UPDATED! Melayu Membangsatkan Nama Islam

Quote

“The approach of some politicians of late, who use Islam as an excuse to invoke inter-racial strife, can actually create misunderstandings about Islam.

“It is THESE actions that truly sullies the religion."
- Former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin

Quote:

Sebuah NGO Melayu membuat laporan polis kerana membantah pementasan yang hendak dianjurkan oleh sebuah geraja di Shah Alam.

• Dengan nama Islam, ada yang mahu menentukan nama tuhan yang boleh dipanggil oleh penganut agama lain.
  
  
• Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membakar gereja.
  
  
• Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membantah pembinaan kuil dengan berarak membawa kepala lembu yang telah disembelih.
  
  
• Dengan nama Islam, ada yang memberi jusitifikasi penggunaan akta zalim seperti ISA.

Ini BUKAN Islam yang saya kenali. Ini BUKAN Islam yang menjadi cara hidup saya.

Islam TIDAK pernah mengajar penganutnya berfikiran sempit, bertindak melampau dan berlaku zalim.

Islam mementingkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan. Islam adalah agama indah dan keindahan itu dapat dilihat melalui kehidupan dan ajaran Nabi Muhammad S.A.W, junjungan umat Islam.

Tindakan mereka ini adalah jelas bertentangan dengan apa yang disampaikan oleh baginda.

Mereka telah membangsatkan nama Islam demi kepentingan sendiri. Lebih menyedihkan lagi, mereka adalah berpangkat, samada pemimpin politik atau agama.

Sebahagian besar Muslim di Malaysia TIDAK pernah terdedah dengan kehidupan sebagai penduduk minoriti di sesebuah negara. Maka dari situ timbul retorik bahawa sensitiviti Muslim harus dijaga kerana Islam dianuti oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.

Menggunakan logika yang sama, sudah tentu Perancis boleh mengharamkan pemakaian purdah dan Switzerland boleh mengharamkan pembinaan mimbar kerana “menyinggung sensitiviti” majoriti rakyat negara-negara tersebut.
- Syahzedzan Johan

Membangsatkan Nama Islam

by

Syahredzan Johan
(Syahredzan Johan adalah seorang peguam muda dan rakan kongsi di sebuah firma guaman di Kuala Lumpur. )

Read here for more

Profile:
Syahredzan Johan, born in 1983, is a lawyer by profession and currently residing in Petaling Jaya.

He is a self-professed ‘social critique’ and believes "the nation of Malaysia still has so much unfulfilled potential, yet Malaysians are pegged back by their divisive nature, their desire to divide rather than unite."He wrote in his blog, Refleksi Minda, that "....I will not mince my words when I feel it is needed."

Pada dekad pertama abad ke 21, akibat serangan pengganas yang dikatakan beragama Islam, dunia telah mengaitkan agama tersebut dengan keganasan dan ekstrimisme. Namun persepsi negatif ini tidak menular ke Malaysia. Untuk sekian lama, Malaysia dikenali di persada dunia sebagai “a moderate Muslim country.”

Islamic La Alhambra Generalife

Malangnya, akhir-akhir ini kita tidak lagi boleh berbangga dengan panggilan ini. Kini kita menjadi tajuk utama seantero dunia kerana pelbagai perkara negatif yang dilakukan atas nama Islam. Islam di Malaysia semakin dilihat sebagai agama yang tidak toleran, angkuh dan melampau. Islam di Malaysia semakin dikatakan sebagai agama yang menekan hak-hak orang bukan Islam. Islam di Malaysia semakin disamakan dengan kezaliman.

Manakan tidak?

Dengan nama Islam, ada yang mahu menentukan nama tuhan yang boleh dipanggil oleh penganut agama lain.

Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membakar gereja.

Dengan nama Islam, ada yang membantah pembinaan kuil dengan berarak membawa kepala lembu yang telah disembelih.

Dengan nama Islam, ada yang memberi jusitifikasi penggunaan akta zalim seperti ISA.

Terbaru, sebuah NGO Melayu membuat laporan polis kerana membantah pementasan yang hendak dianjurkan oleh sebuah geraja di Shah Alam.lasan yang diberikan adalah kerana Shah Alam adalah sebuah bandar yang majoriti penduduknya Muslim dan pementasan tersebut adalah pada bulan Ramadhan. Kononnya, ini akan “menyinggung sensitiviti” umat Islam yang sedang berpuasa.

Di Pulau Pinang, seorang khatib didesak untuk meminta maaf kerana telah mendoakan kesejahteraan seorang pemimpin bukan Islam. Alasan yang diberikan adalah kononnya perbuatan mendoakan orang bukan Islam adalah salah.

Terkini, isu yang hangat diperkatakan adalah kunjungan seorang ahli Parlimen bukan Islam ke sebuah surau untuk memberi sumbangan. Isu ini telah dipolitikkan oleh pelbagai pihak, sehingga ia melibatkan pihak istana. Maka jawatankuasan pengurusan surau itu digantung dan ahli Parlimen tersebut diberi amaran oleh majlis agama yang berkenaan.

Saya tidak tahu sejak bila pula orang bukan Islam tidak boleh memasuki masjid atau surau. Tidak pula diberikan dalil atau hujah untuk menjustifikasi arahan yang tidak masuk akal ini.

Adakah ini cara kita berdakwah pada abad ke-21?

Kita tolak orang bukan Muslim sejauh-jauhnya daripada Islam, kita berlaku zalim ke atas mereka dan kita rampas hak mereka untuk mengamalkan agama mereka.

Adakah kita beranggapan bahawa dengan tingkahlaku kita ini, mereka akan lebih dekat dengan Islam? Kalau inilah strategi dakwah abad ini, saya berpendapat kita harus memikir semula strategi bodoh ini.

Tindakan seperti ini memburukan nama Islam dan menyebabkan orang bukan Islam berfikir bahawa Islam itu adalah agama yang sempit, melampau dan zalim.

Kononnya, orang bukan Muslim seharusnya menjaga “sensitiviti” orang Islam. Kita harus bertanya, apakah “sensitiviti” yang dimaksudkan ini? Adakah terdapat justifikasi ke atas “sensitiviti” ini?

Sebahagian besar Muslim di Malaysia tidak pernah terdedah dengan kehidupan sebagai penduduk minoriti di sesebuah negara. Maka dari situ timbul retorik bahawa sensitiviti Muslim harus dijaga kerana Islam dianuti oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.

Menggunakan logika yang sama, sudah tentu Perancis boleh mengharamkan pemakaian purdah dan Switzerland boleh mengharamkan pembinaan mimbar kerana “menyinggung sensitiviti” majoriti rakyat negara-negara tersebut. Juga menggunakan logika sama, cadangan membina masjid di tapak berlakunya serangan World Trade Centre tidak boleh diterima kerana ia kononnya “menyinggung sensitiviti” keluarga mangsa kejadian.

Mengikut logika yang digunakan, maka hak penganut agama Islam yang menjadi minoriti di negara-negara tersebut harus dikorbankan demi menjaga “sensitiviti” majoriti.

Apabila kita majoriti, terlalu mudah untuk kita jatuh dalam perangkap pemikiran bahawa kekuatan itu adalah kebenaran.

Adakah kita lupa bahawa ketika menyebarkan Islam, Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. telah mengajar bahawa semua manusia adalah sama di sisi Allah, yang membezakan seseorang itu hanyalah iman? Sudah tentu perkara ini “menyinggung sensitiviti” sebahagian besar Arab Quraisy pada ketika itu, lebih lagi mereka yang mempunyai status di dalam masyarakat Quraisy.

Adakah Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. seharusnya menghentikan ajaran Islam pada ketika itu demi menjaga “sensitiviti” masyarakat Quraisy?

Ini bukan Islam yang saya kenali. Ini bukan Islam yang menjadi cara hidup saya. Islam tidak pernah mengajar penganutnya berfikiran sempit, bertindak melampau dan berlaku zalim. Islam mementingkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan.

Islam adalah agama indah dan keindahan itu dapat dilihat melalui kehidupan dan ajaran Nabi Muhammad S.A.W, junjungan umat Islam. Tindakan mereka ini adalah jelas bertentangan dengan apa yang disampaikan oleh baginda.

Mereka telah membangsatkan nama Islam demi kepentingan sendiri. Lebih menyedihkan lagi, mereka adalah berpangkat, samada pemimpin politik atau agama.

