You see, I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how the law works. Any statement by a third party that you repeat becomes hearsay and hence is not admissible in court. You cannot make an allegation based on what someone told you. It must be based on what you yourself heard and/or saw. In this case I was NOT at the scene of the crime. Hence, by law, I cannot make any allegation when I was not there and did not see or hear what happened.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sorry to prick your gloat balloon. I do recall that you once declared Rosmah was there when Altantuya was C4ed. That was a lie and you corrected yourself sometime later. Nevertheless, it was a lie in the first place. So, you don't ALWAYS tell the truth then as you claim. -- Fer

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

That was a comment by ‘Fer’ posted in my article ‘Allow me to gloat today’.

As you can see, from the hundreds of issues that I have raised since the mid-1990s and the countless allegations I have made against politicians, police officers, civil servants, etc., there is only that one issue they keep raising, again and again, against me.

Do you mean to say, ‘Fer’, since the 17 or 18 years that I have been writing political commentaries, this is the one and only ‘lie’ that I am supposed to have made which you can use against me?

Never mind. Let’s then talk about this one ‘lie’ that you have raised. It is actually good that you have raised it because it gives me an opportunity to talk about it. Or else what excuse do I have in raising this matter? In this instance, I am not raising this matter. You have raised it, not me. I am just responding to the allegation that I had lied. And if I do not respond then you will say that the allegation is true.

Now, read my Statutory Declaration below. That is the original signed copy of my Statutory Declaration lodged in the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 18th June 2008. I trust this is the issue you are talking about, ‘Fer’. Can you tell me which part of that Statutory Declaration is my allegation against Rosmah Mansor?

Unless your command of the English language is really bad, you can see that the allegation is not against Rosmah. The allegation is against ‘an informer’. I did not declare, as you said, that Rosmah was there. Instead, I declared that an informer stated that Rosmah was there.

You see, I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how the law works. Any statement by a third party that you repeat becomes hearsay and hence is not admissible in court. You cannot make an allegation based on what someone told you. It must be based on what you yourself heard and/or saw. In this case I was NOT at the scene of the crime. Hence, by law, I cannot make any allegation when I was not there and did not see or hear what happened.

Before I signed this Statutory Declaration I did get advise from my lawyers and I was told as to what I can and cannot say. And I cannot say that Rosmah was there because I was not also there and hence did not see this. But I can say what I have been told by this third party or informer, which I did.

In fact, the law requires that you do this. If you do not, then you will be guilty of the crime of withholding information pertaining to a crime -- and you can get sent to jail for that.

In short, I cannot, and did not, make an allegation against Rosmah. What I can do, and which I did do, is to say that someone else had made this allegation and that I know who this person is. Making an allegation and alleging that someone else had made an allegation are two different things. And as much as I may not have studied law, I do know enough law to understand what is hearsay and to avoid hearsay in my Statutory Declaration.

Thus, the allegation that I lied about Rosmah is itself a lie. In other words, I did not lie. You are lying that I lied. That is the long and short of it.

Now, let’s talk about the second part of your statement, ‘Fer’, where you said I corrected myself later. I do not know where you got this impression from but I suspect it must have been from my TV3 interview more than a year ago.

In my TV3 interview, I was asked about this Statutory Declaration of 18th June 2008 where I had made an allegation against Rosmah. I replied to that person interviewing me exactly like how I have responded above. I explained to TV3 that I DID NOT make any allegation against Rosmah. I never did back in June 2008 and I am not doing so now.

I then went into detail regarding the story of how I came to sign this Statutory Declaration. I also explained that at first I did not believe this allegation because I found it very far fetched. I also thought it unlikely that Rosmah would walk into that jungle and climb those hills.

Then, I explained, I checked with both Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Anwar Ibrahim and both of them confirmed that they are aware of this story. They also personally know my informer and consider him a very reliable/credible person who has been a great help to the Opposition. In fact, he has been feeding the Opposition a lot of very valuable information, especially pre-March 2008.

Based on this ‘endorsement’ by both Ku Li and Anwar, I decided to pursue this matter and sign the Statutory Declaration. Nevertheless, I made sure that I did NOT make any allegation against Rosmah, which will be hearsay, but instead alleged that my informer was the one who said this.

This was exactly what I said in my TV3 interview. What I said in June 2008 has not changed. My story still stands without any amendments, retractions, additions or subtractions.

Hence, ‘Fer’, in what way did I ‘lie’ in June 2008 and in what way did I ‘correct myself later’? Can you see that it is you, instead, who is lying, ‘Fer’? Or is it that your command of English is so bad?

Would you still argue that I must toe the party line and support the ‘Malay unity’ talks or would you expect me to do the right thing by not supporting my party's stand since I believe that 'Malay unity' is not good for the future of the country when almost 50% of Malaysia's citizens are non-Malays?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Didn't you yourself pass unflattering and crude remarks about all the other ‘frogs’ who left Pakatan? Why the special treatment for this Tunku fella, like he was God's gift to the DAP? In politics as in team-sports, one has to be a team player and not score own goals. Agree with you though that people out to disagree in a more civilised manner. (A comment by Amaranathan in my article Masyarakat Madani)

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

Somehow readers tend to interpret things in black and white. The world comes in many different colours. Even black and white has grey in between. So why always look at things as if they are either just black or just white? What has happened to the ability of Malaysians to apply critical thinking and the power of reasoning?

If you are not with me then you are against me -- hence I can bomb you to hell. If you are not a Muslim then you are an enemy of Islam -- hence your blood is halal. Those are the same arguments terrorists use to justify the killing of innocent people, women and children included. Even the US applies this ‘logic’.

Amaranathan, the 'frogs' that you are referring to were elected into office by the people, the rakyat, the voters. They are Wakil Rakyat (Members of Parliament or State Assemblypersons). Hence their loyalty must be to the people in the constituency that elected them into office. Hence, also, if they change sides then they can be chided because they betrayed the voters who voted them into office.

The decent thing to do would be to resign your seat and get a fresh mandate from the voters like what Shahrir Samad did in Johor Bharu decades ago, as I think Pairin Kitingan also did. In fact, the voters voted for Shahrir, again, when the second time he stood as an independent candidate. That means the voters supported his decision of resigning from the party.

Unfortunately, since then they have changed the rules. If you resign your seat you are barred from contesting for five years. So those who resign can no longer go back to the voters to get a fresh mandate. That is why those who resign from the party do not also want to resign their seats.

There should be a new anti-hopping law so that those who resign from the party automatically lose their seats. That would solve all this party hopping. Why are the 222 MPs in Parliament not pursuing this?

Now, Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim was not voted into office. He is not a Wakil Rakyat. In fact, he was not even elected to his party post. He was appointed. When he realised that the party did not support his stand, Tunku Aziz chose not to seek an extension of his Senatorship since that position is a party appointment and not an elected position.

Would Tunku Aziz have not been extended a second term anyway had he not indicated he is not seeking an extension? I don’t know. Do you? Maybe Lim Guan Eng can enlighten us on this. Till then I reserve judgment because we shall only be guessing.

Yes, now Tunku Aziz has expressed support for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. But we must remember that the majority of those who commented in Malaysia Today demanded that he resign from DAP or else DAP should sack him. Well, he did resign. And now he is no longer a member of DAP. Tunku Aziz and DAP have obtained a divorce.

Since Tunku Aziz is no longer a DAP member he is free to do what he wants and say what he wants to say. That is called democracy in case you did not realise it. How does that make him a traitor? He is not a DAP member any longer. He is not betraying DAP.

For that matter, most of you who posted comments in Malaysia Today wanted him to resign so that DAP can be ‘free’ of him. Now DAP is already free of him. And just as DAP is free of him, Tunku Aziz is also free of DAP. And that means, being free, he is free to do what he wants.

Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz who used to be in Umno and have now joined DAP also whack Umno. Why are these two ex-Umno people who are now DAP members free to whack Umno but Tunku Aziz who is ex-DAP cannot express his views as well? Why is it okay for Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz to whack Umno but Tunku Aziz must shut his mouth and must not talk?

