- PSM offers closer cooperation with Pakatan
- Karpal finds loophole for independent mps
- Zahrain slams Malaysiakini over Washington report
- Angry barks at 'BN attack dogs'
- BN..Not End.”Certainly Some Black Areas..”
- Malaysian Parliamentarians and their unending dramatics.
- Gerakan doesn't support local elections in Penang?
- Najib to unveil proposals to end NEP
- As I said before
- Zahrain names 8 Barisan MPs he claims were set to cross over
- EC should look into automatic registration, says Khairy
- Ann Coulter’s One Page Healthcare Plan
- Apco not involved in 'One Israel' concept
- 'Zambry may be Perak MB but I'm still speaker'
- BN moves to refer Anwar to privileges committee
- The Broken Shield: SHATTERED HOPES AND BROKEN DREAMS
- Can Robert Ason, Tetangga Akrab Pelita Pantu Sdn Bhd be Charged Contempt of Court, by keeping on bringing INTERVENERS harrasing the NCR Landowners?
- Another load of crock!
- Jeffrey seeks talks with PM on new 20 Points deal
- Perak PR has a ‘strategy’ for March 30 sitting
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 03:43 AM PDT
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 04:26 AM PDT
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 03:35 AM PDT
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 03:16 AM PDT
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 07:30 AM PDT
Eversince DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang came out with the bold prediction of denying Sarawak BN 2/3rds majority the people on the streets in Sarawak are asking,"Possible Kah..? Sarawakians according to a former journalist has a delayed reaction and the tsunami of 308 is reaching the shorelines now.Just about…..
Natasha,Joey and Cindy of audie61 went around asking professionals,graduates,man on the streets and asked,"Will the Opposition HAVE ENOUGH IN THEM to topple the present State BN..?" But before they embark on their rounds in the opinions audie61 checked with their lawyer as someone might just instigate a "DELAYED REACTION" as some people just want to do things behind the "Cloaks of Invicibility"
Of course the original question was more straight forward and it will be highly irresponsible on our part to publish it here eventhough it was brainstormed and decided by the majority to use it. My hands are itching to put the question out….Where are my glasses..hehehe.?? The lawyers shouted across the room no,no,no..NOoooooo.
We look at the 71 seats break it down into urban and rural and also the racial mix on the constituencies. How many are winnable? Barring any miracles of course the BN will still maintain the 2/3rd majority and will not cruise through like what SUPP President George Chan has confidently said.
What do you expect him to say said a graduate in business studies? Of course after losing heavily 8 out of 19 seats he needs to rally his troops and put up a Brave Face eventhough he knows DEEP DOWN IN HIS GUT that SUPP will face their usual adversary in DAP and expects a TOUGH OUTING AGAIN.
A former Chinese Pemanca said SUPP will do well to maintain 11 out of 19 their seats and Ido fear for SUPP as the young urban voters do not care about what SUPP Has done in the pasts and this younger set of voters are already turning their backs on the party which is "plague or diseased with infightings at mosts levels"
It seems that the in-thing suits them and DAP is Coca Cola to them while SUPP is like Green Spot where it has their own fanbase. The suspension of DAP Batu Lintang Assemblyman and DAP is bold to take out such an action. It is a no nonsence approach which the young urbanites sees it as a "feather in the DAPs cap in Sarawak."
A dayak undergraduate said to Joey,"It was a known fact by one BN coalition party did not take the appropriate action against the persons when it was a necessity and today it is back haunting the coalition." The difference is that this will harm the BN coalition in the dayak areas as they will surely be disuntiy and it will turn to 'BN versus BN" and the opposition Pakatan group will benefit handsomely.
BN in the dayak areas was grey areas and now its slowly turning Black and its a warning SHOT to the leaders in the coalition to stem out the root of the problems now or else pay heavily in the STATE POLLS LATER WHEN ITS CALLED.
According to a historian these leaders Suharto,Nicolae Ceaucescu,Manuel Zelaya were all ousted. Could this happen in Sarawak..? It will not be so drastic but if the Black Areas are Pakatans gain in time BN will lose more than its fixed deposit status.
The malay/melanau areas are still pretty safe but they will be skirmishes here and there but not enough to even lose more than 5 seats. The opposition will of course push the figures up and 1987 was a very good lesson in which PBDS won 15 Permas 5. If only they had looked at the Chinese areas then but that is history now.
The well greased Bn machinery of the ruling parties will be tested to the fullest this time around as it does look "CALM ON THE SURFACE BUT DEEP BENEATH THE SURFACE THERE IS CERTAINLY A CAUSE FOR CONCERN."
The usual NCR land issues will still be used but now its no more relevant to go for the voting people. The BN will have their own manifesto and the Pakatan group too but as in any elections the people will have their final say.
The simple things like roads,electricity,jettys,briges,water,community halls,schools,clincis will still be used to win some rural votes but its not enough anymore to them.
Its not only the bread and butter issues now but also the POLITICAL CANDIDATE that is presented to represent the coalition. Not everyone is a politician unless he has the heartbeat for the people and the people know now more than ever.
Nevertheless the coalition parties needs to clear up their own backyards before they even present a winning combination. i.e party plus candidature will go a long way to boost the mark X on the ballot paper. It has been uttered once too often,"Sarawakians are Afraid of Changes but they will be a time….." Could it be Pakatans time this round..? BN..Not End just yet..will you just let it go.
We have said it and after doing a survey we feel that,"the calm waters are not about to suddenly turn into raging waters unless a CERTAIN MIRACLE HAPPENS. Do you have what it takes to come out with it..?? Its election time and the politicians needs all the brains there is to turn an election campaign into a WINNABLE One. So what do you say….huh!!
