In Islam, Saudi Arabia would not exist. Neither would Iran, Iraq, Turkey, or whatever. All would no longer exist. And Malays too would cease to exist. In Islam, a nation is not a race or country. These were creations of the infidels (the kafir), basically the European colonialists, and they were created so that the Nation of Islam can be divided in the spirit of divide and rule.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

DPM: Use Prophet's Teaching as a Shield to Face Challenges

(Bernama) - The challenge facing Muslims in the country is extraordinary, but they cannot be idle or be swept away by the test, as it will mean the downfall of the Muslim community.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said they needed to apply noble values including strengthening their leadership and character as recommended by Prophet Muhammad to face the challenge successfully.   

In his message in conjunction with the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad this year, Muhyiddin said one should not endeavour to remember Prophet Muhammad only today, or once a year.   

"On the other hand, the Prophet and his teachings must be in the heart of every Muslim and capable of becoming a shield when facing any challenges confronting them.”

Muhyiddin said that, in the context of Malaysia, all physical development had been provided while Muslims must have the spiritual strength to ensure a balanced development.   

Revealing Prophet Muhammad's struggle, Muhyiddin said, with his leadership which was revered until today, he placed priority on spiritual strength to support physical development, to set up a respected Islamic nation.   

He drew attention to the fact that the celebration of the birthday of Prophet Muhammad was a platform to prove that they preserved and practiced the noble values as recommended by the prophet.

"Praise the greatness of Prophet Muhammad, and absorb all his strengths into us all in helping to turn Malaysia into a nation which is respected and where Muslims are looked up to," he added.

**************************************

Dear Muhyiddin Yassin,

I love speculating. In fact, we all love speculating, even you. For example, you are speculating that at least 50% of the Indians will swing back to Barisan Nasional while Barisan Nasional has at least 40% of the Chinese support. This means if Barisan Nasional can win at least 55% of the Malay vote, then Barisan Nasional will, again, get to form the federal government while Pakatan Rakyat will be reduced to less than 80 Parliament seats and maybe just two states.

Anyway, let us talk more about that later. What I want to speculate about is, say, if the Prophet Muhammad were to return to earth today, would the Prophet agree with what you say and with what Umno is doing?

No doubt you have touched, or rather scratched the surface, of what the Prophet expects of us. Since you don’t really know, you are merely speculating. So allow me to also speculate.

I speculate that the Prophet would be extremely upset with what he would see if he did come back to earth today. And this is because of the following reasons.

Firstly, in the Prophet’s final sermon in Arafah, he made it very clear that God is opposed to racism. In fact, some Muslim scholars even condemn nationalism and call it bidaah. In other words, concepts such as Ketuanan Melayu are haram in Islam.

As you rightly pointed out, the Prophet’s mission and vision was to set up a Muslim nation, the ‘Nation of Islam’ as what Wallace D. Fard Muhammad said in July 1930.

Now, when we talk about a Nation of Islam, we are not talking about nationhood as in political boundaries. We are talking about nation in the context of a community, the ummah, as what most would say nowadays.

In other words, it is a nation within a nation.

In Islam, Saudi Arabia would not exist. Neither would Iran, Iraq, Turkey, or whatever. All would no longer exist. And Malays too would cease to exist. In Islam, a nation is not a race or country. These were creations of the infidels (the kafir), basically the European colonialists, and they were created so that the Nation of Islam can be divided in the spirit of divide and rule.

Don’t you think it was clever, and downright successful on top of that? And now, even Muslim leaders like you perpetuate this kafir concept of divide and rule. And did not the Muslim scholars say that those who perpetuate the kafir system are kafir? Would that not make you also kafir rather than Muslim, going by the interpretation of these scholars?

Now, what caused the decline or downfall of the Nation of Islam that you talked about? You don’t have to be an Oxford scholar of history (which, incidentally, I am…blush…blush….) to answer that question. It can be summarised in just three words: corruption, corruption, corruption!

And why do you think Sheikh Imran Hoessin said that corruption is riba’ and that the sin of riba’ tantamount to the sin of sex with your own mother/father?

Yes, corruption is the same as the crime of sex with your own mother. Why do you think that when people curse you they call you mother-f….r? That’s because it is the most despicable thing you can do.

Okay, let’s move on to another speculation. Umno says Barisan Nasional won 51% of the Malay votes, 30% of the Chinese votes, and 10% of the Indian votes in the March 2008 general election. I’m talking about only West Malaysia, of course. And that gave Barisan Nasional 49% of the total votes: 51% if East Malaysia is included.

I think there is something wrong with your maths here. My maths tells me that if the figures are true, then the total votes should come to less than 45%. How come it is 49%? Where did the extra 4% come from?

Maybe you should look at the figures yourself. People around you would normally tell you what you would like to hear, not what you should hear. No leader likes to be told the truth. They normally like to be told nice things.

I was told that you may be dissolving Parliament this month and that the elections will be held next month. If you do this then Pakatan Rakyat will sweep at least 90-100 parliament seats and no less than six states. And this would mean your dear Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, is going to be ousted, like what happened to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and the Deputy Prime Minister will….ah, hold on….now I see….

Clever…very clever. Okay, I will stop here then. I don’t want to spoil your plot. Well, look on the bright side, at least we can be rid of Rosmah Mansor.

So, what we are seeing here, which Tony Pua did not address, is actually a fight to become the next Prime Minister. And for those (other than Anwar) who want to become Prime Minister, they will need to first weaken Najib before they bring him down, like what they did to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“It will leave Najib in history as the prime minister who failed moderation. Without sincerity and political will from the top leadership, Perkasa has the tacit approval to do its worse in the light of the upcoming general elections to sow fear into the hearts of the Malay-Muslim community in order to protect the vote bank for Umno.”

