And all, I repeat, ALL, these people pay ‘protection money’ to the police. So is this not Chinese bribing Malays? Hence if Chinese do not respect Malays for taking bribes do we respect the Chinese for bribing Malays? Again, just like the ex-Mufti regarding the issue of criticising the monarchs, the ex-IGP did not explain this part.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

From time to time, friends contact me to tell me that they or so-and-so within our ‘circle’ are not happy with me. They then cite my ‘stand’ as the reason for their unhappiness. Some have even ‘deleted’ me from their Skype or Blackberry contact list so that I can no longer reach them. Others ignore my text messages or emails as a ‘message’ that I am no longer ‘in their life’.

Invariably, most of these people are ‘new’ friends -- people who have become my friends since 2007-2008 or since the days of Reformasi-Free Anwar Campaign of 2000.

On the reverse side, quite a number who had been my friends since the 1960s (my school days) or the 1970s-1980s (my working days) stopped being my friends after 2000 because they did not agree with my ‘stand’ -- meaning I supported Reformasi-Anwar Ibrahim and they did not: so they are not happy with me.

At the end of the day, the termination of our friendship is all about their happiness or unhappiness. When I make them unhappy by taking a ‘stand’ opposite to them then I cease to be their friends. In other words, our continued friendship depends on whether I can continue to make them happy. And if I cannot continue to make them happy then our friendship has to end.

None of these people ask me about my happiness. It is all about their happiness. And if I am unable to make them happy then our friendship has to end. It is a one-way street. It is only about their happiness. My happiness or unhappiness does not factor into our friendship. As long as they are happy it does not matter whether I am happy or unhappy. My happiness or unhappiness is not a criterion to our friendship.

I suppose this reveals the true character (or lack of character) of these ex-friends of mine. Our friendship is based on how I can make them happy. And if I cannot make them happy, or cannot continue to make them happy, then they see no value in being friends with me.

I wonder what type of marriage these people have. Is their marriage based on whether their spouse can make them happy? And if their spouse cannot make them happy then they would consider it a bad marriage, I suppose.  Their marriage is not based on whether they can make their spouse happy. It is about whether their spouse can make them happy.

This is the same very selfish attitude of voters all over the world -- never mind whether it is in first-world or third-world countries. They vote for people who can make them happy. It is about their happiness and not about what is good for society or good the country. It is always about me…me…me.

If you can promise the voters cheap houses, cheap cars, cheap petrol, no tax, more and better highways, no toll charges, higher salaries, lower cost of living, no council tax, free schooling, free healthcare, and much more, then they will vote for you.

But how do you pay for all this? Who will be paying for all this? Over the long term is this good for the country’s financial health? Can the country sustain itself with no taxes while giving away everything free?

That, of course, is of no concern to the voters. They want no taxes and everything free. That will make them happy. Even if that is not good for the country it is okay just as long as they are happy. Their happiness comes first. The country’s ‘health’ comes last.

Never mind whether it is friends, family or voters, the same rule applies. If you make me happy I am your friend/supporter. If you cannot then I have absolutely no use for you. Whether the relationship also makes you happy is of no consequence to me. This is just about me…me…me.

This is what was reported in Free Malaysia Today:

While openly disagreeing with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is permissible, there is a limit to it, says ex-mufti.

Openly disagreeing with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and royal family is permissible but criticisms have to be constructive and polite, a former mufti said today.

Ex-Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said today it was not wrong to disagree with the King and kin, as they are “not Allah and the prophet (Muhammad), but human beings like the rest of us”. (Read more here).

I am both happy and unhappy with this statement (yes, this is now about MY happiness). I am happy because I have been constantly criticised regarding my ‘distorted’ views on Islam and now we have one of the most renowned Muftis saying what I have been saying for so long. So that makes me happy. I am happy when people agree with me and prove me right. I am unhappy when they do not agree with me.

And is this not how most of you look at things as well? You used to be very happy when Michelle Yeoh, a Malaysian Chinese, became world-famous. This shows that the Chinese are great. But you are now unhappy because she supports Barisan Nasional. This shows that the Chinese are sometimes ‘stupid’. The fact that the Chinese have been ‘stupid’ for more than 50 years since 1955 does not matter. That is in the past. Today, the Chinese are already clever and Michelle Yeoh is spoiling everything by showing that some Chinese are still ‘stupid’.

Is Michelle Yeoh happy? That does not matter. This is not about her happiness. Her happiness is of no consequence. This is only about your happiness -- me...me…me.

Okay, I am both happy and unhappy with the ex-Mufti’s statement. I am happy that finally someone with the ‘right’ religious credentials agrees with what I have been saying and thus proving that my views are not ‘distorted’. But I am unhappy because he did not also say that monarchs do not exist in Islam. Why did the ex-Mufti not go one step further and argue that Islam does not recognise monarchies?

So, he says that it is not wrong in criticising the monarchs. But then is it wrong if we also criticise the monarchy? There is a difference here. Criticising the monarch is different from criticising the monarchy. Criticising the monarch is criticising the person while criticising the monarchy is criticising the system.

For example, we may criticise the Election Commission but that does not mean we are also criticising the manner in which we choose our government -- meaning through Parliamentary and State elections. So, criticising one does not mean we are also criticising the other.

The ex-IGP too has criticised the Malays. (Why do all these people criticise something only when they are ‘ex’ and not while they are still in office?). The ex-IGP (read more here) said that the Chinese do not respect the Malays because the Malays are corrupt.

Fair comment, I suppose. But the ex-IGP’s interpretation of ‘corruption’ is merely regarding receiving bribes. What about the act of giving bribes? Should the Malays now also not respect the Chinese because they pay bribes?

I know sometimes Malays bribe Malays while Chinese bribe Chinese. However, most of the civil servants and police officers are Malays and these are the people who take bribes. Hence the bribe-takers, as what the ex-IGP is implying, are Malays. But then whom are the ones paying these bribes?

The underworld, triads and prostitution, loan shark, gambling and drug syndicates are Chinese-run. I have, in fact, personally met many of their bosses and many hold Datuk and Tan Sri titles. They are actually very nice people (until you cross them) and I know I am well protected with them as my friends. So don’t try to threaten my life or else you will end up in a mining pool.

And all, I repeat, ALL, these people pay ‘protection money’ to the police. So is this not Chinese bribing Malays? Hence if Chinese do not respect Malays for taking bribes do we respect the Chinese for bribing Malays? Again, just like the ex-Mufti regarding the issue of criticising the monarchs, the ex-IGP did not explain this part.

Anyway, what is the definition of corruption? Is corruption only about receiving money? There are many types of corruption. Corruption is not just about receiving money.

Let’s go through some examples. There are many but for purposes of this article allow me to highlight a few.

The government says that 90% of the personal income tax is paid by the Chinese. This tax is then used to build mosques. So, technically, the taxpayers are paying for these mosques. But then the non-Muslims, say the Christians, are not at liberty to build churches.

The Christians are not even asking for the government to pay for the building of these churches. They are prepared to pay for the cost themselves. They just want permission to build the churches. But even this is not easy to obtain.

Is this not another form of corruption?

UiTM is 100% Malay and it is funded by the government from money paid by the taxpayers. The non-Malays pay 90% of the tax to build schools that are 100% Malay. Is this not yet another form of corruption?

So corruption is not just about Malays receiving bribes from the Chinese. There are so many forms of corruption. The only thing is we do not call it corruption. We call it the New Economic Policy.

Why are the IGPs and DIGPs Malay? Are there no Chinese, Indians, Sikhs, etc., who are equally qualified or better qualified to become the IGP or DIGP? Why must only Malays hold top positions in the government, police, military, GLCs, etc?

Is this not corruption when the better candidate is by-passed because of race in favour of a less capable Malay?

We need to broaden our perspective regarding the meaning of corruption. Bribes is merely one and very basic form of corruption. Corruption extends beyond just the act of receiving bribes. And Islam is not just about criticising the person (like a monarch) but also about criticising the system (like the monarchy).

You cannot be a little bit pregnant. You also cannot criticise the dog collar when it is the dog that bit you.

Malaysians are a bit too free with labelling this, that, or the other, as racism. Racism goes deeper than just fighting for your own community. Would you label African American Christian priests or African American Muslim imams who set up community centres for ‘Blacks’ as racists?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Jennifer Lopez: 'We're realizing our power'

(AP) - Jennifer Lopez says Latinos in the United States are starting to realize their power in politics and media, and that makes the timing good for her latest undertaking: Lobbying for greater diversity in TV programming.

The entertainer spoke Wednesday at the Cable Show, a communications convention, ahead of new programming set to launch July 18 on the NUVOtv network. Lopez serves as chief creative officer of the English-language Latino channel. 

“It’s an extension of who I am as an artist,” she said about her new role in an interview with The Associated Press. “As I grow in this business, I’ve been in the business close to 20 years now, that creative spark that you have doesn’t go away. It keeps growing almost.” 

Lopez said working behind the scenes is just— if not more— rewarding than performing. 

“Singing and acting and dancing and performing live, it’s always going to be my passion,” she said. “But at the end of the day when you’re given the opportunities to be more creative, to create things more from the ground up, to really, really do things like NUVO, which is, really for me empowering a community that means so much to me.” 

She added, “It feels bigger than me. It feels bigger than just a television show. It’s something that can change the world, the face of television, the way people feel about themselves, how they’re inspired, what they aspire to do and to be.” 

The actress-singer-dancer said these are exciting times across the board for Latinos. 

“There’s a big revolution going on, it’s like a media and cultural revolution of Latinos here in the United States,” she said. “We’re realizing our power. We’re realizing that we matter here. You know, we’re not just, you know, the guys working behind the scenes in the kitchens and as a plumber. You know what I mean. We really have influence. We’re really growing as a community and we’ve come into a place where we deserve to be considered and served and catered to and that’s an exciting thing for Latinos right now.” 

Lopez was meeting later Wednesday with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the National Council of La Raza and Sens. Harry Reid and Bob Menendez. 

She said businesses are getting on board too because of the tremendous buying power of Latinos, which is why she is also the creative chief officer of the Viva Movil brand for Verizon. The entertainer is opening a chain of 15 cell phone stores with bilingual staffers starting this month to cater to the Hispanic market. 

While Lopez, 43, continues to undertake creative ventures, she said she will never stop performing. 

“It’s a new day when it comes to women. Where before, whatever, 20 years ago, you were written off by the time you were 25, oh she’s 28, she’s so old. We’re realizing, the world is realizing that women are not even coming into their own until they’re in their 40s, that they have so much to offer. That you can stay in shape, that your life is not over once you have kids and it becomes only about your kids, that to be a great mother, or great parent or great woman in this world you have to be a great individual first, you know what I mean, and that’s very empowering and we’re all realizing this.” 

Lopez said many major actresses in Hollywood right now are in their 40s and in the prime of the careers including Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts and Halle Berry. 

“It’s a new day for women, it’s a new day for Latinos, it’s a new day,” she said.

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

If someone from DAP had said what Jennifer Lopez said, the Umno troopers would have screamed ‘racist’. And if someone from Umno had said what Jennifer Lopez said, the DAP troopers would have screamed ‘racist’.

I suppose the best defence against being accused of being a racist is to accuse the other person of being a racist. After all, the best form of defence, as they say, is to attack. So you attack the other person and put them on the defence.