Orang Islam sering mempersalahkan media Barat kerana memberi gambaran yang salah tentang Islam, tetapi apa kurangnya golongan ini yang telah memberi gambaran negatif terhadap Islam melalui tingkahlaku mereka?

Harapan saya adalah bahawa orang yang bukan beragama Islam tidak tersalah anggap bahawa Islam yang sebenar adalah Islam yang mana namanya telah dibangsatkan oleh mereka ini.

RELATED ARTICLE

Serdang MP Need NOT Apologise to Selangor Sultan

by

Dr. M Bakri Musa

Read here for more

EXCERPTS:

"....Ramadan thus should be a time for us to re-commit to the central message of the Holy Book. As Eboo Patel so eloquently wrote in the inaugural Ramadan series of the HuffingtonPost.com, “Ramadan is about remembrance and return – remembrance of the origins of Islam, and return to its essence.”

I pity the poor freshman MP from Serdang, Teo Nie Ching. She had in the best tradition of Ramadan come to a surau in her constituency to share in the iftar and to present a modest donation from the state.

She had RIGHTLY assumed that to be her role as their representative to Parliament.

She must have been blown away by the storm of controversy that subsequently erupted. I am not at all surprised that characters like Khairy Jamaluddin and Ibrahim Ali would seize the opportunity of Neo’s visit to the surau to expose their hideously ugly chauvinism by condemning her. That would be par for the course for any ambitious but untalented leaders everywhere.

I am however severely disappointed in the reaction of the Sultan of Selangor.

According to the state religious council (MAIS – its Malay acronym), the sultan was “murka dan dukacita” (angry and disappointed).

The sultan should NOT be so quick to react; he should at least wait for the full facts.

Ramadan after all calls for patience and restraint.

He SHOULD also remember that he is not only the head of Islam by virtue of being a sultan, but he is also sultan to ALL Selangorians,

Muslims as well as non-Muslims, and that each should be treated no differently from the other. It is time to tell our sultans that we expect more from them if they wish to remain on the public payroll.

For her part, Teo was quick to put in her formal apology to the sultan. She should not have done so. She should have the courage to stand by her conviction that she had done nothing wrong. In this she can rely on the arguments put forth by Tok Guru Nik Aiz and Datuk Asri, the former Mufti of Perlis.

As a Muslim, I would rely on these two luminaries on matters pertaining to Islam rather than from the likes of Khairy, Ibrahim Ali, or Datuk Sharizzat...."

Scholars: Islam doesn't bar non-Muslims from mosques

Read here for more

Former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin today refuted media claims that he defended Serdang parliamentarian Teo Nie Ching 's presence in a surau, though he saw NOTHING wrong with a non-Muslim being in the house of God.

“There are media reports that I defended Teo , I must say that those are not entirely accurate. I do not interfere in politics and I don't really know what actually happened,” said the religious scholar in a press statement to the media.

However he stressed that in his to knowledge nothing bars a non-Muslim to enter a Muslim house of worship.

“Non-Muslims can enter into a mosque or surau with the right intent, like to get to know Islam, understand and study it. They are also allowed to enter the houses of worships to conduct dealings with Muslims.”

He gave as an example, how in the time of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself, non-Muslims were allowed to enter the mosque to meet the Prophet.

Asri also reminded all parties that Islamic issues must be looked at with the proper religious considerations based on proper dalil (evidence) and hujjah (arguments).

He warned that using the scales of partisan politics to weigh religious issues can damage the sanctity of Islam.

“Islam is built on dalil and hujjah, while partisan politics are often built on perception and prejudices,” pointed out Asri.

The fact is, added the former mufti, not only non-Muslims but Muslims, too, are prohibited from using the house of God for partisan politics or self interest.

He reiterated that all views with regards to Islam must be based on the real teachings of the religion.

“The approach of some politicians of late, who use the Islam as an excuse to invoke inter-racial strife, can actually create misunderstandings about Islam.It is these actions that truly sullies the religion,” concluded Mohd Asri.

Masuk Surau: Nie Ching temui Nik Aziz

Read here for more

"...Ahli Parlimen Serdang, Teo Nie Ching hari ini bertemu Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat bagi mendapatkan pandangan berhubung isu kunjungannya ke Surau Al-Huda, Kajang 22 Ogos lalu.

Nie Ching ketika ditemui selepas pertemuan 10 minit itu berkata, beliau gembira dapat bertemu Tuan Guru dan mendapat pandangan yang jelas dari Tuan Guru yang juga Mursyidul Am PAS itu.

"Tok Guru jelaskan kepada saya bahawa dari segi Islam bukan menjadi satu isu orang Islam masuk ke surau atau masjid.Dia beritahu sebenarnya pada zaman Nabi Muhammad SAW, orang bukan Islam selalu masuk masjid untuk bertemu Nabi," katnya menjelaskan isi pertemuan.

Menurutnya, dalam pertemuan itu juga, Tuan Guru memberitahunya bahawa yang menyempitkan pemahaman berhubung isu bukan Islam kunjungi masjid adalah Umno.

Menurutnya, Umno kini sangat terdesak sehingga sanggup menyempitkan isu tersebut sehingga memberi tanggapan salah bukan Islam kepada Islam.

"Dia juga memberitahu saya, di Malaysia ini, Umno guna Islam untuk takutkan orang bukan Islam dan menjadikan Islam itu agama eksklusif sedangkan Islam itu adalah untuk semua manusia," katanya lagi.

22 Ogos lalu, Nie Ching berkunjung ke Surau Al-Huda, Kajang untuk menyampaikan bantuan membaiki pagar surau tersebut.

Beliau juga dijemput oleh jawatankuasa surau untuk menyampaikan ucapan ringkas.

Insiden itu bagaimanapun dieksploitasi media arus perdana dan Umno dengan mendakwa ia satu kesalahan dan mencemar imej Islam.

Nie Ching berkata, biarpun insiden tersebut dimainkan Umno, sehingga hari ini beliau masih berkunjung ke masjid dan surau yang menjemputnya.

Teo: Nik Aziz encourages me to visit more surau

Read here for more and here and here

"...Shrugging off attacks by Umno and Selangor religious authorities over her visit to a surau last week, Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching said she is emboldened to visit even more Muslim houses of worship after being encouraged to do so by PAS' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Teo said her 20-minute meeting with the top spiritual leader of the Islamist party today bore fruit in the form of his assurance that there was nothing wrong with non-Muslims visiting and entering suraus and mosques.

“Tok Guru (Nik Aziz) clarified to me that from the viewpoint of Islam, it is not an issue for a non-Muslim to enter a surau or mosque. He said that in fact, during the time of Muhammad, non-Muslims entered the mosque (of Medina) to meet with the Prophet,” she said about the meeting with Nik Aziz in Kuala Lumpur.

Asked why she did not wear a tudung when entering the prayer hall, Teo, who is also deputy head of the DAP publicity committee, said she had NOT been advised to do so.

"I was not advised by the surau committee to wear one. Furthermore, I did not expect to be invited into the prayer hall. This is not my first visit to the surau, as the last time I went there, I stood outside," the Serdang MP added.

In several mosques such as the National Mosque and the Putrajaya mosque, non-Muslims are required to cover their heads when visiting the area.

Despite condemnation of Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching's visit to a surau (Muslim prayer hall) in her constituency last week to attend a breaking of fast ceremony, she repeated the act yesterday.

Teo was invited to the Al-Muhajirin surau, Bukit Mahkota where she also handed RM500 to People Volunteer Corps (Rela) personnel.

This time however, she stayed clear of the prayer hall and sported a selendang headscarf. The entire ceremony took place under a tent within the surau compound.

“(The visit) is based on the principle of serving the people regardless of their race and religion,” she said in a statement today.

Teo said that she was received with the same warmth shown during her visit to the Al Huda surau in Kajang, which sparked the controversy.

She said the congregation seemed unperturbed with the criticism against her and the series of articles condemning her, primarily by Malay daily Utusan Malaysia.

“Some even shook my hand and expressed their support,” said Teo.

PAS Serdang division feels it is not a problem for a non-Muslim leader to deliver a speech in a mosque or surau, as Islam is a flexible religion.

"We do not have a problem and do not want to prolong this issue," PAS Serdang Youth chief Mohd Adram Musa said today.

Therefore, Mohd Adram added, the issue of Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching (DAP) visiting a surau in Kajang, as highlighted by several Malay dailies today, presented the wrong interpretation that Islam is only for Malays.