That was what Tony Pua said today (you can read the full news report below). Pua also said that while the prime minister was pushing for Malaysia to lead a global movement of moderates for peace, he was actually creating a fertile ground in breeding extremist racism and religion.

Actually, what Tony Pua said was not too far off the mark. But Tony Pua was only looking at one side of the coin. A coin has two sides. So let me talk about the other side, which Tony Pua did not address.

Politics is about power. And the objective of power is to try to retain it and not lose it. And power at the top is about becoming the Prime Minister and to try to remain as Prime Minister without getting ousted.

Hence, everything that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak says and does must be with this in mind.

Note that Najib is not the only one who wants to become Prime Minister (or retain his post as Prime Minister). Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin also wants to become Prime Minister. So do Anwar Ibrahim, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Khairy Jamaluddin, Mukhriz Mahathir, Ali Rustam, Muhammad bin Mohd Taib, Khir Toyo, Hishammuddin Hussein, Mohd Isa Abdul Samad, Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, Rais Yatim, etc. In fact, I can add at least another ten or so names to that list.

That makes about two dozen or so aspirants. And I am not including those from PAS and only one name from PKR. If not, the list would run into at least 30 names.

But only one can be the Prime Minister. And if anyone else wants to become the Prime Minister then he (or they) will need to topple the incumbent. Of course, if Anwar wants to become the Prime Minister then he will have to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. For all the others, they will have to embark upon an ‘inside job’.

So, what we are seeing here, which Tony Pua did not address, is actually a fight to become the next Prime Minister. And for those (other than Anwar) who want to become Prime Minister, they will need to first weaken Najib before they bring him down, like what they did to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“It will leave Najib in history as the prime minister who failed moderation,” said Tony Pua. That is true. But what Tony Pua did not state is: will Najib have failed moderation because he is not sincere about moderation or will he fail because he is being blocked from moderation?

Now, when I use the word ‘sincere’, please don’t get me wrong. I am not using the word ‘sincere’ in the context that you and I understand it. I am using that word in the context of how a politician would see it.

To a politician, sincere is doing what can get him votes and allow him to retain power. Hence, Najib’s ‘sincerity’ means doing what the voters want (in particular the non-Malay voters who he needs to win back after losing them in 2008).

Nevertheless, he is ‘sincere’, in the political context, about moderation. And if he can convince the voters about his sincerity, in particular the non-Malays, then Barisan Nasional can be assured of winning back many of the seats it lost in 2008 and Pakatan Rakyat can be reduced to less than 80 parliament seats and maybe just two states or so.

That would mean Najib would have performed superbly, going by the standards of the 2008 general election. And that would also mean there is no reason to oust Najib like they did Abdullah Badawi after the disaster of the 2008 general election.

To justify kicking Najib out, Barisan Nasional must lose more than 90 parliament seats and at least five states, maybe even six. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the federal government but Najib would have to go. Then Malaysia will see a new Prime Minister, but still one from Umno.

Does Najib really have control over Perkasa? Who controls Perkasa? Would Najib dare clamp down on Perkasa and incur the wrath of the hidden hand behind Perkasa? Is Najib ready for political suicide and suffer the fate of Abdullah Badawi?

Tony Pua is focusing on the issue of Perkasa. That is being a bit naïve. Tony Pua failed to mention Pekida. Pekida is more dangerous than Perkasa. Perkasa, which is headed by Ibrahim Ali, only screams and shouts, and once in a while holds demonstrations of 100 or so members.

Pekida, however, is more militant. Pekida is the IRA of Umno, not Perkasa. But you do not see them or hear them. There are many members of Pekida in the government, in Umno, in the military, in the police force, etc. This is the real paramilitary force of Umno. In fact, Abdullah Badawi is the leader of Pekida in Penang and Dr Mahathir the leader of Pekida in Kedah. And we have Pekida in Selangor and all over Malaysia, all headed by key Umno leaders.

Tony Pua should not over-simplify the issue. The problem is not Najib. The problem is the hidden hands in Umno and the hidden ‘structure’, such as Pekida, that was set up soon after the race riots of 13th May 1969.

There are things that I sometimes can’t talk about. Sometimes we have to give an impression that we are not aware of what is going on so that we can better prepare our counter-strategy. But when Pakatan Rakyat leaders start going off-tangent and hit the wrong target, then I am forced to say my piece at the risk of revealing what is up our sleeve.

Some of you have been in this game since 2007 when the Bersih and Hindraf marches first exploded onto the scene. So I can quite understand why you look at things from only one perspective. We have been in this game since 1977, 30 years before that. And there are many things that have happened over the last 43 years since 1969 that many of you are not privy to. In fact, many of you were not even born yet then.

Moderate Malaysia in danger from Umno and Perkasa, says DAP

(The Malaysian Insider) - Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s failure to rein in Perkasa is jeopardising Malaysia’s name internationally as a moderate country, DAP’s Tony Pua said today.

“The game that Umno and Perkasa are playing, regardless of the outcome of the next general election, is a highly dangerous one which may forever tarnish Malaysia’s reputation as a moderate country,” the opposition lawmaker said in a statement today.

“It will leave Najib in history as the prime minister who failed moderation,” he added.

The DAP publicity chief was responding to the latest published remarks from Perkasa’s secretary-general who had said that “the faith of Islam, of Muslims is under siege in Selangor”.

He noted that the right-wing movement seemed to imply that Christians were likely to become more aggressive in their proselytisation attempts in Selangor with its Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim now in charge of Islamic affairs.

The religious portfolio was previously handled by conservative Datuk Hasan Ali, until earlier this month when he was sacked from Islamic PAS for repeatedly breaching the party’s official stand.

Pua noted that while the prime minister was pushing for Malaysia to lead a global movement of moderates for peace, he was actually creating a fertile ground in breeding extremist racism and religion.

The Petaling Jaya Utara MP pointed to the prime minister’s inaction against right-wing Malay movement’s growing increasing audacity in issuing statements that provoke fear and anger between Muslims and Christians in the country.