Even our SB sources agree BN..Not end yet..as they indulged in the barbequed lamb and beef prepared by us at audie61.But some will be barbequed thouroughly in the black areas" The SB reports are not too far wrong and the YBs needs to buck out or be shipped out..You have been warned……
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 07:52 AM PDT
So, its back to the usual theatrics put up by our quite predictable bunch of parliamentarians or in the real sense a group of egocentric narcissistic individuals who happened to be voted into power by an electorate who have no choice in the selection of these persons in the first place?
Just look back at the 12th General Elections. All the current 'independent' MP's except for the Pasir Mas Ibrahim Ali were elected on the tickets of their respective former parties.
Come to think of it, did we elect the candidates based upon their personal standings or did we vote for the political party or coalition that they represented?
So here we are, facing the political circus once again.
The Malaysian Parliament is now in session and with it the usual circus acts take place without fail despite the admonishment by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong for the MP's to conduct themselves in a manner befitting their positions as the elected representatives of the people.
But as we all learned later, the usual culprits misbehaved once again and walked out of the hallowed halls of Parliament, betraying the trusts of the people whom they pledged to represent whenever their incessant demands were not met.
It has sadly come to this. A nation held in ransom by the antics of those who think that they are God's precious gift to this country going wild?
We are stuck with the lot till the next GE. Poor Malaysia!
In the meantime, watch the latest dramatics unleashed by the now 'independent Bayan Baru MP Dato Seri Zahrain who has turned into the proverbial Judas and plunged his verbal dagger into the back of the flustered Opposition Chief Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and exposed Anwar's failed 16th September 2008 coup de etat to takeover the Federal Government by inducing the BN MP's to flop over to the Pakatan Rakyat :
Unable to remain there taking all of Zahrain's barbs coming at him, the Opposition Chief hightailed it out of the Dewan Rakyat pronto! :P
Malaysian Parliament for you ladies and gentlemen, is truly in session.
Don't you miss Dato Seri S Samy Vellu and his 'Saya tadak takut sama you lah' tantrums? :P
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 06:14 AM PDT
I am not surprised that some people are getting irritated by Gerakan Tan Keng Liang's mosquito-like buzzing around Lim Guan Eng.
His latest gimmick may be read in Malaysiakini's Gerakan to Lim: Get house in order before meeting PM.
To put it briefly, because that's all it merits, Tan '…has dismissed Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng's attempt to meet Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak over the local elections issue as pre-mature.
He advised Lim to first meet with his superior, PR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim over their coalition's stand on local government elections before meeting the prime minister.'
No doubt Tan wants to make a name for itself, especially in a political environment where the Gerakan Party has been decimated, and cleansed from Northern Peninsula which was once its birth ground with Penang as its spiritual home. Incidentally, have you heard a peep from any Gerakan bloke on this issue?
Thus we may ask, today where/what/who is Gerakan Party other than the plaintive whimpering of one Tan Keng Liang – I suppose in that he is some sort of noisy hero in a very silent party – when one is very dead one is undoubtedly silent wakakaka.
Its president, as I had mentioned, is humiliatingly just a mere assistance to Idris Jala. Sayang saja, Koh Tsu Koon, a man who graduated from Princeton University with a degree in physics and a PhD in economics and sociology of education from the University of Chicago is now nothing more than an 'assistance' minister in report cards.
Forget about Koh, and let's examine Tan's most recent mosquito-like buzzing. Now he doesn't want Lim GE to meet with Najib to resolve the possibility of holding local council elections in Penang and Selangor.
We all know that Najib is the principal obstacle or objector to having local council elections restored to the Malaysian political structure, yet Tan doesn't want Lim GE to talk to Najib. It looks as if Tan in reality doesn't want Penang to have local election, which makes him a hypocrite – wait, not just that but a noisy hypocrite!
Not only that, this political nobody is attempting to prescribe to Lim GE, the CM of Penang, what steps the latter should adopt towards the holding of local elections.
Tan is attempting to set for Lim GE a task that belongs to Kedah PAS. Thus why should Lim even listen to the Kedah mosquito?
Unlike BN where a component party like the Gerakan Party has to constantly kowtow like a serf to its lord and master, UMNO, to get approval for every decision it wants to make, the Pakatan doesn't work that way where there is a bullying TaiKoh a la UMNO. The Pakatan is a loose alliance where each component party is a sovereign party which cooperates rather than subordinates itself to a master.
If PAS is reluctant to have local council elections, assuming it had promised this in its election campaign, then it must answer to its own electorate for its broken promise.
Similarly, the DAP and PKR shall similarly answer for its own actions, or lack of. There's no uncertainty that both DAP and PKR are fully committed to the 3rd vote. It's only UMNO preventing them from fulfilling their campaign promise.
Thus, UMNO and BN, which includes the walking dead Gerakan, shall eventually answer to the voters for its refusal to support the DAP Penang government (remember, Tan doesn't want Lim GE to meet with Najib) and PKR Selangor government holding local council elections.
Tan Keng Liang as a member of Kedak Gerakan would have failed miserably to (a) marshal BN support for Lim GE's proposal and (b) pressure his state's PAS government to do likewise.
A double failure and a noisy one, but I concede he may well be the only man (politically) alive (just barely) in Gerakan Party wakakaka.
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:41 AM PDT
Malaysia is considering proposals to end its subsidy regime and phase in a new goods and services tax (GST) as it begins dismantling a four-decade race-based economic system that has deterred foreign investment.
The economic regime adopted after race riots in 1969 has given a wide array of economic benefits to the 55 percent Malay population, but investors complain it has led to a patronage-ridden economy that has resulted in foreign investment increasingly moving to Indonesia and Thailand.
The cabinet has seen the reform proposals, which will be reviewed again before Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak presents them at the "Invest Malaysia" conference this month, a government source who has seen the plans said.
"The proposal cites political implications for some of the measures and calls for the government to make some tough decisions," said the source, who could not be named because of the controversial nature of many of the policies.
An aide to Najib declined to comment, saying the plans, which will be open to public discussion before taking effect in June, would be unveiled only at the end of this month.
