HIGHWAY TOLL HIKE- BLOOD SUCKERS

Selangor Sultan has NO POWER to Prevent Non Muslims from Using the Word "ALLAH"

 
http://tinyurl.com/krty5nr

Selangor residents are NOT legally bound by the Sultan’s latest decree banning non-Muslims from using “Allah” in the state as the ruler’s powers in Islamic matters were ceremonial, SEVERAL LAWYERS have said.

The Selangor Sultan renewed his decree last Thursday that the Arabic word for God be barred to non-Muslims in the country’s most developed state, including in the Malay-language Christian bible, the Al-Kitab, and in the Catholic weekly, the Herald.

NIZAM BASHIR, who is both a constitutional and syariah lawyer, added that Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s decree, which impinges on non-Muslims’ right to freedom of expression relating to their god, was unconstitutional as Article 10 (2) of the Federal Constitution states that only Parliament can restrict such freedoms.

Nizam told The Malay Mail Online yesterday:

“The decree is not legally binding. The sultan has purely ceremonial powers where Islam is concerned. When you talk about usage of the word ‘Allah’, it is a form of expression. It is for that reason I take the view that that power does not belong to the Sultan, but it is a power that belongs to Parliament alone.

"“I personally don’t take the view that when a non-Muslim uses the word ‘Allah’, it is, in the sense, propagation. On two scores, i.e. on Article 10(2) and 11(4), there’s no basis for the so-called restraint being imposed on non-Muslims.

“I’d even go further and say that from a theological perspective and from a historical perspective, ‘Allah’ the word predates the coming of Islam. There is no prohibition in the Quran for non-Muslims using the word ‘Allah’.”

The decree by the Sultan, who is the head of Islam in the state, came after a discussion with the Selangor Royal Council, where it was decided that Selangor citizens should abide by the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988, which is enforceable regardless of one’s religion.

The 1988 state law, which was passed by the then Barisan Nasional government, prohibits non-Muslims from using 35 Arabic words and phrases in their faith, including “Allah”, “Nabi” (prophet), “Injil” (gospel) and “Insya’Allah” (God willing).

Nizam questioned the validity of the ban in the state law, which was premised on Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution that ALLOWS state and federal laws to restrict the propagation of other religious doctrines among Muslims.

He also said that the Selangor state law could be challenged in court on its constitutionality and legality, pointing out that fundamental liberties “reign supreme” in the secular country, above both federal and Islamic laws.

“The Che Omar Che Soh case basically says that Malaysia is a secular state...The reason why it’s a secular state is that fundamental liberties triumphs over everything else,” said Nizam, referring to the 1988 landmark case where then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas ruled that Malaysian laws are secular and not Islamic.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said yesterday, however, that the royal decree could not be applicable to non-Muslims and noted that according to the Federal Constitution, only Muslims can be governed by syariah laws.

He also said it was not treason for non-Muslims to disobey the Selangor Sultan’s decree, as claimed by Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA).

http://tinyurl.com/lrtape6


NOT TREASON FOR NON-MUSLIMS TO DISOBEY THE SULTAN'S DECREE

“Not following the royal decree is NOT treason,” Datuk Zaid Ibrahim told The Malay Mail Online.

Muslim hardliners here have insisted it would be treasonous to ignore the Selangor Sultan’s “Allah” decree but a former Umno law minister believes otherwise, and even doubts that the ruler’s order is legally binding on non-Muslims.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, a known critic of groups like Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) and Perkasa, said an act of treason typically means leading a rebellion against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any state ruler, for whatever reason.

“There is a specific definition under the Penal Code for treason: if you lead an armed rebellion against the King or Sultan, then that’s treason.

He added that Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s blanket ban on the use of “Allah” in the state may NOT apply to NON-Muslims as Islamic laws or religious edicts are only legally binding on Muslims.

Zaid also questioned if a royal decree is considered a law and argued that even if this was the case, the order CONTRAVENES the Federal Constitution, which states that NON-Muslims CANNOT be bound by any Islamic laws.

ISMA yesterday claimed that non-Muslims would be committing treason if they dared to disobey the Selangor Sultan’s decree banning their use of “Allah”, in apparent warning against attempts to challenge the exclusive right of Muslims to use the Arabic term for God. ISMA deputy president Aminuddin Yahaya said the blanket ban by Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah must be respected by all Selangor folk in light of his position as the state’s ruler and highest religious authority.

But Zaid said it must first be established if the decree is binding.

“Is the decree law? Even if it is law, it cannot be applicable on non-Muslims. HOW CAN YOU MAKE AN ISLAMIC LAW AND APPLY IT TO NON MUSLIMS? he said.


ZAID'S TWITTER MESSAGE TO ISMA

The maverick politician had taken to Twitter yesterday to scoff at ISMA’s claim, even openly telling the Islamist group not to be bullies.

“ISMA dont bully people la. Its not treason not to follow decree,” he had said in a posting.

He earned a reply from renowned lawyer and human rights activist Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan who tweeted, “@zaidibrahim There is a new extremist kid on the block. There seems to be a highly organised plot to irritate us on a daily basis.”


SELANGOR SULTAN'S DECREE MUDDLES FURTHER THE ALLAH ISSUE

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah had on Thursday renewed his decree barring the Arabic word for God to all non-Muslims in the country’s wealthiest state and for an immediate stop to usage in the Malay language Bible al-Kitab and the Catholic weekly, Herald, in a move set to complicate Putrajaya’s bid to calm east Malaysian unease over the religious row.