Okay, your next point where you said: In politics as in team-sports, one has to be a team player and not score own goals.

Using your same argument that “one has to be a team player and not score own goals”, let me paint another scenario.

Say, I am a member of PAS and the party makes a decision to sit down with Umno to discuss 'Malay unity'. Also, say, I do not agree to this. But then I am a party member. So what position do I take? Do I take the party position or do I allow my conscience to be my guide?

'Malay unity' with Umno means that the non-Malays would be excluded. That would mean Malay political hegemony or domination while the non-Malays would be sidelined. I feel that this is not fair to the non-Malays.

Would you still argue that I must toe the party line and support the ‘Malay unity’ talks or would you expect me to do the right thing by not supporting my party's stand since I believe that 'Malay unity' is not good for the future of the country when almost 50% of Malaysia's citizens are non-Malays?

So you see, sometimes we need to allow our conscience to guide us and not do the wrong thing while hiding behind 'party stand' and 'toeing the part line'.

Today it may be about whether the party supports street violence and whether we should toe the party line and not speak up since this is the party stand. Tomorrow it could be something else. However, since we have taken a stand that whatever the party decides we must follow even if it is wrong, we may be trapped in our own creation and cannot get out of it.

Was not 'the party stand' and 'toeing the party line' the reason why no one opposed the Nazi party's 'final solution' on how to rid the world of Jews? They remained silent although in their hearts they did not agree and knew it was wrong (plus you would get sent to the Russian front if you disagreed).

The issue is, do we allow people to oppose the party’s position or not? If not, then the party constitution should be amended to stipulate that once the party makes a decision no one must say a word against it. Then DAP will be exactly like Saddam Hussein’s Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq.

Is that what we are seeking? If so then well and fine. I have no quarrel with that. But make it very clear from the start so that those independent-minded people who join DAP will not make the mistake of thinking that they will be allowed to demonstrate independence, like what happened to Tunku Aziz.

Is this so difficult to understand? And does your argument “Why the special treatment for this Tunku fella, like he was God's gift to the DAP?” therefore apply? This has nothing to do with Tunku Aziz or about him being special or God’s gift, etc. It is about what is DAP’s policy and do those who have just joined DAP or are about to join DAP know that they must clip their tongue once they join DAP?

Two of these Umno Bloggers, Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, have now joined DAP. So you no longer call them ‘dogs’ and pigs’. You call them ‘towering Malays’ and ‘patriot Malaysians’. If they one day leave DAP to rejoin Umno, you will again call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ and no longer refer to them as ‘towering Malays’ or ‘patriot Malaysians’.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

YM RPK,

The word sword reminds me of what you like to quote always i.e.: Live by the sword, die by the sword, live by your word, die by your word...may I put that also?

Your recent article which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz was ill written indeed. Well, Tunku Aziz proves to be no real English gentlemen, not even near...How on earth can he advised us to support a corrupted regime leader?

What say you, sir?  Just love to hear from you.

But no offence, this time you were 500 percent wrong. This is not about PR or PR supporters their reluctance about agreeing to disagreeing...This is how unlucky that we, the Rakyat being cheated by Tunku Aziz an your wrong analysis about Tunku Aziz.

Petra is rock, but no ordinary rock...it is a rock island? How can rock island sinks so easily...Please enlighten on this subject matter about Tunku Aziz and how could you go so wrong? - JC

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

That was the comment that ‘JC’ posted in my article ‘The IGP must fall on his sword’. Since ‘JC’ did not scold me, curse me, vilify me, or call me names, I am obliging him or her with a response and not only a response in the comments section but in the form of an article.

‘JC’ said, ‘Your recent article’. I do not know which article 'JC' meant but I suspect it must be the one entitled ‘Dear Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim’. ‘JC’ also said, “which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz” and “was ill written indeed”.

I shall address all those points plus the other points in that comment by ‘JC’.

First of all, I thank ‘JC” for his or her comments and would like to state that I sincerely welcome opposite views to mine. What I do not welcome are curses. ‘JC’ did not swear and curse at me. Hence, I not only allowed the comment but am replying to it as well.

Furthermore, when I wake up in the morning, the first thing that comes to my mind is: what am I going to write about today? That is always a problem because I doubt there is any subject matter that I have not written about yet, so much so many are upset that I talk about ‘the same old thing’. Hence, when people like ‘JC’ post comments in Malaysia Today, this gives me a good excuse to reply to it, which means now I have something to write about.

So please do contradict me and ask me to respond. But don’t post comments demanding that I reply. I seldom respond to demands. Being the stubborn arse that I am, the more you demand the more I would ignore you. The manner in which ‘JC’ has ‘requested’ my response works for me. I hope it works for you as well.

I would like to start by stating that I am a bit disappointed by Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim’s endorsement of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. That I do not deny. However, I would still not scold him or curse him or call him names in spite of that. He has made a choice and I respect his choice, the same way I would expect others to respect my choices. If I do not respect the choices of others how can I expect others to respect my choices?

The bottom line is, I would treat people the same way that I expect others to treat me.

If we cannot respect the choices of others when it comes to politics, how can we do the same about more important things like religion, which is an even more ‘potent’ issue? Some of you choose to be Christians. Some are Hindus. Others are Muslims. And so on. That is your choice. But do I scold you, curse you, vilify you and call you names just because you have chosen differently from me?

Is it decent of me to call Christians ‘stupid’ because I believe that Jesus did not die on the cross as Christians wrongly believe and because I believe that the Bible did not come from God like how the Qur’an did since the Bible was not written by Jesus but by unknown people more than a hundred years after Jesus died?

The fact that I am not a Christian means I do not believe in Christianity. If I did I would have converted to Christianity by now. However, while I do not believe in Christianity and I think that the Christian doctrine is wrong, I do not call you ‘stupid’ or scold, curse and vilify you.

The title of this article is ‘Masyarakat Madani’. This was a phrase made popular by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. In English that means ‘Civil Society’. PAS, in fact, in a way, also propagates this when they recently said that Malaysia’s Constitution should be amended from ‘Islam as the religion of the Federation’ to ‘Islam as the adeen of the Federation’. ‘Adeen’ means ‘way of life’.

So, we are talking about way of life here, the Islamic way of life as far as PAS is concerned, while Anwar furthers the cause of a civil society.

Well, good for PAS and good for Anwar. But what do all these mean? And are we just shouting slogans to impress the voters or are we sincere about what we are saying? That is the test of the pudding, as President Bush would say.

Islam forbids Muslims from insulting other religions. There is no dispute about this. All the scholars would confirm that this is what Islam says (although there are some who violate this ‘rule’, as they violate many other rules as well). And why does Islam forbid Muslims from insulting other religions? Well, mainly because Islam does not want anyone insulting Islam. And if you were to insult other religions then you are inviting people from the other religions to retaliate by insulting Islam.

Qura'an [6:108] “And (O Believers), do not revile those whom they invoke besides God lest they should, in their ignorance, revile God.”

Hence, to avoid others from insulting Islam, Islam forbids Muslims from insulting other religions. Basically, insults beget insults. So don’t insult others and others will not insult you. In short, be civil to others and others will be civil to you. That is the adeen of Islam and what Anwar’s Masyarakat Madani is all about. But I suppose the Chinese from DAP do not have adeen. In that case I can't expect these people to be civil, which does not say much for Chinese culture I suppose.

‘JC’ said, “which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz”. However, ‘JC’ did not mention which part of that article he/she spoke about is ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’.

What I said was this:

“Anyway, what I wanted to say is: knowing my father, and hence knowing you as well -- unless I am wrong in my assessment -- it may be prudent that you gracefully resign from DAP. Since what you stand for is not quite what DAP also stands for, your graceful exit on the understanding that you have agreed to disagree would mean you can still remain friends although you may not quite share the same views.”

Is that ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’? How has ‘JC’ interpreted that as ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’?

I also said:

“The trouble with you, Tunku, is that you think like an Englishman. Hence, if it is not cricket, as they say in England, you will speak your mind. But in politics you can’t do that. You need to toe the party line. You have to do what is good for the party. And if you can’t do this then you have no business being in the party.”