Now, if you can take your eyes of Jennifer Lopez’s picture for just a minute and read the news report, you can see that, according to ‘Malaysian standards’, she sounds like a racist. So are you now going to boycott her?

The reason I posted this news report -- other than so that I can post Jennifer Lopez's lovely pictures, and other than to show our women readers how you can still look good at 43 -- is to emphasis a point. And my point is there is racism and there is racism.

DAP is always apologetic (and will deny it) regarding its ‘Chinese agenda’, if I may be permitted to call it that (because DAP will profusely deny it has a Chinese agenda and will insist that it is ‘multi-racial’). Umno, too, is equally apologetic (and will deny it) regarding its ‘Malay agenda’ (which no amount of denial will change this perception since ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is its rallying call).

No, my piece today is not to engage in a debate about whether DAP and Umno do or do not have a Chinese agenda and Malay agenda respectively. This is a non-starter debate mainly because we would never reach a consensus regarding this issue. So let’s not even start debating something that we know will never see an agreement.

What I want to emphasis here is even if DAP does have a Chinese agenda and Umno a Malay agenda so what? That does not make you a racist. What is so wrong with fighting for the betterment of a certain community even if it is your own community?

Some people fight for Islam. Some fight for the rights of gays. Some fight for liberalism. Some fight for nationalism. Some fight for socialism. Some fight for capitalism. Some fight for Malay education. Some fight for Chinese education. Some fight for the improvement of the Indian lot. Some fight for the legalising of abortion. Some fight for the legalising of euthanasia. Some fight to restore and preserve old and historic buildings. Some fight for the preservation of the Leatherback Turtles. Some fight to oppose cruelty to animals. Some fight to make cockfighting illegal. Some fight to make bullfights illegal. And the list goes on and on.

Everyone has a cause of some sort. That cause might even be as simple as just making sure that your family is safe and comfortable. But everyone invariably still has a cause even how selfish that cause may be. And your cause may be to fight to improve the lot of your community. That does not make you a racist.

Malaysians are a bit too free with labelling this, that, or the other, as racism. Racism goes deeper than just fighting for your own community. Would you label African American Christian priests or African American Muslim imams who set up community centres for ‘Blacks’ as racists?

They know that there is a serious social problem in the ‘Black ghettos’ and all they want to do is to take the kids off the streets to protect them from the street gangs and drugs. This does not make these African American Christian priests or African American Muslim imams racists.

Fighting to improve the lot of your community is a noble cause. It is most unfortunate that the racism label has been given to this cause. It puts people off from doing good deeds when what they do is labelled as racism.

If I express concern that Malay kids in the kampongs are not getting a good diet (which in turn affects their learning capabilities) and I launch a campaign to distribute, say, milk to these Malay kids that does not make me a racist. I suppose if there happens to be one or two Chinese and Indian kids in that kampong and I refuse to also extend this to these non-Malay kids then that would make me a racist.

Let’s be clear about what racism is. And according to Malaysia’s very narrow interpretation of racism that would make Jennifer Lopez a racist as well. But then she is not even though she says, “Latinos in the United States are starting to realize their power in politics and media. We really have influence. We’re really growing as a community and we’ve come into a place where we deserve to be considered and served and catered to and that’s an exciting thing for Latinos right now.”

Maybe I should now say: I am a ‘racist’ and proud of it!

The fruit of a poisonous tree is poisonous. There are no two ways about it. The opposition will sound more credible if it were to announce that it is boycotting the salaries and allowances for all Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons since it considers the recent general election as illegitimate and the government as equally illegitimate.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PKR to decide tonight on boycott of swearing-in of MPs

(ABN News) - PKR will decide tonight whether its Members of Parliament should boycott the swearing-in ceremony when the new session of Parliament begins on June 24.

The political bureau will discuss the move tonight, PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli told a press conference today.

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

Boycotting the Parliament briefing session or the swearing-in ceremony or even the Parliament sittings is one thing. What they should do, and which is more important, is that they should boycott the salary and allowances that are being paid to the Members of Parliament, which comes to a hell a lot of money.

This is not just about the money, of course. This is about the principle of the matter. Since you regard the recent general election as an illegitimate general election and the 222 Members of Parliament (plus the 505 State Assemblypersons) as being illegitimately elected into office, then the salaries and allowances would be equally illegal.

Hence, on point of principle, the salaries and allowances should be rejected until the legitimacy of the general election plus the legitimacy of Parliament and the State Assemblies are resolved by the election courts.

This is more so for the Muslim Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons. It boils down to proper Islamic teachings and principles. The product or result of something haram is haram. For example liquor and gambling are haram. So the income from such enterprises is haram. And by that same token, if the appointment is haram, then the income from that appointment is also haram.

That is if you want to be proper Muslims and not just talk about Islam without meaning a single word of what you say.

We must remember that Anwar Ibrahim is going all over Malaysia saying that the opposition does not recognise the recent general election. He wants the recent general election declared null and void. In short, the present government (and 'government' here means all 222 Members of Parliament and 505 State Assemblypersons and not the administration, which comprises of the civil service) is haram. Hence everything attached to it, the salaries and allowances as well, are haram.

The fruit of a poisonous tree is poisonous. There are no two ways about it. The opposition will sound more credible if it were to announce that it is boycotting the salaries and allowances for all Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons since it considers the recent general election as illegitimate and the government as equally illegitimate.

To accept the salaries and allowances would mean you accept the election result and consider yourself properly and duly elected into office. This would appear inconsistent with your stand of not recognising and accepting the general election.

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

不合法的就是不合法的 

對源自一棵毒樹的果實來講，它自己本身也是有毒的；這是毋庸置疑的。既然反對黨都認爲此次大選是不合法的（進而他們也認爲此屆政府也是不合法的）話，如果他們能宣佈杯葛收受給與他們黨内囯州議員的薪金與津貼，他們的信譽肯定會變得更好。

公正黨今晚決定是否要杯葛國會議員宣誓就職禮

(ABN新聞) – 公正黨將會于今晚決定其中選的國會議員是否會杯葛于6月24日舉行的宣誓就職典禮。

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

杯葛國會宣誓就職典禮/簡報會議/座位分配是一回事。他們應該做的，而且更爲重要的，是杯葛接受國會議員的薪金與津貼；我們現在所談及的是一筆很大的數目呢。

當然，這並不只是牽涉到金錢而以，我們在此談及的是原則。既然你們都認爲此屆大選是不合法的和那222位國會議員（再加上505位州議員）是通過不合法的渠道中選的，那麽這些薪金與津貼也鐵定是不合法的。

所以說，他們應該拒絕收取這些薪金與津貼，直到大選結果和囯/州會的合法性被選舉法庭承認爲止。

這對信奉回教的囯州議員來講尤其重要，這和伊斯蘭教義和原則是有很大關聯的。那些原自不合法的活動的產品/結果一樣也是不合法的。給你個例子，酒類和賭博是不合法的，所以從這些東西衍生出來的收益也是不合法的。運用同樣的道理，如果說這次囯州議員是通過不合法的管道被任命的，那隨之而來的收入也是不合法的。

當然，這是一個真正穆斯林的做法，而不是那些只會空談不會實踐的穆斯林的做法。

我們必須記得安華他是全國跑透透來向大家表明反對黨是不承認此次大選的結果的；他要此次大選被宣佈無效。簡短一點來講，現任政府（這裡的政府指的是那222名國會議員與505名州會議員，而不是管理行政人員如公務員等）是不合法的，所以任何跟它扯上關係的（包括薪金與津貼）也都是不合法的。

對源自一棵毒樹的果實來講，它自己本身也是有毒的；這是毋庸置疑的。既然反對黨都認爲此次大選是不合法的（進而他們也認爲此屆政府也是不合法的）話，如果他們能宣佈杯葛收受給與他們黨内囯州議員的薪金與津貼，他們的信譽肯定會變得更好。

儅你接受薪金與津貼時你其實已間接地接受了此屆大選的結果。這和你表明不接受大選結果的立場是很自相矛盾的。

Can you see that everything in the end boils down to just one thing -- robbery. Anything taken from the people or denied the people is an act of robbery. You rob the people of this, that or the other. So our struggle must be to oppose these robbers. Anyone who short-changes the people is robbing the people. And I can see robbers on both sides of the political divide. Even in Pakatan Rakyat, just like in Barisan Nasional, there are robbers.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday I wrote about lust, the foundation of humankind (READ HERE). It was a good experiment in presenting half a glass of water and then watch whether people would say that the glass is half-full or half-empty.

People with a positive mind would say that the glass is half-full whereas those with a negative mind would say it is half-empty. Most readers who posted comments saw the glass as half-empty, which means these people have negative minds.

I am not sure whether these 70 or so readers who posted comments in that article reflect the sentiments of the 800,000 readers of Malaysia Today but we certainly cannot say this is the majority view.

The funny thing is one reader even interpreted my article as a Chinese-bashing article. I suppose this reader sees everything as Chinese-bashing. I bet if I were to say that Hari Raya Puasa should be a one-week holiday just like how some Chinese businesses close for one week during Chinese New Year they would also interpret it as a Chinese-bashing comment.

Malays have this very idiotic tendency to sometimes see everything as positive. When my Tok Guru’s infant son died he praised Allah (Alhamdulillah). I could not fathom the logic in praising Allah for the death of your infant son but then Tok Guru explained that infants have no sin so that means he would be guaranteed heaven. And all parents want their children to go to heaven.

I suppose this is giving a new meaning to the concept of half a glass of water being half-full rather than half-empty.

When they crash their car they say Alhamdulillah the car is not a total write-off and can still be repaired.

If it is a total write-off they will say Alhamdulillah only the car was damaged but no one was injured.

When someone is injured they say Alhamdulillah no one died.

When someone dies they say Alhamdulillah it was a fast death and he/she did not linger in pain for months in a hospital before dying.

If that person lingers in pain for months in a hospital before dying they will say Alhamdulillah that Allah has sent us a message that death can visit us at any time without warning to remind us how close we are to death and for us to repent before something like this happens to us and it is too late to repent.

How do you deal with people who always see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty and every calamity is seen as a blessing from Allah?

That is the ‘old’ Malay, of course. The ‘new’ Malay would probably blame the Chinese for the calamity. “Ini semua Cina punya pasal. Dia orang buat jalan tak betul sebab nak untung besar dan cepat kaya.”

Anyway, today I want to write about there being only one crime: robbery (just like there is only one sin: lust -- the gist of yesterday’s article). And that is why the crime of robbery or theft in Islam attracts a very heavy penalty -- amputation.

Yes, believe it or not, there is only one crime, the crime of robbery. Everything else is a sub-crime of robbery.

When you do not run the country properly you are robbing the people of a good government.

When you do not manage the elections properly you are robbing the people of a clean and fair election.

When you mismanage the economy you are robbing the people of quality of life

When you do not have an independent and professional judiciary and legal system you are robbing the people of justice.

When you force religion and religious edicts/rules/laws on people you are robbing them of freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

When you silence the people and deny them freedom of dissent and the right to oppose you are robbing them of their own opinion.

When you vilify and disparage critics you are robbing them of their right to disagree.

When you do not provide a good healthcare system you are robbing people of a healthy life.

When you do not provide a good education system you are robbing people of freedom from ignorance.

When the police fail in its duty it is robbing the people of safety and peace of mind.

