Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Pakatan Rakyat’


In a recent interview by the Malaysian Insider, the de-facto leader of PKR, Anwar Ibrahim had ‘expressed his concerns’ over the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988. Quoting from the Malaysian Insider:

Q: So what should Pakatan Rakyat do with enactments such as Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988, which seems to be the core problem in this issue?

A: The enactment has an attachment and the problem is with that. The enactment is for the protection of Muslims from efforts to proselytise but the attachment in terms of the words is generally excessive. I was in Penang speaking to religious scholars when I told them how do you explain a resident on Jalan Masjid who uses Jalan Masjid on his or her address?

So they immediately know the problem. I think this must be addressed. Unlike immediately responding to demands of non-Muslims groups, you must also know about the incessant propaganda among Muslims that has led to some of them to believe that they are under siege.

I can’t believe that of all people, the person who claims that he is the best person to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia and who is now trying to become the Menteri Besar of Selangor, would make such a silly statement regarding an enactment made in none other than Selangor itself.

Oh, come on!

The Section 9 of the Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 says that the words (including Allah) cannot be used to express or describe anything of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. Quoting from the e-Syariah website:

 A person commits an offence if he

(a) in any published writing; or
(b) in any public speech or statement; or
(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or
(d) in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published of broadcast,

uses any of the words listed in Part I of the Schedule, or any of its derivatives or variations, to express or describe any fact, belief, idea, concept, act, activity, matter, or thing of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion.

When a resident on Jalan Masjid uses the word masjid on his address, he uses it to describe a location. He doesn’t use it to express something pertaining to a non-Islamic religion. Just like in the ‘state songs argument’, where the person would say that it would then be impossible for a non-Muslim to sing the state songs with ‘Allah’ in the lyrics, this argument is baseless. This is due to the fact that Allah mentioned in the lyrics is referring to the Islamic God. It is not subjected to the singing individual’s religion since Islam is the religion of the federation, as had been stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Not surprisingly, Anwar repeated the argument in the same interview.

Q: Like in the Selangor case, the Selangor state anthem has the word ‘Allah’… so does that mean that non-Muslims should not sing the anthem?

A: That is what has been raised. The point taken or the position of the Selangor religious department that is the law as it stands. But then the appendix to the law and manner of action is missing. So you have to see whether you should prosecute a person who puts down his address as Jalan Masjid. So far that has not happened. But that is the flaw in the legislation.

As I have copied from the e-syariah website, the Section 9 of the enactment clearly states that a person commits offense by using the words to express or describe anything of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. Anwar says that “the flaw is in the legislation”—it is not; the flaw is in those who innocently or not-so-innocently misinterpret the enactment.

Do your homework, get back to the facts, brother.

And this is exactly why we must never simply rely on the word of mouth (or media).

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


The Malaysian Insider reported that Karpal Singh calls for the de-registration of all political or professional bodies which operate along racial and religious lines, saying the move would work in the interest of unity. “The government cannot allow associations to operate along racial and religious lines. It is a very serious matter,” said Karpal.

However, I greatly disagree in this matter. First and foremost, Karpal Singh needs to go back to his roots and remember the history of the acceptance of the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. During the days when the African-Americans were segregated from the whites, the Malaysian government have already recognised the Chinese and Indians as their citizens. As a part of the social contract, the Chinese and Indians accepted the special position of Malays as the indigenous people of Malaya. In those days, countries were not being constantly pressured by outside bodies like the United Nations or the mass media. The compassion of our kings and leaders shine through the fact that even without influences from those human rights activists, they gave the Chinese and Indians such an honour that they would hardly get elsewhere at the time.

Secondly, Islam is granted a special place in the Federal Constitution such as written in Article 3 (1): “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” This article clearly states that Malaysia is not a secular nation as the idea of secularism separates state from religion. In Karpal’s statement, he says that, “Perhaps the time has come for all racial and religious political parties and professional organisations which operated along racial and religious lines, to be de-registered.” To ban an organisation which operates along the religion of Islam simply because it is a ‘religious line’ is a clear offense against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which is the supreme law of this country.