The decree is also set to revive a longstanding and confusing debate on the jurisdiction overlap between the country’s civil and syariah legal system.

In Selangor’s case, the Sultan’s decree could be binding as the Selangor Non-Islamic Religion (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988 applies to every religion or race.

But as Zaid pointed out, the Federal Constitution states that ONLY Muslims can be governed by syariah laws.

Asked if this meant that non-Muslims in Selangor should ignore the decree, Zaid refused comment but said:

“All I’m saying is that even if the decree is law, it cannot be applicable to NON-Muslims. If that is the state law then it is against the Constitution. Because it is state law doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged”.

With the Sultan’s decree that non-Muslims cannot use “Allah” not only in their newspaper, but also in nearly all aspects of their religious life, there were questions if the blanket ban could override the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Legal observers have now called for Putrajaya’s immediate clarification on the matter.


SABAH AND SARAWAK DEMANDING THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE 20 AND 18 POINT AGREEMENTS

Since the ruling, churches in Sabah and Sarawak have become more vocal in pressing for their right to use the term that they say is entrenched in the 20- and 18-point agreements with the two states, insisting they will continue their age-old practice of referring to God as “Allah” in their worship and in their holy scriptures.

Bumiputera Christians are said to number around 1.6 million and have been using the word “Allah” in the national language and their native tongues for centuries for the practice of their religion.

Peninsular Malaysia is also host to large pockets of Christians from Sabah and Sarawak who have moved here in search of employment and formed local communities in several states.

With them, they have brought their style of worship and the Al-Kitab Malay-language bibles that also contained the word “Allah”.

In 2011, the Cabinet decided on a 10-point solution allowing Christians in Sabah and Sarawak to keep using the Al-Kitab, but it is unclear if that also meant they may do so when they are in the peninsula.

Several ministers also said recently that the 10-point solution issued by Putrajaya in 2011 — which allows the printing, importation and distribution of the Al-Kitab, the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Christian bible, containing the word “Allah” — SHOULD STAND, despite the appellate court ruling.

Muhyiddin Yassin's Abuse of Power

 
Pengerang MP Azalina Othman, who accompanied Rosmah Mansor during a women's summit in Qatar, which the prime minister’s wife had gone on in a private jet, admitted that the invitation to attend the summit was extended to Rosmah in her personal capacity and not to the government.

However, it is unclear whether Azalina had also travelled on the private jet alongside Rosmah.

"The invitation was not on a government basis but on a personal basis," Azalina admitted in Dewan Rakyat today while debating the Budget 2014 allocation for the Rural Development Ministry.

However, Azalina said, it was Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin who chaired the cabinet meeting that approved the use of the private jet for the trip and not Rosmah's husband, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

"It was not just her (Rosmah). There were also senior government officials, media personnel and NGOs," Azalina said, also without specifying if the other officials also boarded the jet.

Azalina went on to defend the usage of the private jet by claiming that the event was a success and that the opposition is trying to "deny the success of BN politicians and their wives".

Fellow BN MP, Tanjong Karang's Noh Omar also chipped in by saying that Malaysians should be proud because "no other first lady in the region gets the prominence she gets".

"She has brought a good name to the country," he said.

To this, PAS' Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad criticised the move, saying that a "wrong decision can't be justified because cabinet made the decision".

"If you want to go, you go on your personal expenses," Khalid said.

Later, in a separate press conference at the Parliament lobby, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Shahidan Kassim (right) said that Rosmah was being treated "unfairly".

"During her trip, she may have attracted investors to the country. What has the critics done for the country?" he asked.

He said that all the criticisms levelled upon the government "would not bring investors to the country".

Meanwhile, Rompin MP Jamaluddin Jarjis said there was nothing wrong in Rosmah representing Malaysia as she was invited officially by the Qatari government.

"The rest of the world is the same, too. If a president's wife is invited, they will also go. If it's for the good of the country, why not?" Jamaluddin was quoted by Astro Awani as saying.

Jamaluddin, a former Malaysian ambassador to the United States, added that Malaysians should be "proud" that the prime minister's wife was getting such recognition from another country.

 

SEND A MESSAGE TO UTUSAN MALAYSIA

 

Make UMNO PAY DEARLY for Racists Attacks Against Chinese Community by UMNO Ministers and Politicians

 Mukhriz Mahathir, as MB of Kedah decided that HE WILL NOT GOVERN TO HELP THE CHINESE IN KEDAH.

In September 2013. Mukhriz Mahathir, despite being an MB of Kedah publicly announced he would NOT entertain requests from Chinese schools in the state, as he could NOT help those who did not support the BN in the last general election.

As for the UMNO candidate for Sungei Limau by-election is COLLATERAL DAMAGE. WE SAY TO HIM, "NOTHING PERSONAL!!!"

As an UMNO candidate, he has put himself to pay for UMNO's sins against the Chinese and other non Malays, and for the ANTI CHINESE remarks of HIS UMNO leaders/Ministers such as Zahid Hamidi and Mukhriz Mahathir.

IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR ALL CHINESE VOTERS TO ANSWER, WITHOUT SAYING A WORD, UTUSAN MALAYSIA's QUESTION. "APA LAGI CINA MAU?"

 

 

 

THEY ARE TOWERING MALAYS

 

MALAYSIA: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON THE "ALLAH" ISSUE IS WRONG

 
http://tinyurl.com/pv9ntfw

The Court of Appeal was WRONG in its decision BANNING Christian weekly Herald from using the word ‘Allah' to refer to God in Bahasa Malaysia, said a constitutional law expert, Dr Abdul Aziz Bari.