He added the fact that such statements were carried in mainstream media owned by the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) lynchpin, Umno, proved “Najib is either hopeless or devious in the fight against extremism”.

Pua raised again the 2010 attacks against houses of worship nationwide by extremists following a court ruling allowing the Catholic Church to publish the word “Allah”, and reminded that such “freedom provided Perkasa and its ilk... will not lead to any peaceful outcome”.

He said, “Without sincerity and political will from the top leadership, Perkasa has the tacit approval to do its worse in the light of the upcoming general elections to sow fear into the hearts of the Malay-Muslim community in order to protect the vote bank for Umno.”

Malaysia’s 28 million population is over 60 per cent Muslim, but more than half its citizens in Sarawak and Sabah, long considered the ruling BN’s vote bank, are predominantly Christian.
 

Right and wrong is a point of view, not about evidence. And no 63,000 information campaigners can change this perception. Those who think that Anwar is innocent will continue to think so while those who think that Anwar is guilty will do the same. It is all about the position you are taking.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let us continue our discussion on understanding the voters’ psyche.

Barisan Nasional is going to deploy 63,000 information campaigners or agents throughout Malaysia, according to what they say, to inform the voters about what Barisan Nasional has done for the country.

Barisan Nasional is assuming that the voters are ignorant and uninformed about what is going on in the country. Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the voters. They know more than you give them credit for.

I once gave a ceramah in a rural part of Malaysia and when I said, “Betul tak? Correct or not?” the 30,000–strong crowd responded with “Correct, correct, correct!”

They were of course referring to the Lingam Tapes episode. This is an ‘Internet issue’. Yet these rural voters who do not own a computer or have access to the Internet knew the issue.

They are not as ignorant as you may think.

But will issues sway the voters? Or is it going to be emotions and sentiments that will sway the voters? And, more importantly, will it be ‘what’s in it for me?’ that will determine how they vote?

I have a sneaky suspicion that the 63,000 information agents that Barisan Nasional is going to deploy will be talking about Anwar Ibrahim’s sexual misconduct. I may be wrong, of course, but I suspect I am going to be proven right. And if this is what Barisan Nasional is going to do then they are wasting their time.

Granted some people are going to be swayed. But how many? There is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns. Once you have reached optimum level you will need to double your effort just to get single digit gains. This means for every 100% increase in effort you may gain, say, an increase of just 5% or so.

Is it worth it? If you need to double your effort you might as well focus that effort in areas where the gains will be proportionate to the effort. Ploughing the land that has already been ploughed will not double your crop output. In fact, the reverse may even happen if the land becomes too soft and turns to mud, which may not be conducive to certain crops, say like tobacco.

I spoke earlier about the 30:40:30 voter ratio where 30% of either side support the government and the opposition respectively while 40% are floating voters or fence sitters. Working on these two groups of 30% will trigger the law of diminishing returns because this group is already locked in. It is the 40% that you need to win over.

And this is the group that Barisan Nasional is trying to win over while Pakatan Rakyat focuses on preaching to the already converted -- and are very excited about the crowd turnout.

What is Pakatan Rakyat doing about this 40% group? Are what you are saying reaching them? More importantly, even if what you are saying is reaching them, are they impressed with what you are saying?

If it is true that Barisan Nasional’s strategy in deploying these 63,000 information campaigners is to run down Anwar Ibrahim and talk about his sexual misconduct, then it is an ill thought of strategy. And let me explain why.

There is such a thing called overkill. And when you overkill it does more harm than good. And to continue to attack Anwar on the issue of his sexual misconduct is certainly an overkill. Furthermore, it is going to reduce the election campaign to a Najib verus Anwar exercise.

This is not the American Presidential election, which is a contest between two personalities. If it is going to be a love Najib or hate Najib campaign, and if you hate Najib then choose Anwar, you are not offering the voters too much choice.

Okay, so let’s now talk about the ‘is Anwar innocent or is he guilty’ issue?

There are some who believe that Anwar is innocent. Whatever you say is not going to change their mind and these people will support the opposition.

Then there are those who believe that Anwar is guilty and whatever you say is not going to change their mind. These people will support the government.

Of course, there are some who think that Anwar is guilty but they will still support the opposition anyway, while some believe that Anwar is innocent but they will still support the government.

These people are not bothered about Anwar but are more concerned about the future of the country. And some feel the future lies with Pakatan Rakyat while some feel it lies with Barisan Nasional.

I know of some government supporters who feel that Anwar was subjected to fabricated charges and was given a sham trial. But are they perturbed about this injustice? They are not. They feel that Anwar is guilty so even if he was fixed up it matters not because he is guilty anyway.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Since they could not prove Anwar’s guilt, they cheated to get him convicted. This is okay since Anwar is guilty anyway. The only thing is it is difficult to prove Anwar’s guilt so they need to cheat to get him convicted.

Now, the opposition supporters will cry foul. How can they rig the trial just to get Anwar? If they can’t prove Anwar’s guilt then he should be set free. He should not be sent to jail on fabricated charges and through a sham trial.

Okay, what if the shoe is on the other foot? Say they arrest Najib and fabricate charges against him and give him a sham trial? Then they send him to jail on grounds that he masterminded Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder.

Will these same people who are screaming about the injustice Anwar suffered now scream the same thing about Najib?

Some would, most would not. These same people will say that no doubt the charge against Najib was fabricated and he was given a sham trial, but he is certainly guilty. So never mind that he was fixed up. There would be no way to prove Najib’s guilt unless they rig the trial.

So, are these people who are screaming about the injustice to Anwar really concerned about justice or is it because Anwar is the opposition leader, their leader? If Najib were made to suffer the same injustice there would be no screams of justice for Najib. They will, in fact, say that it was necessary to rig the trial to get Najib or else there would be no way to get him.