Is that ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’?

‘JC’ also said:

“…this time you were 500 percent wrong” and “your recent article was ill written indeed”.

‘JC’ did not, however, mention which part of the article is 500% wrong. Maybe he or she should be more specific and point this out.

I said in that article, “My father was so proud that he voted Gerakan he would tell the whole world that he did so, much to my mother’s horror who would tell him to shush. He had high hopes that the days of racial politics had come to an end and that the future lies with multi-racial parties like Gerakan, which was headed by a whole bunch of intellectuals.”

Is this the part that is wrong? How do you know it is wrong? Did you know my father? Did you meet him in 1969, before he died? So how do you know I am wrong? Hence you have to be specific and tell me which part of my article is wrong.

On the part that ‘JC’ said, “your recent article was ill written indeed”, again, in what way was it ill written? Did I make too many spelling mistakes? Was my grammar atrocious and appalling? Did I use too many four-letter words in my article? Was I mocking Tunku Aziz and making fun of the way that his father died? In what way was my article ‘ill written’? ‘Ill written’ may be an opinion but there must also be a basis on how one arrived at this opinion. Hence ‘JC’ needs to point out which part of my article makes it ‘ill written’.

Okay, allow me to return to the subject of ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’. And I would like to address that subject as follows:

One day I am returning late from a meeting and am driving along a pretty deserted road when I see a motorbike lying on its side and the rider sprawled across the road. I stop and get down and rush over to the chap lying unconscious on the ground.

He appears to be a victim of a hit-and-run. He is bleeding from the head but still alive. I ponder whether I should carry him to my car and rush him to hospital or call for an ambulance and give him first aid while we wait for the ambulance to arrive.

I then notice that he is wearing an Umno T-shirt. I stand up and spit at him and drive off. He is the enemy. Let him die for all I care. I am not going to assist the enemy.

Is that what we do in a ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’?

The next day I am standing in a long queue. I have been standing in that queue for about two hours now and am only two people away from the counter.

In walks an old Chinese lady hobbling along with a walking stick. She must be at least 80 years old or more. She comes to the front of the queue. She looks at the counter and turns to look at the back of the queue. I also turn to look. The queue is now twice as long as it was two hours ago.

Why make her go to the back of the queue where she may have to stand for another three or four hours? I am just about to tell this old lady to get in front of me when I notice the MCA booklet in her hand.

“Are you a member of MCA?” I ask. “Yes, I am a life member,” she proudly tells me.

“Pukimak! Cina babi! Go to the back of the queue!” I shout at her. “I have been standing here for two hours. Why should I allow you to cut in? Everyone has been waiting here for hours so you do the same. Cina MCA bodoh!”

Is that what we do in a ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’? But then the hit-and-run victim is an Umno member so why should I not leave him to die? The 80-year old lady with a walking stick is proud to be a life member of MCA so why should I not make her suffer? It is only fair that I treat the ‘enemy’ in that manner.

Okay, so I may talk about ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’. That would be only how I treat my friends, those who share my political beliefs. I do not need to be civil or decent to those who do not share my political beliefs.

Anyway, if I help that Umno chap who is bleeding to death from a head injury or allow that old lady to cut in, people would say I am supporting Barisan Nasional. To prove that I am an opposition supporter I need to be nasty towards the ‘enemy’. Only then can I prove my loyalty to the opposition.

Are you going to say that my two stories above are too extreme? Sure, we declare war on Barisan Nasional people, but not to the extent of abandoning a hit-and-run victim or not showing compassion to an 80-year old lady hobbling on a walking stick.

And why not? Where do we draw the line? When is it okay to be considerate and civil and when is it not okay? The enemy is the enemy. There should be no exceptions to the rule. In fact, I not only hope that the Umno chap dies from his head wound but I also hope that the old lady gets a heart attack and dies standing in the queue. Malaysia is better off with two less Barisan Nasional supporters.

There are no exceptions to the rule. Either we are civil or we are uncivil. And the word ‘uncivilised’ comes from the word ‘uncivil’. So what ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’ are we talking about? Does it exist only when we deal with our friends? Does this not apply to our perceived enemies?

You may think it is okay to curse the enemy and call them all sort of foul names. I have many friends in Umno and Barisan Nasional. Some of these Umno friends are Bloggers. But I do not call them ‘dogs’ or ‘pigs’ like you do. I am still in touch with them and treat them in a civil manner.

Two of these Umno Bloggers, Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, have now joined DAP. So you no longer call them ‘dogs’ and pigs’. You call them ‘towering Malays’ and ‘patriot Malaysians’. If they one day leave DAP to rejoin Umno, you will again call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ and no longer refer to them as ‘towering Malays’ or ‘patriot Malaysians’.

I, on the other hand, do not call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ whether they are still in Umno or they join DAP. What happens now if I had also called them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ like you do when they were in Umno? And now they have joined DAP. What am I going to say to them: ‘I am glad you are no longer dogs and pigs’?

Most people would regard religion as above politics. If I can curse you and call you a ‘dog’ and a ‘pig’ just because we disagree politically, then there is no reason I cannot also call all non-Muslims ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’. Why is it right for politics and not for religion? Religion is more important and hence being more important it is also more important that I curse you and call you alls sorts of foul names if you do not share my religious beliefs -- like they used to do in the old days when it was also right to kill ‘infidels’. And what is the difference whether you are a religious infidel or a political infidel? An infidel is an infidel whichever way you look at it.

So, I do not curse you and vilify you if you do not share my political ideology just like I do not do so if you do not share my religious ideology. The Qur’an says: do not take the Jews, Christians and those of other religions as your friends as they are the enemy. And since you are the enemy I have every right to curse you if you are a Christian or whatever.

But I do not, even though some of you do. And I do not because I believe in a civil society, which apparently some of you do not.

Qur'an. [5:51] O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people.

We must not forget that the fence sitters are capable of doing this. In 1999, they swung to the opposition and Barisan Nasional was given a beating. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad thought that if he stayed on as the Prime Minister then, in 2004, Barisan Nasional might even be kicked out of office. So he resigned and handed the government to his Deputy. And in 2004, Barisan Nasional made a comeback and gave the opposition a beating of its life.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

RPK, that day you ask us to go and march for Bersih and you even challenged Chinese people to go to Bersih when there are more Malay and less Chinese. Now that the Bersih is balanced with all the races in Malaysia, you are siding with Tunku Aziz and saying there should not be any demonstration pulak. Which one is it? Aiya. -- Comment by ‘xairesx’ in ‘Be careful what you wish for’.

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

If you walk into a Ferrari showroom and you ask the salesperson, “How much is the fuel consumption? How many miles can I get to the gallon?” the salesperson will probably reply, “If you need to ask, then you can’t afford a Ferrari.”

If you need to ask why I am ‘siding’ with Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim, then, as the Ferrari salesperson would say: you do not deserve democracy and freedom of speech. You should not even be asking me such a fundamental question.

Anyone can agree with someone who takes the same stand as you or shares your view. That is easy. The mark of a true democrat, however, is when you can allow someone who you do not agree with or who takes the opposite stand as you to express his opposite view.

Is this the first time an opposition leader from both sides of the political divide has ‘broken ranks’? Many a time has a politician from both Pakatan Rakyat as well as Barisan Nasional expressed a view that is opposite to the party’s or the party leader’s view. But why in this particular instant has someone who did what many others have also done been vilified in such a vicious manner? As the Malays would say: ini sudah luar biasa.

Yes, I did challenge the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese, and in particular the Chinese readers who comment in Malaysia Today, to put your money where your mouth is. Many of you talk so much. But when it comes to action you do not demonstrate the same commitment as how you talk.

If you feel so strongly about clean, free and fair elections then support Bersih. Participate in the Bersih protests. Show that you are prepared to act and not just talk. In 2007, there was hardly much non-Malay participation. Bersih 2.0 was an improvement, however. It is time that political activism be better ‘balanced’ and representative of the racial demographics of Malaysia. Don’t let this just be a Malay fight. Show that all Malaysians irrespective of race are equally committed to the fight for reforms.