Dr Aziz Bari also described the judges' statement that fundamental liberties provision must be read along with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as "startling".

Dr. Aziz Bari said,

"By linking religious rights under the chapter on fundamental liberties with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which effectively makes Islam the benchmark for everybody.

This runs counter to the general meaning of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution itself.

"The plain meaning of Article 3(1) is simply this: that despite the fact that Islam has been made official religion, NON-Muslims may go on practising their religions freely WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

" The implication of the decision is that it might make non-Muslims feel "unsafe" and this is contrary to the essence of the Article 3 in the constitution. The court decision yesterday sounds like a 'POLICY DECISION' - A DECISION THAT IS NOT STRICTLY BASED ON LAW.

"Like in most countries, the judges - in critical cases - do not feel they have the strength to depart from the line taken by the executive. Not too different from what we have seen in cases involving preventive detention, election petition and Altantuya (Shaariibuu)'s murder.

"Like many, many other decisions which the minister claimed 'security and public order', the judges just went along with them. In short, the judges were not willing to be proactive here.

"They obviously still live under the wartime decisions where the government has the absolute power to decide anything under the guise of security and public order.

"With the court decision, the government has interfered with the way Christians practice their religion when there is no evidence that using the world ‘Allah' can jeopardise national security and public order.

"I do NOT believe the use of ‘Allah' among Christians would create problems for the Muslims. For one thing, the Christians have their own doctrine and they are not out to tell the Muslims about it.

"As for the Muslims, they have their own doctrine that has been developed by their ulama for ages. This is the guarantee that the use of ‘Allah' by Herald - which is not circulated among Muslims anyway - will not affect Muslims.

"The only provisions that is allowed by the Constitution to override provisions for fundamental liberties - or human rights - are Article 149 on power to deal with SUBVERSION and Article 150 which deals with EMERGENCY..

"The fundamental principle is that the court is there to protect and enhance the provisions for fundamental liberties, not to narrow them down. It is wrong for the Court of Appeal to do that."

" The judges' linking between Article 3(1), which declares Islam as "the religion of the federation", and Article 11(4), which allows the legislatures to protect Muslims from being proselytised (converted) is DISTURBING.

"The most one could say about Article 3(1) is that the provision declares the federation's character and perhaps, ideology.

"But Article 3(1) is NOT ONE to be used to judge or becoming benchmark for the NON-Muslims. I think this is the reason why the phrase "OTHER RELIGIONS may be practiced in peace and harmony' is being added towards the end of the provision.

"I find it strange as to why the Court of Appeal did not concentrate on the right to religious freedom and instead chose to highlight the link between Article 3(1) and Article 11(4), which has less relevant here.

"In fact, Article 11(4) could stand on its own WITHOUT the support from Article 3(1)."

Word ‘Allah’ is NOT exclusive to Islam

 

UNTED ARABS EMIRATES

14 OCTOBER 2013

 EDITORIAL 

 Like the history of most religions, the history of Islam is complex and much debated. 

But there are a few elements that are not in dispute, chief among them that the God of the Quran is the same as the God of the Bible and of the Torah before it. 

The mission of Islam, as expressed in the Quran, is not to bring a new faith, but to update the messages of the monotheistic faiths before it.

 It is therefore surprising to see, as The National reports today, that a Malaysian court has ruled that a Christian newspaper may not use the word “Allah” to refer to God. The court overturned a previous decision by a lower court, ruling that “Allah” as a term is not exclusive to Islam. This causes a problem for the country’s substantial Christian minority, who have used the word “Allah” to refer to God for decades.

In a fellow Muslim country with substantial Christian and Hindu populations, this feels like the wrong decision.

The UAE is rightly proud of its society that allows people from all over the world to practise their faiths openly and without discrimination. Indeed, that inclusiveness is inherent in Islam. One of the reasons Islam was able to spread so far, so rapidly, was the inclusive nature of the faith: for at least two centuries after the coming of Islam, the Arabs ruled vast regions where the majority were not Muslims. The word “Allah” is never exclusive to Islam – indeed, both Christians and Jews used the word “Allah” to refer to God even before the coming of Islam.

That remains the case today. When Christians across the Middle East pray to God, they use the term “Allah”. Walk into a church in Cairo, Baghdad or Beirut this coming Sunday and you will hear the name of “Allah” invoked. That also applies to the Jews of the Arab world, who for centuries have prayed to “Allah”.

The Quran itself is explicit on this subject, declaring, in Surah Al Ankabut, that Muslims should tell People of the Book (Christians and Jews) that “our God and your God is one”.

The Malaysian decision overlooks not merely the theology, but also the etymology of the word. The word “Allah” is derived from the Arabic “al-ilah”, the god. It’s found its way across the world and entered Malay from Arabic.

Arabic as a language is a vehicle for faith, be that Christianity, Judaism or Islam. The God of the three monotheistic religions is the same god. It is unsurprising, therefore, that all three faiths in the Arabic-speaking world (and beyond) refer to God as “Allah”.

And if they have the same God, they should have the right to call their deity by the same name.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/word-allah-is-not-exclusive-to-islam#ixzz2hocyG8eL 

CHIN PENG'S FAREWELL LETTER - HIS LAST WORDS

The following is a copy of Chin Peng's farewell letter obtained by Malaysiakini's correspondent in Bangkok:

“My dear Comrades, my dear Compatriots,

When you read this letter, I am no more in this world.