This is the mentality of the voters on both sides of the political divide. It all depends on the position you take. Right can become wrong and wrong become right depending on where your sympathies lie. And anyone who denies this is a liar.

Right and wrong is a point of view, not about evidence. And no 63,000 information campaigners can change this perception. Those who think that Anwar is innocent will continue to think so while those who think that Anwar is guilty will do the same. It is all about the position you are taking.

Let me use another example.

Some of you think that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life three days later. You believe this because you are taking the position of a Christian. So, your position guides your belief. Those who do not take the position of a Christian, say like the Muslims, will think that this is utter bullshit.

Some of you think that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse to meet God -- where he also meet Abraham, Moses and Jesus -- to receive the commandment of the five times a day prayers. You believe this because you are taking the position of a Muslim. Those who do not take the position of a Muslim, say like the Christians, will think that this is utter bullshit.

So, are your beliefs guided by evidence or guided by your position? Where is the evidence that any of this actually happened? None! But you do not need evidence because you have faith.

Hence, whether you feel that Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat should run Malaysia depends on your faith as well. Which do you think can do a better job? Is Anwar guilty of sexual misconduct or not? Is Najib guilty of Altantuya’s murder or not?

60% of Malaysians have already decided on the answer and they know how they are going to vote come the next election. The balance 40% is still deciding.

So, what is going to help them decide whom to vote for? Hey, if I can answer that then I should run for Prime Minister of Malaysia.

One thing I can say is this 40% is not bothered about Najib or Anwar or politics. There are other considerations that will influence their decision. And these other considerations are closer to home and involve their every day life. That will determine whom they vote for. And food on the table is one such consideration. And transparency and justice and good governance is not going to put food on the table.
 

Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-post_2718.html

Currently, the election campaign is based on who do you want as the next Prime Minister: Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim? If you want Najib then vote Barisan Nasional. If you don’t want Najib then vote Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat wins then you will get Anwar Ibrahim.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Umno is going to deploy 63,000 information agents (campaigners), helped by 3.3 million Umno members, to spread the good word throughout the land. I suppose you can call this carpet-bombing. Drop 100,000 bombs and at least 10,000 will hit the target. And all you need is 1,000 well-placed bombs to flatten the city.

That is how the law of averages works.

If you have tons of money you can afford to do this. Blow RM100 million on a massive information campaign and some of that money will do the trick. But if you are working on a shoestring budget and have only RM100,000 (not RM100 million) to spend, then you must make every ringgit count.

The bottom line is, he with the most money wins the war. It’s all about money. That’s why America always wins the war. It is because they have more money to spend. (Other than in Vietnam, of course: North Vietnam had more soldiers than America had bullets, as what Ho Chi Minh told America).

Before both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat start blowing hundreds of millions on an information war, let me enlighten you on the voters’ psyche. Ask any political strategist worth his salt (like the Germans, Americans, Brits, etc.) and they will tell you one thing: most voters are selfish.

Yes, this was what one renowned German political strategist told me. Voters are selfish. They are not going to vote for you so that you can gain power. They are going to vote for you based on ‘what’s in it for me?’ Whether it is in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, the US, or anywhere, it is based on ‘what’s in it for me?’

Let me put it this way. Say you tell the voters that if you vote for Pakatan Rakyat then we will see zero corruption in Malaysia. However, taxes will have to be doubled.

You will not get their vote.

Then you tell the voters that if you vote for Barisan Nasional there will be no guarantee that corruption will be reduced. In fact, it may even increase. But Malaysians will see more money in their pockets.

Who do you think the voters will vote for?

Okay, I know, you will insist that you will vote for the government that will eliminate corruption. But if you have a job, a house, two or three cars, savings in the bank, etc., then you will vote for a government that is clean. There are no two ways about it.

However, this is okay if you have no money problems. But if you are facing bankruptcy and if you do not know whether next month the bank is going to foreclose on your house because you are six months behind in your mortgage payments or whether the repossessors are going to come take your car because you have not been paying your car instalments, then money is very important. A clean government is of no use to you if you are begging on the streets.

So it is about money when you have no money. You can only entertain ‘ideals’, ‘principles’ and ‘values’ when you are financially quite comfortable.

As what the German chap told me, voters are very selfish. If they need to sacrifice and suffer for the sake of voting for you that will not happen. They will first ask, “What’s in it for me?”

Currently, the election campaign is based on who do you want as the next Prime Minister: Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim? If you want Najib then vote Barisan Nasional. If you don’t want Najib then vote Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat wins then you will get Anwar Ibrahim.

I know the handful of readers who post comments in Malaysia Today will say that they don’t want Najib. And since they don’t want Najib they will choose Anwar since there is no other alternative other than Anwar.

Why do they want Anwar? Because they don’t want Najib. In fact, they not only don’t want Najib but they don’t want Umno or anyone from Umno. So they will vote Pakatan Rakyat.

Hence we have ABU (anything but Umno). ABU is not about what we want. It is about what we don’t want. We don’t want Umno. So what is it that we want then? We want anything but Umno.

Is this a winning strategy? Yes and no. It all depends.

In 1999, it was about anything but Mahathir (ABM). But when Dr Mahathir resigned in 2003 and handed over the reins to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the ABM died and the voters went back to Umno. And the opposition almost got wiped out.

That was why and when we launched Malaysia Today (plus the many other pro-opposition blogs). We realised that ABM had a short shelf life so we needed a new approach. And the German strategist told us back in 2000 that ABM had a short shelf life but we did not listen. We continued with ABM and when Mahathir resigned we went dead in the water.

Then, lo and behold, Dr Mahathir ‘joined’ the opposition in 2006 and asked the Umno members to vote ABU. And suddenly the opposition gained lost ground, as the 2008 GE proved.