Hence my ‘challenge’ to the Chinese readers who comment too much in Malaysia Today was: translate your talk into action. Show real commitment. Get off your chairs and stop being mere keyboard warriors. Show Malaysians that this is a Malaysian fight and not a Malay fight.

Tunku Aziz has the opposite view to me. He is worried that street protests might turn violent. And we do not really know who are the ones who are going to trigger this violence. It could be overzealous protestors. It could be agent provocateurs. Nevertheless, whoever it may be who triggers this violence may be opening up an opportunity for the government to exploit the incident. If that happens and if Bersih is viewed in a negative light then whatever we have achieved in 2007 and 2008 may be eroded. We may actually be scaring off the 30-40% fence sitters who swung to the opposition in March 2008 and now might swing back in the next general election.

We must not forget that the fence sitters are capable of doing this. In 1999, they swung to the opposition and Barisan Nasional was given a beating. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad thought that if he stayed on as the Prime Minister then, in 2004, Barisan Nasional might even be kicked out of office. So he resigned and handed the government to his Deputy. And in 2004, Barisan Nasional made a comeback and gave the opposition a beating of its life.

You may say that this was because of threats, money, fraudulent elections and whatnot. Do you mean to say that only in 2004 this happened? It happened in 1999. It happened in 2008 as well. How could the opposition do well in 1999 and 2008 and not in 2004 when the conditions in all three elections were the same? In fact, even prior to 1999 they still used threats, money and fraud. So nothing really changed. What changed was the way the 30-40% fence sitters voted.

And what made the 30-40% fence sitters swing to the opposition in 1999 and 2008 but not in the other elections? Basically, the fence sitters are fickle and they are influenced by certain factors and events. And fear is one factor that influences how the fence sitters vote.

The fear factor is a very powerful weapon. It makes people do what they would not normally do. They would jump out from the 20th floor of a building to face certain death if the building is on fire because of the fear of getting burned alive. Both ways you die. But the fear of dying in a fire is stronger than the fear of dying from the fall. So they jump and die.

Is that sensible? There is nothing sensible when it comes to fear. Fear overrides common sense. And fear of trouble can make the fence sitters vote Barisan Nasional rather than Pakatan Rakyat.

Is Tunku Aziz correct in his assessment of the situation? He was correct that Bersih 3.0 might turn into something violent. But whether this may in turn swing the fence sitters back to Barisan Nasional is yet to be seen and we will know once the 13th General Election is held.

Tunku Aziz could very well be wrong. We may not agree that Malaysians can still be intimidated by the possibility of violence like what happened in May 1969. Malaysians may have come of age and can no longer fall for that any longer. But just because we think Tunku Aziz is wrong does that mean he must, therefore, not express his view? And if he does, does that mean we must vilify him and treat him so harshly? Does that mean Tunku Aziz can only say what we like him to say and he must not talk otherwise?

What makes us so different from Umno and Barisan Nasional? Umno and Barisan Nasional too do not like to hear us contradicting or criticising them? Aren’t we, therefore, just the opposite side of the same coin?

Tunku Aziz did not speak against DAP. He did not speak against Bersih. He did not speak against protest demonstrations. He spoke against violence. He felt that if we defy the government as well as violate the court order, that would make the ‘occupy Dataran Merdeka’ agenda a criminal act. Whether this is a good law or a bad law is another issue. The fact remains that if we occupy Dataran Merdeka we would be committing a crime. And Tunku Aziz did not want to tell Malaysians to break the law and ignore the court, as he is a man who would prefer to obey the law.

That is his choice. I have broken the law many times. I am still breaking the law until today because I do not agree with many of those laws. When I was in Malaysia, every time I break the law the police would come knocking on my door. After about a dozen times my wife got so fed up that she told me if I want to continue breaking the law I had better get out of Malaysia.

So now I am in the UK. And I am in the UK because I want to continue to break the law. It is not that I cannot go home to Malaysia. I can. But if I do then I will have to promise the government that I will stop breaking the law.

I told the government I am prepared to return and face whatever charges they hurl at me. I am even prepared to not contest those charges and will plead guilty. That is no problem. But then I will also have to stop breaking the law, which means I will have to stop writing and thus close down Malaysia Today. That, I am not prepared to do. So I remain here in the UK because of that.

So don’t talk to me about breaking the law. I do it every day. My latest article on Raja Nong Chik in The Corridors of Power includes ‘RAHSIA’ documents. ‘RAHSIA’ documents are protected by the Official Secrets Act. So, again, I have broken the law. And if I were back in Malaysia, this morning, yet again, the police would have come knocking on my door.

I break the law more times than you change your underwear. So don’t preach to me about breaking the law. But that does not mean I support violence. You think I am scared of violence? I am a Taekwondo Black Belt. I also did Karate. In my school days, I was with the Long Fu Tong and used to hang around the Rex Cinema and Malaysia Snack Bar. You mean with all that I shy away from violence?

I am against applying violence to win the elections. That is the long and short of it.

In 2004, I was Abdul Rahman Othman’s campaign manager for Putrajaya. Rahman, who was the Deputy President of PKR, was the Parliamentary candidate there. And the Umno bouncers were violent.

They beat up Rahman’s son. They cut down our flags. I responded by cutting down the Umno flags. Two carloads of Umno bouncers pounced on me. I pulled out a knife and charged at them. The PAS man recording the whole thing on video laughed when the ten Umno chaps saw my knife and backed off.

They phoned the police and a patrol car came. One of the Umno chaps, a Datuk, shouted that I had pulled a knife on them and he told the police officer to arrest me. I told the police to go screw himself and jumped into my car and drove off.

A few hours later, the head of the Putrajaya Special Branch summoned me to the police station regarding the incident. I told the police officer that unless the Umno chaps want to go home in a coffin they had better leave us alone because the next time they attack us they are going to get their throats slit.

The police had to act as the ‘middleman’ and a truce was called. From then on the Umno chaps left us alone. No more violence. In fact, Tunku Adnan Mansor, the Umno candidate, even walked up to me to shake my hands. Until today we are still friends although we are on opposite sides of the political fence. Tunku Adnan is a gangster. So am I. And gangsters respect each other.

So you see, if you want violence, I can give you violence. But Rahman Othman not only lost the election, he lost his deposit as well, an embarrassment for someone who was the Deputy President of the party. Hence, we won the street contest, but we lost badly at the ballot box with no dignity left.

So which is more important? Being able to single-handedly fight with ten Umno goons who were scared shit of my knife or winning the election?

Do we Muslims have no shame? We do not know how to treat people the same way we demand that people treat us. We do not know how to respect the rights of others the way we demand that people respect our rights. And when Muslims offer Ambiga a beef burger, the rest of the Muslims keep quiet. They are not in the least outraged. Try offering Ibrahim Ali a hamburger and see what will happen. We will see May 13 Version 2 erupt in Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Samy – who is also works minister – said that Anwar had even threatened the Hindus to accept the government’s stand in the 1998 Kg Rawa temple issue in Penang.

“He (Anwar) threatened the Hindus there to accept whatever he said, otherwise he said no temple bells will be sounded in Penang. This is what he is,” Samy asserted.

In March 27, 1998, there was a tense stand-off when Muslims emerged from Friday prayers in an adjacent mosque and marched in numbers to the Sri Raja Raja Madurai Veeran temple in Kampung Rawa.

Muslims in the area had complained that the temple – which was planned for expansion – rang their prayer bells too loudly and the antagonism resulted in a clash between hundreds of Hindus and Muslims.

Following this, four people were injured, other Hindu temples and Muslim mosques were attacked and nearly 200 rioters were arrested.

The dispute was later settled when the state government provided an alternative site for the temple in Jalan SP Chelliah. -- (Malaysiakini)

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

When this matter first exploded back in 1998, I went to Pusat Islam to meet the Pengarah. I wanted to find out what the problem was and what I could do about it -- meaning, write something about the matter in the English section of Harakah, the PAS party organ.