"When a Chinese or an Indian comes to a surau or a mosque, there may be some negative views. But in the context of dakwah (propagating the religion), we must have flexibility, especially in Selangor. We have to prioritise harmony among the races and also the propagation of the religion," said Mohd Adram, who is also a Kajang municipal councillor.

He was responding to Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia's front page report on Teo's visit to the Al Huda surau in Kajang Sentral on Aug 22, where the congregation invited her into the prayer hall.

The issue, he said, was being exploited to the fullest to attack DAP and PAS.

Mohd Adram, who is also the PAS Youth treasurer, said during the time of Prophet Muhammad, non-Muslims were allowed inside mosques to get information on Islam.

Countering PERKASA's Ibrahim Ali’s View on Teo’s Mosque Visit

by

Faroukaperu

Read here for more

The racism and religious bigotry practiced by some of our Malay Muslims have reached a crescendo. Things will only get worse with time if we fail to reverse this mental condition.

We will simply be unable to dig ourselves out of that hole if that happens and our nation will fall to ruin.

Why? All because we choose to be political over the lowest discriminating factor: RACE.

The latest incident is about the Serdang MP’s visit to Surau Al-Huda.

We must take YB Teo Nie Ching’s visit in good faith. She went to the surau with a donation and gave a talk about higher education loans. There was nothing political about her visit. Regrettably even the most sincere intentions can be played upon to stoke the most heinous sentiments.

One can expect no less from Ibrahim Ali who seized upon this opportunity faster than a cobra strikes its victim.

Ibrahim Ali’s language about the issue reflects a horrible bigotry. He used the word ‘desecrate’ and the phrase ‘UNCLEAN DAP politician’.

He also rhetorically claims that this is a lesson from God showing how PAS has ‘sold out’ Islam and that this is visit is ‘shaitan confusing the Muslims’.

The former Perlis Mufti, Dato’ Asri had already given evidence on why YB Teo’s visit wasn’t against Islamic laws but his evidence was historical.

I hope to refute Ibrahim’s claims from a Quranic perspective and to show how the Quran completely rejects his point of view. Worse still, it considers Ibrahim’s own views as the views which run contrary to the Quran.

1. For a start, the Quran does not bar anyone from entering a masjid. The Quran actually tells children of Adam , that is to say anyone at all, to enter every masjid with their best clothing and to eat and drink yet not be wasteful (7/31). This shows that anyone can go and participate in any of the mosque activities and even participate in their festivities.
   
   
2. Secondly, the Quran equates the establishment of social justice as the cornerstone of every masjid (7/29). This verse is also addressed to the children of Adam, thus not restricting people according to faith. What was YB Teo doing if not helping the members of the surau’s congregation, thus establishing social justice?

It seems Ibrahim Ali is in a muddle! YB Teo was in no way desecrating the surau at all. Indeed she was honouring it.

Ibrahim also said that YB Teo is ‘unclean’. This is a favourite insult Islamofascists use against our friends of other faiths. It builds upon a false notion of purity exclusive to Muslims. This notion is absolutely against the Quran and furthermore ironic (as we shall see below) considering Ibrahim’s own vitriolic politics.

The term ‘unclean’(najas) is used in the Quran (in 9/28) for one particular people:

Those who renege on peace treaties. (9/1-12).These people are considered to be those who associate partners with God, an act which is of the highest wrong.

There is NOTHING in the Quran to insinuate that non-Muslims are ‘unclean’.

What’s even more ironic is that in the Malaysian context, the people who renege on our peace treaty (i.e. our constitution) are those people who harp on race issues and stir up emotions. Who is then closer to being ‘unclean’, YB Teo or Ibrahim himself?

Publish Post

Lastly, Ibrahim says that PAS’s support of this visit is ‘shaitan confusing the Muslims’.

Well the Muslims have nothing to be confused about.

A cursory look at the Quran will show the reader that it is people like Ibrahim whom Muslims need to look out for, not YB Teo who is doing (knowingly or otherwise) exactly what the Quran wants.

The biggest irony is perhaps this:

The Quran does tell the believers NEVER to stop into one kind of masjid – the masjid where division is being preached (9/107-108)!

Sounds familiar, Ibrahim Ali?


Ibrahim Ali dan Khairy Jamaluddin Sepakat.

Read here for more

Sekarang kita berdepan dengan isu lembik, iaitu isu Ahli Palimen berbangsa Cina masuk kesebuah surau diSerdang untuk menyampaikan bantuan dan bercakap perkara ‘non-political’ dalam perjumpaan itu.

Banyak pihak dan individu yang sentiasa mencari isu, tangkas membuat kenyataan khbar dan mejerit-jerit mengatakan yang YB Teo tidak sepatutnya berucap didalam surau itu kerana kononnya merosakkan kesucian Agama kita serta menyentuh sensitivity masyarakat Islam dan Melayu kita.

Ketua Pemuda UMNO dan Ibrahim Ali kali ini sepakat untuk menyanyikan ‘chorus’ yang ‘harmonic’ dalam isu YB Teo ini.

Kedua-duanya begitu selari dan saya yakin isu ini diadakan BUKAN kerana nak jaga kesucian Agama tetapi kerana hendak menarik perhatian ramai sahaja.

Seorang wakil rakyat boleh memberikan bantuan dimana beliau suka dan dalam kes ini beliau dijemput untuk memberikan bantuan disurau tersebut dan bagi saya itu bukan masalah besar.

Rasanya saya pun seorang Islam juga dan saya tidak nampak ianya menghina Islam malah saya begitu suka mendengar Ahli Parlimen itu mengakui yang ramai pengundinya beragama Islam.

Kalau kerana tidak memakai tudung kepala kenapa isu ini hendak diperbesarkan tanpa had. Biarlah Majlis Agama Islam mengambil ‘initiative’ untuk membetulkan keadaan, bukannya orang politik.

Saya juga tidak nampak Teo sengaja hendak melukakan sesiapa apa lagi untuk menyentuh ‘sensivity’ orang Melayu. Beliau hanya melaksanakan tugas beliau sebagai seorang wakil rayat bagi kawasan Parlimen tersebut.

Apa yang perlu diberitahu kepadanya ialah tata cara dan adab bila memasukki rumah ibadat orang Islam.

Saya rasa tentu beliau dapat menerimanya. ‘She will be more than happy to accept it’.

Yang disebut ramai dan diisukan rakyat sekarang ialah sikap UMNO sendiri yang tidak menjaga ‘sensivity’ orang Melayu yang dipimpinnya. Pemimpin UMNO lebih sayangkan bangsa lain dengan berkompromi dalam banyak hal tentang masa depan dan nasib Melayu akan datang.

Ramai orang termasuk diri saya faham UMNO sedang tercari-cari kelemahan parti lain kerana PRU 13 mungkin tiba tidak berapa lama lagi.

Oleh kerana tidak dapat menunjukkan perkara yang baik maka jalan yang lazim digunakan ialah dengan mencari isu demi isu untuk mendapat perhatian ramai; untung-untung orang Melayu akan kembali menyokong mereka.

Ramai yang mentertawakan mereka yang menjadikan ini sebagai isu.

Yang ‘sensitive’ ialah pemimpin UMNO yang mengelabah tak keruan termasuklah Pemudanya sendiri.

Nak tunjukkan sesuatu hasil kerja mereka tidak ada, maka gunakanlah isu ini untuk menunjukkan yang mereka masih ada dan belum mati lagi.

PEMUDA UMNO

Kalau hendakkan orang Melayu mengikut kita, Pemuda UMNO mesti perjuangkan isu-isu yang mana pemimpin-pemimpin kita telah menyelewengkan wang ringgit dan menyalah gunakan harta benda rakyat.

• Pemuda mesti bertanya secara ‘detail’ kemana perginya 67 peratus dari 4.08 billion ringgit wang Felda dibelanjakan hingga kantung Felda merosot dengan teruk sekali. Tanya Felda kenapa Felda membeli hasil peneroka dengan harga yang terlalu rendah dari harga pasaran diluar sana.
  
  Ingatkan PM itu bahawa Felda ditubuhkan untuk menjadikan orang Melayu yang tidak bertanah dulu untuk memilikki harta, bukannya untuk Felda dan pegawainya yang kaya raya. Kita selalu nampak kurap orang, tetapi kita tahu dibalek pakaian kita yang cantik-cantik itu, dikulit kita penuh dengan kurap-kurap yang tak kunjung kering.
  