Thirdly, the presence of racial based political parties is not just to protect the special positions of the Malays but also to represent the Chinese and Indians of Malaysia. Although it is true that the government tries to be fair to all citizens of Malaysia, it is impossible for a person to fully understand the needs of another who conform to different cultures. By having different racial based parties under one coalition, it ensures that each of the representatives of the race has a say in the government. This system is also used in the United Nations where the representatives are not just a random blend of different people but to ensure fairness, each of the countries have their own delegates to represent the people of their nation.

And by the way, if this is Karpal’s stance, does it means that Karpal or the DAP wish for the Chinese and Indian schools to be disintegrated and for the children to study under the national curriculum like how it is done in Singapore? If so, had Pakatan Rakyat won the 13th General Elections, would DAP betray their Chinese and Indian supporters by abolishing the Chinese and Indian schools?

Read Full Post »


PETALING JAYA: Singapore has warned Malaysian politicians to stay out of its affairs, in the light of the arrests of 21 Malaysians for demonstrating in the island republic.

A joint statement by the Ministries of Home (MHA) and Foreign Affairs (MFA) said demands by Malaysian Members of Parliament for Singapore to let off those arrested was seen as foreign interference.

“Actions to involve foreign parties are attempts to seek special treatment and to further politicise what is essentially a domestic law and order issue in Singapore,” it said in a statement on its website.

Singapore added that it had always taken a strong stand against foreign issues or politics brought into the island nation.

It added that it did not interfere in domestic affairs of other countries, and expected similar treatment in return.

Previously, Malaysians gathered at Singapore’s Merlion Park on May 8 and 11 to protest against the May 5 general election results.

They were a rendition of the Blackout 505 rallies that took place in major cities around Malaysia.

On May 11, 21 Malaysians were arrested by Singaporean police. The work pass of one and visit passes of two others were revoked. The remaining 18 are currently being investigated by authorities there.

Several Malaysians have since approached their political representatives, including DAP’s Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching, for aid.

Last week Thursday, several Pakatan Rakyat MPs also petitioned the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur for leniency against the 21.

Meanwhile, in response, Teo said she was only fighting for the one whose work pass was revoked, arguing that the person was unfairly punished.

She said that the particular person only attended one rally, adding that Singapore’s reaction was too harsh.

“It’s not that we want to interfere with (Singapore’s) internal affairs. If (the one person) only attended one protest, then that is unfair,” she said.

Teo said that eight of the 21 had approached her over the matter, and with some telling her that they accepted their punishment.

She added that there was a spate of miscommunication in the episode, and asked Singapore to re-investigate the case.

“We’re only pleading for the one person…I don’t think this amounts to interfering. They are Malaysian citizens, and we have a duty to them,” she said.

(The Star Online http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/5/29/nation/20130529110855&sec=nation)

Read Full Post »


Bo la Wei is a lovely song in the Kelantanese dialect. Complete with kompangs, gongs and even serunais, this song is composed in a traditional Kelantanese folk style. The singer and composer, Eddie Hamid, wrote this song pleading for the people of Kelantan to open their eyes and see the problems they are facing under the PAS government. Despite the simple everyday words in the lyrics (it may be the sort of discussion you could hear between friends over a cup of ‘teh tarik’), Eddie Hamid captured the rhythm so well and one can hear his frustration in his singing which subconciously urge you to think again.

Unfortunately however, Eddie Hamid had been threatened by the opposition for composing this song. I find it most baffling because I fail to see his fault in composing this song other than that he pleads (and not even demand) for change in his homestate. Didn’t DAP release the ‘Ubah Rocket Style’ video (a parody of Gangnam Style) to aid their campaign? Isn’t Ubah Rocket Style all about change and highlighting their own discontent over the current government? In fact, Ubah Rocket Style is even worse for it not only ‘made fun’ of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansur in such an offensive way but accused her of things without proof to support the accusations.

Pakatan Rakyat complains that BN gives no room for freedom of speech. But yet, none of the creators or actors involved in the Ubah Rocket Style parody were threatened over the videos by either the police (whom they claimed to be nothing but pawns of the BN leaders), the BN leaders themselves or their supporters.