But that was about it. 82 Parliament seats and five states (now down to four) was all that ABU could achieve. Can ABU retain the five states (or maybe make it six with Negeri Sembilan added to that list) and maybe increase its Parliament seats to 90-95 from less than 80 now? Even if it can it will still not allow Pakatan Rakyat to form the next federal government and enable Anwar to become the next Prime Minister.

Remember the 30:40:30 ratio I was talking about in an earlier posting? 30% of the voters are pro-government and there is nothing you can do to change this. 30% are pro-opposition (most of you who are reading this) and there is nothing you can do to change this. Then we have the 40% floaters or fence sitters who will swing one way or another and who will vote based on ‘what’s in it for me?’

Forget about the 30%. This group is quite ‘locked’ and to work on them would invoke the law of diminishing returns. You need to work on the 40%. That is the group that is going to give you the next federal government.

And this is the group that Umno is now targeting with the 63,000 information agents they are about to deploy. They are not bothered about those of you who read Malaysia Today. They know you are ABU. They know you will vote for a donkey or a monkey as long as it is not Barisan Nasional or Umno (this was what I told Anwar when we met in London back in 2010). This is the emotional and irrational group that can never be swayed. Umno does not care two hoots about you. It is the 40% that matters and this is the group that Umno is going to work on to ensure that they remain the government for another 50 years.

Oh, and one more thing, don’t be too impressed with the 5,000 or 10,000 who come out to attend opposition ceramahs. You are merely preaching to the converted. These people are going to vote opposition anyway, never mind what you do and say. It is the 40% who don’t attend opposition ceramahs that matter, the group that the 63,000 Umno information agents are about to tackle.

I will stop here for now and maybe I will continue tomorrow with a lesson regarding philosophy. Yes, there are courses being run in England called Philosophy of Politics. I suggest you take this course to better understand how to strategise.

Till we next talk, a happy CNY holiday to all of you.
 

Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-post_25.html

And this is what the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said back in the 1980s. He told Malaysians that the Sultans are not above the law. The Sultans can be chastised and taken to task. Dr Mahathir then told us how even the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, used to tell the Rulers off (although in private and not publicly like Dr Mahathir did).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

‘Ultra vires’ is a Latin term meaning ‘beyond powers’ -- such as beyond the legal power or authority of a person, official or body, or beyond the scope or in excess of the legal power or authority. This term is usually used to refer to acts taken by persons that are taken outside of the powers or authority granted to them by law.

And that is what Karpal Singh questioned: whether the Sultan of Perak had the legal power to remove the Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, over three years ago. And for that Karpal was charged for the crime of sedition.

‘Sedition’, in turn, is any speech or behaviour directed against the peace of a state. This would be regarded as an offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state such as an incitement to public disorder or rebellion. In Malaysia, sedition is also used against anyone who ‘incites hatred’ against political leaders, Rulers, or members of their family (such as the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister).

The Utusan Malaysia reporter, however, who reported what Karpal said, did not understand the meaning of the term ‘ultra vires’. During the trial, the reporter said he thought that Karpal was insulting the Sultan. (Read the news report below).

The question here is: does Karpal, a prominent lawyer, understand the law and knows what the powers of the Sultan are under the Perak State Constitution? I would say he does.

And, as a lawyer representing his client, is Karpal entitled to give his views on points of law?

Under ‘normal’ circumstances he would (although there is a danger of subjudice if he comments on an ongoing trial). However, because he gave his opinion on the act or conduct of a Sultan, the government says he has committed a crime of sedition.

This sends Malaysia back to the time of Henry VIII when to question the king is to question God and therefore is an act of sedition. The government is also telling us that the Rulers are above the law and cannot be questioned.

How far is the Sultan above the law? Can a Sultan commit a crime and escape punishment?

Sultan Ali of Terengganu was sacked in 1945 and replaced with Sultan Ismail. Sultan Musa of Selangor was sacked in 1945 and replaced with Sultan Alam Shah. And both times the only ‘crime’ these two Sultans committed was that they were installed onto the throne by the Japanese during WWII.

The British, however, refused to recognise a Japanese-installed Sultan although they were installed according to the proper Malay customs and traditions (adat istiadat Melayu) and hence were legitimate Sultans. So the British had them removed and replaced.

So, going by history (and the 'law' of precedence), Sultans are not above the law. And Sultans not only can be questioned (on points of law) but also can, in fact, be removed if they are perceived as having violated the law (although both Sultan Ali and Sultan Musa did not break any laws).

And this is what the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said back in the 1980s. He told Malaysians that the Sultans are not above the law. The Sultans can be chastised and taken to task. Dr Mahathir then told us how even the First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, used to tell the Rulers off (although in private and not publicly like Dr Mahathir did).

In fact, Dr Mahathir set up a ‘Special Court’ so that Sultans who misbehave or break the law can be brought to trial. For the first time in history since the French Revolution, Rulers will face trial if they commit an offence.

Did Karpal break the law -- that is, commit sedition? I would say no. Karpal did not act ultra vires by going beyond his powers as a lawyer. My opinion is the Sultan of Perak may have instead broken the law (ultra vires) by removing the Perak Menteri Besar unconstitutionally. And it is within Karpal’s right to comment on what he views as the ultra vires act of the Sultan.

But then, hey, I am not a lawyer, so my comments carry no weight. However, I have always said: you need to be smart to be a lawyer, but you don’t need to be a lawyer to be smart. And I think I am smart enough to know what is ‘ultra vires’ and what is ‘sedition’.

Can I get my law degree now?

Karpal ordered to enter defence over sedition rap

(New Straits Times, 21 January 2012) - Lawyer Karpal Singh was ordered to enter his defence for allegedly uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak three years ago.

A three-man Court of Appeal bench unanimously said the prosecution had established a prima facie case  against Karpal, the DAP national chairman and Bukit Glugor member of parliament.