It was my original intention to pass away quietly and let my relatives handle the funeral matters in private. However, the repercussions of erroneous media reports of me in critical condition during October 2011, had persuaded me that leaving behind such a letter is desirable.

Ever since I joined the Communist Party of Malaya and eventually became its secretary-general, I have given both my spiritual and physical self in the service of the cause that my party represented, that is, to fight for a fairer and better society based on socialist ideals. Now with my passing away, it is time that my body be returned to my family.

I draw immense comfort in the fact that my two children are willing to take care of me, a father who could not give them family love, warmth and protection ever since their birth. I could only return my love to them after I had relinquished my political and public duties, ironically only at a time when I have no more life left to give to them as a father.

It was regrettable that I had to be introduced to them well advanced in their adulthood as a stranger. I have no right to ask them to understand, nor to forgive. They have no choice but to face this harsh reality. Like families of many martyrs and comrades, they too have to endure hardship and suffering not out of their own doing, but out of a consequence of our decision to challenge the cruel forces in the society which we sought to change.

It is most unfortunate that I couldn't, after all, pay my last respects to my parents buried in hometown of Sitiawan (in Perak), nor could I set foot on the beloved motherland that my comrades and I had fought so hard for against the aggressors and colonialists.

My comrades and I had dedicated our lives to a political cause that we believed in and had to pay whatever price there was as a result. Whatever consequences on ourselves, our family and the society, we would accept with serenity.

In the final analysis, I wish to be remembered simply as a good man who could tell the world that he had dared to spend his entire life in pursuit of his own ideals to create a better world for his people.

It is irrelevant whether I succeeded or failed, at least I did what I did. Hopefully the path I had walked on would be followed and improved upon by the young after me. It is my conviction that the flames of social justice and humanity will never die.

Farewell, my dear Comrades!

Farewell, my dear Compatriots!

Farewell, my dear Motherland!”

FULL STORY AT: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/241699

Kisah Dongeng Kota Damansara - oleh Khalid Samad

Kisah Dogeng Kota Damansara

 oleh

 

Khalid Samad

Wakil Rakyat PAS, Shah Alam

 

6 June 2013

 

Saya telah menulis beberapa isu berkenaan KD sebelum ini yang merangkumi persoalan Strategi, Akhlak Jamaah Islam, Kawasan Contoh dan Perang Uhud. Artikel ini akan cuba mengupas beberapa kisah dongeng yang berlegar selepas apa yang berlaku di KD. Apabila ingin menegakkan benang yang basah, maka bermacam-macam kisah dogeng terpaksa dikemukakan berhubung KD. Saya senaraikan di sini beberapa kisah dongeng tersebut satu per satu untuk dinilai bersama.

Dongeng 1: Kota Damansara Dipinjamkan Kepada PKR
Pada tahun 2004 KD ditandingi PAS sambil Paya Jaras ditandingi PKR. Pada 2008, atas permintaan PAS Subang, maka Paya Jaras digantikan dengan KD. Maka PAS bertanding Paya Jaras dan KD ditandingi PKR. PAS kalah di Paya Jaras tetapi PKR, dengan Dr Nasir sebagai calonnya menang di Kota Damansara.

Pada tahun 1999, tiada kerusi Kota Damansara. Kota Damansara adalah kerusi baru hasil persempadanan baru yang dilakukan pada 2003 oleh BN. Seperti Parlimen Kota Raja, Dun Sri Andalas dan Dun Sri Muda. Maka bagaimana ianya dijadikan milik PAS?

Sepanjang 5 tahun sejak 2008, tidak pernah walaupun sekali isu KD ‘dipinjamkan’ kepada PKR disebut di BPPNS.Maka kata-kata Kota Damansara dipinjamkan kepada PKR dan KD adalah kerusi PAS adalah dongengan semata-mata.

Dongeng 2: PKR Tiada Calon di Kota Damansara
Hakikatnya PKR telah bersedia menurunkan calon lain sekiranya Dr Nasir tidak setuju untuk turun sebagai calon PKR. Saudara Radzlan Jalaluddin seorang peguam adalah calon yang akan diturunkan oleh PKR sekiranya Dr Nasir bertanding sebagai calon PSM. Calon PKR ‘standby’ pun saya diberitahu sudah ada iaitu Ustaz Shamsul Firdaus.

PKR bersedia menghadapi 3 penjuru dengan PSM sekiranya perlu di Kota Damansara. Tetapi apabila Dr Nasir setuju untuk diturunkan sebagai calon PKR, maka PKR arah calon-calon mereka yang lain untuk menarik diri.

Maka cerita konon bahawa PKR tiada calon juga adalah dongeng semata-mata.

Dongeng 3: Dr Nasir Adalah Calon PSM
Hakikatnya Dr Nasir adalah calon PKR. Watiqah yang diguna adalah watiqah dari PKR. PKR turunkan beliau sebagai calon PKR. Tiada watiqah PSM dan bukan PSM yang ditentangi PAS. Bukan seperti di Semenyih.

Cuba buka mata sikit. Ada beza atau tidak Semenyih dan Kota Damansara? Di Semenyih Aru bertanding atas tiket PSM. PKR turunkan calon bertanding kerana tidak terima Aru sebagai calon PKR. Sedangkan kerusi Semenyih dipersetujui semua adalah milik PKR bukan milik PSM. Di KD kes Dr Nasir adalah sebaliknya. Hanya yang terus ingin menegakkan benang basah sahaja akan mengatakan tiada beza.

Dalam soal memilih calon, setiap parti berhak memilih calonnya sendiri atas alasan tersendiri. Ahli PAS KD perlu ingat, pada 2008, PAS meletakkan Ibrahim Ali di Pasir Mas! Ibrahim Ali bukan ahli PAS pun! Itu adalah atas maslahah PAS Kelantan. PAS Kelantan mencapai kemenangan besar, dari majoriti 1 kerusi pada 2004 kepada majoriti 2/3 pada tahun 2008. PAS mendapat 39 dari 45 kerusi pada tahun 2008! Strategi meletakkan Ibrahim mungkin telah menyumbang sedikit sebanyak kepada kemenangan itu.

Maka cerita penglipur lara bahawa Dr Nasir adalah calon PSM dan bukan PKR juga merupakan dongeng semata-mata.

Dongeng 4: PAS KD Tolak Dr Nasir Kerana beliau Sosialis
Dr Nasir seorang Sosialis sejak dahulu. Beliau bersama Dr Syed Hussin dalam PSRM dan apabila PSRM bercantum dengan Keadilan sehingga Keadilan pun menambah ‘rakyat’ dalam nama ‘PKR’ dan menambahkan jalur merah pada logonya, Dr Nasir tidak ikut sama. Sebaliknya Dr Nasir berusaha menubuhkan PSM.

Namun pada 2008 beliau diturunkan sebagai calon PKR di Kota Damansara. Begitu juga Arul yang bekas ahli PSRM juga diturunkan di Semenyih. Pada ketika itu PAS terima dan tidak membantah.

Kalau mahu tolak Dr Nasir kerana dia Sosialis, sepatutnya ianya dibuat sejak 2008 kerana semua tahu beliau Sosialis pada ketika itu lagi. Bukan baru beliau isyhtihar bahawa beliau Sosialis.

Lagipun telah diakui bahawa PKR dan DAP berbeza fahaman politik dengan PAS. Kalau PAS tolak Sosialis kerana bercanggah dengan Islam, bagaimana pula dengan fahaman liberal demokrat dan sosial demokrat yang dibawa PKR dan DAP? Dan bukankah ini sebabnya ada ‘tahalluf’ iaitu kerjasama dengan yang tidak sama fahaman politik dengan PAS. Dan bukankah ini sesuai dengan ayat 61 Surah Al-Anfal yang bermaksud;

“Dan kalau mereka telah condong kepada perdamaian, hendaklah kamu condong juga kepadanya (perdamaian), dan bertawakallah kepada Allah. Sesungguhnya Dia Maha Mendengar dan Maha Mengetahui”.

Masalah ini sepatutnya tidak timbul lagi kerana ianya telahpun diputuskan bersama pada 2008 bahawa sekiranya Dr Nasir guna lambang PKR maka tiada masalah.

Soal Syed Hussein Ali bertanding di Kelantan dan ditolak oleh PAS Kelantan adalah atas perkiraan lain. Masyarakat Kelantan tidak bersedia menerima Syed Hussein Ali sebagai calon. Faktor ‘winnability’ dalam suasana saingan sengit perlu diambil kira. Tapi di Kota Damansara, terbukti Dr Nasir boleh menang. Ini telah terbukti pada 2008.

Maka dengan itu alasan PAS KD tolak Dr Nasir kerana beliau Sosialis juga adalah alasan dongeng yang telah direka cipta.

Dongeng 5: Dr Nasir Sebagai ADUN Banyak Menimbulkan Masalah
Ada yang mengatakan bermacam-macam perkara berhubung tindakan Dr Nasir sebagai ADUN. Masalah itu dan ini. Kononnya susah untuk dapat peruntukan untuk program dan sebagainya. Saya jawab dengan mendedahkan satu fakta sahaja untuk menyanggah ini semua.

Sepanjang 5 tahun tiada sebarang aduan terhadap Dr Nasir yang dikemukakan dalam mesyuarat BPPNS. Kalau ada pun, isu biasa yang melibatkan semua ADUN yang bukan PAS yang dihadapi oleh ahli PAS. Biasalah tu, mereka pun sibuk membuat program sendiri dan PAS pun dengan programnya. Sepatutnya kerja rapat. Program PKR/DAP program PAS, program PAS program mereka juga kerana semua untuk bertemu dengan rakyat jelata yang merupakan pengundi PR bersama.

Pada masa yang sama ramai juga ahli PAS jadi Nazir Masjid, AJK Masjid, Ketua Kampung, JKK, Ahli Majlis dan sebagainya. Tiada pula Dr Nasir menhalang fahaman Islam dari disebarkan dan fahaman Sosialisma diajar di Masjid dan Surau!

Amatlah menghairankan kenapa tiba-tiba apabila sudah dekat dengan PRU baru isu ini timbul. Semasa membincangkan soal siapa calon untuk Paya Jaras, di mana pimpinan Selangor bertemu pimpinan PAS Subang berkali-kali, termasuk selepas pembubaran Parlimen, tiada walau satu ayat pun dikeluarkan berhubung KD!

Maka bagi saya, sebagai pimpinan PAS Negeri Selangor, alasan Dr Nasir banyak menimbulkan masalah adalah dongeng ke 5.

Dongeng 6: Bertanding di KD adalah Keputusan Majlis Syura!
Saya malas hendak jawab. Saya nasihat penghujjah jangan menipu. Walaupun kita tahu “peperangan itu adalah tipu-helah” janganlah guna hadis itu sebagai alasan untuk menipu ahli dan rakyat. Saya bukan berperang dengan saudara-saudara. Saya hanya ingin menegur kesilapan yang telah dilakukan. Jangan menipu. Jatuh imej tuan-tuan semua; lebih-lebih lagi yang bergelar Ustaz.