As it happened numerous times before, Pakatan Rakyat proves that they do not care tuppence for freedom of speech. Remember Mr. Benji Lim from the Bersih 3.0?

What happened to Mr. Benji Lim’s freedom of speech? Anwar Ibrahim, leader of Pakatan Rakyat could simply ordered Benji to be dragged out of the room against his consent. Benji’s crime was… practicing freedom of speech. And when a reporter asked him questions that he chose not to answer, he would simply shut him up by saying, “Oh, UMNO tak payahlah.”

Anwar also learned a new trick that may prove useful for the rest of us. Apparently, repeating a question is a crime by the opposition’s rule of law; so the offender could be sued for repeating a question.

Thank you, Dato’ Seri for this very useful tip. Now I can’t help but feeling that the new band, ‘NoDirectionShow’s latest hit song ‘Krisis air’ a marvellous insight into Pakatan Rakyat.

Read Full Post »


I had heard this song months ago as Anwar sang it almost everytime he gives one of his political talks.

Tanya sama Najib

Apa sebab goyang

Nanti jawab Najib

Sabah nak HILANG!

Back then, I was baffled by the point of the song. Of all the states, why Sabah? Is Sabah the only state Pakatan Rakyat felt hopeful for? If so, I would have thought that they should not advertise that fact; as Sabah alone cannot help them reach Putrajaya.

After all, Pakatan Rakyat won 5 states during the last general elections without singing such songs. Why are they gloating over one specific achievement? And by the way, what is that ‘achievement’?

Surprisingly, it was the Phillipines government who hit the nail on the head. They had discovered the connection between the Malaysian opposition party and the sultanate of Sulu as reported by the The Phillipines Inquirer on their article: ‘Gov’t intel eyes 3 groups abetting Sulu sultan’s claim’ (click here to read)

Whether the heirs of the sultanate of Sulu acted on their own to reclaim Sabah or were instigated by an external force to do so, one thing is certain, according to government intelligence sources: It was a business that proved too big for the heirs to handle on their own.

But apparently “some people” want to push it forward now. And why now, at this time, is one of the questions government intelligence is looking into.

“These are groups that wanted to ride on the Kirams’ pursuit with their own interests in mind,” one of the sources said.

Another source added: “There are a lot who can gain from this, not just in the Philippines but in Malaysia as well.”

The third group is allegedly the Malaysian political opposition, which is gearing up for general elections that may be called before June.

The intelligence officer said that one member of the Malaysian political opposition allied with Anwar Ibrahim was running for a post in Sabah.

“Apparently, this politician was one of those who spoke with the Kirams. He supposedly gave the opposition’s support to the Kirams’ claim to Sabah,” the source said. (The Phillipines Inquirer)

anwar ibrahim

Needless to say, our medias quickly picked up the news and it spread like wildfire. Of course, Anwar sued TV3 and Utusan Malaysia for linking him to the Lahad Datu incident and not the real source of the news; infact he even denied the existence of such claims in The Phillipines Inquirer.

Like father, like daughter

Like father, like daughter

This had happened before when Nurul Izzah blamed Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia for ‘twisting her statements’ when it was the opposition-linked news portal, Malaysia Kini who first reported the news and both Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia only ‘picked up’ the news from Malaysia Kini.

Ironically, the article does not mention Najib AT ALL as Anwar had claimed. Apparently, what he accused UMNO of “incapable of thinking of anything else” might be a subconcious confession of his own.

images (4)

Can this Lahad Datu incident be the achievement Anwar was gloating about? Can Anwar be among the heartless and selfless plotters behind this violence? Is that why the first person who claimed that the Lahad Datu incident as a conspiracy was the vice-president of PKR, Tian Chua?

Anyway, a popular blogger Husin Lempoyang wrote that Anwar did not finish the song; so he continued the song for Anwar:

Tanya pada Sabah, apa sebab hilang
Nanti jawab Sabah, Sulu nak serang

Tanya pada Sulu, apa sebab serang
Nanti jawab Sulu, Anwar yang rancang.