The government last weekend abandoned politically sensitive plans to introduce a GST just weeks after scrapping petrol price increases aimed at cutting its subsidy bill, and an electricity price hike. It cited a need to "engage with the public" as reason for the delay.
The government will end budget crippling price controls and subsidies, mainly for fuel, food and power "with minimal exceptions", according to the reform plans, drawn up by a government advisory body.
"The savings should then be allocated to widen the social safety net for the bottom 40 percent of households," the source said.
The shift mirrors the opposition's policy of targeting benefits at the poor regardless of race, although as the majority of poor are Malays, it may have little change on outcomes or on the wider system of preferences enjoyed by Malays.
The reform plans also call for reductions in personal and company tax rates, although the levels were not specified.
Najib has already rolled back elements of the Malay affirmative action policy, relaxing a rule that companies must offer stakes to indigenous ethnic Malays.
A series of policy flip-flops in recent years have dogged Malaysia's reform efforts and the country has seen net foreign direct investment outflows to the tune of RM26.1 billion over the past two years.
Malaysia attracted 31 percent of the total foreign direct investment that went to Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand in 2008 versus half of that total in the 1990-2000 period, according to UN data.
Foreign ownership Malaysian shares dropped to 20.4 percent of market capitalisation at the end of 2009 from 26.2 percent at the end of 2007, according to official data.
Malaysia will seek to position itself in high growth industries under the new reform proposals, aiming to achieve per capita gross national income of US$17,000 by 2020, which would make it a developed nation by World Bank standards.
Countries such as South Korea and Singapore have already made that leap. Without a radical reshaping of its economy and a move away from low-value added electronics exports and labour intensive commodities industries, Malaysia risks losing ground to the likes of China and Vietnam and not making it to developed nation status, a recent World Bank report said.
It is unclear how far the proposals will go in reshaping Malaysia's social system, blamed by some political analysts and economists for fostering graft and an uncompetitive economy.
"If the government wants to do it right, you will have to rope in everyone including the opposition," said Shaharuddin Badaruddin, Associate Professor at Universiti Teknologi Mara in Kuala Lumpur.
"This is the biggest difficulty now for the government in terms of implementing economic reform politics," he added.
Malaysia's political system has been polarised by the trial on sodomy charges of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who says they are part of a political conspiracy.
The current system gives majority Malays a range of benefits, from cheap loans and discounts on property to preferential access to education and preferential equity in companies.
The government has repeatedly sought to reassure Malays, its core voter base, their rights would not be eroded even as it tries to woo back ethnic Chinese and Indian voters who deserted the coalition in droves in the 2008 general election.
The report said a backlash against the proposed reforms could come from industries that have enjoyed protection from competition as well as from politicians whose constituents did badly out of the planned changes.
The blueprint offered no details on cutting the budget deficit other than through "prudent spending", although a higher growth target of 6.5 percent annually would boost tax revenues. The economy shrank by 1.7 percent last year.
Under its 2010 budget, the government had planned to reduce subsidies by RM3.6 billion this year by altering its petrol subsidy regime from May, a measure that will now not likely happen until after elections, due by 2013, but which political analysts say could come in early 2011.
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:38 AM PDT
The book, Chronicles of the Shariah, talks about the evolution of the Fiqh. Note the key word here: evolution. Evolution or evolved means it grew or transformed over time. It developed as time went on. And it developed, evolved, changed, was modified, etc., to suit changing 'norms' in society and differences in regions, cultures, and whatnot.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I have attempted to address the issue of the Shariah, Jihad, amar maaruf, nahi munkar, and whatnot, for some time now. However, I have faced many problems with and opposition from Malaysian Muslims for two reasons.
First, I am not an Islamic scholar. So I am not considered an authority on Islam and they feel, therefore, I should not be talking about Islam. Second, Malaysian Muslims have been brought up to believe in and to follow a certain interpretation of Islam and any other interpretation, especially if it contradicts the 'Malaysian version', is considered deviant teachings.
Because of that I have antagonised many people and those who used to be my friends in the past, today, consider me an enemy of Islam. It is in the Malay mindset to believe that Malaysians are the best Muslims in the world. And when we refer to 'Malaysian Muslims' it translates to 'Malays'. Even Malaysian Indian Muslims are sometimes treated with suspect while Chinese Muslims, although they may have been Muslims 800 years before the Malays even heard of the word 'Islam', are labelled as mualaf (meaning 'converts', but almost demeaning in that these are sort of 'second-class' Muslims).
I remember, back in the old days, if you converted to Islam you would be said to have 'masuk Melayu' (become a Malay). Converting to Islam means you convert to Malay. Malay is 'higher' than Islam. It is not so bad today, though, but this 'masuk Melayu' thing of some years back clearly defines the Malay mind -- at least then.
It is common enough to hear Malays say that the Arabs are the worst Muslims in the world. Some even say that God sent Islam to the Arabs and not to the Malays because the Arabs are the worst people on earth -- so they needed Islam. If Islam had been sent to the Malays instead of to the Arabs then the extremely stubborn and confrontational Arabs would have never become Muslims.
I would not go so far as to say that the Malays have a superiority complex and that they consider themselves above other Muslims -- while they consider 'all others' as being deviants of sorts. But it is very difficult to not imagine the Malays as having a chip on their shoulders if you judge them from what they say.
When we talk about Islam there are just too many issues to discuss and it is impossible to cover them all in just one article. So I would like to talk about just one issue, the Shariah. Of late, with the controversy of women being caned and in response to the Perlis Mufti's statement on the Shariah (read below), maybe this is the best place to start.
Before that, look at the book below. I suggest you try to buy it on Amazon and read it. I am not going to deliberate on the contents of the book because it will be too much to discuss and none of you are going to read an article that is 50 pages long.
Now, one point I have argued in the past (which most Malaysian Muslims do not agree with) is that the Shariah was not something that came in one go. I even went so far as to say that the Shariah did not exist yet during the time of the Prophet but that it evolved over hundreds of years, long after the Prophet Muhammad had already died.