When you distort the news you are robbing people of accurate information.

When you lie to the people you are robbing them of the truth.

Can you see that everything in the end boils down to just one thing -- robbery. Anything taken from the people or denied the people is an act of robbery. You rob the people of this, that or the other. So our struggle must be to oppose these robbers. Anyone who short-changes the people is robbing the people. And I can see robbers on both sides of the political divide. Even in Pakatan Rakyat, just like in Barisan Nasional, there are robbers.

Let me give you one example.

The religionist robbers rob gays of their right to a lifestyle of their choice because, according to them, God does not allow this. How do they know that God does not allow this? They reply that this is what the holy books say. Who wrote the holy books? They say unknown humans wrote the holy books based on quotations from the Prophets of God. How do you know they are Prophets of God? They say this is what the holy books say.

So, unknown humans wrote the holy books based on what they say are sayings of the Prophets and they are Prophets because the holy books say so. Hmm…is this not ‘I am a Prophet because the book that I wrote says so’?

Hence, based on ‘I say so’, I rob you of your right to freedom of choice. And since you do not have freedom of choice you cannot choose your own religion if you are born a Muslim (that used to be the same in Christendom until they burned all the priests alive at the stake, Alhamdulillah). You also cannot drink beer. You will also be arrested if you eat at daytime during the fasting month. You also cannot watch Elton John or Beyonce concerts (because Elton John is gay while Beyonce is too sexy). And so on and so forth.

Robbery is a foul crime. And any act is an act of robbery. And robbers should be shunned and despised. And the worst robbery of all is the act of robbing us of our rights while hiding behind various laws and using democracy as the excuse to rob us of our rights.

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

只有一種犯罪：搶劫

所以你看，所有犯罪都能被簡化成一個犯罪，那就是搶劫。所有剝削自人民或拒絕給于人民的都是搶劫。你搶劫了人民的這個，那個，還有其他的。所以我們的鬥爭必須是要瞄準這些搶匪來進行對抗的，那些虧待欺騙人民的都是正在搶劫著人民。而依我看來，這些搶匪都身在執政黨和反對黨裏。就連民聯也如囯陣般是搶匪的安身処。

昨天我寫的那篇有關欲望的文章其實是個很有用的實驗；我給了讀者們半杯水，我想看看他們會說那杯水是半滿的還是半空的。

積極的人會說那杯水是半滿的而消極的則會說是半空的。很多讀者都說那杯水是半空的，所以他們應該都是些消極的人。

我不能確定這70多名讀者的留言到底能不能代表MT的800，000讀者的想法，但可以肯定的我們不能就此就講説這是多數人的看法。

很可笑的是，有一名讀者把我的文章看成是干屌華人的文章。我想在這名讀者的眼裏所有事情都是在干屌華人的吧。我敢跟你打賭，如果我寫說開齋節假期應該如農曆新年般長達一個星期的話（一般華人老闆都會在農曆新年放一個星期假）他們肯定會把這看成攻擊華人的言論。

馬來人有一種把所有事情都看成是好事的愚蠢習慣；儅我的師父喪子時他是很感謝上蒼的。我搞不懂爲何你要為你嬰兒的死而感謝上蒼，但師父的解釋是嬰兒是沒有罪孽的，所以他一定可以上天堂。所有父母都會要他們的孩子上天堂。

我想這個故事會給‘半滿的水杯’一個全新的意思吧。

儅他們發生車禍時，他們會講感謝上蒼Alhamdulillah，車子還沒全毀，修理后還可以駕。

如果車子全毀，他們會講感謝上蒼Alhamdulillah，沒有人受傷。

如果有人受傷，他們會講感謝上蒼Alhamdulillah，沒人死亡。

如果有人死亡，他們會講感謝上蒼Alhamdulillah，那個人毫無痛楚地立馬去世，不必在醫院裏拖上一兩個月再痛苦地死去。

如果那個人在醫院裏拖上一兩個月再痛苦地死去，他們會講感謝上蒼Alhamdulillah，上蒼正給我們提示說意外和死亡是會毫無預兆隨時到來的，我們應該隨時隨地地懺悔，不然意外發生了我們就無法懺悔了。

這些人的杯子永遠都是半滿的，他們所面臨的災難都是上蒼的庇佑，你應該怎樣去跟他們談呢？

當然以上這些都是‘舊’馬來人。‘新’馬來人應該都會把這些災難都怪罪在華人身上吧：“Ini semua Cina punya pasal. Dia orang buat jalan tak betul sebab nak untung besar dan cepat kaya.”

話説回來，我今天要寫的是這世上只有一種犯罪，那就是搶劫（就像是這世上只有一種罪惡，那就是欲望----這就是我昨天要講的中心點）。這就是爲什麽根據回教刑法偷竊和搶劫是要受斷肢這種嚴重處罰的。

是的，信不信由你，這世上只有一種犯罪，那就是搶劫。其他的犯罪都是搶劫罪的分支而已。

儅你沒把國家管理好時，你搶劫了人民擁有一個良好政府的權力。

儅你沒把選舉系統管理好時，你搶劫了人民擁有一個公正選舉的權力。

儅你沒把經濟打理好時，你搶劫了人民擁有良好生活素質的權力。

儅你沒有一個獨立且專業的司法系統時，你搶劫了人民應該擁有的公義。

儅你強迫人民接受宗教思想和條規時，你搶劫了人民的思想自由權和宗教自主權。

儅你壓制人民禁止他們發表和你意見相左的言論時，你搶劫了人民應有的發表看法權。

儅你侮辱批判者時，你搶劫了他們不贊同你的權力。

儅你沒有一個良好的醫藥系統時，你搶劫了人民擁有一個健康身體的權力。

儅警察沒有能力執行他們的工作時，他們搶劫了社會的良好治安和人民的安心。

儅你沒有一個良好的教育系統時，你搶劫了人民擁有一個能夠擺脫無知的機會。

儅你對人民説謊時，你搶劫了他們的知情權。

所以你看，所有犯罪都能被簡化成只有一個犯罪，那就是搶劫。所有剝削自人民或拒絕給于人民的都是搶劫。你搶劫了人民的這個，那個，還有其他的。所以我們的鬥爭必須是要瞄準這些搶匪來進行對抗的，那些虧待欺騙人民的都是正在搶劫著人民。而依我看來，這些搶匪都身在執政黨和反對黨裏。就連民聯也如囯陣般是搶匪的安身処。

讓我來給你個例子。

那些宗教份子搶劫了同性戀者選擇他們生活方式的權力。根據他們的説法，這是因爲上帝禁止這種生活方式。他們怎樣知道上帝是禁止這的呢？他們回答是神聖的經書這樣寫到的。這些神聖經書是誰寫的呢？他們回答是一些不知名人士根據上帝的使者所講的話而卸下來的。他們怎麽知道這些人是上帝的使者呢？他們回答這是神聖經書提到的。

所以，那些不知名人士根據上帝使者的語錄寫了這些神聖經書，而他們是上帝的使者因爲神聖經書是這樣寫的。哼。。。。這不正是‘我是上帝的使者，因爲我寫的經書是這樣寫的’嗎？

故此，就因爲‘我説了算’，我搶劫了你的選擇權。既然你沒有了選擇權，如果你出生自穆斯林父母的話你就不能選擇其他宗教（基督教以前也是這樣子的，直到他們把所有的牧師都燒死爲止，感謝上蒼）。你也不能喝啤酒。你在齋戒月吃東西會被捉。你也不能去看Elton John或Beyonce的演唱會（因爲Elton John是名同性戀而Beyonce 則是太性感了).。還有更多更多的。

搶劫是個很卑污的犯罪。還有，所有的犯罪都是搶劫。還有，所有搶匪都應該被隔離和被鄙視。還有，最卑鄙的搶劫做法就是那種以法律和民主的名義為幌子來搶劫我們權力的這種做法。

Then the English made one huge mistake, as did the Christian missionaries. They built schools and started educating the Malays. Then the Malays began to speak English better than an Englishman and sometimes with a Winston Churchill accent as well. Then the educated Malays began to be taught one very important word, lust. The Malays were told if they did not possess lust then they would be viewed as lazy and backward. They needed to have lust to prove that they are progressive and successful.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Lust is very important. Without lust we would all not exist. Lust is what drives us. Lust is both constructive and destructive. Lust builds plus it destroys. And lust is not only the foundation of humankind it is also the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. Without lust we would not have ‘Religions of the Book’.

There are some who believe that God created Adam from dust or earth after first turning it into clay. Then God allowed this lifeless statue to set as the angels in Paradise all gathered around curiously watching God at work. God then blew a soul into this statue and it came to life.

God then instructed all the Angels to kowtow to Adam, who is going to be the Vicegerent on earth. All the Angels complied except Iblis. Iblis saw how God had made Adam, who is merely from earth, while Iblis is made from fire. So how could a more superior being created from fire kowtow to an inferior being made from dirt?

Basically Iblis suffered from the lust of power and pride. Adam was a weak creation and hence did not possess much power. Adam had emotions, feelings, needs, and whatnot and hence was weak. Iblis was not weakened by all these human ‘failings’. Emotions, feelings, needs, and so on, are weaknesses, which Iblis did not possess. Furthermore, earth is weaker than fire. Hence no way would a more superior creation kowtow to a weaker creation.

Iblis’s defiance incurred the wrath of God. God then punished Iblis by evicting him from Paradise and by condemning him to an eternity in hell. Iblis then requested that God hold back sentencing until the end of time. Iblis told God he would in the meantime like to prove to God that Adam is weak and therefore Iblis was justified in not kowtowing to Adam.

God agreed with this proposal and challenged Iblis to prove it. Iblis has carte blanche to try to mislead Adam and prove that Adam is weak and can be misled. Of course, Iblis will eventually be sent to hell at the end of time. In the meantime Iblis can try to mislead Adam and try to bring him (Adam) to hell with him (Iblis).

Soon Adam became lonely and craved for a companion. God then created Adam’s companion, Eve, from Adam’s rib bone. Adam took one look at the sexy Eve and went “Woh!….Man!” and that was how Adam’s companion got the name woman (this part the holy books somehow did not record).

But thus far Iblis had not succeeded in misleading Adam and to get him condemned to hell. So Iblis tried to work on Eve instead and to use Eve to mislead Adam. We of course know the story about the forbidden fruit and how God angrily threw Adam and Eve out of Paradise for disobeying the instruction regarding the forbidden fruit and how Adam and Eve ended up on earth and soon bred like rabbits and today there are seven billion of us running around doing bad things to each other.

That is the story of the creation of humankind, as some ‘people of the Book’ believe happened. And since coming to earth, or rather since banishment to earth, humankind has been plagued with the disease of lust -- lust for power, lust for wealth, lust for domination, lust for a good life, lust for recognition, lust for victory, lust for success, lust for sex, and much more. 

So this is what drives us, lust. This is what makes us succeed, lust. This is what makes us fail, lust. This is what makes us dominate others, lust. This is what triggers wars, lust. This is why we kill, lust. This is why we seek power, lust. This is why we persecute, lust. This is why we discriminate, lust. In short, all our strengths, weaknesses, successes and failures can be attributed to just one thing, lust. We never act unless guided by lust.

Of course, we will never admit this. We will hide behind all sorts of excuses to justify our actions. We will give all sorts of labels to our actions to present them with a noble image. Ultimately, however, it all boils down to just one word, lust.