  
• Khairy patut pergi berjumpa Mirzan Mahathir untuk memulangkan wang PETRONAS yang berbillion yang digunakannya untuk ‘bail out’ sebuah syarikat perkapalannya belasan tahun dahulu.
  
  Khairy mesti beritahu Mirzan, di Amerika Syarikat semua syarikat yang di’bail out’ oleh kerajaan, sekarang sedang dalam proses memulangkan kembali wang rakyat yang mereka gunakan untuk menyelamatkan konglemerate mereka semasa kejatuhan ekonomi tidak berapa lama dahulu.
  
  Beritahu Mirzan wang yang berbillion itu dipindahkan kepada MARA; boleh hantar puluhan ribu anak-anak kita keAustralia, New Zealand atau keEngland untuk belajar. Bila balik nanti mereka boleh berkhimat kepada negara kita.

Kalau Khairy berani berbuat demikian barulahlah dia dianggap anak jantan dan Ketua Pemuda yang tulin dan tidak ada tolok bandingnya.

Kita tidak payah berucap menjerit-jerit untuk berjuang.

Pemimpin yang menjerit dan beretorik dengan nada suara tinggi itu selalunya orang yang banyak kelemahan sendiri yang hendak ditutpinya. Setakat mempamerkan ‘silat pulut’ sahaja Pemuda tidak akan berjaya menarik perhatian orang ramai.

Kalau tidak ada isu ini mungkin orang akan bertanya; mana Pemuda, mana Khairy? Kita tidak boleh berbuat apa-apa kepada Pergerakkan Pemuda sekarang ini, kerana mereka sudah hilang hidayah politik.

Nak dirotan, dia sudah besar walaupun masih keanak-anakkan. Jadi kita sabar sahaja melihat telatah dan langkah anak-anak muda ini.

Orang tua-tua dulu selalu berkata, ‘anak muda yang julung berkeris, batang pisang pun dia sanggah’.

Kita sabar sahajalah.

Mari kita tunggu sehingga Khairy menjadi dewasa. Insyaallah dia akan menjadi dewasa walaupun agak lambat sedikit.

Itu fenomena biasa, setengah kanak-kanak cepat dewasanya, hanya Khairy ini agak lambat sedikit. Lambat laun dia akan jadi dewasa. Kita boleh sayanginya. Tak mengapa.

Oghang-oghang lamo ado bokato, ‘yang tuo kito hormati, yang mudo kito sayangi’.

Ingat Khairy, kami bukannyo mombonci anda.

Abang kau ni nak togo sikit-sikit. Kalau boto jalan eh, jadi taklah ghosak pojuangan kau.

Itu pun kok ado pojuangan sobagai mano yang dikato.

BBC London is a Bloody Disgrace in Journalism

"..(BBC's) HARD-Talk has not only FAILED its loyal viewers but it has FAILED to uphold the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

It beggars belief that an established and world renowned organisation (BBC) can be held to ransom by the Malaysia government.

.. as this would “upset the Malaysian government and may even expose the BBC to legal action... and makes this a problem for the BBC.

Since when was the BBC afraid of legal threats?

The fact that the BBC allowed itself to be manipulated means that it has failed itself, and its viewers.

It has compromised its principles and integrity...".

Cop-out for BBC's HARDtalk

by

Mariam Mokhtar

Read here for more

The “HARDtalk” news programme, broadcast on BBC World News and the BBC News channel, is a half-hour interview when world renowned personalities are asked difficult questions, to discover their true stories and challenges.

Malaysia’s Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) was scheduled to be interviewed on Wednesday, 1st September 2010. According to the MalaysiaToday site, Bridget Osborne from the BBC called to inform him that his interview had been cancelled.

HARDtalk appears to have failed its loyal viewers but it has failed to uphold the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

According to Ms. Osborne, the BBC’s lawyers advised them not to proceed with the program as this would “upset the Malaysian government and may even expose the BBC to legal action”.

She explained that the questions they would pose to Raja Petra, “would be very sensitive in nature and critical of the government, would run foul of the Malaysian government”.

Another reason she offered was that “the program would be accessible in Malaysia”, and “makes this a problem for the BBC.”

Naturally, Malaysians the world over, are disappointed.

Raja Petra may be pleased to learn that the BBC rarely drops a program. However, the BBC’s about-turn means he is considered a liability. This gives him “street cred”.

Raja Petra would have been a viewer-catching asset and boosted viewer/listener numbers. But it appears that he is now a political liability.

But what exactly are the real reasons why the BBC dropped out? It beggars belief that an established and world renowned organisation such as the ‘Beeb’, can be held to ransom by the Malaysia government.

Such irony!

Raja Petra was probably going to mention the lack of freedom of expression in Malaysia.

Who would have thought that the stranglehold of the Malaysian government could reach thousands of miles away and silence Raja Petra?

This is indeed a sad day for civil liberties and freedom of speech. The fact that the BBC allowed itself to be manipulated means that it has failed itself, and its viewers. It has compromised its principles and integrity.

But who or what ordered this climbdown?

Most people are aware that Raja Petra is fond of running rings round the Malaysian government.

In a Malaysia which is beset by draconian laws and where is freedom of expression is lacking, Raja Petra’s site brings many Malaysians light relief.

He is both entertaining and a bit like a “cyber vigilante”. He is not unlike the Super-hero in cyberspace who exposes evil deeds.

Thus, if Raja Petra was expected to be critical of the Malaysian government, then would it not be judicious to have a representative of the Malaysian government present, to counter Raja Petra’s views and offer the Malaysian government’s official take, to the viewers?

That way a balanced and fair opinion is given, by both sides of the political divide.

Since when was the BBC afraid of legal threats?

Is this not a massive hint that there is a big story lurking somewhere? Isn’t the BBC eager to be the first, with the expose? Is it not eager to get to the bottom of the truth?

The United Kingdom government is aware that its arms industry is riddled with corruption. Previous governments are alleged to have concealed, and continues to conceal this, from both the parliament and the public.

It is possible that the reasons for the climbdown are not political but are purely economic.

Maybe the pressure was not from the Malaysian government but from the British government.

Perhaps, any excuse to not ruffle Malaysian government feathers, means the British government can have a smooth ride to support its arms sales.

And don't we all know how lucrative these are. Deal? Or no deal?

Australian Federal Election 2010: Government Lost Majority, 5 Independents to Decide Next Government

Read here and here for more

Australia is almost certainly headed for a hung parliament after the closest election since World War II saw no result returned by midnight Saturday Sydney time.

With 77.7% of the vote, there was NO clear winner.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott fell short of winning a majority in their own right. Both leaders signalled they would fight to win the support of the five independents who are likely to decide their fate.

The final result may not be known for up to 10 days as pre-poll and postal votes are counted.

A hung parliament has emerged as the most likely scenario after Labor's majority was smashed by big swings in Queensland and NSW that cost it a swag of seats.

The Greens emerged as the big winners in the reshaping of the political landscape, taking the balance of power in the Senate as well as the lower house seat of Melbourne.

To take power, a party needs 76 seats , and both parties will now be looking to form coalitions with the Greens and Independents, but even this could result in an even split, which could see another election called in a matter of weeks.

As counting finished on the east coast, the Coalition appeared to have won 73 seats, with Labor on 72.

With 76 per cent of the vote counted Labor looks to have lost 15 seats, taking its representation to 70 and the Coalition has gained 13 seats taking it to 72 seats.

The Coalition had won 50.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and Labor 49.7 per cent, suffering a three per cent swing against it.

On primary votes the government has suffered a 5.4 per cent swing, while the Coalition has gained a swing of 1.7 per cent.

Labor's failure to win a majority has reopened the wounds of Kevin Rudd's dumping as prime minister, with defeated star Labor candidate Maxine McKew criticising the national campaign.

She also conceded that the removal of Mr Rudd had been a factor in Labor's losses. “Clearly you can't have the removal of a Labor leader as prime minister and two months later have an election and not have that playing into the outcome,” she said.

Allegations of KHALWAT and Sexual Affair between A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Datuk Azailiza binti Mohd Ahad

Read here for more

Secret Sexual Trysts Between These Two
in the Attorney-General Chambers ?


Okay, What About THIS Affair Then?

by

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Associated Press reported,

A Malaysian judge said Monday he considered allegations of an affair between a government prosecution lawyer (Farah Azlina Latif) and the man ( Saiful Bukhari Azlan) who accused opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy to be TRUE but the relationship did not compromise the case.

High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah ruled Monday that the prosecution team in the trial had accepted the allegations of an affair to be TRUE because it did not directly confirm or deny them. "The court must accept what is stated as true," he said.