"After evaluating every word and sentence by the accused, who is a well known lawyer and MP, we are satisfied that it was uttered to incite hatred among the subjects of the ruler," judge Datuk Ahmad Maarop said in allowing the appeal by the public prosecutor.

Ahmad, now a Federal Court judge said, the lawyer's press conference at his office exceeded the boundaries of freedom of speech.

The court has fixed Feb 9 for the case to be mentioned at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

Karpal, 71,  was charged with uttering seditious words against the sultan at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama here on Feb 6, 2009.

He was alleged to have said that the removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Menteri Besar by the sultan could be questioned in a court of law.

Karpal said he had relied on the exception to sedition by pointing out that the ruler was misled.

The High Court on June 11, 2010, acquitted Karpal and trial judge Datuk Azman Abdullah said the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Those found guilty can be jailed up to three years or slapped with a maximum fine of RM5,000, or both.

Ahmad, who took about 21/2 hours to deliver the judgment in Bahasa Malaysia yesterday, said the prosecution could bring in a new provision -- Section 3(1)(f) -- even at the appeal stage although it did not rely on this provision during trial.

"The argument by the defence that it was put in a tactical disadvantage therefore, cannot be accepted," he said.

Section 3(1)(f) states one would have committed sedition in questioning the right, status, position privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected under the Federal Constitution.

At the High Court the prosecution had relied on Section 3(1)(a) and (d) to prove its case against Karpal.

Ahmad, who sat with Datuk Clement Allan Skinner and Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, also said Section 3(1)(f) was constitutional as it did not violate the right of free speech and expression.

He said the intention of an accused was irrelevant for committing a seditious offence.

Ahmad said Karpal repeatedly uttered words to demonstrate that the sultan did not follow the Perak Constitution and had no respect for the law.

A defiant Karpal later said he had the option to take this matter to the Federal Court.

"There is a case authority which states that an accused who is ordered to enter defence must return to the trial court.

"I will challenge this as it is unconstitutional and affects the rights of an accused person."

Utusan reporter says he thought ultra vires means ‘to insult’

(The Malaysian Insider, 12 August 2009) - Utusan Malaysia reporter Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim told the High Court today that he thought the phrase “ultra vires” contained in a press release issued by Karpal Singh meant the DAP man was insulting the Perak Sultan.

Mohd Nizam, the prosecution’s first witness in Karpal’s sedition trial, was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by defence counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, and appeared rattled by the lawyer’s questions.

At one point the Utusan Malaysia reporter did not appear to even know what Karpal Singh was being charged with.

The reporter was also unable to show a clear understanding of the barrage of questions by Jagdeep on the four-page press statement distributed by Karpal during a press conference on Feb 6 this year.

The DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor MP was charged with sedition on March 17 for saying Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin's removal as Perak mentri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a court of law.

The veteran lawyer-politician was charged in the Sessions Court in KL before judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Karpal is further accused of several other seditious statements related to the entire Perak constitutional crisis which began two months ago.

He is accused of committing the crime during a press conference at his law firm here on Feb 6.

During cross-examination, Jagdeep had asked the 38-year-old reporter: “Do you agree that his (Karpal) view on the constitution is sought after?”

Mohd Nizam: “I am not sure.”

Jagdeep: “Do you agree that he (Karpal) is known as a smart laywer?”

Mohd Nizam: “I am not sure.”

Jagdeep: “If you still do not know after eight years working then you should start doing your work properly.”

Jagdeep then proceeded to ask him if he understood the press release since it was in English.

Mohd Nizam: “I only understand it in general and not thoroughly.”

Jagdeep then asked the reporter if he agreed that what was said in the press conference was only an opinion of the constitutional crisis in Perak.

“I only report and do not give opinion,” Mohd Nizam replied.

The answer appeared to irritate Jagdeep who accused Mohd Nizam of being insincere.

Jagdeep then told Mohd Nizam to read part of the press release to the court.

Mohd Nizam: “Although the orders have been confirmed by the Sultan. If the decision is ultra vires then the decision can be adjudicated by the court.”

Jagdeep then asked Nizam to explain what ultra vires means to the court.

Nizam looking confused and replied: “To insult.”

Jagdeep then told Mohd Nizam that his misunderstanding of the word had caused chaos in the country because the word actually means “beyond the powers”.

Mohd Nizam was then asked what were questions were thrown at Karpal during the press conference.

Nizam explained that reporters wanted to clarify if Karpal meant that he was going to bring the Sultan to court.

“So do you agree that Karpal did not say that he will sue?” Jagdeep asked.

“Agree,” Nizam replied.

After the cross-examination, the defence team requested Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah for the witness’s cross-examination to be adjourned until it could question another witness on the transcript of the press conference.

Azman then asked the prosecution to call its next witness.

But the prosecution could not bring its next witness, an RTM reporter, because he had failed to show up and could not be contacted.

The trial was then adjourned to tomorrow afternoon.
 

This is not about Anwar. I repeat: this is not about Anwar. It is about Najib’s survival. Najib has seen what happened to Abdullah Badawi. He knows that this will also happen to him as well. And to prevent that from happening he needs to ensure that he is not seen as weak by ‘allowing’ Anwar to walk free. He also must make sure the next GE is not a repeat of the 2008 GE.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

At 4.30pm today (an hour ago at the time I am writing this), the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed at appeal against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in acquitting Anwar Ibrahim on the charge of sodomy. At the same time, they also appealed the acquittal of Karpal Singh on the charge of sedition (but that is another story which we shall talk about later).

This morning, I sent out a few Blackberry messages to various friends (some of them lawyers and some of them linked to Anwar) telling them to expect the AG to file an appeal. The AG has until Monday 23rd January to do this and since Monday is a holiday then he should do this at the very latest by the end of today (unless the court is open tomorrow, which is a Saturday).