Businessmen are driven by the lust for success and wealth. Politicians are driven by the lust for power and domination. Religionists are driven by the lust for power and domination. Everyone is driven by one lust or another and will act driven by this lust and will not call it lust but will call it something else that sounds nobler. Ultimately, call it what you want, it is still lust.

Any society that does not succumb to lust would be viewed as a backward society. The Malays used to be like this once upon a time. They were once very happy tilling the land or harvesting the sea. That is why the early Malays were perceived as lazy people. They had no ambition. They did not mind being oppressed or dominated. Anyone could lord over the Malays. Malays were always colonised by one power or another.

You could even tell the Malays to convert from Hinduism and Buddhism to Islam and the entire community would become Muslims although they did not really know what ‘true’ Islam is and many became Muslims steeped in Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, customs and traditions.

The Siamese came and the Malays called then tuan (lord). The Hindus came and the Malays called them tuan. The Indonesians from Riau, Aceh, Java and whatnot came and the Malays called them tuan. The Portuguese came and the Malays called them tuan. The Dutch came and the Malays called them tuan. The English came and the Malays called them tuan. The Japanese came and the Malays called them tuan. The English came again and the Malays called them tuan.

Then the English made one huge mistake, as did the Christian missionaries. They built schools and started educating the Malays. Then the Malays began to speak English better than an Englishman and sometimes with a Winston Churchill accent as well. Then the educated Malays began to be taught one very important word, lust. The Malays were told if they did not possess lust then they would be viewed as lazy and backward. They needed to have lust to prove that they are progressive and successful.

And the Malays who would believe anything you told them began to believe this. And soon the Malays lusted after power and wealth. And the Malays were no longer satisfied with just tilling the land and harvesting the sea. They now wanted power and wealth.

Then the British introduced the English system of government and the English system of how to choose this government. The British also taught the Malays how to cheat to gain power so that the minority could lord over the majority. Soon the Malays began to learn that those with the largest and most number of guns would win the argument. 

The Malays soon realised that power comes from the barrel of the gun and about how effective British gunboat diplomacy can be when the minority wishes to lord over the majority. So you need military power to attain political power and in turn attain economic power. The Malays were convinced through this British education that domination is crucial and that political power plus economic power can only be achieved through domination.

The British taught the Malays that they needed to reduce the Monarchy to a mere Constitutional Monarchy but the Monarchy must not be abolished and Malaya turned into a Republic like India, Indonesia and whatnot (or else the majority will rule). The Malays must retain the Monarchy and turn it into a symbol of Malay dominance or else the Malays would lose this dominance.

Then the Monarchy must be made the Commander of the military so that military power would always remain in the hands of the Malays. Then, with this military power, the Malays would have a grip on political power, which in turn would guarantee the Malays economic power as well. 

The Malays were ‘spoiled’ by the British. The Malays used to be very happy tilling the land and harvesting the sea with a colonial master lording over them. Then the Malays were sent to school to receive an English education where they were taught they needed to be more like the English.

The Malays soon refused to till the land and harvest the sea. They now wanted to wear white long-sleeve shirts and ties and sit behind a desk signing documents. Then the Malays realised that they no longer needed tuans. They could become the tuans instead. Why work for a master when you can become the master? Why help the white colonial masters get rich when you can take these riches for yourself?

Today, we have a different breed of Malays. We have a breed of Malays that has been taught lust and who now allow lust to drive them. I suppose this is what Iblis wanted. It is the game-plan of Iblis to spread the doctrine of lust and make humankind lust after power and wealth.

That is the downside of educating the Malays. And once educated you cannot un-educate them again. Lust is a very powerful driving force. It makes us do bad things and makes us think that bad is actually good. But that is what the Malays have become. And you have no choice but to live with this situation. It is no longer possible to send the Malays back to the land and the sea.

The Malays have tasted what it is like to become the master of the land. And the Malays want to be seen as the master of the land. The Malays want to be acknowledged and recognised as the master of the land. And if you try to tell the Malays otherwise you will be confronted with very hostile Malays who would regard you as a robber who is attempting to rob him of his right as the master.

Sigh…why the hell did the English and Christian missionaries go and build those schools and then educate the Malays in those schools? If not the Malays would be very happy being colonised by anyone under the sun as long as they could till the land and harvest the sea.

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

欲望：人類的根底

然後英國人就像基督傳教士般犯了一個嚴重的錯誤；他們開始建造學校和對馬來人供書教學。然後馬來人開始講起比英國人還要好的英文，他們甚至還帶温斯顿·丘吉尔的口音。然後那些受教育的馬來人開始學會了一個很重要的詞，那就是欲望。他們被告知如果他們是不帶有欲望的話那他們就會被認爲是落後和懶惰的。他們必須擁有欲望來證明他們是上進和成功的。

欲望是很重要的，沒了它我們根本就不會出現。欲望是推動我們的動力，它可以建造但同時也可以毀壞。欲望不止是人類生存的根基，它還是亞伯拉罕諸教的起源根基呢。沒有了欲望我們會看不到這些‘經書的宗教’。

有人相信上帝是以泥土創造阿當的。當時上帝在天堂把粘土拉成沒有生命的人像，而祂的天使們很好奇地圍繞著祂觀看。上帝然後往這人像吹了口氣，那個人像就有了生命活了起來。

上帝要所有天使向阿當跪拜，因爲阿當即將成爲地球之主。所有天使都遵從這個命令，除了伊布力斯 Iblis以外。阿當是由泥土所捏造的，而伊布力斯則是從火焰中創造出來的。一個從從火焰中創造出來的優越物怎麽可以向由泥土捏制的劣質物叩頭呢？

基本上這就是伊布力斯對威力和面子的欲望的表現。阿當是個軟弱的創造品，所以他的威力並不強大。阿當有情緒，感情，需求等等，所以他是軟弱的。伊布力斯因不具有這些人類的‘弱點’所以他沒有人類般這麽軟弱。再者，泥土比火焰弱得多。所以說，身為一個優越者他是不會向劣者叩頭的。

伊布力斯的舉動把上帝給激怒了，上帝遂把他逐出天堂要他永世都貶入地獄。伊布力斯向上帝要求，求祂延刑至世界末日才執刑。他告訴上帝在這期間他會證明阿當是軟弱的，然後借此來證明他不向阿當跪拜是沒錯的。

上帝同意了伊布力斯的請求，祂也挑戰伊布力斯來證明自己是對的。伊布力斯從此有了張‘空白支票’，可以隨時誤導阿當來證明阿當是軟弱的。當然，到了世界末日伊布力斯還是得下地獄的，但從現在到那個時候他可以誤導阿當以便阿當可以和他一起下地獄。

過了不久，阿當就開始感到很寂寞而想要有個伴，上帝這時就取阿當的肋骨創造了夏娃。而在這個時候伊布力斯還沒有成功地誤導阿當，所以他開始把目標轉移至夏娃身上。過後關於那個禁果的故事你們都知道了，上帝把阿當和夏娃逐出了天堂，而他們來到了地球就開始像兔子般不停地生育，所以我們看到了今天全球有70億人口每天都對自己和他人做出不好的事情。

這就是人類起源的故事，很多‘經書的跟從者’都相信這個故事。自從被放逐到地球以後，人類一直都患上了欲望的疾病----對權力的欲望，對財富的欲望，對控制權的欲望，對生活素質的欲望，對名聲的欲望，對勝利的欲望，對成功的欲望，對性愛的欲望等等。

欲望就是我們的動力，欲望就是令我們成功的因數，欲望就是令我們失敗的因數，欲望就是令我們控制他人的因數，欲望就是令我們殺人的因數，欲望就是令我們尋求權利的因數，欲望就是令我們迫害他人的因數，欲望就是令我們歧視他人的因數。總歸一句，我們優點，弱點，成功與失敗背後最大的因數就是欲望，如果沒有欲望來促使我們根本就不會做出什麽行動。

我們當然是永遠都不會承認這一點的，我們會用一切一切的理由來合理化我們的舉動。我們會用很多的標簽來高尚化我們的舉動。但到最後，我們舉動的背後還是欲望這個詞。

商人的動力來自對成功和財富的欲望。政客的動力來自對權力和控制慾的欲望。宗教份子的動力來自對權力和控制慾的欲望。所有人的動力來自欲望，他們會被這些欲望所推使而採取行動。然而，他們都不會把這稱爲欲望，他們會為他們的行動灌上一個更高尚的名義。但到最後，你可以給它一百個名稱，它都會還是欲望。

那些沒有屈服于欲望的社會都會被稱爲是落後的社會。馬來人曾經是這樣過日子的，他們都很開心地種田捕魚。這就是爲什麽以前的馬來人都被認爲是很懶惰的，他們都沒有志向。他們不怕被他人壓迫或控制，任何人都可以統理馬來人；馬來人一直以來都是被其他權力給殖民的。

你可以告訴馬來人他們必須從興都教或佛教轉成皈依回教，而他們整個社群都會照你的話去做，雖然他們都不懂‘真正’的回教到底是什麽。很多人在皈依回教后仍然保持著興都教或佛教的信念，文化和傳統。

暹羅人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。興都人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。亞齊和爪哇的印尼人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。葡萄牙人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。荷蘭人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。英國人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。日本人到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。英國人再次到來時馬來人稱他們為主人。

然後英國人就像基督傳教士般犯了一個嚴重的錯誤；他們開始建造學校和對馬來人供書教學。然後馬來人開始講起比英國人還要好的英文，他們甚至還帶温斯顿·丘吉尔的口音。然後那些受教育的馬來人開始學會了一個很重要的詞，那就是欲望。他們被告知如果他們是不帶有欲望的話那他們就會被認爲是落後和懶惰的。他們必須擁有欲望來證明他們是上進和成功的。

那些你講什麽他們就信什麽的馬來人開始相信了這一點，他們很快地就開始對權力和財富有了欲望。他們不再對種田捕魚感到滿足了，他們想要擁有權力和財富。

然後英國人就開始介紹他們的政府系統和如何選擇政府。英國人也開始教會馬來人如何騙權和如何以少數人管制多數人。馬來人很快地就學習到了那些擁有最多和最大火力槍械的人永遠會在爭辯中勝出。

馬來人開始知道權力是從槍管裏出來了，他們也開始明瞭儅少數人想要管制多數人時英國人的戰船外交政策是很有效的。所以你要先取得軍事權才能取得政治權和經濟權。馬來人被英式教育説服而認爲管治權是很重要的，只有通過完全的管治那他們才能取得政治權和經濟權。

英國人教馬來人說他們必須把君主的權力削弱成憲法制君權但他們不可徹底地摒棄君主制，不然馬來亞會像印度，印尼等變成一個共和國（當時就是多數人掌權了）。馬來人必須保留他們的君主和把他轉換成馬來人管治權的標誌，不然馬來人就會失去這個管治權。

然後馬來君主必須成爲軍隊的統領以便馬來人能永遠地掌握軍權。有了軍權，馬來人就能取得政治權，進而經濟權就會落入他們的口袋了。

馬來人是被英國人‘寵壞’了。他們以前會很開心地種田捕魚而不會去管殖民他們的外來勢力。但後來他們都被送去了學校而被教導他們需要變得更‘英國人’。

很快地，他們不再滿足于種田捕魚了，他們想要穿西裝打領帶，坐在辦公室簽文件。然後他們就意識到他們不再需要主人了。爲什麽儅你有能力成爲主人時你還要為其他主人效命？爲什麽你要幫那些白主人賺錢而你自己可以把這些財富佔為己有呢？