However, Mohamad Zabidin rejected Anwar's request for the charge to be dropped, saying the affair claim did not compromise the prosecution's integrity.

Why does the Attorney General (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail) not want to confirm or deny the allegation that a member of his team is bonking the prosecution’s key witness?

Would it not be easy if he just denied it and solve the entire problem?

The Attorney-General is worried that if he denies it then we would bring out another allegation of an affair, this time involving HIM (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail) and Datuk Azailiza binti Mohd Ahad, the Head of the International Affairs Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Yes, EVERYONE knows about THIS affair.

It is no secret.

The AG and Azailiza make frequent trips overseas together and, to save the taxpayers’ some money, they share a hotel room rather than book separate rooms.

1. Prosecution star witness Saiful Bukhari Azlan bonking DPP Farah Azlina Latif.
   
   
2. Then Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak aide Khairil Annas Jusoh bonking Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
   
   
3. And now the AG himself bonking Head of International Affairs Division Azailiza Mohd Ahad.

There appears to be a hell of a lot of bonking going on in the Palace of Justice.

And with the Chief Justice illegally marrying a second wife in Thailand and then destroying the evidence to escape prosecution, like our Member of Parliament from Sabah, it makes one wonder how they even have enough time to prepare for the court cases.

MUST READ ARTICLE: A REALITY-CHECK LIST for UMNO Malays

This article was written by a reader on Sakmongkol 47 blog
Read here for more on Sakmongkol AK47 blog

(The article was reformatted for reposting)


" The challenge is how to represent one's race and yet NOT end up being racialist.

It's a thin line.

Too many times that line was crossed.And it was crossed mainly by those INSIDE Umno which then attracted similar response by others. Umno FIRST , others only in response.

The rakyat have become tired of that.

• They are tired of being forced to be racialist.
  
  
• They are tired of the politics and the lies and the denials.
  
  
• They are tired of the commissions and the omissions.
  
  
• They are tired of waking up to find:
  
  
  • yet another package of spin at their doorsteps,
    
    
  • another bill in their mailbox,
    
    
  • another scandal on the front page,
    
    
  • another theft in the corridor of power that overwhelms in size and severity those on the streets that they walk in trepidation of their lives while the government under Umno plants more cctv's paid with taxpayers money in its over-priced and under-populated federal administrative enclave THAN in the places where the REAL rakyat live.
    
  
  
• The rakyat are tired and angry that the end of their days will be bleak.
  
  
• They are equally tired and angry that the beginning of the days of their young will be even bleaker.

Meanwhile, to greet them with such bad prospects:

• They have been asked to change their lifestyle when costs have gone up but incomes have gone down in an economy that has shrunk in its ability to remain relevant to the world.
  
  
• They are asked to be more productive by using their knowledge and skills but none of it can be applied because political leaders and little napoleons have wrought havoc with the education system from the way and things taught to the way and things issued.

The very people whose mindsets must first change are trying to change the minds of those who are telling them to change their mindsets.

How corny can one get?

It must therefore be to the credit of the rakyat that although tired of politics, they have bounced back on their own to their natural selves.

• THEY have on their own said NO to extremism and chauvinism.
  
  
• They have gone back to the core values and behavior that had defined the original spirit of this country. The centre that defines what being a MALAYSIAN truly means.

PAS and DAP have moved to the centre.

And ever since they have moved towards moderation, they have discovered that they are more comfortable with the new position - because it reflects the inner nature of Malaysians - to be practical and to be fair.

They (PAS and DAP) have found that they have lost nothing. By some magic, they have found that their own manifesto's have instead been enhanced.

And the rakyat who are Malays have found again their good nature and sense of fairness. They have found that they really don't lose anything by being accommodative to others, by not playing the zero-sum game, by caring for others as they want others to care for them.

After all, what RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES have they lost in the Opposition states that they had gained, if any, in the Proposition states?

Except for the cronies and the elites of Umno, how can one lose what one never had?

And because the Malays themselves have pierced the veil that sought to cover-up the sandiwara's and the ponzi schemes, likewise the others.

It's a tectonic shift by the masses away from trying to defend their RIGHTS along racial grounds to trying to defend their RIGHTS by muhibbah. Incidentally, that's a term coined by Barisan but lost in the wilderness of its own political machinations.

And the rakyat have found that when they defend their rights by muhibbah, all RIGHTS automatically fall into the domain of being pragmatic about things which in turn sustains more capability to benefit from better policies and actions , which in turn serves the enterprise to in turn serve the dispossessed and the needy.

In this country which fifty years of so-called nation-building under Barisan had only ended up creating the biggest income disparity in the whole of Asia.

The FUTURE belong to our YOUNG .

But what have WE bequeathed THEM under Barisan?

Thirty-four percent (34 %) of the rakyat earn less than seven hundred ringgit ( RM700), BELOW the poverty line of RM700. But how can even RM720 be considered a reasonable sum today to define livable standard?

If the poverty line is more realistically raised to RM1,200, then even more rakyat will fall into the poverty group.

The official situation is thus spin and nothing but an artful artificial construct to try and pull wool over the eyes of the rakyat. As if that can ever be of any real comfort.

You know that's true because the insolvency department says one hundred and ninety six thousand (196,000) Malaysians are insolvent. A small number on percentage basis?

What about those thousands who are insolvent and running from private financiers, the ones who smear red paint on their doors?

1. When people say Umno, WHO do they think of?
   
   They think of (Khir) Toyo, hero of the anti-sand theft:
   
   
   • Is he doing it to cover-up his own past or to guarantee there be enough sand to build the extension to his mansion?
     
     
   • What has he done when he was MB in the tradition of the past Umno MBs of Selangor?
     
     
   • Win a hundred thousand ringgit wristwatch?
     
     
   • Go to Florida to study canal management?
     
     
   • Denude another hill?
     
     
   • Launder money?
     
     
   • Screw a relative?
     
     
   • May 13, perhaps?
     


2. When people say Umno, who do they think of?
   
   They think of Taib (Mahmud):
   
   
   • How will he explain his wealth overseas on the salary he gets as CM of Sarawak?
     
     
   • From the Japanese timber buyers who had to pay to the timber cronies whose staff defiled the Penans whose development has to be associated with his plans or else they will suffer him calling them orang-utans?
     


3. When people say Umno, who do they think of?
   
   They think of Thamby Chik:
   
   
   • exonerated by the court over and above a DAP politician (Lim Guang Eng) who went to jail for bringing up the matter in defense of an underaged Malay girl who finally had to be rescued by the grandmother.
     
   
   
4. When people say Umno, who do they think of?
   
   
   • Megat Junid of Project M infamy?
     
     
   • Adam Adib of Mindef procurements?
     
     
   • Harun Idris,
     
     
   • Umno Youth's Suhaimi,
     
     
   • Ahmad Ismail
     
     
   • Ibrahim Ali the Mouth
     
     
   • Rahman Yaacob MOE DG who unilaterally changed main medium of instruction to sole medium of instruction?
     
     
   • The Ezam's and others who kiss the prince of storyland and perhaps the Umno treasurer?
     
     
   • Or could it possibly be our own Placido Domingo himself, patron to Shahrizat for the two hundred and fifty million (250 million) cow farm project for her husband, and tenderizer of Desaru investors?
     
     
   • Or perhaps it's really the twenty two (22) Umno branches who filed police reports against the Opposition for suggesting that the seven percent (7%) discount be canceled for properties that would be only afforded by those already rich enough to buy Porsche SUVs so that the discounts can instead be given to poor Malays. Weren't they prodded on by two Umno leaders, one using the word 'RIGHTS' in addition to 'PRIVILEGES', as if doing so would make it more legal tender THAN what the Constitution assigns if in the first place that instrument even stoops to mention a discount?

What is this country built on? A help-you-help-me with your money jomheboh?

This comment box is too small for all of them.

Name one, single, unitary, identifiable, thing, that Umno has done for the nation which doesn't have debatable positive result.

• Felda? Sued by the settlers themselves.
  
  
• Sime? Underbidded until twice bitten but still not shy.
  
  
• Taking Perak against the better judgment of the rakyat?
  
  
• Bakun Dam?
  
  
• Angkasawan?
  
  
• Petronas Sauber?
  
  
• Buying F18's that can't fire?
  
  
• Losing islands despite large arbitration fees?
  
  
• Crooked bridges?
  
  
• Collapsing roofs and arches?
  