Tanya pada Anwar, apa sebab rancang
Nanti jawab Anwar, inilah kerja Pakatan..

Saya sudah bilang, jangan ulang ulang
Kalau ulang ulang, I saman you …

(Husin Lempoyang)

Read Full Post »


The leaders of Pakatan Rakyat, including those from the Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS had agreed to allow the Malaysian Christians to use the word Allah in the Malay version bible.

Gereja-Allah-300x225

Disappointed over the issue, the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah held an urgent meeting with the Mufti of Selangor and the high ranking members of MAIS and JAIS and decided that Allah could not be allowed to be used by any religions other than Islam. The secretory of MAIS, Datuk Mohd Misri Idris said, “The Sultan of Selangor has made a decision and decreed that the word Allah is a sacred word specific for Muslims and prohibited to be used by any non-Muslim religion in Selangor as stated in a fatwa and gazetted on Feb 18, 2010.”

In response, PKR’s Anwar Ibrahim criticised the statement by saying that, “MAIS has nothing to do with the Selangor government. That is why all of their critics were pointing towards Pakatan… never towards UMNO.”

It is obvious that Pakatan Rakyat had shown constant lack of respect towards the Sultan. (Please read,Sultan Not Invited To Selangor Merdeka Celebration, Who’s Fault?) so it is not surprising for Anwar to openly (though indirectly) question the authority of the Sultan as the Head of The Religion of Islam as it had been written in the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 3(2) states that:

In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution of that State, and, subject to that Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observances of ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to represent him.

In their published administration master plan, Buku Jingga, the Malaysian opposition (unregistered) coalition named Pakatan Rakyat gave honeyed promises to the Malay Muslims that the first two of their main objectives are:

1. To defend the Federal Constitution, Islam as the religion of the Federation while other religions can be practiced peacefully anywhere in the country, the special position of the Malays and the indigenous people anywhere including Sabah and Sarawak, and the legitimate interests of other races in accordance to Article 153. 2. To defend the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy.

But in just one lash of his tongue, Anwar who is the leader of the Malaysian opposition had gone against both of these objectives. As written in the Article 3(2) of the Federal Constitution, Sultan Sharafuddin has full authority to prohibit the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims, in his capacity as the Head of Religion (Islam) in Selangor. And nobody has the rights to belittle his majesty’s decree.

It is obvious that Anwar had gone against the Federal Constitution by questioning the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy in his statement on Sunday. This shows the Pakatan Rakyat’s etiquette.

anwar-ibrahim

Anwar Ibrahim had shown his true colours in Bersih 3.0 when he practically drove the demonstrators into danger by instigating the crowd into a violent mad rush as they crashed into the police barricades, almost causing a stampede! And after throwing his supporters into a dangerous situation, Anwar was caught on camera grinning with satisfaction before disappearing from the scene; leaving his supporters to fight with the police without him and endangering their lives in such a ruthless and violent situation.

The same goes with PAS leaders. Calling themselves as ‘very Islamic’, they at the same time commit actions that had not only humiliate the Muslims and but also Islam. Crazily involved, planning and taking part in all kinds of unIslamic and useless political protests and demonstrations, PAS leaders ironically, rejected and even condemned the Himpunan Sejuta Umat; an event which was organised by Muslim NGOs calling the Muslims to strengthen their faith and to fight against apostasy.

Is the fight for Putrajaya is much more important in the eyes of the PAS’s leaders and members than the fight for Islam and the faith of the Muslims? I guess the answer is, “Yes!” PAS leaders are moving away from their once supposed goal of fighting for Islam, and are now making their decisions based on the topmost value upheld by PKR and DAP; total freedom.

The total freedom in voicing out their demands whether they are rational or otherwise in any way they wish to, including violent demonstrations as the Bersih 3.0. The freedom to swear as they like to anyone they choose, to show complete disrespect, to be ignorant and arrogant because it is their own rights as humans. The total freedom in their actions; to pull out a piece of rag and claiming that it is worthy to replace the flag of their own country, humiliating and denouncing their own nation on the night when the Malaysians are celebrating one of the biggest history of the country, Malaysian’s Independence.