Of course, this statement upset many Malaysian Muslims. They argue that the Shariah is from God so it must have already existed during the time of the Prophet and that it had been 'perfected' before the Prophet died. In that case read the other article below about the variants in the Shariah. How can it have existed during the time of the Prophet when there are so many 'versions' of the Shariah?
The book, Chronicles of the Shariah, talks about the evolution of the Fiqh. Note the key word here: evolution. Evolution or evolved means it grew or transformed over time. It developed as time went on. And it developed, evolved, changed, was modified, etc., to suit changing 'norms' in society and differences in regions, cultures, and whatnot.
The Shariah was never static or constant. Neither was it standard or uniform. A lot of customs, culture, tribalism, and so on, defined the shape and form of the Shariah from region to region and from generation to generation.
This is what Malaysian Muslims need to understand and accept, which they do not. The Shariah was not carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. It is fluid. It is man-made. It is an interpretation based on situations and demands of that era and region.
One final point that I wish to make, which I know will not go down well with most Malaysian Muslims, is that quite a bit of the Shariah was based on old pre-Islamic tribal laws and customs. These pre-Islamic ways just continued after the introduction of Islam.
Take, for example, the marriage of what the modern world would regard as 'underage' girls. Underage is a 'modern' concept. In the old days, girls of 18 were 'old women' and boys went to war at 15 and by 18 they were 'veteran soldiers'.
The old tribal customs allowed a man to marry any girl who already has her period. This girl may be just 12 or 13 but as long as she has her period then it is legal, from the Islam perspective, to marry her.
In fact, the Javanese community in Malaysia practiced this even as recent as the 1960s. I do not know whether in certain parts of Indonesia it is still being practiced.
Today, this practice would be frowned upon even though Islam allows it. Should Muslims ban marriages of minors even though Islam allows it? That should be something Muslims reconsider after some serious 'soul searching'.
The keeping of slaves is allowed in Islam, as is having sex with your female slaves. There is nothing wrong with this, according to Islam. But should the keeping of slaves, and using them for your sexual pleasure, still be permitted?
We are no longer living in the Saudi Arabian desert of the year 700. It is now the year 2010. To argue that what was allowed 1,300 years ago must not now be banned is not a valid argument.
Piracy was allowed 500 years ago. Englishmen like Francis Drake (1540-1596) and Walter Raleigh (1552-1618) were knighted and died as Sirs for their 'patriotism' and 'service to The Crown'. They walked in the court of Queen Elizabeth I (1553-1603) for their 'noble' acts of piracy.
Today, piracy is a crime. It was not so 500 years ago. So why must what was allowed and accepted as a noble and heroic profession in days gone by now be regarded as unacceptable?
Yes, 'good' customs and cultures of before are frowned upon today and are no longer considered good. Burning deviants alive at the stake was the work of the church in the past (as recent as the 1700s, even in countries like America, they burned 'witches', who were considered disciples of the devil). If the church tries that today the people will burn down all the churches instead. So the church too had to change with the times.
I will stop here and allow you to read the pieces below. May the Malaysian Muslims find enlightenment in these 'other opinions'. 2010 is the time for reflection. And there is much Malaysian Muslims need to reflect upon.
Time to review syariah laws, says Mufti
The country's Islamic Family Law needs to be comprehensively reviewed although it has been enforced all this while, according to Perlis Mufti Dr Juanda Jaya.
He said one of the issues that should be looked into is marriages involving underage girls, which could be curbed by the religious authority (court).
Juanda was responding to the widely reported controversial child marriages between two girls aged 10 and 11 to two men aged 40 and 41 in Kelantan recently.
While several NGOs have spoken out against these child marriages, Islamic Affairs Minister Jamil Khir Baharom had on Tuesday defended Islamic laws that allow girls under 16 to marry.
Jamil Khir had reportedly said: "Maturity is a subjective question. It depends on the development of the person. Maturity is not based on age solely. There is no need to amend the law…"
Juanda, meanwhile said it would be sad if weaknesses in the Islamic Family Law were left unchecked as this could tarnish the image of the religion.
"Do we want our syariah law to be complete and beautiful, or outdated and narrow?" he said adding that besides the Islamic Family Law, the other syariah laws could also be reviewed.
He said it was time for all Muslims to seriously address the issues to protect the image of Islam and the community. -- Free Malaysia Today
Within Shia Islam there are 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. Within again, Sunni Islam there are at least 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. There are issues on which no two ulema of different sects agree. Not superficial issue; even the fundamental ones. You have only to read the Munir Inquiry Report. Justice Munir, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was one of the two judges who were appointed to investigate into the background, reasons and the modus operandi of the anti‑Ahmadiyya riots in 1953. Who was responsible and who was not? How to define a Muslim?
During the course of the inquiry, justice Munir pointedly asked every Muslim scholar who appeared before him if he knew of a definition of Islam which could be acceptable by the other sects as well; which could equally apply to everyone and by the help of which we could define, 'Yes, this is Muslim', and 'That is not Muslim'. In the report justice Munir submits that no two scholars of all the Muslim scholars interrogated, agreed on a single definition of what Islam was.
In the case of one particular scholar, he wanted some more time to think over it, and justice Kayani, who was a partner with justice Munir, had a very peculiar sense of humour. His answer was: 'I cannot give you more time, because you have already taken more than thirteen hundred years to ponder over this question. Is that not enough?
If thirteen centuries, plus some years are not enough for you to be able to define the very fundamentals of Islam ‑ what is a definition? ‑ how much more time would you require?'
So this is a very grave issue. If the Shariah interpretation of one sect is imposed, then it will not just be the non‑Muslims who will be dispossessed of the fundamental right of participation in the country's legislation, but within Islam also there would be many sects who would be deprived of this right.