今天，我們看到的是另一種類的馬來人，我們看到的是被教會擁有欲望和被欲望驅使的馬來人。我想這就是伊布力斯所要的東西吧；這是他的最終使命：散播欲望主意使人類去追逐權力和財富。

這就是教育馬來人的缺點，而一旦你教育了他們你不能再‘反教育’他們。欲望是個很給力的推動力，它會促使我們做壞事和令我們把那些壞事想成是好事。但這就是現在的馬來人了，你除了接受現實以外你別無選擇。你不可能再把馬來人都送囘農田大海了。

馬來人已經嘗到了儅主人的滋味，而他們也要被看成是這片土地的主人。他們要被承認為使這片土地的主人。如果你嘗試要告訴他們不同的東西的話，那些很懷敵意的馬來人就會把你看成是來騎劫他們儅主人權利的匪徒而對你進行圍剿。

嗐。。。爲什麽那些英國人和基督傳教士要來這兒建立學校和教育馬來人呢？要不是他們的話，馬來人應該還會很開心地在耕田捕魚和屈服于其他殖民者呢。

I feel His Majesty the Agong should pardon that woman who was arrested for insulting His Majesty in the spirit that Muslim leaders and rulers are not exempt from criticism. I know I said that insults are not criticism and that there is a difference. Nevertheless, let this be a lesson to all Malaysians that under Islam criticism of leaders and rulers is allowed as long as you know the difference between a criticism and an insult.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In The Age of Faith, Will Durant says, "Mohammad had appointed no successor to his power, but he had chosen Abu Bakar to conduct the prayers in the Medina mosque. This mark of preference persuaded Moslem leaders to elect Abu Bakar the first Caliph of Islam. Abu Bakar was simple and abstemious, kindly but resolute; attending personally to details of administration and judgement, and never resting till justice was done; serving without pay till his people overruled his austerity; and then, in his will, returning to the new state the stipends it had paid him.”

According to Islamic history, when Prophet Muhammad died, the local Medina tribes wanted to appoint one of their own as the successor to the Prophet. This led to friction between the Medinan ‘converts’ and the Meccan ‘immigrants’. Finally, after a debate and a consensus, it was agreed that Abu Bakar, a Meccan ‘immigrant’, would become the successor. (Actually, the story is much longer and more complicated than that).

There were some, however, who did not agree to Abu Bakar’s appointment. And it is said that they questioned him as to how could they be sure that he would be a just, fair, honest, noble, etc., leader. It is reported that Abu Bakar then took out his sword and placed it in front of him and replied that if he were to deviate from his duties in any way then they were to take his sword and cut off his head.

The first Caliph of Islam not only invited criticism, he invited the rakyat to use his own sword to cut off his head. Hence was the example set by the First Caliph of Islam that rulers, even ‘divinely appointed’ rulers such as ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs’ the likes of Abu Bakar, are not exempt from criticism. And mind you, Abu Bakar is one of the four whom Muslims regard as ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs’ -- meaning they are guided by God.

So this is the proper Muslim way. The rakyat can tegur (criticise) their leaders and rulers. It is not wrong. It is the Islamic thing to do. In fact, Abu Bakar asked the rakyat to not only tegur but to cut off their heads if they commit a sin against God or a crime against the rakyat.

Taking this principle of Islam as the backdrop, should Malaysians be allowed to criticise their rulers and leaders? I would say yes. It is okay to criticise our rulers and leaders. But it must be proper criticism, and probably done with civility as well, and not insults as an excuse for criticism. This is how we draw the line between criticism and insults.

The news report below is another interesting issue. I have always criticised the PAS Youth Leader, Nasrudin Hasan Tantawi, for his silly and narrow-minded statements regarding shows and whatnot. In this case, however, I have to commend his. I mean, praise should be given whenever it is due as should criticism be given whenever it is due.

Basically, Nasrudin said he invites criticism and will accept any criticism. If this is the official stand of PAS then PAS certainly practices what Islam preaches. I just wish PKR and DAP were more Islamic in their ways and invite and accept criticism just like PAS and not vilify and disparage those who criticise them. As it now stands, criticising Pakatan Rakyat is akin to insulting Islam and criticising any of the leaders of Pakatan Rakyat is treated as if you are insulting Prophet Muhammad.

I feel His Majesty the Agong should pardon that woman who was arrested for insulting His Majesty in the spirit that Muslim leaders and rulers are not exempt from criticism. I know I said that insults are not criticism and that there is a difference. Nevertheless, let this be a lesson to all Malaysians that under Islam criticism of leaders and rulers is allowed as long as you know the difference between a criticism and an insult.

What that woman did was an insult to His Majesty the Agong. The problem is most Malaysians do not understand the difference between criticism and insult. And they think that freedom of speech means freedom to vilify and disparage. Maybe with this latest episode they can become a bit wiser. If not then expect a few more arrests and this time with no pardon.

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

Terima kasih kerana kritik PAS

(Free Malaysia Today, 29 May 2013) - Sebagai sebuah Gerakan Islam, kami senantiasa terbuka dan bersedia untuk dikritik dan diaudit, kata Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi.

Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS Malaysia (DPPM) Nasrudin Hasan Tantawi hari ini mengucapkan terima kasih kepada semua pihak yang memberi perhatian kepada PAS lantas sudi mengkritik PAS dan pemimpinnya.

“Saya selaku Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS Malaysia menyambut dan menerima apa jua kritikan yang dilemparkan.

“Kalian semua secara tidak langsung adalah agen yang membangun dan mendewasakan PAS dengan kritikan dan teguran yang dihulurkan,” kata beliau yang juga Ahli Parlimen Temerloh dalam tulisannya hari ini.

Ujar beliau, “sebagai sebuah Gerakan Islam, kami senantiasa terbuka dan sedia untuk dikritik dan diaudit serta meletakkan kami pada situasi sebagaimana yang diajar oleh Allah swt iaitu bersedia mendengar apa jua perkataan lalu mengikut apa yang terbaik daripadanya. 

“Namun terbuka dan bersedia menerima kritikan bukan bermakna kami mesti diam membatu atau bungkam membisu dalam menerima kritikan tersebut,” katanya. 

Katanya, memberi jawab balas, menangkis serta membuat pencerahan semula terhadap kritikan adalah sebahagian dari kaedah mengurus dan menangani kritikan yang normal.

Kaedah ini dibenarkan sebagaimana uslub biasa digunakan oleh al Quran al Karim sewaktu menjawab kritikan pelbagai pihak terhadap Islam dan syariat yang dibawa oleh Rasulullah saw, utusan Allah swt.

“Apatah lagi jika sesuatu kritikan itu dibuat secara terbuka. Ia boleh mencipta prasangka dan mencetus persepsi masyarakat awam, justeru itu mahu atau tidak, jawap balas mesti dikemukakan terhadap kritikan tersebut bagi meluruskan persepsi dan memurnikan prasangka.

“Contoh apabila pelbagai tuduhan yang tidak berasas dilemparkan kepada Presiden PAS, sememangnya menjadi tanggungjawab pemimpin dan ahli PAS membuat pencerahan dan mempertahankannya,” kata Nasrudin.

Ketika berlangsungnya Kongres PKR ke 9 di Petaling Jaya, hujung minggu lalu, Ketua Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin mengkritik Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang berhubung isu pertindihan kerusi pada Pilihan Raya Umum yang lalu.

Shamsul yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bukit Katil dalam ucapannya menyalahkan Hadi kerana kekalahan PKR di kawasan-kawasan bertindih terutama di dua kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor, Kota Damansara dan Semenyih.

The ex-PAS Menteri Besar of Kedah, Azizan Abdul Razak, was also given the Tan Sri award on 1st June. I suppose now the Umno supporters are going to vilify and disparage him and call him a bitch, prostitute and whatnot. And if they do not then why the hell not? After all, Azizan is on the opposite side of the political fence and hence an enemy of Umno. So it is only right that they vilify and disparage Azizan and call him a bitch, prostitute and so on even though this would be seen as an insult to His Majesty the Agong.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Three overseas Malaysian-Chinese -- Michelle Yeoh, Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi -- were honoured by His Majesty the Agong on His Majesty’s official birthday on 1st June 2013. Michelle Yeoh received a Tan Sri award while Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi received Datuk awards.

Jimmy Choo’s and Zang Toi’s Datuk awards were received with great excitement all over the world. Michelle Yeoh’s Tan Sri award, however, was not. Michelle Yeoh was vilified and disparaged and called a bitch, prostitute, and so on. Some even alleged that she had bribed the Agong and had bought that award.

According to these critics, this is what most Chinese do. I am not sure whether that is true or not but if the Chinese say so then I suppose it could be true. After all, the Chinese should know better whether this were true or not.

Karpal Singh, on the other hand, congratulated Michelle Yeoh. He did not vilify and disparage her and call her a bitch, prostitute, and so on. Maybe Karpal does not spend enough time on the Internet so he is not aware that the opposition supporters have the opposite view to his regarding Michelle Yeoh’s Tan Sri award.

One of the arguments against Michelle Yeoh is that she lives overseas and hence she should not qualify for any award. Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi live overseas as well. Maybe it is because Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi received only Datuk awards and not Tan Sri awards so it is okay if you live overseas for Datuk awards whereas it is not okay for those who receive Tan Sri awards.

Another argument is that Michelle Yeoh is merely an actress so that is not good enough to warrant a Tan Sri award. The late P. Ramlee was also an actor and he too was given a Tan Sri award. The only thing is they waited until he died before giving him that award. Maybe they should have also waited until Michelle Yeoh dies before giving her a Tan Sri award. And maybe they should also wait until Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi die before giving them Tan Sri awards as well or else they may suffer the same fate as Michelle Teoh, which P. Ramlee was not subjected to since they gave it to him after he died.

Why they would want to give a Tan Sri award to someone who has died is beyond me. If they want to give me a Tan Sri award I would prefer they do it while I am still alive. Once I am dead and buried in my grave what the hell am I going to do with a Tan Sri award? I would not even know I have been given that award since once you are dead you lose all connection with the world.

I once knew someone called Tan Sri Jamil whose Tan Sri award was actually a hindrance when he travelled overseas. He was in Germany waiting for his flight and he noticed that the plane was terribly overdue. He then went to the counter to check on his flight and was told that the plane had already taken off some time ago.

“Why did you not page me?” he asked. “I have been waiting here for hours.”

“But we did, Mr Tan,” came the reply. “We paged you three times, Mr Tan, and when you did not respond the plane took off without you.”

Anyway, Michelle Yeoh should have stuck to her Datukship like Jimmy Choo and Zang Toi. Then she would have not been vilified and disparaged and called a bitch, prostitute, and so on. Or they should have waited until she died before giving her the Tan Sri award. Then she would also not have been vilified and disparaged and called a bitch, prostitute, and so on.

That, I believe, is the real issue here. I doubt she is being vilified and disparaged and called a bitch, prostitute, and so on, because she supports Barisan Nasional. Pakatan Rakyat believes in freedom of choice and freedom of association and one reason we oppose Barisan Nasional is because the government does not respect our right of freedom of choice and freedom of association.