I initially thought that this was a Malay-versus-Indian matter, meaning more racial than religious. The Pengarah told me that in the beginning the Malays were not involved. It was a conflict between the Indian Hindus and the Indian Muslims. After that, because the impression given was that the Hindus were cabaring (challenging) Islam, the Malays got dragged in.

The Pengarah then lamented that this is the trouble with the Indians. In India, the Muslims and Hindus fight, explained the Pengarah. Hence they have ‘imported’ their hatred into Malaysia and now they are dragging the Malays into this whereas the Malays for hundreds of years have never had any problems with those from the other religions, sighed the Pengarah.

I did not know whether the Pengarah was making a statement of fact or whether this was his prejudiced view about the Indians (although the partition of India and the 1 million deaths plus the many incidences since then can lie testimony to his statement). Nevertheless, I wrote my article and Harakah published it. A few Indian Muslims, however, were quite upset and felt that my article painted a most unfavourable picture of the Indian Muslims.

Then we had the anti-Guan Eng demonstration in front of the Komtar building soon after the 2008 general election, and the recent anti-anti-Lynas demonstration in Penang, and the beef burger incident in front of Ambiga’s home, and the funeral rites in front of Guan Eng’s house, and the many Perkasa incidences, and so on. And whom do we see there causing havoc? Yes, again, the Indian Muslims.

I have been the one person who gets very upset when readers post comments whacking Mamaks. Some of you are very unhappy that I have been deleting your comments for this ‘crime’. Whack the person if you want to, I always said, but don’t whack his race. I have many Indian Muslim friends and they are very nice people.

But it is becoming harder and harder for me to defend the Indian Muslims. The problem is, the act of a few is seen as the act of the entire race. Malaysia Today readers seem to have this view and they express this in their comments in a most racial manner.

I personally have had many unpleasant experiences with Indian Muslims. One chap in a mosque shouted at me when he asked me whether it was time to pray and I replied, “I think so.”

“You must be sure!” he shouted at me, with both his arms flinging in the air, and he continued to grumble until I walked away.

In another incident in the Grand Mosque in Mekah where the Ka’bah is, an Indian sitting behind me kicked me. When I turned to look at him he told me that he wanted to stretch his legs and he asked me to move. I got up and walked away.

While circumambulating the Ka’bah, the Indians appear to be the most misbehaved. They lock arms and shove aside those people in front of them. And if you were to tell them not to push they would scream at you at the top of their voices. I have seen this happen so many times (the Africans are equally guilty of this).

They are so quarrelsome and antagonistic. And whether it is in the Grand Mosque or in front of the Ka’bah they still act like this. Why in heaven’s name do they act like this?

Muslims do not seem to realise how selfish, inconsiderate and unreasonable they sometimes can be, whether Indians, Arabs, Malaysians or whatever. For example, there are only about 2.8 million Muslims in the UK. At only about 4% of the population that makes the Muslims a minority by far.

However, in spite of this, they demand that the rights of Muslims be ‘respected’. They buy over old churches and turn them into mosques or Islamic cultural centres. They have religious schools for Muslim children. During the month of Ramadhan, Quran recitals would be blasting away from the giant speakers they place outside their shops. They demand and are given Shariah courts. They demand that their women be allowed to wear purdahs and are given permission.

Muslims are free to preach Islam to all and sundry, Jews and Christians included. They can even stand on a soapbox in Hyde Park Corner to scream about Islam. They can publish the Quran in the English language and stand on the street corner to hand them out free to passers-by if they wish to do so.

Muslims are so proud when famous people like Cassius Clay or Cat Stevens converts to Islam. They will shout about it from the highest mountain. They will also use this as ‘evidence’ that Islam is the true religion and will preach Islam to the non-Muslims to try to get more non-Muslims, especially famous Christians, to become Muslims.

However, if Christians preach Christianity to the Muslims they will scream and threaten to kill those Christian ‘enemies’. They will also arrest any Muslim who converts to Christianity and send them for rehabilitation (meaning brainwashing) so that they ‘return’ to Islam.

Furthermore, if Christians print the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia the Muslims will protest like hell. If Christians build a church the Muslims will protest like hell. And so on. Only Muslims have rights and they will demand these rights even if they are only 4% of the population. Others do not have rights and Muslims will never allow the other religions the same rights that they demand.

Muslims think that only they have rights and all others do not have rights. When the Muslims are the majority they will deny the non-Muslims their rights. This is banned. That is banned. This cannot. That cannot. If you talk I will attack you. If you cabar I will kill you. Then, when the Muslims live in a non-Muslim country where the Muslims are a mere 4% or less of the population, they will demand all sorts of rights and the non-Muslims would, of course, give in to the demands of the Muslims.

Do we Muslims have no shame? We do not know how to treat people the same way we demand that people treat us. We do not know how to respect the rights of others the way we demand that people respect our rights. And when Muslims offer Ambiga a beef burger, the rest of the Muslims keep quiet. They are not in the least outraged. Try offering Ibrahim Ali a hamburger and see what will happen. We will see May 13 Version 2 erupt in Malaysia.

I find that the Christians are the most hypocritical people on earth. Not that the Muslims are any better, mind you. But at least the Muslims say 'hate the sinner' and not 'love the sinner' like the Christians.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What amazes me is the manner in which Malaysia Today’s readers react to anyone who writes something not favourable to the opposition. Whether they are from the New Straits Times, The Star, or whatever, if they were to write anything that is perceived as not complimentary to the opposition or complimentary to the government, this writer would get called a bitch, prostitute, arsehole, bastard, cock-sucker, mother-fucker, and worse.

Actually, sometimes I purposely post opinion pieces from these ‘pro-government’ writers to test your reaction. I want to see what you would do and say. And most times you would do and say exactly as predicted. You would immediately go into a rage and curse, mock and vilify these people.

You have zero tolerance for any opinion that goes against your stand. And you make this known by posting a most foul comment in response to this opinion. There are just not enough words in the English language to enable you to describe how you feel. The most favoured word, of course, is prostitute, but not limited to just that one word.

It is also quite comical when I post articles regarding Christianity and the hard-core Christians suddenly crawl out from the woodwork like maggots feeding on a carcass. From nowhere these Christians would appear and lecture us about how Christianity is a religion of love, how we must love the sinner but hate the sin, how Christianity is a better religion than the other religions because by accepting Jesus your soul is saved, how Jesus died for our sins, and so on.

Then, these same ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ people will foam at the mouth and demonstrate hate against anyone who expresses support for the government or criticises the opposition. I suppose you are now going to tell me that all those who posted hate comments are not Christians but Hindus and Buddhists and that this shows what low quality people Hindus and Buddhists are. Or maybe they are Muslims pretending to be Christians?

I find that the Christians are the most hypocritical people on earth. Not that the Muslims are any better, mind you. But at least the Muslims say 'hate the sinner' and not 'love the sinner' like the Christians.

In fact, in the first place, these writers are not even sinners, at least not in the religious sense. All they did was to write something that is opposite to your political inclination. And already they get whacked to kingdom come. Is it such a sin to express a political opinion opposite to yours? We will probably have to wait until Jesus comes back to earth to find out.

Do you think you can continue to do and this and get away with it? Do you think that at one point of time something is not going to break? The law of physics tells us that anything you stretch to the limit will certainly eventually break.

I have almost given up trying to talk to some of you. My current attitude is: biarkan. You can continue believing what you would like to believe if that makes you happy. After all, what do I get by telling you the truth? Is it worth being cursed, mocked and vilified? Better I just stand back and watch and come dinnertime on Polling Day I can write my “I told you so” article. Then I can end that article with padan muka!

Your view does not make what you say become the truth. Truth is subjective. That these organisations exist is true. That they fight for a cause is true. Whether the cause is right is not the truth. And whether the cause is wrong is also not the truth. The truth and falsity depends on your beliefs. Beliefs would be what you perceive things to be. And what you have to say about what you believe are merely your opinions.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim's fall from grace with the DAP leadership has been swift and severe and many doubt that he can continue in DAP after what has happened,” said Joceline Tan of The Star. Before I comment on that statement, allow me, as usual, to digress in my normal cheong hei fashion. After all, if I am not long-winded then that is not Raja Petra.