The Interpretation of which sect is to be imposed on Shariah Law?
Again there are so many other problems: For instance, according to some Shariah concept, the punishment for a crime is so much different from the concept of another sect, that Islam would be practised in the world so differently on the same issue, that it would create a horrible impression on the non‑Muslim world. What sort of faith that is which advises one punishment for the same crime here and another there. And in some other places it is just the very thing to do and it's no crime at all.
These and many such issues make the question of imposition of Shariah almost impossible.
Moreover, the fundamental rights of other sects are also tampered with, or trampled upon, in many possible situations. For instance on the question of drinking of alcohol. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, alright; but, the very question of whether it is a punishable offence and whether the punishment, if any, is imposed by man in this world, is a fluid issue. It is a controversial issue and has not yet been agreed upon by all the people involved. What is the punishment of drinking? The Holy Quran does NOT mention any punishment. This is a fundamental law, the Book of law and it is inferred from some Tradition, by some scholars, that; that should be the punishment. But that inference is far‑fetched and the Traditions themselves are challenged by others not to be authentic.
So, will a large section of not only Muslim society, but also a large section of non‑Muslim society, be punished for such reasons as in themselves are doubtful. Whether it's valid or not, this is the issue. Yet there are extremists, everywhere and particularly those who go for Shariah to be imposed.
You will find many extremist who are totally intolerant of others opinion. Consequently, such grey areas also will be taken as No Doubt areas by the extremists. They will say, 'Yes, we know; it's our opinion. It's the opinion supported by a medieval scholar or our thinking. And that is law.
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV, in a speech delivered on 3rd June 1991 at a conference called SHARIAH: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND POLITICS IN ISLAM held in Suriname
Senior Muslim clerics in Jakarta oppose suicide bombers and radical Islam
Religious leaders in Indonesia's capital back national unity and view democracy as the best form of government. Almost three quarters (74 per cent) are not against the separation of state and religion; 80 per cent reject the notion that violence is necessary to spread Muslim religion.
Jakarta (AsiaNews/Agencies) – An overwhelming majority of senior Muslim clerics in Jakarta reject suicide bombings, believe in national unity and consider democracy is the best form of government, this according to a report released today.
The study was conducted by the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture (CSRC) at Jakarta's Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University between November 2008 and January 2009. It surveyed 250 takmir masjid (mosque managers) in Jakarta.
Some 88.8 per cent of them approve of Pancasila [Indonesia's state ideology] and consider the 1945 Constitution as the best model for Indonesia.
As many as 78.4 per cent agree that democracy is the best system of government for Indonesia.
"However, we found a kind of split personality among the mosque managers. As citizens they support Pancasila as the state ideology for the country, but as Muslims they support the establishment of an Islamic country," CSRC senior researcher Sukron Kamil said.
Only 31 per cent support the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law, 56 per cent are against and 13 per cent did not answer.
Some 74 per cent said they would not fight a government that refuses to implement Sharia law against 14 per cent who said they would.
Significantly, some 74 per cent did not agree that the main purpose of jihad was to wage war
"On the question of whether violence is allowed to uphold amar ma'ruf nahi munkar [guiding people to the right path], 89 per cent of the respondents reject it, 9 per cent agree and the remaining 2 per cent are undecided," CSRC research coordinator Ridwan Al Makassary said.
The survey all shows that for 75 per cent of respondents suicide bombing cannot be considered jihad compared to 9 per cent who said it was.
"Generally, the majority of mosques in Jakarta embrace moderate Islamic ideas and thoughts.
Nevertheless, among the total there is a small number with a tendency toward increasingly radical Islamic ideas," Ridwan said.
courtesy of malaysia-today.net
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:33 AM PDT
Bayan Baru MP Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohd Hashim named eight Barisan Nasional MPs and an unnamed deputy Speaker whom he alleged the Pakatan Rakyat leadership claimed would cross over to Pakatan during the attempted Sept 16, 2008 government take-over.
He alleged in the Dewan Rakyat that the MPs from Kalabakan (Datuk Abdul Ghapur Sallehs), Kimanis (Datuk Anifah Aman), Kinabatangan (Datuk Bung Moktar Radin), Tawau (Dr Chua Soon Bui), Sepanggar (Eric Majimbun), Batu Pahat (Datuk Dr Puad Zakarshi), Jerantut (Datuk Seri Tengku Azlan Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar) and Gua Musang (Tengku Razaleigh) were set to cross over.
He told the House that he was disappointed with the Opposition, which had become engulfed with greed and self-interest, and had lost confidence in PKR after the attempted take over.
When Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar asked who the Deputy Speaker was, Zahrain said, "You know, I know-lah."
Zahrain, who quit PKR and was speaking as an Independent MP in Parliament Thursday, said that PKR Deputy President Senator Dr Syed Husin Ali had slandered him three days ago by saying that the process of cleansing had already been completed and that PKR was cleansed and rid of "grime and shit".
"I would like to emphasise that God had done the cleansing process in PKR. We who are clean were removed from PKR and what was left was grime and shit," he said when debating the motion of thanks on the Royal Address.
He advised Syed Husin to read the book Shit by literature Professor Emeritus Datuk Shanon Ahmad.
"Today, in this august House, I would like to expose the shit so that people know and will not continue to be hoodwinked with PKR's play of politics," he said.
N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR - Padang Serai) hit out at him by calling him the biggest hypocrite.
"I am willing befriend people who fight me but I won't befriend people who betray the trust given to them," he said.
Wan Junaidi reminded MPs not to use the word 'kamu' (you) and 'pengkhianat' (betrayer).
Tian Chua (PKR Batu) then took out a letter, apparently written by Zahrain to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, that he said debunked Zahrain's purported loss of confidence in PKR after Sept 16, 2008.
Zahrain immediately protested that it was not relevant.
"If it was true that on Sept 16 he (Zahrain) had lost confidence, why did he, in a letter on June 8, 2009, write suggesting that the Pakatan council in Penang should meet once a month so that top leaders could discuss and interact better with each other.