The ex-PAS Menteri Besar of Kedah, Azizan Abdul Razak, was also given the Tan Sri award on 1st June. I suppose now the Umno supporters are going to vilify and disparage him and call him a bitch, prostitute and whatnot. And if they do not then why the hell not? After all, Azizan is on the opposite side of the political fence and hence an enemy of Umno. So it is only right that they vilify and disparage Azizan and call him a bitch, prostitute and so on even though this would be seen as an insult to His Majesty the Agong.

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

Jimmy Choo: Datukship will make me work harder in promoting Malaysia

(Bernama) - Jimmy Choo-designed shoes may have adorned the feet of royalty and celebrities, but the man behind those dazzling creations insists that being humble and showing respect towards others have led him to where he is now.

And it appears that being bestowed with the Datukship honour by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah would not change the famed designer a bit.

"This (the title) would make me work harder in promoting Malaysia to the world. My shoes are travelling to Milan, Paris, the United States, the United Kingdom and other places.

"But the fact is that behind them is Jimmy Choo who hails from Malaysia," Datuk Jimmy Choo told Bernama with a sense of pride of his country after the investiture ceremony at the Istana Negara here.

Elaborating on the attributes which had contributed to his success, Penang-born Choo said: "You must respect people regardless where they come from. As for me, I have a high respect for my mother and my teachers as they are the people who have brought me to where I'm now."

Choo was one of the recipients of the Panglima Jasa Negara (PJN) award, which carries the title 'Datuk', bestowed in conjunction with Tuanku Abdul Halim's birthday.

The designer said he was delighted to be given such a recognition from the country.

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

Zang Toi fans "thrilled" over his datukship honour

(Bernama) - As news of Zang Toi's Datukship spread in the Big Apple, the city's haute couture world reacted in a choreograph-like applause over the honour.

Facebook and Twitter comments by friends and business associates of the celebrity fashion designer, who has been hitting the headlines not only in the United States but also in Europe, reflected his huge fan following.

In an interview following the conferment of the title, Zang Toi told Bernama that he had been receiving non-stop congratulatory messages from friends and business contacts from all over the US, Malaysia and elsewhere.

Zang Toi, who returns to New York on Sunday from the Kuala Lumpur awards ceremony, should expect a warm welcome from his New York friends.

"It's indeed a rare achievement by a lad who started his work life on a humble note as a grocer's son and finally reached the epitome of success," said Peggy Cartwright, a local fashion critic who writes about the latest fashion designs and innovations.

Zang Toi joins international film actress Datuk Seri Michelle Yeoh, conferred the Tan Sri, who are among the prominent personalities to receive honours awarded in conjunction with the birthday of Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah.

Zang Toi appeared rather composed when he gave his post-award interview to this correspondent.

"It's indeed a great honour for me and I'm completely humbled by the gesture, especially because it comes from our King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah)," he said.

Describing the award as an "acknowledgement of my hard work", the Kelantan-born designer said he would like to share this "profound joy" with his parents and siblings who were all "extremely happy and thrilled" at the honour. 

The Datukship is another feather in the cap for Toi who had bagged several awards from professional associations for his innovative talent in the haute couture world.

Recalling how the entire story on his latest award unfolded, Zang Toi said that a week ago, he was on one of his business tours in the US when his voice mail showed an "extremely urgent message" left by his mother.

Fearing that something might have happened to his father, an octogenarian in frail health, he immediately called his mother.

She recounted receiving a call from some "high-ranking officials" in Kuala Lumpur, informing her of the honour being conferred on him, and that a formal communication to that effect along with an invitation to the awards ceremony had to be personally delivered to her son.

"In keeping with protocol norms, the formal letter had to be delivered to me and not to any one of my relatives.

"As a result, I immediately flew to Kuala Lumpur where I was given the notification and today (Saturday), I became a proud recipient of the title from the hands of the King," he said.

Noting that he was delighted to have received the honour while his parents were still around, he said: "You can imagine the great joy this has given to them and also to my brother and sister."

"I'm at a unique phase of my life right now...I can never forget my humble beginnings and I would urge every young Malaysian to take inspiration from my story - that hard work and enterprise have no limits," he said. 

The designer said he was in "very good company" at the investiture ceremony because Malaysia-born actress Michelle Yeoh had been awarded the 'Tan Sri' title at the same event.

"I know Michelle and it was a great reunion for us." Zang Toi, whose fashion products have adorned Hollywood celebrities such as Sharon Stone, Meg Ryan, Eva Longoria and others, is meanwhile planning to open his new showroom soon in New York.

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

丹斯理的故事

前吉打州大臣阿玆蘭也一樣在6月1日被封丹斯理。我想現在巫統支持者會群起侮辱他和干屌他是個婊子養的男妓。如果他們沒那麽做的話那肯定他媽地出了問題。畢竟阿玆蘭他是巫統的政治敵人，所以巫統支持者擁有權力辱駡他是個婊子養的男妓，即使這樣做也會把最高元首一併侮辱。

三名海外大馬華人----楊紫瓊，周仰傑及冼書瀛----于6月1日最高元首誕辰日被最高元首恩典冊封。楊紫瓊被封為丹斯理而周和冼則是被封拿督。

世界各地都為周仰傑及冼書瀛被封感到高興，然而楊紫瓊的待遇則大有不同；她被各界侮辱和被罵是婊子，娼妓等。甚至有人還說這是她用金錢賄賂元首而得來的頭銜。

根據這些批判者，這就是華人們喜歡做的。我不懂這是真的假的，但如果這是從一個華人口中說出的那就有可能是真的。畢竟，只有華人才最懂這到底是真是假。

在另一方面，卡巴星則就此事祝賀楊紫瓊，他並沒有侮辱和辱駡她是個婊子娼妓等。或許卡巴星並沒有經常上網，所以他不知道反對黨支持者對楊紫瓊受封一事持有和他相反的看法。

很多人干屌楊紫瓊的其中一個原因是她長年都在外地生活。請注意周和冼兩人也是如此的。周和冼只是受封拿督而不是丹斯理，所以有可能他們認爲那些身在國外的可以被封拿督但不可以被封丹斯理吧。

另一個理由就是楊紫瓊只是一名演員而已，所以她不配丹斯理這個頭銜。已故P. Ramlee 他也是一名演員，但不同的是他是死後才被冊封的。可能他們需要等到楊紫瓊死後才能封她為丹斯理吧。或許他們也需要等周仰傑及冼書瀛死後才封他們為丹斯理，不然他們也有可能如楊紫瓊般迎來駡名。

我不知道爲什麽他們要等一個人死後才冊封丹斯理頭銜；如果他們要冊封我的話那我會想要我還在世時被封。儅我死後埋在土地裏時我還要丹斯理頭銜來干嘛呢？儅一個人死後他就和這世界切斷所有關係了，所以我很有可能連我被封也不知道。

我認識一名名叫丹斯理Jamil（Tan Sri Jamil）的人，而他的丹斯利頭銜在他海外旅行時為他帶來了麻煩。他當時正在德國等飛機，而他注意到飛機好像誤點了。他跑去櫃檯問到底是什麽情況，然後被告知飛機經已起飛。

“你爲什麽不通過廣播通知我呢？我等了好幾個小時了。”

“我們有啊，丹先生（Mr Tan），我們通過廣播尋找了你3遍，但你都未曾出現，所以我們就起飛了。”

話説回來，楊紫瓊她應該像周仰傑及冼書瀛一樣繼續持有她的拿督頭銜就好，那她就不會被辱駡是婊子娼妓。或者他們可以等到她死後才封她為丹斯理，那樣她也能避免被罵。

我相信這才是問題所在，我不相信楊紫瓊被辱駡是因爲她公開支持囯陣。民聯信奉選擇自主權和團體選擇權，而我們反對囯陣的其中一個原因是因爲囯陣反對擇自主權和團體選擇權。

前吉打州大臣阿玆蘭也一樣在6月1日被封丹斯理。我想現在巫統支持者會群起侮辱他和干屌他是個婊子養的男妓。如果他們沒那麽做的話那肯定他媽地出了問題。畢竟阿玆蘭他是巫統的政治敵人，所以巫統支持者擁有權力辱駡他是個婊子養的男妓，即使這樣做也會把最高元首一併侮辱。

Okay, so we have one Indian journalist working for an Indian/Chinese news portal that is financed by Indian/Chinese opposition activists quoting an Indian opposition leader from a Chinese political party complaining about an Indian Cabinet member from the government who is alleged to be remaining silent regarding the death of an Indian under police remand. And now we have the Chinese up in arms about one very charming Malaysian Chinese actress who, today, was awarded a Tan Sri title.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I refer to the article that was published in Malaysiakini titled ‘Kula flays Waytha for silence on custodial death' on May 27, 2013, written for him by the PKR herald Terence Netto.

The article is entirely baseless. Its basic premise is false. Its arguments are at best nothing more than self-serving political opportunism.

It is written by Terence Netto who claims a career of 40 years in journalism. It is shameful what that 40 years has come to be.

The comments section of the article and the Red Bean Facebook circuits will just amplify these lies and perform the greatest disservice to our country, spreading untruths in volumes.

Kula for his part, supposedly a senior legislator, exposes his shallowness and his political opportunism in the untruths in his utterances. It all ill-portends a Goebbellian new world for Malaysia.

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

The above is a response by one of the Hindraf chaps in response to the tons of criticism being thrown around regarding the death of an Indian under police remand and the alleged deafening silence on the part of an Indian Cabinet member. I am, of course, keenly following what is being argued in the media plus online.

So here we have one Indian journalist working for an Indian/Chinese news portal that is financed by Indian/Chinese opposition activists quoting an Indian opposition leader from a Chinese political party complaining about an Indian Cabinet member from the government who is alleged to be remaining silent regarding the death of an Indian under police remand.

Hmm…1 little, 2 little, 3 little Indians…..okay, let’s move on to the next issue.

One of my many bones of contention with the opposition supporters is regarding the constant reference to the corrupt Malay government, corrupt Malay politicians, corrupt Malay police, corrupt Malay Election Commission, corrupt Malay Anti-Corruption Commission, corrupt Malay Monarchy, corrupt Malay businessmen, etc.

That is just one of my many bones of contention -- the mention of ‘corrupt’ and ‘Malay’ in the same sentence as if one equates to the other. I was always of the opinion that corruption is colour-blind. In fact, some of the most corrupt nations are ‘white skin’ countries. Some of the most violent and evil governments over the last 2,000 years are in fact not Malay governments at all. They come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

There are and were many corrupt governments in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, etc. But we never refer to them as corrupt Catholic countries or corrupt Protestant countries or corrupt Black countries or corrupt White countries or corrupt Chinese countries of corrupt Indian countries or whatever.

Do you know that all countries are corrupt? Do you know that all governments are evil? It is just the degree from country to country. Some are more corrupt and evil than others. And it also depends on what type of corruption and evil we are talking about. There are many types of corruption and evil. Not all corruption involves ‘under-the-table’ money. And not all evil involves killing. But it is still corruption and evil nevertheless.

My second bone of contention is regarding the constant comparison of the bad Malay government of Malaysia to the good Chinese government of Singapore. Again, what has race got to do with it?

