement - blamed the low ratio of non-Malay soldiers on the current make-up of the Armed Forces, the bulk made up of the Royal Malay Regiment.

Goh, a 35 year veteran said,
"He's (Zahid) barking up the wrong tree... if you talk of patriotism, then I have one question; do any of our ministers have children in the Armed Forces?

If not, then the same argument applies to them, so why only look at the Chinaman?

I was shot at twice by communist terrorists in Betong at the Thai-Malaysia border. I nearly lost my life on more than one occasion, and I never chickened out.

If anyone queries my patriotism, I get very angry.

There is an element of truth, unless you say all the Chinese who join the Armed Forces are sub-standard.

But this cannot be true, because there are many good people, but they leave because they do not see their career path being very bright.

Not a single non-Malay can be part of it. No Chinese, Indians, Ibans, or any other can join these regiments.

You must be Malay.

I can't say exactly how many regiments there are, but assuming that they take up around 50 percent of our forces, that only leaves 50 percent open to multi-racial (participation), and this would only be for the services and supporting arms."
Both men, however, agreed that the crux of the matter lies not in the loyalty of non-Malays to the country, but the challenge of surviving in the modern world.