"He had also said: I also suggest that you chair the meeting in Penang," said Tian Chua.
Tian Chua went on to read: "On the confirmation of the title Datuk Seri, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the TYT (Tuan Yang Terutama) Governor for recommending me to receive it with your kind support.
"However, I understand from the meeting that TYT also proposed your goodself for the award of Datuk Seri of which you declined to accept and the TYT then suggested that the award be given to your father Lim Kit Siang who had contributed much to the nation.
"As a matter of respect to TYT, I will only accept the award of Datuk Seri in conjunction with your father's acceptance of the same.
"I want to make it clear that I want to work closely with you and maintain a relationship that is both sincere and fraternal in nature.
"I also look forward to a good working relationship between you and the representatives of the state government," Tian Chua finished reading.
"This shows that you agreed to receive the title," he told Zahrain.
Zahrain said it was not for him to ask for the title.
Zahrain also said he supported the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin's speech that voiced disappointment with the slanderous tone of the new media, including media portals.
He urged the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission to investigate MalaysiaKini and Raja Petra's news portal Malaysia Today which, he claimed, worked hand in hand with the Opposition.
Almost an hour in his speech, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud (PAS Kota Raja) and Dr Lo Lo Mohamed Ghazali (PAS Titiwangsa) protested that Zahrain had wasted time in the Dewan by repeating what he had said on Wednesday and the Dewan was being misused for political purposes.
courtesy of malaysia-today.net
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:25 AM PDT
Umno Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin said today that the Election Commission (EC) should seriously consider looking into an automatic voter registration system.
His remarks come despite the fact that the government announced this morning in Parliament that it had no plans to introduce an automatic voter registration system.
"I've always been keen, pro-auto registration. The EC should look into this. Of course it will take some time and effort, but I feel that this is necessary," he told The Malaysian Insider in Parliament.
Khairy, who is also Rembau MP, asserted that the issue here was how to find ways to make voting easier for future voters.
He said that he did not quite agree with the government's stand on the matter, and would discuss it with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak soon.
"The issue here is not whether they (voters) should be registering or not. Their choice should be whether they want to vote, or otherwise," he added.
Earlier, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government would continue with the existing procedures and policies and would not force the people to exercise their rights.
courtesy of Malaysian Insider
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 01:19 AM PDT
Makes sense to me! Summarized from here:
1. Allow interstate competition between insurance companies.
2. Allow insurance companies to incorporate in any state.
3. Remove government regulation of insurance plans except for the usual laws applicable to all types of companies.
Taken together, this will allow competition between all insurance companies, leading to hypermart/telco/budget-airline style reduction in prices and improvement in quality. Failure to do so will result in loss of customers due to that oddity known as market forces.
Insurers will also be free from government mandates such as compulsory inclusion of coverage for sex change operations, that 99.999% of Americans will never need but currently have to pay for nonetheless.
Finally, it will be much cheaper and quicker than Obamacare. But it won't give government power over one sixth of the economy and people's very lives either… So no wonder Dems pretend that no alternatives to Obamacare are being proposed, even when it's on the White House website. (Btw, the GOP/Boehner 4-point plan is very close to Coulter's 3-point one. I'm surprised she didn't use the chance to mock trial lawyers like John Edwards again!)
Browse the archives for many more, Starting from August 19, 2009.
Yes, she's snarky, physically attractive and loves to taunt liberals – but does that make what Ann Coulter says incorrect or unfactual? If so, can you debate her points above? Comments are open.
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:21 AM PDT
The following is a statement from consultancy agency Apco in response to the accusations by Anwar Ibrahim that it was the brain behind Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak's 'One Israel'.
In the course of parliamentary debate in Malaysia on March 17, inaccurate statements were made regarding Apco Worldwide and its role in Malaysia, as well as its work, past and present, in relationship to other governments.
In 2009, the government of Malaysia retained Apco, an international strategic communications company with 29 offices throughout the world, to assist in evaluating its capabilities to communicate through new media. Apco was also asked to assist the Malaysian government by sharing recent developments in strategic communication undertaken by governments in Europe, North America and Africa.
Apco's work has included communication support for a broad range of reform initiatives undertaken by the government of Malaysia, especially in the areas of creating jobs, promoting education, and strengthening delivery of services to the people. Apco is honoured to be provided the opportunity to assist the government in this important work.
However, contrary to statements made in Malaysia's Parliament, 1Malaysia was conceived of by the Prime Minister Najib Razak prior to the government of Malaysia retaining Apco. Apco had no role of any kind in creating the 1Malaysia concept, which was fully formed, and made public, prior to Apco's engagement.
It is also incorrect that Apco represented the government of Israel or Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak as has been alleged in Malaysia's Parliament. At no time has Apco been involved with a public relations campaign relating to a 'One-Israel' concept. The statement in Malaysia's Parliament that Apco was involved in such a campaign is false.
Apco is proud of its work over the past 25 years providing strategic communication services to many governments, including the government of Malaysia. Apco has also provided services to many of the world's leading companies and to international institutions such as the World Bank, United Nations, the European Commission and Asean, among others.
Clients include top Fortune 500 companies
Founded in 1984, Apco Worldwide is an award-winning, independently owned global communication consultancy with offices in major cities throughout Asia, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Its employees include people from more than 40 nationalities representing people of all of the world's major regions and faiths.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, Apco clients include corporations and governments; industry associations and non-profit organisations; and seven of the top 10 companies on Fortune's Global 500. Apco offers services related to business and finance; media, public opinion and society; and government and public policy.
courtesy of Malaysiakini
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:19 AM PDT
BN-appointed Perak assembly speaker R Ganesan cannot automatically claim to be the legal speaker of the house just because the Federal Court recently ruled that Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir from BN was the legitimate head of the Perak government
Ousted Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V Sivakumar (left in photo below) said: "There is no provision in the Perak constitution that states that Ganesan (right) can automatically become the assembly speaker just because the Federal Court has ruled that Zambry is the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak."