Then we read comments about how Malaysia would be a Shangri-La and would become heaven on earth if Malaysia copies Singapore and becomes just like Singapore. Then we are constantly reminded about how great Penang is because we have a Chinese government in Penang, just like they do in Singapore.

Do you really want Malaysia to copy Singapore? Do you really want Malaysia to do what Singapore is doing? Do you really want Malaysia to become just like Singapore? Be careful with what you wish for. For starters, Malaysia would need to licence online news portals and websites, just like Singapore. And you will not be allowed free speech and the freedom to organise street demonstrations, just like Singapore.

Anyway, you say that Penang is a great place because it now has a Chinese government, just like Singapore. But did not Penang always have a Chinese government since the creation of Malaya in August 1957? Penang was always run by a Chinese government; never by a Malay government. And it has had three Chinese governments back-to-back.

Let me guess. You are now going to argue that the first two Chinese governments do not count because they were not opposition Chinese governments. That may be true for 12 years from 1957 to 1969. Thereafter the opposition Gerakan took over Penang. Then Gerakan joined the federal coalition and for almost 40 years the Penang Chinese kept this opposition-party-turned-ruling-party in power because the Chinese were happy with them.

In fact, the Chinese in Penang even kicked out the opposition giants like Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh because they were so happy with the opposition-party-turned-ruling-party Penang state government when at that time the Malays gave the Malay areas to the opposition and half the Malays voted opposition.

So it boggles the mind when I read all this talk about the good Chinese governments of Penang and Singapore. I just cannot reconcile this statement with the action the Chinese took over 51 years or so. What you are saying does not match what you did over 51 years.

Okay, so we have one Indian journalist working for an Indian/Chinese news portal that is financed by Indian/Chinese opposition activists quoting an Indian opposition leader from a Chinese political party complaining about an Indian Cabinet member from the government who is alleged to be remaining silent regarding the death of an Indian under police remand. And now we have the Chinese up in arms about one very charming Malaysian Chinese actress who, today, was awarded a Tan Sri title.

But many people of all races were awarded Tan Sri titles today. Many of them are Chinese as well. So why pick on just this one lovely Chinese girl? What about the many other Chinese who were also awarded Tan Sri titles today?

In fact, over the last many years, many Chinese tycoons, billionaires, millionaires and businessmen have been awarded Tan Sri titles. I have thus far not heard a single word or read a single comment regarding these many other Chinese who were not just given Tan Sri titles but some of them Tun titles as well.

Ah, hold on, is it because many of these Chinese tycoons, billionaires, millionaires and businessmen donate large sums of money to the opposition? Yes, I personally know some of these Chinese tycoons, billionaires, millionaires and businessmen. They are actually friends of mine. And I know for a fact that they donate money to both sides of the political divide. They give money to Barisan Nasional and they also give money to Pakatan Rakyat.

Is this why you do not whack them -- because while they give money to Barisan Nasional they also give money to Pakatan Rakyat? And since Michelle Yeoh does not give any money to Pakatan Rakyat -- although she also does not give any money to Barisan Nasional -- you whack her.

At the end of the day, everything boils down to just one issue -- race. And you dare say that Pakatan Rakyat is not about race? Yeah, right, Barisan Nasional is about race. Pakatan Rakyat is not about race.

In that case why are you all whacking Paul Low, the Chinese Senator-Minister? Why are you whacking P. Waythamoorthy, the Indian Senator-Minister? Why are you silent about the third man, the Malay Senator-Minister who is NOT Chinese or Indian?

No, this is not about race at all. It is about democracy and freedom of speech. Yeah, right.

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

一個小印度人，兩個小印度人，三個小印度人

好的，我們有一位印度裔記者，他為一個由印度/華人反對分子出錢支持的印度/華人新聞網站寫新聞，而他在他的新聞裏提到有一名來自華人反對黨的印裔領袖指責一個來自政府的印裔内閣成員對一位印度人在警察看守期間死亡一事保持沉默。然後我們又看到華人們因一位很有魅力的大馬華裔女演員被冊封為丹斯理而開始擦拳磨掌。

我們的印裔内閣成員在一名印度人于警察看守期間死亡后被指保持沉默而被大衆強烈地批評，而以上這封信是一名興權會會員對此事的看法。我當然追這件事追得很緊，我要看看網絡和媒體到底怎樣看待這件事情。

我們有一位印度裔記者，他為一個由印度/華人反對分子出錢支持的印度/華人新聞網站寫新聞，而他在他的新聞裏提到有一名來自華人反對黨的印裔領袖指責一個來自政府的印裔内閣成員對一位印度人在警察看守期間死亡一事保持沉默。

哼。。。一個小印度人，兩個小印度人，三個小印度人。。。好，讓我們繼續下一個課題。

我對反對黨支持者的其中一個爭議論點就是他們會經常提及貪污的馬來政府，貪污的馬來政客，貪污的馬來選舉會，貪污的馬來反貪侷，貪污的馬來君主，貪污的馬來商人。。。等等。

他們經常會把‘貪污’和‘馬來’放在一起，好像這兩代表著同一個意思般。我常認爲貪污是色盲的，事實上全世界最貪污的那幾個國家都是‘白皮膚’國家。人類2000年歷史以來最殘暴且不人道的那幾個政府都不是馬來政府，他們都來自一些不一樣的形狀，大小和顔色。

在亞洲，非洲，拉丁美洲，歐洲等有很多貪污的政權，但我們從來不會他們列爲貪污的天主教國家，貪污的基督教國家，貪污的黑人國家，貪污的白人國家，貪污的華人國家等等。

你知道所有政府都貪污腐敗的嗎？你知道所有政府都是邪惡的嗎？不同的只是嚴重性而已，有些政權會比其他的來得邪惡腐敗。還有，這還要視乎我們指的邪惡腐敗是什麽。不是所有貪污腐敗都只是涉及‘桌子底下的金錢’，而不是所有的邪惡都只涉及殺人。邪惡腐敗是有很多種類的。

我的第二個爭議論點就是他們很喜歡把腐坏的馬來西亞馬來政府對比良好的新加坡華人政府。種族和這有什麽關係呢？然後我們就會讀到很多言論說如果馬來西亞學習新加坡的話那我國就會變成個世外桃源。然後就會有人不斷地提醒我們檳城是多麽的好，因爲正如新加坡般，他們有個華人政府。

你真的要馬來西亞變得跟新加坡一樣？你真的要馬來西亞做新加坡正在做的事情？小心你想要得到的東西。就最簡單的，馬來西亞會變得像新加坡一樣，網絡新聞和網站須要開始登記。也如新加坡一樣，你會失去言論自由和上街遊行的權力。

無論如何，你講説檳城正如新加坡般因爲有了個華人政府而變成一個很好的地方，但檳城自馬來亞1957年獨立以來不一直是華人在管理的嗎？檳城一直都是華人政府，不是馬來人政府，在管理的。至今爲止它已經歷了三任華裔政府的管治。

讓我猜，你要開始講説前兩任並不算數因爲它們並不來自華人反對黨。這可能在1957-1969這12年間是對的，但1969年后民政黨這個反對黨就開始接管檳城了。民政黨後來加入了執政聯盟，而在往後的40年以來檳城華人都讓這個‘曾經是反對黨的執政黨’執政因爲他們對民政黨都感到滿意。

事實上，在馬來人都把他們的馬來選區‘投給’反對黨時，檳城華人還因爲太滿意民政黨這個‘曾經是反對黨的執政黨’政府而把反對黨大牛如卡巴星和林吉祥等拉下馬呢。

所以你看，這些所謂的‘檳城和新加坡的良好華人政府’論都把我的腦筋給弄亂了。我真的無法把這個言論和51年以來華人的所作所爲聯係上來。你現在所講的都不是你這51年以來所做的。

好的，我們有一位印度裔記者，他為一個由印度/華人反對分子出錢支持的印度/華人新聞網站寫新聞，而他在他的新聞裏提到有一名來自華人反對黨的印裔領袖指責一個來自政府的印裔内閣成員對一位印度人在警察看守期間死亡一事保持沉默。然後我們又看到華人們因一位很有魅力的大馬華裔女演員被冊封為丹斯理而開始擦拳磨掌。

不是有很多人，當中當然包括華人，被冊封為丹斯理嗎？爲什麽他們只挑這位漂亮的華裔小姐來對付呢？那其他像她一樣也受封的華人呢？

事實上，一直以來都有很多的華裔大亨，億萬富翁和商人都被冊封為丹斯理。而我至今爲止從沒聽説過有人會因他們被封為丹斯理（有些甚至還是被封為敦）而批評他們呢。

啊，對了，是不是因爲這些華裔大亨，億萬富翁和商人都有捐錢給反對黨呢？是的，我自己本身有認識一些華裔大亨，億萬富翁和商人，他們都是我的朋友，而我知道他們都有捐錢給囯陣和民聯這兩個敵對政黨。

這就是你不干屌他們的原因嗎？因爲在捐錢給囯陣的同時他們也有捐錢給民聯？就因爲楊紫瓊沒有捐錢給民聯----但請注意她也沒捐錢給囯陣----所以你就干屌她。

說到底，這些所有事情都能被簡化為一個課題，那就是種族。你現在敢跟我說民聯就不具種族主義？噢，是的，囯陣都是談論種族的，民聯不是。

如果是那樣的話爲什麽你們都跳出來干屌劉勝權這個華裔内閣上議員呢？還有P. Waythamoorthy這個印裔内閣上議員？爲什麽你們都不去干屌那第三個馬來裔的内閣上議員呢？

不是，這絕不會跟種族扯上關係，這絕對是民主和言論自由。屁啦！

Bishop Nicholas Holtam’s comment in the news item above "sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience" and “the Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has" are very interesting comments. No doubt the Bishop was talking about the Anglican Church but it could easily apply to the Catholic Church or even to Islam.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Gay Marriage Opponents 'Like Christians Who Used The Bible To Support Slavery'

(The Huffington Post UK, 30 May 2013) - A senior bishop has likened opponents of gay marriage to Christians who used the Bible to support slavery.

The Anglican Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, suggested it was time to 'rethink' attitudes towards allowing same-sex couples to marry, as Christians did with slavery and apartheid.

In a letter to the Telegraph he argued that attitudes towards homosexuality have changed "considerably" over the last fifty years and that the development of gay marriage would be a "very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage".

"Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience," he wrote.

"Before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation. Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid because it was Biblical and part of the God-given order of creation.

"No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has."

Legalisation of gay marriage was approved by MPs last week after surviving a Tory backbench bid to derail it.

The Bill will have to overcome more resistance when it comes before the House of Lords next week.

Bishop Holtam, who was appointed to the role in 2011, is the first clergyman married to a divorcee to be made a bishop.

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

Around 1,500 people witnessed the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln at 10.15pm on Good Friday of 14th April 1865. By midnight, just two hours after Lincoln was shot and even as he still lay dying and had not quite died yet, the authorities began recording the statements of more than 200 witnesses.

What was surprising was not the speed in which the authorities responded in taking the statement of these witnesses -- which was done in the next room to Lincoln’s deathbed -- but the fact that not one of the more than 200 witnesses gave the same story.

In spite of everyone having witnessed the same incident and the fact that their statement was being taken just two hours later when the event would still be fresh in their minds, no one could corroborate what the other person said.

In short, 250 people related 250 varying stories just two hours after they witnessed what happened.