Most of them were surprised when they received my message. They had assumed that Anwar was acquitted on 9th January for ‘political reasons’ -- to allow Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to ‘prove’ he is serious about reforms and to ‘prove’ that the judiciary is independent and is not subject to government control.

But it is not as simple as that.

Najib would love for this matter to be put to rest. But it is not up to Najib whether the AG does or does not file an appeal. There are more powerful forces at play here. So Najib has no choice but to sit back and allow these forces to do what they want to do. If Najib tries to interfere then he may be the next casualty after Anwar.

That is the bottom line.

First is regarding the slime ball and scumbag AG himself. We must not forget that he was the main player in Sodomy 1 -- the charge that Anwar was also acquitted back on 2nd September 2004. And the AG is also the main player in Sodomy 2.

If the AG allows Anwar to walk free for Sodomy 2 -- just like Anwar did for Sodomy 1 -- then it would be interpreted as Anwar really was fixed up on trumped-up charges and was given a sham trial. So the AG needs to at least get Anwar on Sodomy 2 to ‘prove’ that the charges were not fabricated.

But did Anwar’s acquittal on Monday, 9th January really come as a shock to the AG?

The police permission to hold the Free Anwar Campaign 901 rally on Monday, 9th January 2012 and the very light police presence (compared to that of the Bersih 2.0 rally) gives me the sneaking suspicion that they knew Anwar would be acquitted. They knew Anwar was going to be acquitted and that there would be no riot and that’s why the police stood back and allowed the gathering.

My concern is not that the police knew. My concern is that Anwar himself knew and had told his people he would be acquitted. If Anwar already knew before hand, then why this big show and sandiwara to get 100,000 people to come out in full force on 9th January?

Hence, the AG is not about to allow himself to be told whether he should or should not file an appeal. His credibility is at stake here, if he has any left (incidentally, what people are also saying about me).

Next is regarding the Umno warlords and taikos. If Najib ‘calls off the dogs’, so to speak, he would be viewed as weak. Already, many of these warlords and taikos are saying that Najib is weak and that the ‘3M team’ should take over.

Remember what happened to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the last Prime Minister, when he ‘allowed’ Anwar’s acquittal on Sodomy 1 and did badly in the 2008 general election? Well, that will be the fate that Najib will face as well.

Abdullah Badawi ‘allowed’ Anwar to walk free for Sodomy I and ‘lost’ the 2008 GE. Najib ‘allowed’ Anwar to walk free for Sodomy 2 and will probably do as badly as Abdullah Badawi did come the next election.

That would mean Najib would be ousted by the Umno warlords and taikos, just like Abdullah Badawi was.

This is not about Anwar. I repeat: this is not about Anwar. It is about Najib’s survival. Najib has seen what happened to Abdullah Badawi. He knows that this will also happen to him as well. And to prevent that from happening he needs to ensure that he is not seen as weak by ‘allowing’ Anwar to walk free. He also must make sure the next GE is not a repeat of the 2008 GE.

Najib is jammed between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he would like to impress the world that he is serious about reforms. And what better way than to instruct the AG to not appeal Anwar’s acquittal? Certainly that would impress Malaysians in the 40% fence-sitters (atas pagar) category. Some might even swing back to Barisan Nasional after their 'protest votes' in favour of Pakatan Rakyat in the 2008 GE.

But that will not impress the 30% hardcore opposition supporters who will still vote ABU (anything but Umno). They will still vote Pakatan Rakyat never mind what Najib does or does not do. More importantly though, that will not impress the 30% hardcore Barisan Nasional supporters, in particular the Umno people. Not only will they not vote opposition come hell or high-water but they will turn on Najib and kick him out like they did Abdullah Badawi.

The trouble is with the opposition supporters themselves. They have given the impression that the opposition can’t survive without Anwar. They are saying that Anwar is the main and single factor uniting the three opposition parties under the banner of Pakatan Rakyat. They are saying that Anwar and only Anwar can save this country. That is the death sentence the opposition supporters have given Anwar.

I tried saying that Anwar is not relevant. I tried saying that we must look beyond Anwar. I tried saying that there is life after Anwar. I tried saying that the cause is more important than personalities.

And, for saying that, I have been condemned and cursed.

It is about Anwar. Anwar is crucial. The opposition can’t survive without Anwar. Pakatan Rakyat will break up without Anwar. The future of Malaysia is in Anwar’s hands. Anwar and only Anwar can save the country.

And for that Anwar will have to be finished off. Yes, you, you the opposition supporters. You have made Anwar so important, crucial and critical that the Umno warlords and taikos will leave no stone unturned in neutralising him.

Is this fair? Is this just? Is this humane? In war, love and politics all is fair, in case you have not heard.

Sigh…just when Anwar thought it was safe to go into the water.
 

In 2005, the court ruled in favour of the residents and declared the flats illegal. It also awarded damages to the residents and declared MBPJ's development order issued to Mentari Properties Sdn Bhd null and void. In the landmark ruling, the court held that local authorities must hear the views of affected residents before issuing any development orders. Soon after Pakatan Rakyat took over Selangor in 2008, MBPJ decided to appeal against the decision and it is understood that Sivarasa continued to act for the Taman Desaria residents. The case is still pending.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

MBPJ hires 'crony' firm: Mayor, PKR cry 'No'

By Teoh El Sen, Free Malaysia Today (29 September 2010)

PETALING JAYA: Cases involving the Petaling Jaya City Muncipal Council (MBPJ) are being given to a law firm where two PKR leaders R Sivarasa and Latheefa Koya, a MBPJ councillor, work.

However, MBPJ mayor Mohammad Roslan Sakiman described it as an “old story”.

He also dismissed the allegation that it was a case of special preference and denied that it could lead to a conflict of interest.

"No, I cannot answer this. This was discussed in a meeting some time ago and everything had been dealt with; this is a non-issue,” he told FMT.