Let’s say a conference is organised by some hard-core Christians, say, in the United States. The conference is to discuss the threat of militant Islam to the free world and how Islam is not a religion of peace but a religion of war. 

One of the speakers in that conference is an ex-Muslim who has since left Islam to become a Christian. This ex-Muslim who used to live in Iran but is now an American citizen goes into great detail about the how intolerant Islam is and how Islam infringes your civil rights and how Islam does not respect freewill and democracy and how persecution is perpetuated in Muslim countries and so on. 

Basically, he is ‘exposing Islam for what it really is’ and has nothing nice to say about Islam. He is, in fact, confirming the belief of the 1,000 participants in that conference that Islam is a dangerous and warmongering religion. The objective of Islam, claims this ex-Muslim speaker, is to dominate the world and to eradicate all other religions so that in the end only one religion remains, Islam.

Of course, to those 1,000 participants, this ex-Muslim who used to live in Iran and is now a US citizen and a Christian is merely telling the truth. He has seen the light. God has opened his heart. His soul has been saved. This man who has embraced Jesus has been guaranteed paradise, as all those who embrace Jesus have been promised.

But how would the Muslims perceive him? He is an apostate. He is now an infidel. He is a traitor. Satan has misled him. He is destined for hell. He is misinforming everyone in that conference. He should be put to death for lying and for slandering Islam.

Actually, both sides are right. No one is wrong. Of course, they are right based on how they perceive things. And, if perception is considered the truth, then both sides are telling the truth.

But there is a difference between truth and perception, of course. For example, say you are a bachelor and you have ten girlfriends, whom, of course, you sleep with. If I say that this makes you an immoral person is that a lie or the truth? It is neither. It is merely my yardstick of morality and hence I am merely stating my opinion, which is my perception and hence is neither true nor false. 

Now, if you do not have ten girlfriends and I say you do, then that would be a lie. But if you do have ten girlfriends then what I said would be the truth. But whether that makes you an immoral person is neither true not false. It is my opinion based on my perception of things guided by my moral compass.

As I have said before, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The Americans who fought in the American Revolution were rebels -- that’s negative. Or, the Americans who fought in the War of Independence were patriots -- that’s positive. It depends on whether during 1775–1783 you were a blue coat or a red coat. Both were actually right. The fight did happen. That is true. But how you perceived it would determine the labelling you give it.

Perkasa, Bersih, Hindraf, the Malaysian Bar Council, Sisters in Islam, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), and all those many organisations operating in Malaysia that support or propagate causes are viewed differently by different people. Some have negative views about what these organisations do while others have positive views. 

Your view does not make what you say become the truth. Truth is subjective. That these organisations exist is true. That they fight for a cause is true. Whether the cause is right is not the truth. And whether the cause is wrong is also not the truth. The truth and falsity depends on your beliefs. Beliefs would be what you perceive things to be. And what you have to say about what you believe are merely your opinions.

Joceline Tan said, “Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim's fall from grace with the DAP leadership has been swift and severe and many doubt that he can continue in DAP after what has happened.” Is that the truth? Or is that merely how Joceline Tan perceives things?

Some may consider Tunku Aziz as being a traitor when he joined DAP in 2008. DAP is a Chinese chauvinist party, they say. Hence any Malay who joins a Chinese chauvinist party is a traitor to his race. If Tunku Aziz were to now resign from DAP and, say, join Umno, he would be considered a patriot, a loyal Malay.

You and I may not see it that way. In fact, we may even see it as the reverse. But that is only how you and I see it. That does not mean others also view it the way we do. Hence, any statement that we make on the matter is merely an opinion based on our belief system.

Some of us support clean, free and fair elections. Hence we support Bersih. Some of us support Bersih but do not support violence. Some of us support Bersih as long as the politicians do not hijack Bersih and turn it into the fourth member of Pakatan Rakyat. And so on. Different people have different value systems. Hence we would perceive things differently because of this. But to say that if you do not support Bersih because you are opposed to violence means you do not support a clean, free and fair elections is, again, your opinion and this does not make it the truth. 

The trouble with most of us is we are incapable of separating fact from opinion. We allow our beliefs to cloud our judgement. We apply beliefs and regard that as truth and therefore anything that goes against this belief is false, a lie, and so on. 

To the Christians, what they believe in is the truth. And don’t ever try to suggest otherwise. The Muslims, however, would have the opposite view. What they believe in is the truth. Everything else is false.

It could be that both the Christians and the Muslims are wrong. No one is right. But try telling them that. They will foam at the mouth and condemn you to hell even though they can’t prove the existence of heaven and hell and this belief is based entirely on faith.

There are about 1.4 million civil servants in Malaysia if you include the security services as well. The majority, of course, are Malays. Quite a number support PAS because they believe in Islam and they believe in the Islamisation of the country. They also support clean, fair and free elections because, without it, PAS would never be able to form the federal government -- with the other two members of Pakatan Rakyat of course.

So they support Bersih. But that does not mean they also support a Secular State. DAP also supports Bersih (plus a Secular State). Hence this does not mean that these Malays in the government who support Bersih because they support PAS also support DAP’s stand (or opposition to) regarding the Islamic State.

Then there are those Malays in government who do not support Bersih. They do not support Bersih not because they support a fraudulent election system. They do not support Bersih because they believe that Bersih is a secret weapon of the non-Malays, aided by some Malay traitors, who wish to take (rampas) political power away from the Malays.

Is this true? What has the truth go to do with it? This is their perception. This is what they believe. This is their opinion. And if perception and opinions can be regarded as the truth then this allegation is certainly true. 

Is there any proof? Do you need proof when we are playing with perception and opinions? Why question whether the perception and opinion regarding the so-called hidden agenda of Bersih is true? It is what they believe. And beliefs have always been taken as fact, like how the Muslims, Christians, etc., see things regarding their religion.

So, has Tunku Aziz fallen from grace? It depends on your belief system. Joceline Tan thinks so. Many of you also think so. But just because you think so does not mean 16 million other Malaysian voters also think so. So what do these 16 million other Malaysian voters think? I don’t know. Let us wait till the next general election to find out.

Today, I received a letter from my party leader, Nick Clegg. Since Umno will be celebrating its anniversary tonight where Najib Tun Razak will probably be delivering his ‘policy’ speech, I thought the Umno members would like to compare how the two party leaders talk. While you in Malaysia are talking merely about electoral reforms, we in the UK are talking about constitutional and political reforms.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dear Petra,

Today's Queen's Speech has again shown that the Liberal Democrats are punching way above their weight – and we can be proud of that.

It included many of the long-term reforms we've campaigned for, such as reform of the banks. These will help build a sustainable future for our country.

In 2010, we took the decision together to enter into a Coalition Government so we could do the right thing for the country at a time of economic crisis. Today we've focused on helping families and supporting growth and jobs.

Vince Cable will regulate the banks so they can no longer be in a position to hold the country to ransom when their financial gambles don’t pay off. And Ed Davey will establish the world's first Green Investment Bank and introduce electricity market reform to protect consumers, support  low-carbon energy and invest in renewables.

We’re also helping some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Steve Webb will help pensioners by introducing a flat-rate pension. We’ll propose a way to modernise adult care and support, finally ensuring dignity in old age.

Today also clearly set out our collective determination to reform the House of Lords, an historic commitment of our party.

There’s so much more I could highlight: Sarah Teather’s work on improving support for children with special educational needs, our support for flexible working and shared parental leave and our proposals to strengthen the hand of farmers and other suppliers of supermarkets through an independent adjudicator.

This Queen’s Speech has a firm Liberal Democrat stamp on it, delivering on what we’ve passed at Conference and pounded the pavements and knocked on doors for.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg MP

Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

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

State Opening of Parliament: The Queen’s Speech 2012

The Queen’s Speech 2012 included many of the long-term reforms Liberal Democrats have been fighting for, such as reform the banks, a Green Investment Bank and supporting families and children.