Sebenarnya, jika benar ikhlas, alasan tidak perlu bertukar-tukar dan berbagai jenis. Tidak perlu ditokok tambah dengan macam-macam cerita penglipulara. Cakap je, “Dia Sosialis”. Atau “dia susah nak kerjasama”. Atau “kerusi dipinjam”. Atau “PKR tiada calon”. Pilih sahaja satu dan hujjah berasaskan yang itu. Ini tidak. Alasan berbagai dan beraneka bentuk dan banyak darinya yang dongeng belaka. Itu adalah bukti alasannya adalah alasan semata-mata.

WaLlahu 'Alam
KHALID SAMAD

NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ON THE DEATH OF CHIN PENG

 

Asia Pacific

Chin Peng, Malaysian Rebel, Dies at 88

By DOUGLAS MARTIN

Chin Peng, a Communist guerrilla leader whose tenacious, bloody struggles for an independent Communist Malaysia pitted him against Japanese invaders, British colonialists and finally the government of what had become his own newly sovereign nation, died in exile on Monday in Bangkok. He was 88. 

Agence France-Presse, the French news agency, said the cause was cancer, quoting a retired Thai military commander who had acted as a liaison between Mr. Chin and the authorities. Mr. Chin had lived in Thailand for many years. 

Mr. Chin was the last surviving revolutionary leader to have successfully fought for independence from colonial rulers in Asia after World War II — a cohort that included Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Sukarno in Indonesia, Aung San in Burma (now Myanmar) and Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia. 

When he finally laid down his arms in 1989, Mr. Chin was called “the world’s senior surviving guerrilla.” 

Chin Peng was the nom de guerre of Ong Boon Hua, who had joined with the British to battle Japanese troops after they invaded what was then British Malaya in 1941. His honors for heroism included the Order of the British Empire. 

But after the war, as the newly named head of Malaya’s Communist Party, he ordered an armed insurrection against the British colonial rulers, and when Malaya became independent of Britain in 1957, the insurgency morphed into a fight against the new government. 

(Malaysia, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, came into being in 1963. Singapore became independent of Malaysia in 1965.) 

“I suppose I am the last of the region’s old revolutionary leaders,” Mr. Chin wrote in his 2003 memoir, “My Side of History. “It was my choice to lead from the shadows, away from the limelight.” 

He may not have actually had a choice. By the mid-1950s, the British had effectively put down the Communist offensive, although a final peace agreement would not be signed until 1989. Mr. Chin disappeared, although his voice was heard on broadcasts of the clandestine Malaysian Revolution Radio.

 Then he fell silent, and it was assumed that years of living in the jungle had taken their final toll on him.

It turned out that in 1960 he fled to China, the principal backer of the Malaysian Communists, who themselves were mainly ethnic Chinese. He later moved to Thailand. 

After the 1989 peace pact, he tried to return to Malaysia but was refused entry. 

Ong Boon Hua was reported to have been born on Oct. 21, 1924, in the Malaysian state of Perak. His father, an immigrant from Fujian Province in southeast China, made a good living selling and repairing bicycles, and sent him to English-language schools, where he excelled. Attracted to Communism as a means of fighting prejudice against Chinese-Malayans, he joined party youth organizations at 15. 

Soon he left school and went to work for the party, which assigned him to lead three anti-Japanese organizations for students, teachers and shop assistants. After the Japanese invaded in December 1941, he became a liaison to British commandos.

 The Associated Press reported in 1989 that John Davis, a British officer, said of him, “Unusual ability, and commanded the natural respect of men without fuss or formality.” 

After the war, Lai Teck, secretary general of the Malayan Communist Party, fled with most of its money after collaborating with both the Japanese and the British. Mr. Chin was placed in charge of investigating him, and was appointed to replace him in 1948 at age 24. 

He ordered an armed struggle, perhaps on instructions from Moscow, and began by attacking two rubber plantations and methodically executing three planters. Twelve years of violence, which came to be known as the Malayan Emergency, ensued. A $250,000 reward was offered for information leading to Mr. Chin’s capture. 

At the height of the conflict, some 70,000 British, Australian, New Zealand, Fijian, Gurkha and other British Commonwealth troops fought about 10,000 guerrillas. More than 10,000 fighters and civilians died between 1948 and 1960. Britain rescinded the Order of the British Empire it had granted him. 

“I make no apologies for seeking to replace such an odious system with a form of Marxist socialism,” Mr. Chin wrote. “Colonial exploitation, irrespective of who were the masters, Japanese or British, was morally wrong.” 

In 1955, Mr. Chin emerged from the jungle to negotiate with Malayan officials at a schoolhouse near the Thai-Malay border. Talks broke down after Malayan negotiators refused Mr. Chin’s demand to be part of a coalition government. Though the point was largely moot after Malaya’s independence in 1957, fighting sputtered on, with periodic escalations. 

When it finally ended in 1989, some 1,200 guerrillas were allowed under the peace pact to returned to civilian life. 

Mr. Chin thought the 1989 agreement provided for his own return to Malaysia, but he was denied in court on the grounds that he could not prove he was Malaysian, having lost his birth and citizenship certificates. Many said the real reason was a lingering resentment over the insurrection. 

Information about his survivors was not available. Mr. Chin’s wife, Khoon Wah, is deceased. They had two sons. 