“We don't think it is a conflict of interest for a councillor to be a lawyer in a law firm we engage. Latheefa is not a shareholder of the firm," he explained.

Roslan also refuted the claim that the firm Daim & Gamany was not in the list of MBPJ's legal panel, saying the firm was fully sanctioned by the council.

Sources told FMT that the issue was raised by several councillors during a special MBPJ meeting last year.

The councillors wanted to know why Daim & Gamany had been allowed to represent the council since it might lead to a conflict of interest.

During that meeting, the council had decided that there was no issue and the matter was closed.

However, sources said that Daim & Gamany had been given at least four cases to handle in recent months.

“The firm charges the maximum fee allowed by MBPJ. Other firms had quoted lower fees and yet they were not appointed to represent the council,” said a source.

"In a few recent court cases, procedures and policies for selecting legal firms were bypassed. The council is supposed to send letters to all firms on the legal panel when there is a case, and ask for their price quotations, but this was not done,” added the source.

'Conflict of interest'

As for conflict of interest, the sources cited Section 35 of the Local Government Act 1976 which states: "No councillor shall by himself or his partner or agent act in any professional capacity for or against the local authority of which he is a councillor."

The sources said although Latheefa, who is also PKR information chief, might not be personally handling MBPJ cases, her position in the council and law firm, however, gave rise to a conflict of interest.

This was because she could have access to sensitive information and documents, they said.

The sources also cited another example where in 2003 and 2005, Sivarasa, who is PKR vice-president, had represented the residents of Taman Desaria PJS5.

The residents had taken legal action against the then Barisan Nasional-controlled Selangor government and MBPJ for allowing low-cost flats to be built in their area for the nearby squatters of Taman Medan.

In 2005, the court ruled in favour of the residents and declared the flats illegal. It also awarded damages to the residents and declared MBPJ's development order issued to Mentari Properties Sdn Bhd null and void.

In the landmark ruling, the court held that local authorities must hear the views of affected residents before issuing any development orders.

Soon after Pakatan Rakyat took over Selangor in 2008, MBPJ decided to appeal against the decision and it is understood that Sivarasa continued to act for the Taman Desaria residents. The case is still pending.

Professional conduct

Another MBPJ councillor Derek Fernandez, who had also acted for the Desaria residents in the past, discharged himself on grounds of conflict of interest.

However, sources said MBPJ's move to appoint Sivarasa's firm for several cases was strongly supported by Fernandez.

"How can Sivarasa be acting in a suit against the council and at the same time be given cases to defend MBPJ? Isn't that a clear-cut case of conflict of interest?" asked a source.

In another case last year, Sivarasa represented the council when residents of Taman Sri Aman, Petaling Jaya protested against a condominium project being undertaken in their area.

MBPJ then issued a stop-work order to the developer, Sri Aman Development Sdn Bhd, which was building the Paramount View condominium and an access road.

Subsequently, the developer went to court and filed for a judicial review of MBPJ's action. The court ruled in favour of the developer.

Several lawyers told FMT that such examples of conflict of interest went against the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, where a lawyer should not accept a case if his professional conduct could be challenged.

FMT learnt that Sivarasa was also representing MBPJ in two judicial review cases involving the council and two outdoor advertising companies.

'These are wild allegations to shame us'

Both Sivarasa and Lateefa denied that they were involved in cases that gave rise to conflict of interest.

"The Local Government Act prohibits only councillor-lawyer from acting for or against the council... I am not a councillor, so where is the conflict?" asked Sivarasa, who has been practising law for 24 years.

The PKR leader explained that he was mostly hired by MBPJ for judicial review cases, which was his area of specialisation.

"These allegations are simply caused by ignorance. These people do not understand what conflict of interest is. In the Taman Desaria case, conflict of interest does not arise at all,” he said.

On the allegation of high legal fees, he said: "This is subjective. Lawyers come in all shapes and sizes. I charge according to what I feel is fair and it is subject to MBPJ's decision."

Meanwhile, Latheefa described it as “wild allegations made by those with their own agenda to shame a few of us”.

The lawyer said she had never acted for or against MBPJ since she was appointed as councillor in 2008.

"Bringing this up is a nasty thing to do. I never participated in any discussion at council meetings. In fact, I deliberately stayed away from such meetings whenever my legal firm was involved.

"In what way have I breached Section 35? It doesn't mean that just because I am in the same law firm, everything I do gives rise to conflict of interest," she added.

Latheefa stressed that conflict of interest occured only when sensitive information was involved.

Bar Council: There's no conflict of interest

By Teoh El Sen, Free Malaysia Today (29 September 2010)

PETALING JAYA: There is no basis to the allegations that the Petaling Jaya City Council's (MBPJ) hiring of a certain firm could lead to a situation of conflict of interest, the Bar Council said today.

"For me there is no conflict of interest here," its president Ragunath Kesavan said.

He was commenting on a FMT report that a law firm, where PKR leaders R Sivarasa and Latheefa Koya worked, was allegedly given special preferences by MBPJ, sparking charges of conflict of interest.

He said "conflict" only arose when there were complaints by the affected party or when a lawyer was being engaged by both sides for the same case.

"For example, if Latheefa herself is a developer acting against the council, then it is a conflict of interest as she may have sensitive information on the council. There is the risk that information may be leaked," he said.

Ragunath cited Section 35 of the Local Government Act 1976 which states: "No councillor shall by himself or his partner or agent act in any professional capacity for or against the local authority of which he is a councillor."

"The question is whether the firm the councillor is working for can be considered an 'agent',” he said.

In the instance where Sivarasa is acting for Taman Desaria residents while also representing the council in several cases, Ragunath said: "That is a conflict that the MBPJ has to decide on. If MBPJ does not mind, then its okay. But if it does, it can just say sorry to Sivarasa and turn him down.The same applies to his clients, the residents."