These reforms will help build a sustainable future for our country. The Coalition Government’s plans will offer help and support to families, small businesses and communities, protect the environment, as well as reaffirming our commitment to helping the poorest nations.

In 2010, Liberal Democrats joined the Coalition Government to act in the long-term national interest. Our most urgent task was to tackle the record deficit left to us by Labour and we’re continuing this work today. 

We have already made some tough choices, and we will continue to make sure we keep spending down so, unlike the rest of Europe, families can benefit from low interest rates and Britain is protected from the global debt storm. 

The key themes from the 2012 Queen’s Speech are:

• Economic Growth
• Justice
• Constitutional reform

• The House of Lords is an overstocked chamber, where you’re more likely to be older than 90 than under 40.
• Just fifteen countries worldwide use appointment as the predominant means of selection to the upper house, including Jordan, Belize, Trinidad and Tabago, and Burkino Faso.
• The only other country in the world where the hereditary element still exists is Lesotho.
• Each member is entitled £300 for each day they attend. If everyone attends, the current cost would be almost £1m a week.

This Bill will implement the reforms set out in the December 2011 Water White Paper. This will reform the water industry and deregulate markets to enable consumers to negotiate better services from the water companies. It also includes environmental measures such as new controls on abstracting water from rivers. 

It is not enough that you believe in God, Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, etc. It is not enough that you fulfil your five times a day prayers, fast during the month of Ramadhan, go to Mekah, etc. It is not enough that you do not eat pork, gamble, drink liquor, etc. There are other things you need to do to be a complete Muslim. And that would be to also live the life of a Muslim.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA rejects PAS ‘addin’ move

(The Star) - The MCA rejects PAS' proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution by replacing “Islam as the religion of the Federation” to “Islam is addin (a way of life)” as it will affect non-Muslim minority communities who do not practise that way of life.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said when religion is imposed as a way of life for the majority, this will have an impact on a country that is made up of people of many faiths and cultures.

“It will create many issues relating to the do's and don'ts,” he said after the MCA presidential council meeting here yesterday.

Dr Chua said that this could be seen in states ruled by PAS such as the banning of alcohol.

On May 2, PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang told the media that Pakatan Rakyat would amend the Federal Constitution by replacing “Islam as the religion of the Federation” to “Islam is addin (a way of life)” if it came into power. 

He had argued that the current definition of Islam as the official religion of the country did not do justice to the religion and suggested that the legislation in this country be interpreted according to the tenets of Islam.

Dr Chua said the proposed move would not promote integration and harmony as envisioned by the Prime Minister through the 1Malaysia concept because the people would be divided as Muslim and non-Muslim. 

“We are disappointed that DAP is quiet about this. They cannot control PAS and can be considered as a political eunuch as they do not have the power or are bold enough to control PAS,” he said.

Dr Chua said that MCA respects Islam as the official religion and the freedom for people to practise their respective faiths and urged people to consider the matter wisely as PAS pushes forward its agenda without consultation with its coalition partners.

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

Let me get this right. Chua Soi Lek is opposed to Islam as a way of life. And he opposes it because, according to him, it will affect the non-Muslim minority communities who do not practise that way of life.

Is Soi Lek admitting that non-Muslims are like animals? How can you be opposed to something good and noble? Or does Soi Lek not understand what way of life means, and I mean, of course, a proper way of life?

If you were to read what many western scholars say -- quite a majority of them non-Muslims and hence they are regarded as ‘Orientalists’ -- you will understand that Islam is not actually a religion, although the man on the street refers to Islam as a religion. Islam, as even the non-Muslims scholars admit, is a way of life. Hence the word ‘adeen’. 

Religion is a belief system. You believe that God exists and that God sent down a Prophet to humankind and that there are Holy Books and whatnot. Within this belief system is a set of rituals and practices -- such as praying, etc. If you do not believe in God then you would not have a religion and likewise you would not be practicing any of the rituals associated with any particular religion.

Islam, however, goes beyond that. It is not enough that you believe in God and the Prophet of God or that you practice all the rituals associated with Islam. You must also conduct yourself in a certain manner.

And this is where many Muslims fail. Their belief system may be intact (what Muslims would call ‘akidah’) and they may even be a practicing Muslim who fulfils all the obligations as far as rituals are concerned, but they fail to score points when it come to living the life of a Muslim, the adeen of Islam.

And this is where the problem lies.

It is not enough that you believe in God, Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, etc. It is not enough that you fulfil your five times a day prayers, fast during the month of Ramadhan, go to Mekah, etc. It is not enough that you do not eat pork, gamble, drink liquor, etc. There are other things you need to do to be a complete Muslim. And that would be to also live the life of a Muslim.

For example, if you go to your neighbour’s house and the husband is not in and the wife is alone at home, you should not enter the house. You go off and come back later when the husband is home. If you still need to talk to the wife about something very urgent, then you stand outside at a respectable distance and do not touch her, not even to shake her hand.

That is adeen. And does Soi Lek mean to say that this is offensive to non-Muslims and should be opposed? But why? Would you not think that this is a most decent thing to do? Surely you do not like your neighbour coming into your home when your wife is alone.

Do you remember that case where the Pulau Ketam Chinese residents rounded up hundreds of stray dogs and abandoned them on a deserted island where there was no food and water? The dogs were so starved that they ate each other. The dogs practically turned cannibals.

Many jumped into the sea to try to swim back to Pulua Ketam and drowned in the process. Those that were strong enough to reach Pulau Ketam were pushed back into the sea and held down until they drowned. 

Islam is against this.

There is this story where the Prophet Muhammad saw a prostitute give a thirsty dog a drink of water and the Prophet commented that she is destined for heaven. The Prophet’s companions could not understand how a prostitute could get into heaven and the Prophet explained that she had shown compassion to the dog. That was why she was going to heaven. 

So you see, Islam stresses on the importance of compassion to animals, even if it is a dog, which most Muslims would not even touch. That is the way of life of a Muslim and the proper adeen for Islam. The Chinese residents of Pulau Ketam, however, did the opposite of this and that was so sad. 

I was actually very upset with that incident and I phoned YB Ronnie Liu to tell him so. I did not spare my words and I believe they later launched a campaign to save the remaining dogs on that island. Unfortunately, more than half had already died by then. 

My ‘struggle’ is not just about civil liberties and human rights. That is only a small part of my concerns. How they treat animals is also one of my concerns. And don’t think that only the Chinese treat animals badly. Have you seen what those Malay council workers do to stray dogs? It brings tears to my eyes.

By the way, I donate money every month to the dogs’ home here in Manchester so if you too want to do the same you can get in touch with me. I would be very happy to receive your donations, which I assure you would all go to the dogs’ home without any ‘cukai’.

I just love dogs. Don’t you?

Anyway, don’t oppose adeen or the way of life just because you hate Islam. If all Muslims practice proper adeen then most of the problems Malaysia is facing would go away.

For example, racism, discrimination, persecution, intolerance, abuse of power, bad governance, corruption, police brutality, manipulation of the judiciary, and many more would not exist if Malays followed the way of life or adeen of Islam. But when the Malays, just like Soi Lek, think that Islam is merely about a system of beliefs and a set of rituals and not more than that, that is when we begin to see so many problems in the country.

So, please, Soi Lek, don’t oppose adeen. In fact, you should support it whole-heartedly. If the Muslims practiced adeen, then all the problems that the non-Muslims currently face would go away. Or is it you want the non-Muslims to continue facing problems so that MCA can politicise the issue?

Hmm…that could be it. Or else why would MCA oppose something good?

Have a look at the video below. That is a specially edited video, which is being distributed through the Umno network. Maybe not every Malaysian, in particular Malays in the rural areas, uses the Internet. But they do have TV sets and DVD/VCD players. And if DNBN can distribute 200,000 anti-government DVDs to those in the rural areas who do not have Internet access, do you mean to say that Umno cannot also produce 1 million copies of the video below and do the same thing?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There was something very interesting that I experienced back in the 1970s. 

My wife and I made a trip to Golok with her mother in tow. We had just moved to Kuala Terengganu then. When we crossed the border, I jumped onto the back of a motorcycle while my wife and her mother took a trishaw. My mother-in-law was too big to fit on the back seat of the kap chai.