A professor once did an experiment. He got 10 students to sit in a line and he whispered a story into the ear of the first student. The first student then repeated the story to the second student and so on until the story reached the end of the line. The last student was then asked to repeat the story and the story this student related varied from the story the professor had whispered into the ear of the first student.

From these two ‘case studies’ it is apparent that stories change over time. Two hours later, 250 people who witnessed the same thing cannot agree on what they saw. Ten students who passed the story down the line could not keep the story consistent even within mere minutes of the story being related. Can you imagine what would happen if the story was thousands of years old and was recorded, say, more than 100 years to 300 years after the event and was passed down by mere word of mouth over six or ten generations?

Then we have the problem of the interpretation of the story. What was said is one thing -- which itself has changed over time -- the meaning and implications of what was said would be subject to your perception of things.

And this, basically, is what has happened to religion. Religion is based on what happened thousands of years ago and is based on stories handed down over many generations through word of mouth and eventually recorded hundreds of years later by those who are recipients of drastically modified stories and who interpret these stories based on how they perceive things. The value system, standards, customs, traditions, norms, prejudices, preferences, and so on, of that later time would heavily influence the thinking of those interpreting those events and who never witnessed those events and are basing their opinions on how they perceive things and based also on what they heard. 

Bishop Nicholas Holtam’s comment in the news item above "sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience" and “the Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has" are very interesting comments. No doubt the Bishop was talking about the Anglican Church but it could easily apply to the Catholic Church or even to Islam.

I know that Catholics and Muslims are what I would describe as ‘people resistant to change’ and they believe that what was ‘revealed’ 2,000 years or 1,400 years ago is ‘complete’ and is absolutely 100% accurate without an iota of distortion. But time has proven that most of what was done back in time was based on interpretation at that point of time and, looking at it from this day and age, were absolutely wrong and not in the least correct.

France and England have just passed new laws legalising same-sex marriages. This, of course, is being opposed by the ‘fundamentalists’ and the resistance is because the holy books say it is wrong. But there are many things that are right which the holy books say is wrong and things that are wrong which the holy books say is right.

For example, if based on the holy books, then slavery and marriages between 11-year-old or 13-year-old children is also right -- plus many other things which society would today frown upon.

The question is: what is right and what is wrong? And who are these trustees of the truth who decide on what is right and what is wrong?

I mean you do not have to go back thousands of years. Just go back 56 years to the time of Merdeka and the drawing of the Merdeka Agreeement and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. If we cannot question what was decided 2,000 or 1,400 years ago, can we, therefore, question what was decided 56 years ago?

Look at the next item below. The EU is taking Britain to court over immigrants' entitlement to benefits because it is convinced that Britain is breaking EU rules by not allowing nationals from member states the same access to benefits as UK citizens.

Can you see that Britain is going to be sued for not allowing the ‘pendatang’ the same benefits as British-born people? What would happen if, say, British-born Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, etc., were treated as ‘second-class citizens’? All hell would break loose. 

This is something we need to discuss and discuss openly in Malaysia. Yes, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia may say this, that and the other. But that does not mean we can’t talk about it in a mature and civilised manner. Even the Bible, which is considered more ‘binding’ than a man-made Constitution, is being questioned. So why can’t we sit down and discuss other documents that in the fist place never ‘came’ from God? 

I feel in the post-GE13 era this must be the thrust of those from the civil society. The politicians are too distracted ‘playing politics’. We can’t depend on them to engage in mature and civilised discourses. They are too busy to worry about that. We need to take matters into our own hands and resolve these nagging issues that have been around since the 1940s and until today do not appear to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

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

(The Huffington Post UK, 30 May 2013) - The EU is taking Britain to court over immigrants' entitlement to benefits.

The European Commission is convinced Britain is breaking EU rules by not allowing nationals from member states the same access to benefits as UK citizens.

Through applying an extra 'right-to-reside' test it is alleged that Britain could have prevented migrants working and living in the UK from claiming some benefits.

The Commission believes thousands of migrants could have missed out on benefits such as child tax credit through the allegedly discriminatory test.

A British official told the BBC the test was a vital and fair tool to assess benefits were apportioned fairly.

Details of the legal action will be announced later on Thursday.

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Malays have a saying. Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama. I suppose this more or less describes what is happening here.

First of all, why does Terence Netto (in Din Merican’s piece below) have to make references to Jusuf Kalla’s Bugis ancestry? Why mention his race when you are the ones screaming for non-race-based parties and for race not being mentioned on your ICs and so on. Would it have been okay if Jusuf Kalla were Javanese or Balinese or Batak or Acehnese instead of Bugis? And you accuse Umno of being racist when you too play the race card.

Anyway, what is so wrong about him being Bugis? I know the Pakatan Rakyat supporters just love slandering someone’s race like ‘Mahathir the Mamak’ and so on. Are Bugis and Mamak akin to being a leper? His Highness the Sultan of Selangor is Bugis. Are you going to now say that DAP was snookered by a Bugis because the Sultan wants six Malay EXCO members as opposed to five Malay and five Chinese? Why not say 'Anwar the Mamak got snookered by Jusuf Kalla the Bugis' since you love disparaging Mamaks and Bugis?

Another point to note is that Anwar Ibrahim approached Jusuf Kalla to ask for the latter’s help in brokering a deal. Now you tell him to fuck off and butt out of Malaysia’s internal matters? It is you who asked for his help, not him who kaypoh. And did Pakatan Rakyat not also approach Australia to ask them to interfere in Malaysia’s elections? And did not someone from Australia, at your request, come to Malaysia during the Bersih rally? Are you now going to tell the Australians to fuck off and stay out of Malaysia’s internal matters?

Another more important point is that it was Jusuf Kalla who revealed the secret deal between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim. And then Anwar goes and whacks Najib when Najib never said a word and it was Jusuf Kalla who spoke out. Should not Anwar whack Jusuf Kalla instead? Why whack Najib? Najib never said anything. Jusuf Kalla was the one who spoke.

Aiyah, what is going on here? Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama.

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

Anwar Ibrahim snookered by Najib, thanks to Indonesia’s Jusuf Kalla

(Din Merican, 27 May 2013) - What prompted Anwar Ibrahim to agree to a deal brokered by former Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla that required both the opposition leader and Prime Minister Najib Razak to agree to peaceably accept the results of GE13?

The Wall Street Journal quoted Jusuf Kalla as saying in this weekend’s edition of the paper that he faults Anwar for reneging on the deal. In his defence, Anwar is quoted by the same paper as saying that the terms of the deal were nullified by the manner of the campaign waged by BN – that it had demonised the opposition, tactics that the Jusuf-brokered deal had required the BN to abjure.

It’s strange that after all what he has been made to endure in the last 15 years by the powers-that-be – the two trials for sodomy, one for corruption and abuse of power which led to a six-year stay in jail, dissemination of a video showing someone looking like him in a transaction with a sex worker, among a host of other calumnies leveled at him – Anwar could still be credulous enough to believe that Umno-BN can abide by the terms of the deal negotiated by Jusuf.

There was not a little surprise when Najib, in the course of announcing in nationally televised remarks on April 3 the Agong’s consent to the dissolution of Parliament, also let on that his party would abide by the wishes of the electorate and accept a peaceful transfer of power if that was what voters wanted.

Responding for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat that he leads, Anwar the same day welcomed Najib’s assurance of a peaceful transition in the event one was decreed by voters. At that time, there was no way of knowing that these pantomimes were pre-ordained by the terms of a deal worked out by Jusuf Kalla, as reported by Wall Street Journal.

According to Anwar’s version of the terms, as reported by the internationally respected paper, Najib had agreed not to demonise the opposition in BN’s campaign waged through their doormat mainstream media. There was in the versions to Wall Street Journal given by the three parties to the deal some stuff about a role for the loser in a reconciliation process that would presumably take place after the vote. But this was rejected by one or the other party. 

Concern over power transition 

Deals like these are invariably hedged with ambiguity, this one more than others because it was inherently unworkable. Asking the BN not to demonise the Opposition in an election campaign that could well have resulted in their loss of power after a half-century’s incumbency, is like distracting the Taliban from their goal of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan with the idea that they would be better off as farmers growing poppy.

From the Wall Street Journal’s story, it could not be inferred with certainty who made the initial approach for a deal – Anwar, Najib or Jusuf. Jusuf claims it was Anwar who approached him to broker the deal, but Anwar implies that the whole idea of the deal arose from concern in some ASEAN capitals that a transition of power in Malaysia after GE13 would be prone to violence.

To avert violence, get the two competing coalitions’ spearheads, Najib and Anwar, to agree a deal where they would abide by the election’s results. Anwar’s pre-condition for agreeing to the deal was that BN not demonise the opposition during the campaign. The curious thing about this aspect of the deal is how did Anwar conclude that broker Jusuf had expertise in seeing to it that the BN abided by its terms?

Apparently, Jusuf had no difficulty in phoning Anwar the day after the election, May 6, to remind him about the opposition leader’s “commitment” to accept the results with acquiescent serenity. But all a perplexed Jusuf got in return, according to The Wall Street Journal, is: “They said, ‘No, no, no.’ ” It looks like Anwar has allowed one Bugis, Jusuf Kalla, to get him snookered by another, Najib Razak.

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

Anwar: I didn't break any deal because Najib didn't sign it

(FZ.COM, 27 May 2013) Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was adamant today that he had not broken any peace deal because the prime minister had not signed the treaty.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published last Saturday, former Indonesian vice-president Jusuf Kalla accused Anwar of reneging on a secret peace deal to respect the result from the 13th general election.

Jusuf claimed that he had a written agreement with both Anwar and Datuk Seri Najib Razak in April to refrain from personal attacks and to accept the election outcome.

Anwar, however, claimed today that he was the sole signatory to the deal as Najib had refused to sign but agreed verbally.

"What were the parameters agreed upon? Number one is that we respect the ethical standards of the campaign which means you don't use the media to demonise, control the media and deny the right of other parties to express themselves. Number two is that to ensure free and fair election.

"Number three is contingent on the two earlier agreement then we must respect the agreement so that the transition of power is smooth and following that the victorious party would be magnanimous and no witch hunt. The defeated party would then accept the decision.

"It is more pronounced in that situation given all these points then there must be a spirit of building this nation together in this new reconciliation. So that is the context. Then why do you about reneging the agreement," he told a press conference at PKR headquarters.

Anwar explained the case of reneging did not arise because Najib had broken the first two agreements and pointed out that "the entire discourse now is about fraud and mass rigging."

He also claimed that Jusuf had met Najib and him several times prior and after nomination and after election.

"Initially my agreement was verbal but I told Pak Jusuf  'Look, I don't want to be like Najib because Najib will come and give all sorts of assurances'… So I told Pak Jusuf that I don't want to be in that category, so if I agree on ethical standards, free and fair election and peaceful transition then I will sign it.

"So I signed it alone and Najib did not," he said.

Anwar admitted that he had signed the agreement despite knowing beforehand that Najib had refused to the sign the agreement.

He also denied the agreement had touched on the subject of forming a unity government or any form of power sharing.

"Of course, I am not (legally bound to the contract). There is no contract. That is a contract that I signed. Najib said he agreed, he is a man of honour but he dare not, as usual, sign even though he agreed," he said.

Anwar confirmed that the contract was signed before nomination day.