  
• Phallic symbols of progress?
  
  
• Overpriced DIY and parliamentary hardware?
  
  
• Or a three hundred million ringgit (RM 300 million) dam in a place WITHOUT water?

Are there more?

This comment box is too small for all of them.

Read Shafee Yahya's book to get an insight of how it really has been by those who had used the name of Umno to immortalize themselves only to deal Malaysia a mortal blow.

People have repeated that under Umno, a hundred billion had been blown.

It's NOT a hundred billion RINGGIT.

The analysts concerned had written it was a hundred billion US DOLLARS.

Now with Malaysia to be a net oil importer by next year and a net gas importer in five years time, where is the Government under Umno to find the money to satisfy the horny callings of Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa and Mahathir Mohamad of The Loaf in order to deliver the 'RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES' so guaranteed by Umno to the Malays?

When you go to PJTC's JHDN, you will only find one race as customers at the counter paying taxes. And that's the race those leaders are lambasting to make innocent Malay folks think it's still alright to pretend that the other races are the cause of their miseries?

Would that also explain why Umno youths still fly to London to rah-rah the Malay scholars that they must always remember the special position of the Malays - despite the 1Malaysia calling of the seventy five million ringgit PR program by the President of Umno?

Is it now where Biro Tatacara fails, Umno Youth must succeed in the interest of 1Malaysia to give way to 2Malay?

So, is Malaysia a failed democracy? Only half-right, here.

Failed, YES.

Democracy? What does anyone think anymore?

• Isn't this country the only one where one has to bring torch lights to a polling station because, sure enough, there will be an officialized power failure during vote counting?
  
  
• You know that has a ring of truth to it for how else can one explain why the Barisan Sibu candidate declined a recount on such a close call - because he saw the same method applied as in Hulu Selangor?
  
  
• You know that ring grows to a bellow when all of a sudden there is an anti anti-ISA group.

Since when do the rakyat suddenly believe so strongly for imprisonment without trial that our blues (police) can turn an eye from them but nab people who hold candle vigils? Because they know power failures are fakes?

So, is Malaysia even a democracy when there is a fatal MO in its political governance where a political party can assume supremacy over the operational interpretation of constitutional clauses in such a way as to reinforce its own position through divisive policies, by which method it can spice up its airs with shitx3 juxtaposed with racistx8?

So how is it that under Umno, we have to ask whether Malaysia is a failed democracy?

• Because we have reason to doubt the integrity of our judiciary and enforcement institutions?
  
  
• Because corporate and public governance shaped by Umno is a benchmark of excellence?
  
  
• Because this nation still has plenty of time and resources to print money to avert financial collapse, failing which to gerrymander the election system to win yet another five years of political triumph?
  
  
• Because politicians can look themselves in the mirror at the end of every day and grin their grins instead of grimace their grimaces, for the tingling sensation from hearing their retirement cash registers ringing?

Shall we all have to ask our AG for answers?

Perhaps then the rakyat can finally understand how is it that the fate of this nation is now gloriously dependent on whether a college dropout has been anally assaulted."

-'WALLA'

Attorney-General Chamber's Devious Fabrication of Evidence and Cover-Up of Teoh Beng Hock's Death

Read here and here and here and here for more







Questions are now popping up over a “note” found last year in Teoh Beng Hock’s sling bag ‘that may throw some light regarding his death’ after the Attorney-General’s Chambers denied suppressing evidence in his death inquiry.

The AG’s Chambers issued a statement last night about the discovery of the note by Investigating Officer ASP Ahmad Nazri Zainal last October 7, more than TWO months AFTER Teoh’s death.

Question 1
Why did the investigating officer take two months to say he found the note in Teoh’s sling bag a day after the political secretary to Selangor executive councilor, Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 last year.

Question 2
Why do the police look like they are lackadaisical in investigating this death?

Did they need a psychiatrist to tell them to look for a suicide note?

Question 3
Why would the police even consider it a suicide case before finding the note?
Were they looking for evidence to show its suicide?

Question 4
Why did it take time after the note was translated to verify it?

Wasn’t it a matter of utmost urgency?

Question 5
Is it really a note in Teoh’s handwriting?

What proof is there?

Question 6
Why is the AG’s Chambers revealing it now and not immediately after it tested the note for authenticity or at the outset of the inquest?

If the AG wasn’t satisfied then, why is he satisfied now to speak about the existence of the note?

Question 7
Will the AG be satisfied to reveal the note on August 18 when the inquest resumes and hears Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand’s testimony?

She did say it was probably 80 per cent homicide and only 20 per cent suicide.

Question 8
How many people had access to the sling bag before the police officer found the note?

Is there a chain of evidence and custody to show the bag has not been tampered with? The inordinate amount of time is suspicious.

Question 9
Why would a man about to be married to the mother of his unborn child commit suicide after overnight questioning?

Did a psychiatrist think such a man would consider suicide?

Question 10
Is this ‘note’ the tipping point to end the inquest, to clear the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and to remove the need to have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into their investigating procedures?

The public has a right to know as the AG’s statement last night was scarce on details.

All it said was Ahmad Nazri recently owned up that he did find the note when he searched the sling bag on July 17 last year but did not realise the significance of it as other documents were also found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters.

RELATED ARTICLE

Good Lord, a suicide note from Teoh Beng Hock!

Read here for more

Why waste public funds and the hundreds of man-hours spent on the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock's death?

The AG is such a powerful man he can order the case shut by just stamping 'NFA' on the file.

Or does the AG want to show Malaysians and the world how our justice system can be toyed with by the powerful as and when they like - even to the extent of their capability to cover-up murders?

I must admit that there is no time limit for evidences to surface even if a case is closed and should it warrant, the case can be re-opened.

Likewise for the murder of Altantuya, even though the murderers have been found guilty and sentenced to death, should new evidence surface to show another person or the mastermind who was behind the murder, that person can still be charged.

In Teoh Beng Hock's case, it looks suspicious when a new piece of evidence, widely believed to be a suicide note was found inside the deceased’s sling bag.

The press statement from the AG's Chamber regarding this new found evidence does nothing more than to show how sloppy the investigation was carried out right from the initial stage.

There is heavy suspicion of fabricated evidence being planted.

You can read the full press statement here..

Let us take a look at what the AG statement claimed:

"The Attorney-General Chambers was informed of the discovery of the note by the Investigating Officer, ASP Ahmad Nazri bin Zainal on 7.10.09 some two over months after Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

According to the Investigation Officer it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident."

Can you see how desperate they are to fabricate evidence by saying something that stupid to try and convince you "it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident".

They DID search the sling bag after the incident but the 'supposed' suicide note was NOT there.

Yet after two months, they managed to discover it.

From a layman's understanding, after the police, MACC, AG, the forensic and hospital had fully completed their investigation, all personal belongings of the deceased should have been itemised, tagged and recorded after a thorough search.

Those items that required to be produced as evidence will be retained under locked and key while the rest should be returned to the family members.

The questions are:

1. Why was the sling bag not returned to the family members?
   
   
2. If it was not returned, how was it to be used and considered as evidence in the inquest/trial?
   
   
3. If they really needed to make a search again, why were all parties not informed?

To me, the only reason is to plant fabricated evidence.

"The note was immediately translated and there was sufficient cause to send it to be analysed by a Document Examiner of the Chemistry Department. The said note was sent on 9.10.09 and subsequently on 20.10.09.

The Document Examiner prepared his reports and they were considered by the Attorney-General himself where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwritings in particular the Chinese characters.

In addition, the note was said to be discovered some two over months after the death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.

Having considered these factors, Tan Sri Abdul Gani was of the view that the note should not be tendered until and unless the Investigation Officer could provide satisfactory explanation as to its discovery."

These are just frivolous statement, a camouflage for appeasing those who are stupid.

Should not all parties be informed unless they are trying to fabricate evidence.

"As regards the note, the Attorney-General’s Chambers was earlier briefed by the Investigation Officer that he conducted a thorough search after being advised by the psychiatric that ordinarily there would be a note left in a suicide case.

However, recently the Investigation Officer owned up by admitting that he did in fact find the note when he searched the sling bag on 17.7.10 but did not realise the significance of it as there were other documents found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters."

This is indeed a masterpiece, base on psychiatric advice, they went hunting for a suicide note and wallah! a suicide note was discovered.

How convenient, they found nothing in the first search, but after talking to the psychiatrist they suddenly managed to find one suicide note.