The Malaysian police have refused to allow his remains to be returned to his home country.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/asia/chin-peng-malaysian-rebel-dies-at-88.html?_r=0

 

"STAND BY YOUR PROMISES", Najib's UMNO-BN Government Being Told 

 

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/241284

Constitutional expert Abdul Aziz Bari today told Najib's Umno-BN government to " HONOUR YOUR PROMISES and DON'T TRY TO MILK THE DEATH OF COMMUNIST PARTY LEADER FOR POLITICAL MILEAGE."

He reminded them that the 1989 ceasefire agreement between the government and the Communist Party of Malaysia (CPM) was signed by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with their respective predecessors in tow.

Abdul Aziz said that with the signing of the 1989 document, MALAYSIA HAD TACITLY RECOGNISED THE COMMUNISTS.

Abdul Aziz Bari said,

"Stop manipulating the emotions of the army and police veterans. Just put up or shut up! (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar should just shut up or ask his own predecessor as to why the police agreed to sign the truce with the communists.

"The court was wrong to reject Chin Peng's application to come back. The judges asked for documents to prove his citizenship, like a birth certificate. But they knew that it was during the height of emergency and Chin Peng - rightly or wrongly - was a fugitive."

He added that the court had asked the impossible from Chin Peng, who had fought British rule.

Abdul Aziz Bari said the GOVERNMENT WOULD LOSE ITS AUTHORITY if Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Inspector-general of Police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar continued to vehemently oppose Chin Peng's final wishes for his ashes to be interned in Malaysia.

Noting that even some ex-Umno and BN leaders were also detained in the past for communist activities, Abdul Aziz said that the party should stop "demonising" communists and communism.

DID CHIN PENG REALLY DIDN'T APPLY TO RETURN HOME, AS CLAIMED BY EX-IGP HANIFF OMAR??

Did Chin Peng REALLY REFUSE ticket home? 
http://tinyurl.com/lv86kw2

Tun Haniff Omar claimed yesterday that Chin Peng had refused an offer to return home in 1989 and only applied in 2005.

TunHaniff said,

“When Chin Peng finally applied in 2005 to return to Malaysia, the boat had sailed and there was absolutely no reason to admit him back into the country, unless he could prove that he had applied to return within that one-year window, which he couldn’t."

But MP Teresa Kok reminded the former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) that he had said OTHERWISE in previous media reports and clearly contradicted what he said in a New Straits Times article in 1991.

Teresa Kok demanded clarification today from Tun Haniff Omar over his claim.

In an NST report cited in a December 2009 article by online news portal The Malaysian Insider (TMI). Tun Haniff was quoted as saying

"“Chin Peng submitted his application quite late ... towards the end of the period."

The report was referring to the one-year window given to former Communist leader Chin Peng and his followers to return home after signing the 1989 Hat Yai peace treaty.

In another NST report on September 9, 1991, then Special Branch director Datuk Zulkifli Abdul Rahman had said that Chin Peng’s application “was being processed” and would be given the same treatment as the rest.

The remarks were made after the first batch of 13 ex-CPM (Communist Party of Malaya) members were allowed to return home. Then the following day, IGP Haniff had also said that Chin Peng’s application was being “studied”.

MP Teresa Kok said,

"..Has Tun Haniff ever denied or can he deny that he never said what he said to NST in 1991, that is , Chin Peng had submitted his application quite late but obviously WITHIN the stipulated one year period?.

"If Chin Peng had indeed submitted his application to return home within the stipulated one year period, then Tun Haniff should explain why was his application rejected."

Teresa Kok pointed out that apart from contradicting himself, Haniff’s words were also spoken in CONTRARY to Chin Peng’s own recollection of the past as written in his memoirs My Side of History.

Teresa Kok said,( quoting from the book):

“In his final chapter, entitled ‘A continuing exile’, Chin Peng had said: ‘After meeting my end of the 1989 peace accords, I had looked forward to a homecoming. In late 1990 I made applications to settle down in Malaysia, but was rejected at the end of December 1991,”

Teresa Kok also noted that Chin Peng’s words appeared to be consistent with the NST report in 1991, particularly in as far as the date of his application is concerned.

“If Chin Peng had indeed submitted his application to return home within the stipulated one year period, then Tun Haniff should explain why was his application rejected,” Kok said.

Chin Peng lost his lawsuit, which was filed in 2009, to be allowed back into Malaysia when the Federal Court ruled a year later that he needed birth and citizen certificates to re-enter.

CHIN PENG - OBITUARY by LAWYER TOMMY THOMAS

OBITUARY 

CHIN PENG, A MALAYAN NATIONALIST.

BY

Tommy Thomas
(Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer
based in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/obituary-chin-peng-a-malayan-nationalist

AS A LAWYER FOR CHIN PENG, and the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) in their recent unsuccessful litigation before the Courts of Malaysia, I am deeply saddened by his death in Bangkok on September 16, 2013 at the ripe old age of 88, and call on the Malaysian Government to honour the 1989 Peace Treaty with the MCP by permitting his burial in his birthplace, Sitiawan, next to his parents.

Posterity will remember Chin Peng as ONE OF THE GREAT LIBERATION FIGHTERS of the second half of the 20th century.

Indeed, he led an armed struggle AGAINST TWO IMPERIALIST POWERS:

- the Japanese from December 1941 to August 1945, and
- the British thereafter until 1957.

HISTORY WILL CONSIDER CHIN PENG IN THE SAME WAY AS HO CHI MINH and SUKARNO, who led nationalistic campaigns against French and Dutch imperialism.