"Ganesan, being a lawyer, should have a better understanding of the laws of Perak. My advice to him is to go and study carefully the Perak constitution before making wild media statements claiming that he is the lawful assembly speaker," thundered Sivakumar.
Ganesan had released a media statement yesterday saying that he automatically qualified to be the legitimate assembly speaker following Zambry being declared as the legal head of government by the Federal Court.
At a media conference at the DAP state headquarters here today, Sivakumar outlined five reasons why Ganesan could not qualify to be the legal assembly speaker. They were:
The first was that on the day of the assembly sitting on May 7 last year, police had obtained a court order prohibiting members of the public from coming within a 500 metre radius of the state secretariat building where the state assembly hall is situated on the second floor.
Sivakumar questioned how Ganesan could have been allowed to enter the house when the police refused to let in eight Pakatan members of Parliament. "This means that Ganesan had illegally entered the House and had broken the law by not respecting the court ordered ban," alleged the Pakatan speaker.
Secondly, according to the state assembly's agenda for the May 7 sitting, the Regent of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah was supposed to have delivered his royal address before the business of the house could commence.
However, this was not adhered as Ganesan was appointed speaker in the morning before the royal speech in the afternoon was delivered and this move was illegal, pointed out Sivakumar.
Thirdly, according to Sivakumar further, assembly deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong had tendered her resignation letter as assemblyperson on Feb 3, 2009. As such she should not have attended the assembly sitting but she chose to and also broke the house rules by conducting the appointment of Ganesan while he (Sivakumar) was still sitting in the speaker's chair.
Fourthly, a day before the assembly sitting on May 7, Sivakumar said he had rejected the two motions by Pangkor assemblyperson Zambry and Sungai Rapat assemblyperson Hamidah Osman to remove Sivakumar as speaker and replace him with a new speaker.
Sivakumar said that both Zambry and Hamidah had been suspended for 18 months and 12 months respectively by the sate Powers and Privileges Committee headed by Sivakumar in February 2009.
Both motions were therefore invalid and could not be questioned or debated by any elected member in the assembly sitting.
Sivakumar said lastly, Ganesan had stopped being a practising lawyer within three months of being appointed as the assembly speaker which is a breach of Section 36A (5) of the Perak constitution which states that a member who is elected as speaker shall be disqualified from holding such office if after three months he is still practising his profession.
Sivakumar said Ganesan should have sent in his letter stating that he had ceased being a practising lawyer by August 7, 2009 to the Malaysian Bar Council but instead chose to send it later and backdating it.
courtesy of Malaysiakini
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 05:16 AM PDT
The government will decide whether to refer Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to Parliament's powerful special rights and privileges committee over his claims that Prime Minister Najib Razak's '1Malaysia' was a carbon copy of the 'One Israel' concept.
Should that be the case, Anwar could face a possible suspension from Parliament.
At a press conference at the Parliament lobby this afternoon, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri said the cabinet would discuss the matter at its weekly meeting tomorrow.
"I will bring this matter to the cabinet to inform the ministers on this allegation which we think is going overboard," said Nazri in response to Anwar's allegation yesterday that Najib's '1Malaysia' idea originated from the Zionist regime.
"The select committee will decide whether action should be taken against the opposition leader for uttering false statements in the Dewan, especially for making untrue allegations against the prime minister," added Nazri.
During lengthy three-hour speech on the royal address in Parliament yesterday, Anwar claimed that Apco Worldwide, a consultancy agency hired by the Malaysian government, was the brain behind the 'One Israel' slogan.
'A serious offence'
According to him, Apco had in 1999 advised former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak to adopt the 'One Israel' slogan.
Nazri, who is in charge of Parliament affairs, said that cabinet needs a majority consent for a before a decision on a motion to refer Anwar to the privileges committee is made.
KJ offers retort
Earlier today, Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau - BN) told the Dewan Rakyat that Anwar was a liar while waving a copy of Apco's official statement refuting Anwar's claims.
Khairy, then challenged Anwar to repeat his claims outside Parliament and prove his allegations about the Apco link to the 'One-Israel' campaign.
courtesy of Malaysiakini
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 04:53 AM PDT
The Broken Shield: SHATTERED HOPES AND BROKEN DREAMS
Support the bravery of the natives to find back their right for self determination.
Posted: 17 Mar 2010 11:27 PM PDT
Police Report No: Patu/000528/10 Pada 17/03/2010 jam lebih kurang 0200 pm, Saya mendengar Robert Ason mengatakan Court order suit No 22-1-2005-1 sg adalah palsu dan tidak benar. Saya membuat laporan ini untuk tindakan Polis. This is purely contempt of court order. Any comment? Interveners like Adam ak Bara, Kiai ak Linggi are there too?
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 03:04 AM PDT
This is by far the strangest comment I received in response to my blog post "What a load of Crock". Very disturbing indeed how some people reason.
"i think you are the one that need to check your pulse to see which country you are living in, or waht rhetoric and perception you want to believe. This country and govt has been so goood to you all these years (know you don't agree but one peaceful nite just close your eyes, with adam in your thoughts.. go back to the first memory you can remember and step by step think of all the phases in your life. then quietly conclude whether this is a blissful place or hell on earth .).. For some people the grass is always greener on the other side.... until they are actually on the other side... So disappointed in you patrick... I used to muse and enjoy your radio show...as i found it very thought provoking... but now you are just extreme....for the sake of being extreme.....Full of anger..."
Don't get me wrong, guys. I am not upset or angry about the comment. And the person has every right to disagree with what I say. It's just that I found it ...... well strange. Hee hee hee.
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 02:32 AM PDT
Maverick politician Jeffrey Kitingan wants to renegotiate the Malaysia Agreement, the founding document of federation, and is seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister to do so.