Can you see how sloppy they are? Even when wanting to plant fabricated evidence.

UMNO President's Speech in Parliament ATTACKING the Malay Rulers (14 February 1993) to Strip Their Immunity

Read here for more


Read here related essay, " THE MALAY RULERS'LOSS OF IMMUNITY", by Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada

Quote

DEWAN RAKYAT, MALAYSIAN PARLIAMENT

"Mr. Speaker Sir,

....Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore, Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the People (“rakyat”) could NO longer accept a system that ONLY gives power to the Rajas and the People are not given any role in the country's politics.

The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution.

Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born.

With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law.

Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while IGNORING  the Constitution.

Constitutional Monarchy has NEVER  given privilege to the Rajas to commit crimes. But if the Rajas break the law while carrying out official duties, the Rajas are free from charges.

...(And) the Rajas can reject the Government's advice.If the Government admits to be made up of representatives chosen by the People to determine the People's power, but the advice of the Government may not be accepted, this meant that the Parliamentary Democracy does not exist and the People are not in power.

Parliamentary Democracy NO longer exists because no action can be taken towards the Rajas that do not receive the advice of the People's Government and commit wrongs.

When the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious.

It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution.

If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas MUST be abolished.

The public do not know the problems faced by the Government. Only a small portion of the people know and they are not comfortable with the Rajas' doings.

The Rajas and the Royal Families seems to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to scare them or snatch the Rajas' rights.

In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the People dislike and are uneasy with, but also matters that are hated by the People.

If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the People towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at a point of time in the future, the People may no longer be able to control their feelings.

It is important Members of the Dewan are given back the RIGHT to CRITICISE the RAJAS in their debates.

• WITHOUT this right, the Members of the Dewan will FAIL to practice the Parliamentary Democracy system and will FAIL to prove that the People are the ones in power in this system.
  
  
• WITHOUT this right, the ones in power are the Rajas and NOT the People.
  

With the abolishment of the immunity of the Rajas from legal action, except when carrying out official duties, it is believed that a Raja will NOT commit acts that can be charged in courts.

The Government is forced to make a firm stand to PROTECT the People from being oppressed by the Rajas.

Certainly, this stand was not made because of these two incidents only.

Before this there were many incidents where the Rajas oppressed the People, Rajas broke civil and criminal laws, Rajas misused the money and property of the Government and country, Raja pressuring and oppressing officials.

There is no immunity in Islam. All laws are the same for all believers.A Raja that wants to be immune from the law certainly opposes this Islamic principle.

When the Rajas handed the Malay states to the British, the People took the political action to get back the Malay states and preserved the Raja Institution.

I hope the Malay Rajas also take the lesson from our country's history."
-Dr Mahathir Mohamad
Speech in Parliament (14 February 1993)

FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH

DEWAN RAKYAT,

Parliament of Malaysia

14 February 1993

Amendment to the Constitution (Article 181) on the Immunity of the Malay Rulers

Speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia

Mr. Speaker Sir,

I request to propose that is a Bill named “An Act to amend the Constitution” to be read for the second time. Speaker Sir, allow me to introduce and comment on the Act that I mentioned above

2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who received a huge victory and united support in the 1955 General Election, decided that our country would be administered via Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.

3. This system was chosen because when the Malay states were administered via the feudal system with power vested in the hands of the Rajas, the Malay states were weak and its administration was in chaos. The states could not establish peace and enforce laws. As a negative result, the states were forced to put themselves under the influence of foreign powers like China, Siam and the West. Finally, all the Malay states were conquered by the British and ruled as a British colony via agreements between the Rajas that administered with the British Government.

4. After the Second World War, the Malay Rajas hoped that when the British administered again, their positions as Rajas, under the advice of the British officials, would be reinstated. The Malay states would be ruled by the British although not like Singapore, Penang and Malacca, where the British had full power.

5. For the majority of the Malay people in the Peninsular states, they were ready to accept a rule in which the Malayness of the Malay states was recognized by the British, although the administration was almost completely controlled by the British. Yet, there were opinions among some Malays that the Malay states should be completely freed from British colonial rule.

6. Malays only realized that they might be marginalized and be made beggars in their own states when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new agreement with the British to return the Malay states directly to the British to be ruled as British colonies like Singapore, Penang and Malacca.

7. Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore, Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the People (“rakyat”) could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the People are not given any role in the country's politics. Also, after World War 2, absolute monarchies decayed throughout the world. Everywhere, absolute monarchies were abolished. Where it was maintained, the powers of the Rajas were limited by the Constitution, or the country's basic law. Hence, when the Federated Malay States demanded for independence, the leaders of the People studied administrative systems while taking into account of the history of the Malay States and other administrative systems.

Mr. Speaker Sir,

8. The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution. This feudal system was determined by customs that were often manipulated by the people in power. If the people in power breached the customs, it was difficult for palace officials and the People to criticize and make charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method brought definite negative consequences without guaranteeing that the revolt would improve the situation.

9. Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution.

UPDATED!! Zaid Ibrahim's Appeal Rejected by Malaysian Judiciary : What Malaysians Are Saying

Zaid Ibrahim has failed in his bid in the High Court to challenge the Hulu Selangor by-election results.

NOTE:

In 1999, Judge Azahar Mohamed, then a prosecutor, was accused of fabricating false evidence against Anwar Ibrahim together with Gani Patail during the 1999 corruption trial in the Zainur Zakaria vs Public Prosecutor case.

The Federal Court subsequently stated that there was a prima facie case justifying the application to disqualify these two prosecutors, noting that both had not denied the accusation at the material time. This statement has not been contradicted or challenged to date.
See article in Malaysian Bar website for further details: Click HERE Anwar, Sodomy and Freedom

Malaysiakini reported :

Election judge justice Azahar Mohamed has ruled that the election petition was defective as it had not stated clearly the alleged bribery acts. Azahar then declared Kamalanathan was duly elected as Hulu Selangor MP. The High Court had allowed a striking-out application by the victorious candidate, P Kamalanathan.

Zaid had filed the petition on May 24 to invalidate the April 25 poll results on grounds that there were attempts to induce voters by BN chief Najib Abdul Razak.

He alleged that Kamalanathan knew of the inducements made by Najib. The focal point of the case was Najib's promise of RM3 million to SRJK (C) Rasa School and the presentation of cheques to the Felda settlers.

Kamalanathan applied to strike out the petition on the grounds that it was trivial and an abuse of the court process.

One of P Kamalanathan's lawyer, Mohd Hafarizam Harun said the decision showed what had been offered, such as for the Chinese school and the RM160,000 to the Felda settlers, were not bribes but was meant for the development of the constituency.

Lawyer Azhar Azizan Harun representing Zaid said he was disappointed with the decision as they had the names of those who received the bribes, and would have brought the matter up in a full trial.

What MALAYSIANS Are Saying About the HIGH COURT'S Decision

Read here for more and here and HERE

• You don't need Paul the Octopus to predict this one. The blind could also see the outcome. Court decision expected.
  
  
• The judge for this case - Azahar Mohamed - was Abdul Gani Patail's classmate in the Law Faculty at the Universiti Malaya.
  
  
• Without any doubt, decision expected. Justice Azahar is afraid he might be punished like other judges who have given just judgments. I feel sorry for the judiciary under Umno man Zaki Azmi.

• Bloody judges. We have no respect for you.

• Is Mohd Hafarizam Harun still in that law firm where Azmi Zaki (the chief justice) was from? That Umno law firm does the bulk of Umno election cases. So Umno judges and Umno lawyers know how to work the courts in that respect. The judiciary needs a real shake-up
  
  
• It seems we have a solid pattern well established.
  
  
• And we have yet again witnessed another example of UMNO justice being dished out or should i say injustice.
  
  
• What else can the kangaroo court run by UMNO judges do?
  
  
• UMNO court just deliver the judgement which UMNO already decided.
  
  
• A lapdog judge delivering his biased judgement from his kangaroo court. Nothing surprising with the verdict.
  
  
• Even before the court ruling, all of us expected this decision because this decision was made way before the court proceeding. So this is nothing new in BolehLand. In future, if there is any court proceedings against UMNO, do us all a favor..., just accept the pre-verdict of the UMNO Kangaroo court.
  
  
• Most Malaysians knew from the very outset that the court decision would be a foregone conclusion. I wonder why Zaid bothered to litigate at all. Still, there is a lesson learnt, which is don't waste time and money.
  
  
• Looks like Yang Arif just legalised "I help you and you help me."