Treating Chin Peng as a major contributor to Merdeka does not in any way detract the equally worthy contributions of Founding Fathers like Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, Tan Cheng Lock and V. T. Sambanthan.

Appropriate analogies would be the different roles played by:
- General George Washington and politicians John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to the American War of Independence in 1776, and
- peaceful non-violent campaign of Gandhi and Nehru,
in contrast to the armed struggle of Subhas Chandra Bose which led to India’s Independence in 1947.

All of them were TRUE PATRIOTS.

Leading scholars of modern Malayan history and politics, including Professors Jamie Mackie, Anthony Reid, Anthony Short and Wang Gung Wu, attended a Symposium with Chin Peng at the Australian National University in Canberra in February 1999 which resulted in the publication of a book entitled Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party, edited by C. C. Chin and Karl Hack.

In a dialogue session on MCP’s role in Merdeka, Chin Peng was quoted as stating:

“But we didn’t experience defeat in forcing the British to grant independence to Malaya. Without our struggle, I don’t think the British would grant independence to Malaya. Or it will be many years later. According to Sir Robert Thompson (the British counter-insurgency expert whose services were later sought by the Americans in the Vietnam War), before he passed away, he admitted we at least accelerate the Merdeka for 10 to 15 years. The BBC people told me. Unfortunately, I don’t have the chance to meet him." (Pages 234-235].

One of the most contentious issues during the 5 rounds of negotiations between the Malaysian Government and MCP, under the auspices of the Thai Government, held in 1989 in Phuket, was MCP’s role in achieving Merdeka.

In his My Side of History, published in 2003, Chin Peng stated:

"Would Britain have granted independence to Malaya as early as 1957 had the military activities of our guerillas not been a factor in the equation? This was explored at length during the private negotiating sessions. Finally, Rahim Noor, speaking in the Malay language from notes in a fully recorded meeting, made the announcement that Malaysia did not deny or dispute MCP’s contribution to the struggle for independence. As to the extent of this contribution, he went on, there was no need to argue the matter in this forum. It should rightly be an issue left for historians.” [Page 490].


Hitherto the ORTHODOX HISTORY OF MERDEKA has by and large been written by the victors: hence, IT IS UMNO and ALLIANCE-CENTRIC.

Hardly any mention is made of, let alone proper acknowledgement given, to others deserving of praise like Onn Jaafar, Burhanuddin Helmi, the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) and other non-mainstream figures.

We hope that THE TRUE HISTORY OF MERDEKA WOULD BE RESEARCHED AND PUBLISHED IN THE COMING DECADES. . We are confident that in such an endeavour, CHIN PENG WILL TAKE HIS RIGHTFUL PLACE AS A MAJOR NATIONAL ICON.

At a personal level, representing Chin Peng is one of the highlights of my career.

His charm, easy-going manner, sense of humour and humility left an indelible mark on the legal team, led by Malaysia’s leading barrister then, the late Raja Aziz Addruse (who we also deeply miss and fondly remember) and also included Chan Kok Keong and Leong Cheok Keng. Chin Peng graciously hosted us in Bangkok.

ONE OF CHIN PENG'S REQUEST IN THE BALING TALKS OF 1955 with Tunku Abdul Rahman was for the Malayan Government TO REVOKE THE BANNING OF THE MCP AND TO ALLOW IT PARTICIPATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL PROCESS, thereby giving the voters of Malaya an opportunity of accepting or rejecting MCP as a legitimate political party.

That request was wholly unacceptable to Tunku, and DISMISSED OUTOF HAND.

He returned to the jungle to resume the armed struggle against the colonial power.

Chin Peng truly believed and practised the principle that those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable.

In 1959, the State of KERALA IN KERALA elected the first Communist Party in the world in free, fair and democratic elections. In the next 50 years, Kerala’s communist party has been defeated and re-elected on numerous occasions. Never has it not left office peacefully when the electorate rejected it.

HAVING MET CHIN PENG, no doubt in his twilight years when he appeared as everyone’s favourite grandfather, I am convinced that had Tunku agreed to permit the MCP and Chin Peng to participate in Malaya’s general elections, the first one held in 1959, and had MCP been elected, and had Chin Peng come to power, he would have voluntarily relinquished power if MCP had subsequently been defeated in the polls.

It is MALAYA'S TRAGEDY that such a possibility NEVER occurred.

I hope the Malaysian Government will be compassionate in permitting Chin Peng’s burial in his motherland, a country which he loved so much, and for which he fought two imperial armies far more powerful than his own guerilla force.

May his soul rest in peace.

TOMMY THOMAS
September 17, 2013.

-------
Tommy Thomas - Profile

Tommy Thomas was called to the Malaysian Bar in 1976, Mr. Thomas started his career at one of the largest law firms in Malaysia before being invited to join its partnership in 1982.

In a career as a Barrister spanning over 35 years, Mr. Thomas has had the privilege of appearing as counsel in landmark cases in various branches of the law; in all the courts of Malaysia, from the magistrate’s court to the Privy Council in London, which was Malaysia’s highest court until 1985.

Mr. Thomas has had more than 120 reported cases and countless unreported cases.

He has been singled out as one of Malaysia’s leading litigation lawyers by numerous independent international publications including The Asia Pacific Legal 500, Which Lawyer, Who’s Who Legal (The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers), Commercial Litigation Lawyers of Asia and Chambers Asia.

http://tommythomas.net/profile-tommy-thomas/