He hopes to strike a renewed agreement on the rights of Sabah and Sarawak as members of the Malaysian federation.
He said the two states were in an advantageous position because the federal administration depended on the bloc of MPs from the two states to remain in power. (There are 56 parliamentary seats for the two states out of a total of 222 in the Dewan Rakyat; all but four are held by Barisan Nasional members.)
"Sabah and Sarawak control the Parliament. We control the government. Without Sabah and Sarawak, the present government would have collapsed," he said, in a reference to the crucial importance of the Barisan Nasional's 52 eastern seats underpinning the party's current 56-seat majority in the Dewan Rakyat.
"We can capitalise on this situation and actually bring the federal government to the table and negotiate a new deal, a renewed Malaysia Agreement, a renewed 20 Points," he said.
However, he would need the backing of Sabah's BN leaders to make such a meeting happen.
"If they don't use this opportunity to capitalise on the advantage, that means our leaders are not interested in solving Sabah's problems and are only interested in money."
He said the proposed meeting should include veterans with some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the formation of Malaysia.
He would not go into more detail about his plans, saying: "It's better to go direct and discuss rather than talk about it publicly."
Anticipating attacks from suspicious observers, he said the proposed meeting had "nothing to do with politics or plans to start a new party".
Earlier this month, Jeffrey, who is PKR's chief for Sabah and Sarawak, led a delegation from the so-called Common Interest Group of Malaysia on a visit to London where they met members of the British Parliament to present the East Malaysian states' grievances over the Malaysia Agreement, to which Britain was a signatory.
"We consider the British government still responsible for our welfare, our interests and our rights in the Federation of Malaysia as Britain was the one which had handed us to the federation," he said when announcing the visit last month.
courtesy of FreeMalaysiaToday
Posted: 18 Mar 2010 02:26 AM PDT
The Perak Pakatan Rakyat has not completely backed out of their fight with the Barisan Nasional government and revealed today that it has formulated a "strategy" to face their foes in the coming March 30 state assembly sitting.
Barely two months after a Federal Court decision compelled them into making a promise that they would finally play nice with the BN and become a strong opposition, ousted Speaker V. Sivakumar told a press conference here this morning that the PR would continue to wage war against BN-appointed Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan in the assembly hall.
On Feb 9 this year, the Federal Court ruled that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir was the rightful Perak Mentri Besar instead of former chief Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.
Sivakumar said that the PR had their own strategy on how to face the sitting but would not reveal it for fear that it would give BN time to prepare their defensive move.
"In any case, if you want to ask me what is going to happen on March 30, I cannot tell you. Because even though we have our strategies on the previous sittings on May 7 and Oct 28 last year, we still could not pre-empt the things that happened. So I cannot tell you our strategy now because then I would be giving them the time and opportunity to plan their own moves. But I can assure you that we have a strategy," he said.
Sivakumar however did confirm that all 28 PR representatives, including himself as the "rightful Speaker of Perak", would be attending the sitting.
To prove they meant it, Sivakumar said that 27 PR state lawmakers had already submitted their oral and written questions to the state assembly committee on March 15, well within the stipulated deadline.
"They have all sent their questions to me and I have duly submitted it to the secretary of the assembly. I do not know about the BN's questions," he said, adding that he did not submit his own questions as he was the Speaker.
"My questions for my constituency of Tronoh will be asked on my behalf by my other assemblymen," he said.
Sivakumar also confirmed that he had sent out his own notices for the coming state assembly, similar to the one Ganesan had already sent out earlier.
"I sent my notices out on March 8. I sent it out to all the PR assemblymen as well as the BN, except for four people — the three frogs and Zambry.
"Number one, frogs are not allowed into the assembly hall. They have already resigned and since their case is still stuck in the courts and no hearing date has yet been set, to me, they have resigned," he said.
For Zambry, said Sivakumar, the Pangkor assemblyman should not be allowed into the sitting as his suspension punishment by the State Assembly's Rights and Privileges Committee last year was not yet over.
"He was suspended for 18 months as of Feb 18 last year. His six executive councillors were suspended for 12 months so their suspensions are over," he said.
On Feb 18 last year, Sivakumar, who chairs the committee, suspended Zambry and his executive councillors after conducting investigations on a complaint against the group's allegedly wrongful appointments.
Zambry and the executive councillors had however chosen to ignore the punishment, claiming that Sivakumar, in his position as Speaker, did not have the right to mete out such a punishment without first obtaining the consent from the state assembly.
Today however, Sivakumar reiterated PR's contention that the suspensions were indeed valid as they had been adopted during the controversial March 3 "tree sitting".
"We had the sitting, we had the quorum and at the time, my position as Speaker was not questioned," he said.
Meanwhile, Sivakumar again pointed out that Ganesan had no right to sit as the Speaker, listing five reasons for his opinion.
Of the five is that during the tumultuous May 7 sitting last year, the police had obtained a court injunction empowering them to arrest on sight any member of the public seen within a 500m radius of the Perak State Secretariat.
"Since Ganesan is just an 'orang awam' and he is not an assemblyman, he should not have been allowed to go near to the assembly hall. He had breached the injunction," he said.
The other reasons were that Ganesan had been appointed before the Perak Regent had declared the sitting open.
Also the appointment process had been illegal as it was done when Sivakumar was still seated on the Speaker's chair.
Added to that is the fact that the motion calling for Sivakumar's removal and the subsequent appointment of a new Speaker had been rejected a day before the sitting on May 6.
And finally, because Ganesan had failed to uphold the Perak Constitution when he did not resign as a practising lawyer three months after his supposed appointment.
With Sivakumar's words and the PR's apparent persistence in maintaining that they would not recognise Ganesan's appointment, the stage looks set for yet another farcical sitting this March 30.
courtesy of Malaysian Insider
|You are subscribed to email updates from Journal Sociopolitical Blogs |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|