• If even Zaid cannot see to the justice he deserves, I am afraid there's not much hope left for the rest of the Malaysian rakyat...

• Zaid, don't despair. I am sure you knew what the outcome would be the very day you decided to bring the case to court. Let them win the battle, but we shall win the war.
  
  
• In the Umno kangaroo court, P Kamalanathan or Umno won but in the court of the rakyat, Kamalanathan or Umno have lost their suit.
  
  
• If the rakyat want any future fair trials, vote wisely in the coming soon 13th general election
  
  
• Another proof of 'Malaysian Court of UMNOputras'.
  
  
• All the more reason for a two-party political system in Malaysia. And the sooner Najib Abdul Razak calls for elections, the better.
  
  
• Put the judgment online. Some election judges shirk their duty to write a judgment in election cases because they really do not have cogent reasons for dismissing the petition on technicalities.
  
  
• We have to keep trying time and again until we win. In the face of compelling evidence, the judge finds otherwise. But one day, they will crumble and yield. We will restore justice in due time. Till then, keep up the resistance.
  
  
• EXPECTED VERDICT...NOTHING TO BE SURPRISED..YOU ARE BOLEH LAND ... SEMUA BOLEH DI ATUR...
  
  
• All monkey judges in the UMNO established Kangaroo Courts were drunk with corruptions...the only thing they see was UMNO rear!....very obedient assholes.
  
  
• The "Monkey Judge" did a rehearsed act in his Kangaroo Court!...how to screw an opposition to UMNO. These sort of below par judges are better placed as jaga kampung toilets...
  
  
• What do you expect from our Judiciary.."Bulan puasa and soon Raya...need some money for anak /isteri punya baju/kasut.Wasalaam.
  
  
• Malaysia’s judicial has rotted beyond redemption since 1988 when that Mamakthir reduced bolehland judges into nothing but rubber stamp of umNO-nazi party. When the last place where a person can seek JUSTICE is sodomized by umNO-nazi party, what is there to talk about. This bolehland has long ago been renamed Zimbawasia.
  
  
• And they crack their head thinking why people are leaving this country, why foreign investors are pulling away their investments and new investors are staying away......So long as the judiciary and those who are entrusted to uphold the law is corrupted, no one will feel safe living or investing in one's country..
  

RELATED ARTICLE

Malaysia’s Judicial Rot Deepens

Read here for more

Justice Azahar’s Mohamed’s decision to strike out Zaid Ibrahim’s application to annul Malaysia’s dirtiest by-election – for the Hulu Selangor constituency – was completely within my expectation.

In fact, the moment I learned that Chief Justice Zaki Azmi – a former Umno stalwart – had appointed Azahar to handle the case, I knew that Zaid’s prospect was doomed.

For wasn’t Azahar Mohamed the judge who handed out the atrociously ‘double-standard’ judgment in the Perak Speaker vs Speaker case on 8th Sept 2009? In that judgment over the chaotic state assembly sitting on 7th May 2009, he rejected Pakatan speaker Sivakumar’s complaints against the BN speaker Ganesan on grounds that he had no jurisdiction to intervene into affairs of the assembly.

But he failed to realise that by declaring Ganesan’s election as speaker during the same assembly sitting as a lawful act, he was in fact committing the same intervention he said he wanted to avoid in the first place. (Azahar’s self-contradiction was so blatant that it earned the title of “Speaker vs Speaker: Judge Azahar slapping his own face?” to an article in my book “The March to Putrajaya”).

Judge Azahar’s Reputation Dubious

And wasn’t Azahar also the prosecutor accused of fabricating false evidence against Anwar Ibrahim during the infamous Anwar corruption trial a decade ago which was resoundingly condemned around the world as a heinous travesty of justice and an outright political persecution? (This is an accusation that Azahar was not known to have denied)

What sort of outcome can you expect when a former Umno stalwart appoints a judge of such reputation to hear a case of such high political stake?

Now let us get to the nitty-gritty of Azahar’s judgment.

Azahar allowed BN’s Kamalanathan’s application to strike out Zaid’s petition on the following grounds:

1. Zaid failed to identify the recipients of the alleged corrupt act.
   
   
2. Zaid failed to show how the alleged corrupt acts have altered the outcome of the election.
   
   
3. Zaid failed to provide a full text of the speech or transcript of the alleged bribery.

Zaid Ibrahim’s allegation of corrupt acts in this petition was focused ONLY on Prime Minister Najib Razak’s offer of RM3 million to a Chinese school and offers of cash to Felda settlers, though there were innumerable other material inducements by BN amounting to many millions during the election campaign.

Evidence of Bribery Monumental

When Najib made the offer of RM3 million on the eve of polling day, he told the electorate in Rasa that they could come to his office to secure the payment the next day of election if Kamalanathan won.

But he added: “If we lose, don’t have to come”.

This sensational bribery offer was instantly splashed all over the Internet which was read around the world, in addition to appearing in some local newspapers the next day.

Much to the amazement of many, Najib not only failed to feel guilty, he seemed mighty proud of this act when he cited this incident as proof of his ‘trustworthiness’ during the subsequent Sibu by-election campaign when he made a similar offer to the Sibu electorate on the eve of polling day.

This time, his full speech was captured in video and uploaded in You Tube which attracted a world-wide audience.

Najib’s cash offer to the Sungai Buaya Felda scheme was: RM160,000 to former settlers for every acre of land developed, and RM50,000 for the next-of-kin of settlers upon their death. These offers were publicly announced and reported in the media.

Do these acts constitute election corruption and bribery under the Election Offences Act 1954”?

Let us take a look at Sections 32(a) and 32(c) of the same Act, upon which Zaid based his petition.

Section 32, titled “Avoidance of election on election petition”, reads:

“The election of a candidate at any election shall be declared to be void on an election petition on any of the followings only which may be proved to the satisfaction of the Election Judge:

(a) That general bribery, general treating or general intimidation have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election.

(b) ………..

(c) That a corrupt practice or illegal practice was committed in connection with the election by the candidate or with his knowledge or consent, or by any agent of the candidate.

(d) ……….” (There are 5 sub-sections under Section 32).

Grounds of Judgment Ridiculous

Would any common man, after reading this, have the slightest doubt that bribery to induce votes have indeed taken place? Wasn’t it crystal clear that the offer of RM3 milion was a trade-off for the electorate’s votes for Kamalanathan? Wasn’t the cash offers to Felda settlers an outright inducement for their votes for BN? Don’t our judges have the same kind of common sense that our common folks have?

Judge Azahar says that the recipients of bribery must be identified and evidence produced that the alleged bribery has in fact altered the election results before he would even begin to hear the case proper.

But isn’t an attempt to bribe sufficient to constitute an offence? Why must the judge insist on such exhaustive details at such a preliminary stage when the respondent is asking the case to be thrown out without actually hearing it?

Isn’t there sufficient evidence at this stage to at least arouse the judge’s curiosity to hear further so that justice may not be aborted. What is Judge Azahar here for – to serve justice or to serve something else?

Does Azahar realise that he is doing our judicial system, nay our entire democratic system, a grievous injury when his judgment on such a watershed case is even perceived to have transgressed justice, not to mention that it has actually done so.

Coming back to Azahar’s various grounds upon which he decided not to hear Zaid’s petition.

He said, the recipients of the alleged bribery have not been identified. Aren’t the electorate of Rasa and Sungei Buaya the recipients? If the entire country, and even the world, have already had access to this news, why should Azahar be so doubtful of this fact that he refuses to hear further?

Azahar said Zaid has not produced evidence that such alleged bribery has affected the election results. What kind of evidence does he have in mind? Does he expect voter A to swear that he wanted to vote for Zaid, but due to Najib’s offer, he changed his mind and voted for Kalamanathan?

If voter A really does that, would Azahar accept voter A’s word as gospel truth? If not, what other evidence does Azahar have in mind before he would agree that pervasive offer of inducement has in fact swayed the decision of voters? Come on Judge, let us not carry such nonsense to the bizarre.

Azahar also said he had to throw out the case because Zaid did not provide a full text of Najib’s speech or a transcript; but if the whole world has known his speech and he even bragged about it himself, isn’t Azahar making a fool of himself by rejecting the case on such flimsy ground?

We have seen enough nonsense and treachery in our courts.

What Zaid Ibrahim must do now is to appeal all the way to the highest court.

Let the whole world see how bad our judiciary is. And let all Malaysians realize that the only way to get justice in this country is to CHANGE the Government.