We agreed to meet in the Mer Lin Hotel.

Aha….I can see many of you smile. I am sure you too have fond memories of your stay in that hotel. Well, let’s talk about all that another time, maybe in more private surroundings.

I, of course, reached first, and hung around waiting for the rest of my party to arrive. As I sat there, a pimp approached me and enquired whether I would like a girl. Well, with my wife probably ten minutes or so behind me, I certainly had no choice but to decline. I just said, “Are you crazy? Today is Friday!”

It was Friday, the weekend for the East Coast, and I spoke in Malay, of course.

“No problem,” replied the pimp, “our girls are all Muslims.”

I could not help but chuckle at this retort. He assumed that since I pantang (taboo) on Friday then I must be a Muslim, although I looked Kwailo, and hence I would prefer a Muslim girl, being a ‘holy’ day and all that.

I again politely declined and said I do not want a girl, to which the pimp replied, “We also have boys. The boys are very young and sexy.” Ah, now he is talking.

He probably saw my eyes light up and thought he had a sale. Then my wife walked in and that ended our very interesting negotiation.

I suppose people are like that. They always assume and jump to conclusions. If they offer you a beer before dinner and you refuse, that means you do not drink. It could be you only drink brandy and you normally have a glass of brandy with your cigar after dinner, not before, like a more cultured person would.

If the waiter recommends the steak and assures you that it is the speciality of the restaurant and you decline, he would assume you must be a Hindu, since you do have a dark complexion. It could be you are actually a Christian and for health reasons you steer clear of red meat and only partake in white meat, which is what I also try to do. (As a rule, we only eat chicken at home and will not eat meat unless we go out for dinner, which may be once a month).

And this is the problem we are currently facing with regards to the Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim issue. You assume and jump to the conclusion that he is opposed to Bersih or he supports Barisan Nasional or he does not care for clean, free and fair elections or whatever. And that would be like assuming a person who does not eat beef must be a Hindu. 

Considering that Tunku Aziz was born before WWII, and being educated and intelligent and a person who knows history -- and more importantly, comprehends history -- he understands the implications of what we do. He knows that for every action there will be a reaction. And we may not quite like that reaction, especially if those reacting are more powerful and have more resources available to them. 

Tunku Aziz is opposed to violence, vandalism, mob rule, taunts, jeers, provocation, and whatnot. And being a man of his age, I really do not blame him. He is not a street fighter. He is not a physical man. He is not a man who will engage in fisticuffs even if it is a boxing match using Queensbury rules. Not every human being is prepared to settle a dispute with his or her fists.

Have a look at the video below. That is a specially edited video, which is being distributed through the Umno network. Maybe not every Malaysian, in particular Malays in the rural areas, uses the Internet. But they do have TV sets and DVD/VCD players. And if DNBN can distribute 200,000 anti-government DVDs to those in the rural areas who do not have Internet access, do you mean to say that Umno cannot also produce 1 million copies of the video below and do the same thing?

Now, I may be wrong, but quite a number of those who participated in the Bersih 3.0 rally on 28th April 2012 were quite young. That’s what the videos and pictures show. I suspect that many were born after Merdeka or probably after 1969. That means many would not know what happened in early May 1969.

Read the extract from Wikipedia below that video. I have checked its accuracy and I would say that there is not much error in the write-up. In fact, I too have written the same thing myself many times before and what I said in the past is not far from what the Wikipedia report said below. More importantly, I was 19 years old at that time and was a witness to the events of early May 1969. 

Now, do another thing. Take off your Pakatan Rakyat cap and pretend that you are a non-partisan Malaysian who holds no party allegiance. Then look at the video again, this time without any lenses, and tell me what you see. Can you see 28th April 2012 as a similar situation to 10th May 1969?

This is what many of those from the older generation, people such as Tunku Aziz, fear. Umno is desperate, just like how desperate they were back in May 1969. And if you were Umno would you not exploit what happened on 28th April 2012 to your advantage? If I were Umno I would. I would be a fool not to. 

Hence, what have we gained, if we were to gauge ‘success’ by the contents of the video below? There was a lot of dendam in May 1969. I just hope that 28th April 2012 has not also bred dendam. If it has, then, as the Malays would say: menang sorak kampung tergadai. 

Dendam is a very powerful motivation. My concern is not whether Pakatan Rakyat can win the next general election. There is certainly a good chance that it can in spite of the cheating and gerrymandering. (If not Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak would have called for the elections by now.) My concern is that Pakatan Rakyat does win the next general election and those who harbour dendam will want to take revenge on the taunts, jeers, insults, provocation, etc. 

I love history. But what I hate about history is for the tendency of history to repeat itself. That has always been the downfall of many -- not learning from the mistakes of history. We always seem to celebrate the winning of the battles and then mourn the defeat in the war. That is what menang sorak kampung tergadai means.

axQwPtLLKBo 

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axQwPtLLKBo

Run-up to polling day

The causes of the rioting can be analysed to have the same root as the 1964 riots in Singapore, the event rooted from sentiments before the campaigning was bitterly fought among various political parties prior to polling day on 10 May 1969, and party leaders stoked racial and religious sentiments in order to win support.

The Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) accused the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) of selling the rights of the Malays to the Chinese, while the Democratic Action Party (DAP) accused the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) of giving in to UMNO. The DAP promoted the concept of a "Malaysian Malaysia", which would remove the Malays of their special rights under the Constitution of Malaysia. Both the DAP and Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) objected to Malay as the national language and proposed multi-lingualism instead. 

Senior Alliance politicians, including Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, accused Singapore-based People's Action Party of involvement in the campaign, as it had done during the 1964 general election campaign (at the time when Singapore was part of the Malaysian federation between 1963 and 1965). 

The run-up to the election was also marred by two deaths: that of an UMNO election agent, who was killed by a group of armed Chinese youths in Penang and that of a member of the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM), who was killed in Kepong, Selangor. 

There was a contrast in the handling of these two deaths. The UMNO worker was buried without publicity, but the LPM casualty was honoured at a parade on 9 May when some 3,000 LPM members marched from Kuala Lumpur to Kepong, violating regulations and trying to provoke incidents with the police.

Election results 

Amidst tensions among the Malay and Chinese population, the general election was held on 10 May 1969. Election day itself passed without any incidents, and the results showed that the Alliance had gained a majority in Parliament at the national level, albeit a reduced one, and in Selangor it had gained the majority by cooperating with the sole independent candidate.

The Opposition had tied with the Alliance for control of the Selangor state legislature, a large setback in the polls for the Alliance. On the night of 11 and 12 May, the Opposition celebrated their victory. In particular, a large Gerakan procession welcomed the left-wing Gerakan leader V. David.

On 12 May, thousands of Chinese marched through Kuala Lumpur, parading through predominantly Malay areas, hurling insults, which led to the incident. The largely Chinese opposition Democratic Action Party and Gerakan gained in the elections, and secured a police permit for a victory parade through a fixed route in Kuala Lumpur.

However, the rowdy procession deviated from its route and headed through the Malay district of Kampung Baru, jeering at the inhabitants. Some demonstrators carried brooms, later alleged to symbolise the sweeping out of the Malays from Kuala Lumpur, while others chanted slogans about the "sinking" of the Alliance boat – the coalition's logo.

The Gerakan party issued an apology on 13 May for their rally goers' behaviour.

In addition, Malay leaders who were angry about the election results used the press to attack their opponents, contributing to raising public anger and tension among the Malay and Chinese communities. On 13 May, members of UMNO Youth gathered in Kuala Lumpur, at the residence of Selangor Menteri Besar Dato' Harun Haji Idris in Jalan Raja Muda, and demanded that they too should hold a victory celebration. 

While UMNO announced a counter-procession, which would start from the Harun bin Idris's residence, Tunku Abdul Rahman would later call the retaliatory parade "inevitable”, as otherwise the party members would be demoralised after the show of strength by the Opposition and the insults that had been thrown at them. 

READ MORE HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_incident