What will be next for PAS? How about the total freedom in choosing who one wishes to be as what PAS’s allies in Bersih had been fighting for? Or in another word, the total freedom to practice homosexuality or to change one’s gender?

My siblings and I had often tried to point this out in our writings in trying to wake up our countrymen but we had been labelled as ‘UMNO bloggers’ whose views and thoughts are biased and brainwashed. My little sister, Aeshah in fact had been accused of being a ‘retarded BN supporter’ and was asked how much had she been paid by UMNO.

It really baffles me how PAS’s, PKR’s and DAP’s Malays can be so gullible to believe that the spoon that was thrustered into their mouths were filled with honey while it contains poison. When will those Malays be able to open their eyes and try to understand the Federal Constitution?

As Uncle Azril Mohd Amin had written:

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution unequivocally bestows upon Islam a special status that does not avail to other religions within the Federation. This arises from the fact that the said Article, clearly, exalts Islam. As a result of the exaltation, Islam exerts a dominating influence within the Federation’s social, political and cultural affairs in a way that sets it above the rest of the religions practised within the Federation.

Read Full Post »


Nurul Izzah speaking at the ‘Islamic State: Which version? Whose responsible?’ forum

The vice president of PKR, Nurul Izzah raised an uproar when on the 3rd of November 2012, she claimed that everyone, even the Malays, should be granted freedom in practicing religions of their choices. As a panel member of the forum ‘Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?’ organised by the ‘Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute’ and the ‘Islamic Renaissance Front’, she was asked if Malays should have religious-freedom like the Non-Malays. In reply, she said:

“When you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion… how can anyone say, ‘Sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays’? It has to apply equally.”

Please listen to her statement in the video below:


In the statement, she had obviously declared “it (religious freedom) has to apply equally”, meaning to every person disregarding their race or ethnicity including the Malays as she also said, “how can anyone say, ‘Sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays’?”

In the Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, a Malay is defined as one who professes Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay customs.

So why is she denying that she encourages Muslims to renounce Islam? She is now trying to sue Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian as well as a number of bloggers for slander, stating that:

“I regret there are people trying to twist my statement as if I disparage the issue of faith or accept Muslims who choose to apostate.”

Is she trying to say that while she wants everyone including Malays should be granted religious freedom, she at the same time doesn’t support the Muslims who choose to apostate? Though Malays are, by the definition written in the federal constitution, must be Muslims? And yet she claims that people are ‘twisting her statements’.

It doesn’t make any sense, does it? And how odd it is for a person who claims to fight for justice, when the news portal that reported her statement before Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian did was not being blamed for twisting her words. Is it because the news portal Malaysiakini is linked to the oppositions as claimed by many?

She is starting to sound exactly like the PKR leader who also happens to be her father, Anwar Ibrahim. Like father, like daughter – both sharing the idealism of Islamic liberalism and  religious pluralism, and both bombarded false accusations of defamation and slander mercilessly to the reporters who simply wrote down their statements, word by word.

Like father, like daughter

Despite that fact, they still have the heart to claim that Pakatan Rakyat and Party Keadlian Rakyat are fighting for ‘Human Rights’. In the same forum, to the questions on the rights of the LGBT community, Nurul Izzah stated that we should not ‘victimise’ anyone. Of course to Nurul Izzah, the LGBTs, who goes against the laws of nature and laws of Allah by their own choice, should be given their ‘rights’ but the reporters who reported what she said should be sued if her own statements went against her.

But of course, her dear father, Anwar Ibrahim would also agree with her that human rights and press freedom does not apply to folks from Utusan Malaysia or anyone who dares to tell the truth thus may stand in their way from reaching Putrajaya.

Malaysiakini wrote that “she said, what should be sought is “quality” where Muslims’ faith is strong. ‘Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in the hall and an active singing Catholic society did not influence me,’ she said.”

Obviously, it did… or she wouldn’t dare to say that Allah Himself said in the Quran that there is no compulsion in religion to all including the Muslims. How could her aqidah stays strong when she dared to make such a statement? Where is the ‘quality’ and what kind of ‘quality’ is she referring to?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: