Share |

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Muhyiddin Yassin says we are all equal under the sun. What do you think?

Business licences are largely awarded to Malays or must have mandatory minimum Malay participation – Bank Licences, Educational Institutions Licences, Permits in the Transportation businesses and so many more. How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun? And he says there is no first and second class of citizens?

By Human Rights Party

News Item from NST (2nd Nov 2009): “PORT DICKSON: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin yesterday reiterated that there is no such thing as a first or second-class citizen in the country and that all citizens have equal rights. He stressed that the government would continue to ensure fairness and equality for a]] as stated in the Federal Constitution and uphold all the principles of the Rukun Negara.

“No Malaysian should feel neglected as every individual, regardless of race or religion and whether he lives in town or the oulsldrts, enjoys the same rights and privileges.There is no segregation of race or status here and there is certainly no such thing as a fIrst or second-class citizen,” he said at the national-level Deepavali open house at Ladang Siliau near here……………………….”

What liars these UMNO politicians are. Now let him try and explain these situations:

A central feature of our system is our categorization into Bumiputras, Chinese, Indians and Others from birth to death. Everywhere we go we have to declare Bangsa, Ugama – at birth, at school registration, in all the applications we make, at marriage, at death and in many more situations. Why do we need to do this if we are all truly equal under the sun?

Here is something that just came up –
In case you are curious how they play the blood game, this is the official definition used by the Student Intake Management Division, Higher Learning Department and Higher Education Ministry:

You are a Bumiputera if:
* Semenanjung — “Jika salah seorang ibu atau bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam/Orang Asli seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 160(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.” (If either parent of a candidate is a Malay who is a Muslim/Orang Asli as defined in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a Bumiputera.)

* Sabah — “Jika bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam/Peribumi Sabah seperti yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A(6)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.” (If the father of the candidate is a Malay who is a Muslim/native of Sabah as defined by Article 161A(6)(a) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a Bumiputera.)

* Sarawak — “Jika bapa dan ibu adalah seorang Peribumi Sarawak seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A(6)(b) Perlembagaan persekutuan; maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.” (If the father and mother is a native of Sarawak as defined under Article 161A(6)(b) of the Federal Constitution, the child is considered a Bumiputera.)

Why go to this extent and with varying definitions across the country to define who a Bumiputra is if we are all equal under the sun. Does it not look like this is to define who is a first class citizen entitled to various benefits and privileges while denying others who by default then become second and maybe third class citizens?

Houses are sold with a 5% discount to the bumiputras. Why do we need to do this if we are all equal under the sun? And there is no first and second class of citizens? Surely those that must get a lower price must be special, don’t you think? And then it must be clear who is a Bumiputra so the benefit or the privilege is not defiled or diluted by the non-bumiputras.

In several housing areas, State Consent is required if one wants to sell the property especially if it is in a predominantly Malay area. It is quicker to get consent for an inter Bumiputra sale than it is for a sale across the Bumiputra /Non-Bumiputra divide. Why do we need to do this if we are all equal under the sun?

The bureaucracy is almost entirely made up of Bumiputras – a million and more of them. The Police force is almost entirely Malay, the Armed forces are almost entirely Malay. How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun? Try applying for a job as an Administrative Assistant or Technical Assistant or as a Police Inspector and see.

Most Government businesses are off limits to non-Malays. There is a complete system of screening vendors that limits vendors to almost entirely Bumiputras. How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun? And he says there is no first and second class of citizens?

Business licences are largely awarded to Malays or must have mandatory minimum Malay participation – Bank Licences, Educational Institutions Licences, Permits in the Transportation businesses and so many more. How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun? And he says there is no first and second class of citizens?

Participation in all government development schemes are entirely for Malays – MARA, FELDA, FELCRA, RISDA, PERDA, KESEDAR, KEJORA to name just a few. How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun?

Educational opportunities in Public Educational Institutions are grossly in favour of Malays. How many places in Universities for Indians, how many scholarships to Indians. How many MARA institutions for Indians? How can this happen if we are all equal under the sun?

Try applying for any of these SMEs (<>) assistance schemes and see if you are equal under the sun, any one of

Bantuan Kewangan ( About 50 here) Pinjaman Bagi Tabung-tabung Khas
Dana Khas Kerajaan Persekutuan untuk Terengganu<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Dana Usahawan Negeri Terengganu (DUNT)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Francais Belia<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS) Kemudahan Pembiayaan Kontrak Seberang Laut<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Export-Import Bank Malaysia Berhad (EXIM Bank) Kemudahan Pembiayaan Projek Seberang Laut<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Export-Import Bank Malaysia Berhad (EXIM Bank) Kemudahan Pembiayaan Tekun<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Yayasan Tekun Nasional (YTN) Kemudahan Pembiayaan “Malaysia Kitchen”<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Export-Import Bank Malaysia Berhad (EXIM Bank) Modal untuk Usahawan Koperasi (MUSK)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad Perusahaan Kecil dan Sederhana (PKS)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Pinjaman Mudah untuk Perusahaan Kecil dan Sederhana<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Belia Niaga<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad. Skim Belia Tani - i (SBT-i)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Francais Eksekutif<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS) Skim Khas Pembiayaan Penjenamaan Antarabangsa<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Kredit Padi (SKP)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Kredit Pengeluaran Makanan (SKPM)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Masyarakat Perdagangan & Perindustrian Bumiputera (MPPB)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Modal Asas (Batik Dan Kraf)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Modal Usahawan Tani<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim PROSPER Siswazah<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) Skim Pembiayaan Ekonomi Desa (SPED)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Pembiayaan Ekonomi Desa (SPED)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad Skim Pembiayaan Ekonomi Desa Kaum India (SPEDI)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Pembiayaan Filem Cereka<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Pembiayaan Francais PNS<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS) Skim Pembiayaan Hutang<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad (MDV) Skim Pembiayaan Ikhtiar AIM<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) Skim Pembiayaan LITS (Low Intensity Tapping System)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Pembiayaan Mudah Pembangunan Automotif<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Pembiayaan Perniagaan MARA<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) Skim Pemborong PROSPER<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) Skim Penyelesaian Pinjaman Kecil (SPPK)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Negara Malaysia Skim Pinjaman Mudah Automasi dan Modenisasi<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Pinjaman Mudah bagi Penempatan Semula Kilang (SLFR)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Pinjaman Mudah untuk Penerapan Aplikasi ICT (SLICT)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad (MIDF) Skim Pra-Francais <〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS) Skim Runcit PROSPER<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) Skim Tanaman Semula Kelapa Sawit (TASKS)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Skim Tanmiah 1 (PROGRAM THIRD WINDOW)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Tanmiah 2 (PROGRAM INDUSTRI STRATEGIK)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Skim Usahawan Tani Komersil Siswazah (SUTKS)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Tabung Industri Kecil & Sederhana ke 2 (TIKS2)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Tabung Industri Kecil Dan Sederhana 2 (TIKS 2)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Negara Malaysia **Tabung Infrastruktur Pelancongan (TIF)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad Tabung Khas Pelancongan 2 (SFT 2)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank) Tabung Perkapalan<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad Tabung Projek Usahawan Bumiputera<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Negara Malaysia Tabung Teknologi Tinggi<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad Tabung Untuk Makanan (3F)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Agrobank Malaysia Tabung Untuk Makanan<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Negara Malaysia Tabung Usahawan Baru 2 (TUB 2)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Negara Malaysia Tabung Usahawan Siswazah (TUS)<〈=bm&pass=scheme>
Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad (SME Bank ...

I can go on like this. However the point is abundantly clear. UMNO and its leaders weave illusions and dreams for the Indians. They only want the Indian votes. They do not care two hoots what really happens to the Indians. They want us to be third class citizens. They have no interest in making us equals. So while they delude the Indians they are busy usurping the resources of the entire nation. The list I have shown above is only some of very many schemes of UMNO by which they usurp National Resources in the name of Ketuanan Melayu and Bumiputraism. Equal under the Sun - what audacity to tell such lies in the face of such damning and outright inequality.

We have to wake up - we have to stop stop believing the lies of UMNO and begin work to totally throw them out of power. It is only when they are thrown out of power can we have a chance at becoming equal under the sun. With UMNO in the seat of power all we can have are dreams. That’s all.

The lying must stop and UMNO has to go. Our people must stop believing the lies and we as the middle class have a role to play to make it clear to the poor and vulnerable who the real nemesis of the Indians are - UMNO, not anybody else. Everybody else are at best collaborators of UMNO. We must first get clear ourselves. And then we need to get the rest of the Indian community real clear about this one point.

We have to severely combat the lies of UMNO and its organs of propoganda.

United we must stand …. United we must act.


Is justice all about technicalities?

By P. Ramakrishnan (Aliran President)

It appears that the Opposition can only win Round 1! Whether it is the Kampung Buah Pala case, or Nizar’s case involving the Perak crisis or Anwar’s case with regard to getting the vital evidence for his defence - that seems to be the case!

In all these instances the High Court had shown a lot of wisdom, had taken the pain to understand the issues concerning these cases and had delivered well-reasoned judgments that were impressive and well received by the people at large.

But when it comes to Round 2 it is zero!

Disappointingly, at this level justice doesn’t seem to be the primary concern of the judges. All they appear to be interested in is finding loop-holes in the law or they resort to technicalities to dismiss the cases.

The perception of the public is that court verdicts are predictable based on the panel of judges empanelled to hear cases. This is a tragic situation because it gives the impression that judgments are farcical and on the whole totally unacceptable. When people lose their faith in the judiciary, then the courts no longer stand a as a bastion for justice.

In the case of Kampung Buah Pala there were triable issues that were very apparent to the High Court but this was not a compelling factor in Round 2 or 3. They lost out simply because the judges failed to address their plea based on the principles of justice.

In Nizar’s case, the constitutional provision which supported his position and was recognised by the High Court as a matter grounded in justice and in the rule of law was completely overlooked in Round 2.

In Anwar’s case, the High Court in respecting natural justice and recognising the amendment to Section 51A, ordered the prosecution “to allow Anwar’s lawyers to inspect CCTV recordings of the alleged crime scene, along with witness statement of the alleged victim, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan and that of other witnesses as well as doctors’ notes.”

The High Court also ordered the “medical reports on Mohd Saiful from two hospitals – Hospital Kuala Lumpur and Pusrawi Hospital – and other evidence favourable to the defence to be handed over to Anwar.”

This is a very fair judgment considering the fact that this information sought would eventually be made available to the defence during the trial. If that is the case, and when the amendment to Section 51A allows this, what is the justification in disallowing this vital information to the defence at this stage?

When a person is charged and his freedom is at stake he deserves to be given every opportunity to prove his innocence. However, the Court of Appeal had overlooked this very important principle, giving the impression that the court is not concerned with justice and hardly looks at the substantive issues which deserve their critical attention.

Umno mirror

US unemployment rate soars - Al Jazeera

Labour department figures show that 190,000
jobs were cut in October [EPA]

Barack Obama, the US president, has warned of stiff economic challenges after latest official data showed that the unemployment rate in the country touched 10.2 per cent in October, the highest since 1983.

Labour department figures released on Friday revealed that nearly 16 million Americans were unable to find jobs and that employers had cut 190,000 positions last month, down from 219,000 in September.

"Although we lost fewer jobs than we did last month, our unemployment rate climbed to over 10 per cent - a sobering number that underscores the economic challenges that lie ahead," Obama said on Friday.

Obama on Friday signed an extension to unemployment benefit entitlements that will enable claimants to get up to 20 extra weeks' payments.

Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, said the jump in unemployment from 9.8 per cent in September reflects the typical lag shown by the labour market as growth picks up.

"Today's employment report contained both signs of hope for recovery and painful evidence of continued labour market weakness," she said in a statement.

The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Well-worn path

Max Fraad Wolff, an economics professor at New School University in New York, said Obama's news conference was "more or less travelling down the same well-worn path, with the possible exception of one good piece of news" - the 20-week extension in unemployment benefits.

"Behind those headline numbers, which are pretty shocking and upsetting in of themselves, is the fact that a little more than 35 per cent of the unemployed in America have been unemployed for six months or more and they are beginning to run out of their unemployment benefits," he told Al Jazeera.

"President Obama has signed an extension to those benefits today."

While the official US unemployed rate has gone into double digits, Wolff said that the real jobless rate was even higher.

"We get a number called U3 from the Bureau of Labour Statistics - that is the official unemployment level. The real unemployment level is more like something called U6 - and that stands at 17.5 per cent," he said.

"These are massive unemployment figures ... they tell us that no neighbourhood, no sector, no town, no community does not face the weight or feel the sorrow of unemployment."

Tom Bemis of in London, told Al Jazeera that the US economy had grown in the last quarter and that the US productivity rate "shot up quite a bit".

"That's typical when you're trying to come out of the end of a recession as it is hoped now," he said.

Long-term unemployed

Bemis said the problem is that the long-term unemployed, those who have been out of a job for more than six months, continues to grow and it is up past 5.5 million now.

"If those people remain unemployed for a long time, their ability to consume is impaired and the ability to kickstart the US economy is in serious question," he said.

Commenting on the October figures, Robert MacIntosh, an economist at Eaton Vance, said: "The employment numbers themselves when you look at the revisions weren't all that bad, but the headline of 10 per cent was huge psychologically."

MacIntosh said that if current trends continue, the economy could see job gains in January or February but that unemployment may rise with labour force and population growth.

Asri: I am fundamentalist and progressive

MITI approved RM1.06 billion but yet again the Indians are excluded

Kementerian Perdagagan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI) up to September 2009 has approved grants and loans to 25,549 applicants worth RM1.06 Billion for the Small and Medium Scale Industries (Utusan Malaysia, 7/11/09 page 23). Deputy Minister Jacob Dangau Sagan said that out of the total applicants, 450 Sabah applicants received grants and loan worth RM88.30Million. What about the Indians? Why are they excluded from the opportunities in these Small and Medium Scale Industries? All this only happens in Prime Minister Najib Razak’s One Malaysia UMNO regime.

The Deputy Minister also said that the SME Corp has provided training on technical, management and marketing and till September they had trained 23,444 workers for the Small and Medium Industries. And out of 23,444 only 439 Sabahan been trained but zero Indians had been given this opportunity.

Yet again this is the tip of the iceberg of how Prime Minister Najib Razak’s 1 Malaysia by excluding deserving Malaysian Indians from the National Mainstream Development of Malaysia.


HRP Information Chief



EVENT-7/11/09: Malaysian Indian Political Empowerment Strategy - Book Launching& special pooja

Pooja:Malaysian Indian Political Empowerment Strategy Book launching by P.Uthayakumar and special pooja.

Place: Sri Selva Vinayagar Alayam,Serendah ,Hulu Selangor.

Time:- 7.30pm

For more information contact:

siva :0123100148 / 0176161101

Selvam : 0163137840

Lets give our support for this events success.Forward the message to all our families and friends.

Vaalga Manitha Urimai



Indian youths in crime because no equal and upward mobility opportunities.

Indian youths in crime because no equal and upward mobility opportunities.

Polis buru 5 lelaki untuk bantu siasatan kes tetak pelajar. ( Utusan Malaysia 5/11/2009 at page 27).

Polis telah mengenal pasti lima individu yang terlibat menyerang dan menetak seorang pelajar lelaki berusia 17 tahun sehingga putus pergelangan tangan di Kampung Sungai Terentang, Rawang dekat sini pada Sabtu lalu.

Lima individu terbabit ialah S. Purusothaman yang dikenal sebagai Boy, R. Logeswaran (Loga, A. Lawrence, B. Vickneswaran (Vicky) dan S. Vigneswaran (Vignes).

Note: In the RM 191.5 Billion 2010 national Budget, RM One Billion was allocated to improve the services of the police force. (NST 24/10/2009 at page 28)

But UMNO refuses to allocate RM 1 Billion to keep especially Indian youths out of crime for example by giving them the licences, loans and training as given by PNS, MARA, Bank Rakyat and the Entrepreneur Development Ministry and the Agriculture and Agro based Industry Ministry to Malay youths to open up and operate Petronas, Shell, Mobil and Esso petrol stations, KFC, Mc Donalds, A&W, Ayamas and scores of other franchise outlets, food shops and tid bit outlets at the scores of low rental and high income Highway rest areas, government buildings, government build food courts etc and thousands of other government supported businesses.

Also almost zero opportunities in terms of loans, training and business opportunities are given to these Indian youths at least in Small and Medium Scale Industries (SMI) and Small and Medium Scale Entrepreneurs (SME). No Indian youth would take the option of becoming a gangster or indulging in crime had they been given the same opportunities given to the malay muslim.

If we recollect where are the then Chinese gangsters of the 1970s and 1980s’. They have all been given the business, SME, SMI opportunities and licences by UMNO in partnership with the malays. But these Indian youths have been left out just because they are Indians and do not have the political power. Even PKR, DAP and PAS abandon these critical Indian issues because they do not get to score enough political mileage and rather play to the majoritarian Malay and Chinese gallery. .

P. P.Uthayakumar


PKR Indian Exco mandore’s MIC style politics on Bukit Raja Tamil School.

PKR Indian Exco mandore’s MIC style politics on Bukit Raja Tamil School. (Makkal Osai 5/11/2009 at page 12). This Selangor PKR Indian mandores is yet again playing “paper politics” that too by merely “pledging” RM 5, 000.00 for the Bukit Raja Tamil School’s additional building fund. Note: Even for this peanuts RM 5, 000.00 he has just made the pledge (Valanguvar) and it would be a few times repeat of this very same peanuts RM 5, 000.00 if and when he finally gives it. This is the very same political gimmicks UMNO has been playing through their MIC Mandores for over the last 52 years. Now PKR, DAP and PAS are doing the same through their Indian EXCO mandores. How then are PKR, DAP and PAS any different from UMNO.

By the stroke of his pen and invoking Section 76 of the National Land Code this Bukit Raja Tamil school and in fact all 98 Tamil schools Selangor could be given state government land in situ, plus an additional five acre adjoining land accordingly for a school field and assembly hall which almost all 523 Tamil Schools in Malaysia do not have. Why should PKR make the existing poor and working class Indians contribute their finances to builds the additional school building? If the Federal UMNO government refuses to fully fund the additional school building, then PKR should undo these injustices by fully paying for the same. After all Selangor is the richest state in Malaysia and more so it is supposed to be “multi-racial”. But mandores style multi-racialism. As it stands PKR, DAP and PAS are not very much different from the UMNO regime vis a vis the critical Indian problems.



Let me explain


My non-Muslim friends think that an Islamic State means you will now be stoned to death and your hands cut off. Some view Islamic laws the same way. Whether it is an Islamic State or Islamic laws they narrow it down to stoning and hand cutting. The Sharia is probably the most misunderstood word today and it is probably opportune that Malaysia Today enlightens our non-Muslim readers on what is meant by the Sharia or what we would normally call ‘Islamic laws’.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sharia is an Arabic word meaning ‘way’ or ‘path’. In Arabic, ‘Šarīʿat Allāh’ (God’s Law) is traditionally used not only by Muslims but also by Christians and Jews. The western world, however, often refers to the Sharia as an Islamic concept, meaning basically the wide body of Islamic religious law.

The Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life -- politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. So it is not, therefore, just about stoning or the cutting off hands which comes under Hudud, just one branch of the Sharia law. Therefore, the Sharia is more than just about Hudud or criminal law.

The Sharia is not a single code of laws but consists of four sources. The first two sources are the Quran and the Sunnah while the last two are consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas). For some Muslims, the Sharia consists of the Quran and Sunnah while for others it also includes classical fiqh (deep understanding), which is in turn derived from consensus and analogy. Mainstream Islam distinguishes between fiqh, which refers to the inferences drawn by scholars, and the Sharia, which refers to the principles that lie behind the fiqh.

Shi'a Muslims reject this approach and consider analogy as akin to innovations (bid'ah). They also reject consensus. So when Malaysian Muslims talk about the Sharia this does mean other Muslims accept this version as well.

The development of fiqh goes back to the time of the early Muslim communities. During this period jurists were more concerned with pragmatic issues of authority and teaching than with theory. Progress in theory happened with the coming of the early Muslim jurist, Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i (767-820), who laid down the basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence in his book Al-Risala. This book details the four roots of Islamic law (the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma, and qiyas) while specifying that the primary Islamic texts (the Qur'an and the hadith) be understood according to objective rules of interpretation derived from careful study of the Arabic language.

A number of important legal concepts and institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the classical period of Islam, known as the Islamic Golden Age, dated from the 7th to 13th centuries.

According to Muslims, Sharia Law is founded on the teachings of Allah and the acts and sayings of Muhammad as found in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. However, the Sharia was not fully developed during the time of Muhammad but evolved around the various Muslim communities through which it would serve.

When the Sharia began its formation in the desert of Arabia 1,400 years ago a sense of community did not exist yet. Life in the desert was nomadic and tribal. Thus the only factor that tied people together into various tribes was through common ancestry. The Sharia was guided through its development by lifestyles of the tribes in which was initially absorbed into Islam.

After the death of Muhammad, the Sharia continued to undergo fundamental changes, beginning with the reigns of Abu Bakar (632–34) and Umar (634–44) in which many decision-making matters were brought to the attention of Muhammad's closest comrades who decided on the rulings.

In 662, during the reign of Muawiya b. Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, life ceased to be nomadic and undertook an urban transformation, which in turn raised matters not originally covered by Islamic law. Every change of Islamic societies played an active role in developing the Sharia which branches out into Fiqh and Qanun respectively.

Before the 19th century, legal theory was considered the domain of the traditional legal schools of thought. The legal schools followed by most Sunni Muslims are Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafi`i while most Shi'a Muslims follow the Ja'fari school of thought.

To conclude, I would dispute the argument that the Sharia already existed during the time of the Prophet. I stand by my argument that the Sharia developed over hundreds of years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. For example, if the Sharia is based on four sources (the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma, and qiyas) how can the Sharia had been already fully developed at the time of the Prophet when three of the four sources came after the death of the Prophet?


Further Reading:

  1. Bakhtiar, Laleh and Kevin Reinhart (1996). Encyclopedia of Islamic Law: A Compendium of the Major Schools. Kazi Publications.
  2. Brown, Daniel W. (1996). Rethinking traditions in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge University Press, UK.
  3. Musa, A. Y. Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on The Authority Of Prophetic Traditions in Islam, New York: Palgrave, 2008.
  4. Coulson, Noel James. A history of Islamic law (Islamic surveys). Oxford: University Press, 1964.
  5. Liebesny, Majid &, and Herbert J. (Editors) Khadduri. Law in the Middle East: Volume I: Origin and Development of Islamic Law. Washington D.C.: The Middle East Institute, 1955.
  6. ash-Shafi`i, Muhammad ibn Idris (1993), Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence, Islamic Texts Society.
  7. Weiss, Bernard G. (2002). Studies in Islamic Legal Theory. Boston: Brill Academic publishers.
  8. Shahin, Omar (2007), The Muslim Family in Western Society: A Study in Islamic Law (English), Cloverdale Corporation.
  9. Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law", North Carolina Law Review.
  10. Mumisa, Michael (2002) Islamic Law: Theory & Interpretation, Amana Publications.

Let’s talk a walk down memory lane


In a sex crime, the sole testimony of the alleged victim is not sufficient but corroboration is required. In the case against Anwar Ibrahim, however, there was no corroboration other than the sole testimony of the alleged victim.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some of you may have been too young in 1998 to remember the first Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial. With the latest court ruling on Anwar’s second sodomy trial (, maybe it is time I take you for a walk down memory lane so that you can get a better understanding of how the first sodomy trial was conducted.

I will try to make it as simple as possible without too much legal jargon and ‘lawyer talk’. What you need to understand is how the trial was conducted and why I say it was a sham trial in a kangaroo court.

Anwar was found guilty and sent to jail for six years and seven months whereas in any other country the court would have thrown the case out without even requiring him to defend himself in a trial. In other words, in any other country the trial would not have gone on but instead Anwar would have been discharged without the defence being called.

Let us first see what was revealed in the trial and then in part 2 we shall look at the other issues:

1. The police admitted that no police report was ever made against Anwar and that the basis for launching the prosecution were unfounded rumours and the contents of a book.

2. The alleged victim, Azizan, had been ‘turned over’ to say that Anwar sodomised him (the term used for ‘coercing’) - which is the ‘normal’ practice of the Malaysian Police, the court was told.

3. The Special Branch had earlier sent the Prime Minister a report saying that the allegations against Anwar are lies and fabricated by conspirators trying to bring Anwar down.

4. The alleged sodomy act was supposed to have occurred ‘one day in the month of May 1994’. The police testified that this date was based on the information obtained during the interrogation of the ‘victim’, and this was what the first charge read.

5. The so-called victim then testified that the sodomy act never occurred after May 1992, only before that, so the ‘May 1994’ charge suddenly became defective. The charge was then changed to ‘May 1992’ to fit this testimony while ‘typographical error’ was cited as the reason for the amendment to the charge.

6. Anwar then file his Notice of Alibi proving that in May 1992 the Tivoli Villa, the alleged scene of the crime, was still under construction and was not completed yet, so it could not have happened at that time, date and place in question.

7. The ‘victim’ was then interrogated a second time to ‘help him remember the correct date’. After he ‘remembered’ the ‘correct date’, the charges were then, again, amended to ‘one day between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’.

8. When the defence argued that the law requires the charge to specify, precisely, the time, date and place of the alleged crime, and when Anwar managed to provide an alibi for the entire 90 days from 1 January to 31 March 1993 to prove he was never at the scene of the crime, the prosecution argued that ‘from time immemorial, dates have never been important’. Though they cannot pinpoint the precise time and date the alleged crime was supposed to have occurred, argued the prosecution, this does not matter as long as they can pinpoint the place.

9. The trial judge would interview the defence before any witnesses are called to find out what they will be testifying. The judge would then rule those defence witnesses irrelevant and would not allow them to be called.

10. Halfway through the defence witnesses giving their testimony, the trial judge would cut them off and dismiss them without allowing them to complete their testimony.

11. The trial judge would rule certain evidence not relevant and would expunge them from the records whenever the prosecution was not able to rebut this testimony and it looked like it would damage the prosecution’s case.

12. In a sex crime, the sole testimony of the alleged victim is not sufficient but corroboration is required. In the case against Anwar, however, there was no corroboration other than the sole testimony of the alleged victim.

13. When the defence asked that the so-called victim be sent for a medical examination to determine whether he had indeed been sodomised – as there was still time to do so – the prosecution refused, saying that a medical examination is not conclusive anyway.

14. Anwar’s alleged partner-in-crime, his adopted brother Sukma, who was jointly-charged with him - and earlier sent to jail for six months for ‘allowing Anwar to sodomise him’ - was examined by a doctor, Dr Zahari Noor, who testified that he found no evidence he was ever sodomised. In fact, he suffers from piles due to an extremely small anal passage so it would have been impossible for Anwar to have sodomised him – he had to be operated upon to widen his anal passage so that he could move his bowels. (Anwar’s adopted brother was convicted and jailed on the strength of his ‘confession’ that was obtained under police torture).

15. Witnesses came to court to testify that various people in high places had bribed the so-called victim and his co-conspirator to fabricate evidence against Anwar. However, the prosecution refused to call these people to court to rebut or confirm this allegation, and when the defence tried to subpoena them instead, the court would not allow it to do so. The judge then ruled the testimony of these witnesses as ‘hearsay’ - since it was never confirmed or denied - and refused to consider it.

16. The prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves and changed their testimonies all along the way. The court, however, ruled that though they may have been inconsistent, ‘these inconsistencies have been explained’ and the court was satisfied. The court also said that no one human can be expected to be 100% consistent and that everyone, however honest and truthful he may be, will be inconsistent.

17. A prominent lawyer and one-time Malaysian Bar Council Chairman, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, testified and signed a Statutory Declaration alleging that the Attorney-General and the Chief Prosecutor had blackmailed his client with the death sentence unless he (the client) testified that he had procured women for Anwar. No action was taken against them and they continued to head the prosecution against Anwar. No action was taken against the lawyer for ‘malicious lies’ either, so the allegation remains undisputed.

Hard questions for religion to answer


Religion and science have always been at odds with each other. Religion says science can't prove that God does not exist. Science says religion can't prove that God does. Another thing that science and religion can't agree on is the age of mother earth. Let us see what both religion and science have to argue about the matter.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, attempted to find the age of the earth by following the chronological genealogies in the scriptures. His erroneous calculations greatly influenced Christians of his day. For example, he calculated 1 BC to 1 AD, by counting the year zero. The problem was, there is no year zero. In other words, if an event occurs in 1 BC, and lasts to 1 AD, this is only 1 year. So, in order to get an accurate count when crossing the year zero, we must always adjust for this. Archbishop Ussher did not, and this threw his whole calendar off. One might charitably say that this was an easy mistake to make, nevertheless it also illustrates the carelessness with which he made decisions concerning numbers.

Many Christians of his day quickly accepted his date of creation as 4004 BC, and unfortunately it was placed within the margin of the King James Bible as a reference. This action immediately gave it a certain credibility, authority, and widespread appeal to the public. However, it was in no way a legitimate study of the age of the earth.

The Jews have another calculation. 30 September 2008 through 18 September 2009 corresponded to Hebrew year 5769 while the Hebrew year 5770 began at sundown on the evening of 18 September 2009 and will end on 8 September 2010.

The year 5770 on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since God created the world, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact.

So there you have it. The world is only 5,770 years old according to the Jews. Some believe it is 10,000 years old. Going by the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, though, the world was created on 11013 BC. That makes the world 13,022 years old according to some Christians.

The scientists say the world is billions of years old.

Who is correct? Religion or science?

Hadi reiterates PAS remains in Pakatan

Abdul Hadi (right) confers with Nik Aziz at the party seminar this morning. — Picture by Choo Choy May

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani and Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 7 — PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang today told the party faithful that they will remain in Pakatan Rakyat as it has gained more with the opposition pact than by struggling alone.

He explained to a crucial party seminar that PAS will cast its fortunes with PR due to the political reality of both Muslim and non-Muslim voters in Malaysia.

"PAS will remain in Pakatan Rakyat due to the realitiy of politics where there are Muslim and non-Muslim voters," Hadi told the 1,000 party delegates at the PAS Markaz Tarbiyyah in Gombak here.

The party president also pointed that PAS had previously formed a mixed government but had failed, thus requiring the need to be part of PR.

"PAS has gained more ground with Pakatan Rakyat even by just losing one by-election in Bagan Pinang," he added, alluding to the alliance's first by-election loss in the peninsula since Election 2008.

He earlier said PAS was formed to fulfll the orders of Allah and it had long struggled on its own.

The seminar will discuss PAS's future direction but could well throw up the need for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to decide the fundamental issue of whether to co-operate with Umno to advance Islam and Malay unity or stay with PR and hope to capture federal power in the forthcoming general election.

The seminar is unlikely to resolve the fundamental difference over the issues and which course to take to safeguard the future of PAS — how best to capitalise on the new forces at work in the political system to stay ahead.

Abdul Hadi was flanked by spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat and party vice-president Salahuddin Ayub when he opened the seminar. Nik Aziz later left as he is unwell.

Among those speaking at the seminar is UIA law academic Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, who had started the debate when he criticised the party leadership's ambivalence to issues.

Abdul Aziz pointed out the seminar was not about unseating Abdul Hadi but about PAS's direction as an Islamist party.

"The pattern in the next general election will be different, it won't be ABU, Anything But Umno," the law professor said.

UM lecturer Dr Abu Hassan Hasbullah also told the seminar that his survey before the last general election showed youths preferred Nik Aziz over Abdul Hadi.

Another vice-president Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man is also on the list of speakers.

Tuan Ibrahim is also heading the disciplinary committee probing Selangor PAS over allegations that the leaders have bad-mouthed the party leadership.


It is highly rumoured that MIC Deputy President Datuk G. Palanivel who had a drastic defeat during the last general elections would be made a Senator sometime in January 2010 when one of the MIC allocated senatorship falls vacant.

It was further rumoured that Datuk Palanivel would be appointed a full Minister to replace current elected MP Datuk Dr S Subramaniam from the Human Resources Ministry.

The Indian community on the whole do not want to see 'incompetent' leaders to be appointed through the back-door method although BN practices them to satisfy their component partners.

The Indian community feels that if any leader has failed to secure a seat, these leaders would have to accept the faith and try their best to win full confidence and try to secure victory during the forthcoming elections.

But whatever decision the MIC leadership takes will be obey by the BN leaders, one thing the MIC leadership need to realise is that 'incompetent' and unpopular leaders should be scrapped and new capable and reliable leaders be uplifted who will bring the Indian community to greater heights in a multi-racial and multi-cultural Malaysian society.

Is the Opposition wasting a historic opportunity?

By Tunku Aziz

A mere footnote at the bottom of a page of Malaysia’s political history or a tome on political change that recreated and revitalised a sick and openly corrupt society into a vibrant and prosperous democracy for all? Pakatan Rakyat must decide quickly where it wants to be. On present showing, it has not a ghost of a chance to ever breach and occupy the still impregnable Putrajaya citadel, in spite of the credible 8 March 2008 electoral onslaught. It does not have to look far to find out why it is in such a sorry state. Lim Kit Siang’s warning of a “one term miracle” could well become self-fulfilling and Putra Jaya would be just a gleam in the eye if his words are not taken to heart.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders must come to terms with the reality that is Barisan Nasional. We may despise its politics of immorality, of corruption and injustice, but even the most rabid alternative political practitioners must readily concede that it is still a formidable organisation with an armoury of unsavoury tricks they have to contend with. Remember Perak, and the bad after taste that lingers on and on. Pakatan must wake up from its euphoric pie in the sky self-induced dream that the one off massive voter handouts would be there for the asking at the next general elections. There will be no repeat performance until and unless it gets its act together. The electorate owes PR nothing. The truth is that Pakatan Rakyat owes their supporters everything.

PR leaders must lead by putting the larger interests of the nation above individual parochial party issues with their tendency to be unnecessarily divisive, emotive and controversial. Are these issues really so fundamental that they are incapable being discussed rationally without adding to the fragility of a coalition that is apparently about to be torn asunder? I wrote some time ago about the difficulty of reconciling the conflicting claims of the many different ideological and doctrinal sacred cows represented by the PR partners, but they must direct their intellectual energies to finding a solution to what the people of multi-racial Malaysia will and will not put up with.

They must open their minds to the larger, and therefore, more relevant social, economic, political, religious and cultural concerns of our people than to insist on playing the same old race and religious cards with their declining appeal to right thinking people. These are barriers to overcome. If PR is, as it seems, incapable of even getting to the most important item on the new national agenda, then it is offering nothing better to the people of this nation than what BN has been doing for half a century and more. More of the same is an unworthy option for a long suffering people who deserve better. PR leaders must, in all good conscience, ask themselves whether they can lead this complex and difficult nation if they themselves are apparently incapable of agreeing on basic fundamental principles of cooperative engagement to deepen their commitment to values of justice in its widest sense for every Malaysian.

If PK leaders feel that they have neither the will nor the stomach for the sacrifices they are expected to make in order to take the new national non-race based agenda forward on the long march to Putrajaya, they should come out with a straight answer that should leave the people of this country in no doubt where they stand. There is no place for personal agendas in the national scheme of things; certainly not where it is a matter of saving the people from a particularly rotten and unjust system of governance.

Pakatan Rakyat has a great deal to offer by way of a commitment to a clean corruption-intolerant administration and it deserves to be given a chance to govern Malaysia. It cannot be worse than the Umno dominated administration. But then the political game is not about sentimental nonsense. It is determined solely by the dictum “Perform or Perish”, and the PR state governments must prove to the satisfaction of the people in those states, and by extension the nation, that they can be trusted to govern good, and to govern well.

This coalition, even if it were made in heaven, could still come a cropper. PR leaders have themselves to blame in the event.

Samy Vellu withdrew case against Athi Kumanan

MIC president Samy Vellu withdrew defamation law suit filed in 1993 against Athi Kumanan, the then editor of Malaysia Nanban who died of in 1995, according to Makkal Osai headline today.
makkal osai 061109

Athi Kumanan, who started the Tamil daily, Malaysia Nanban, with the help of former MIC deputy president Subramaniam, was a constant ‘pain in the butts’ of Samy Vellu with his incessant stinging attacks through his writings in the daily.

The hearing of the case was set to begin in five days. Samy apparently agreed to withdraw the case and also bear the cost, the daily said.

In the case, Samy Vellu contended that Athi Kumanan had defamed him by implying in his writing that:

· he is treating MIC members as slaves,
· he cheated and mortgaged the Indian community
· he is a liar, thief and criminal
· he hijacked 9 million telecom shares to a RM 2.00 company
· Maika Holdings is in the verge of bankruptcy under his leadership
· collecting funds for a privates company University under the pretext that it belongs to MIC
· benefited illegally using my position
· Not fit to be a minister and represent the Indian community

Defendant Athi Kumanan is represented by a prominent lawyer Saraswathi Kandasamy, who is also happened to be Athi Kumanan’s second wife, who is also happened to file a complaint of irregularities in the recently concluded MIC general elections to registrar of societies and who is also happened to be the ‘pain in the butts’ of Samy Vellu.

Torture by any other fashion

By Jacqueline Ann Surin

IF we were to believe everything we read, one would think that torture or degrading behaviour, if done differently, would no longer constitute torture or degrading behaviour. Indeed, this is what Pahang's Mufti Department would want Muslims and non-Muslims to believe.

News clipping
Scan of New Straits Times report on syariah caning

On 26 Oct 2009, the New Straits Times ran a story espousing how syariah caning was different from caning under civil law. At a day-long seminar organised by 14 Muslim non-governmental organisations, a demonstration of syariah caning was conducted to presumably show just how humane syariah caning could be.

A staff from the department explained that only a syariah-compliant rotan could be used, the woman had to be fully dressed and seated, and the caning would have to be moderate so as not to break the skin. "You cannot raise your hand above your head [while caning the woman]," the officer said.

But is it actually humane, or even effective, to whip a woman — or for that matter, a man — whether according to syariah or any other convention? Does the state religious authority, and all the other proponents of the whipping of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, actually believe that torture or degrading and humiliating behaviour by any other fashion can be made just, humane and compassionate?

How is it better?

If anything, the syariah caning demonstration in Kuantan was a ploy. A public relations exercise. A way to pull the wool over our eyes about what actually the whipping, as punishment for a Muslim drinking alcohol in public, is about.

A Frame
Mannequin display of caning procedure
under criminal law in Malaysia
(public domain / Wiki commons)
Are we expected to believe that because a syariah-complaint cane is less than 1.22m long and 1.25cm thick, it will not hurt the person who is struck by it? Are we to believe that if the cane is only raised to a certain height that it will not hurt when it comes down? Are we also expected to believe that if no skin is broken during the caning, that the person has not been treated in a degrading and humiliating manner for a personal sin that the state has no business criminalising?

Let's be honest. The whole purpose of having syariah laws that allow for caning to be meted out for, in this instance, drinking alcohol is to ensure that Muslims can be punished if they don't do what the state tells them to. It's to give power to the state to whip (pun intended) the ummah into shape according to a particular interpretation of Islam.

So, if punishment is really what this is all about, isn't it obvious that how that punishment is meted out isn't going to change the fact that the state is still punishing Kartika? That would mean that even if her skin is unbroken from the syariah-compliant cane, what the state is saying is that it has a right to punish, humiliate and degrade a Muslim for a personal sin.

Respecting syariah

The seminar in Kuantan ended with the 500 or so participants adopting a five-point resolution which among others urged all parties to respect syariah and the decisions made by the syariah courts.

glenmorangie whiskeys
Some scholars say whipping Muslims for alcohol consumption is inconsistent with the Quran's teachings

But here's what curious about such a resolution. According to several different Muslim scholars, whipping for alcohol consumption is inconsistent with the Quran and with the spirit of Islamic teaching. These scholars include Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Professor Dr Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and Professor Abdullah Saeed. Other Muslims such as activist Norhayati Kaprawi and women's rights group Sisters in Islam have also argued that Islam is a religion of compassion, not punishment which should be left in God's good hands.

How then can any Muslim, what more an Islamic state agency, describe the caning of Kartika as judgement according to syariah that cannot be challenged? Truth is, Islam upholds justice, peace and compassion, and syariah laws can be compliant with human rights principles.

It is only when some Muslim groups and Islamic state agencies don't respect the true spirit of Islam and of syariah that human rights are violated in the name of Islam, and public relations exercises, such as the one in Kuantan, need to be conducted.

Not alone

To be fair, the groups clamouring for Kartika to be whipped according to syariah are not the only ones guilty of trying to call a spade a cuddly teddy bear. The Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN) government is doing exactly the same thing with the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows for indefinite state detention without trial.

Violence minuman kotak with reduced torture content — same great taste!
Detention without trial, or whipping, by any other name is still torture

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has announced all kinds of proposals to reform the ISA including reviewing the definition of "threats to national security and public peace". He has also talked about re-examining the length of detention and the appointment of independent investigators.

But as I have argued before in my column, this is a whitewash. Presumably, these reforms are meant to make the ISA less draconian. But will it still be draconian? You bet. For so long as the law allows for detention without trial, no amount of changes to the execution of that detention will make it less a violation of human rights.

All about power

What is it then that underpins the actions of the Islamic state authorities and the BN government? It's that dizzying, addictive substance called power. More potent than alcohol, power is what is motivating the Islamic state authorities to insist on caning Kartika and the government on detaining people without trial. For the Islamic authorities in Pahang and other states with similar syariah punishments for personal sins such as alcohol consumption, it's about having the power to force Muslims to live and act according to a particular definition of Islam. For the federal government, it's about having the power to silence dissent.

What else could it be, right? After all, we know that there is no compulsion in Islam and that caning for alcohol consumption is not Quranic. We also know that detention without trial is a violation of one's right to liberty and a fair trial. Hence, no matter how much less torturous the caning or detention is, the fact remains: we are being asked to hand over power to religious authorities and to our government to violate our rights.

Of racist remarks and Umno leaders

My SinChew

Last week 800 pre-schoolers made the largest 1Malaysia logo using 220,220 twenty sen coins. Here we go again I say to myself. Remember the largest national flag, the largest ketupat, the longest sandwich, the biggest this the largest that. I thought we’re through with all that. Obviously not. We’re still big in going big so to speak. The only thing is now we’re getting small kindergarten kids to do the big thing. What next? Getting babies into the big act? Anyway, on the day The Star newspaper carried that big effort by the kids, it also carried a report on remarks made by Prime Minister Najib Razak, on , well, racist remarks.

Speaking in his capacity as Umno president, Najib was quoted to have said that racist comments from “one or two Umno leaders” should be ignored because the majority of members in the party are not racists.

“Umno is not a racist party. From the beginning, we wanted a multiracial society. Don’t listen to one or two leaders talk, that’s different. Any party has leaders like them. But look at our policies from Day One”, Najib told delegates attending the Gerakan national conference in Kuala Lumpur Sunday Oct 31.

Wise words from a wise man. Something which all of us should pay attention to and take heed. By saying “ Day One,” Najib was clearly referring to the day Umno was formed in 1946. However the “Umno policies from Day One’ would have been “gigantic’ and “momentous” had Dato Onn Jaafar’s proposal that the party open its doors to non Malays was accepted. Instead it was thrown out and Dato Onn Jaafar, the father of Umno left the party a frustrated man. Sad. But that’s all history now.

Still the policies from Day One were accepted as good if not great. And there are many who still hold on to that belief. A policy to “safeguard Malay interests as well as others and without trampling the rights of non Malays.” Something to that effect. But being a Malay party the policy from Day One to the present is a “Malay first policy”. Nothing wrong with that. But then perhaps many in Umno, leaders and members are still having the difficulty in drawing the line between being “race based,” “racial” and “racist”. Even after all this while. Hence we hear of “racist remarks” coming out of Umno. Even so now as Najib himself has admitted.

And the worrying thing is it’s not just “one or two leaders” who are making such remarks. Take a listen to speeches made at the Umno general assemblies year in year out and you get the picture. Whatever their reasons might be, one thing’s for sure.Its hurting others. Non Malays and non Umno Malays. It’s hurting the BN and it’s ridiculing Najib’s 1Malaysia concept.

So now we are told to ignore” them. That’s easy. The rakyat, Malays and non Malays can do that. Push them aside. Can even ostracise them. No problem. But as we’re still big in going BIG , then the big question to ask is this: Why are these one or two leaders as Najib puts it, making racist remarks and continue to make racist remarks ? That is one big question for Umno to answer.

But the bigger question is if the rakyat are told to ignore them, then what is Umno going to do about it ? Ignore them also ? Apprehend and reprimand? Sack them ? Let them be ? Business as usual ? Happily ever after ?

That we want to know. Satu Malaysia mahu tahu (the whole of Malaysia wants to know). No. Make it Satu Dunia. The whole world awaits.

Mengapa gentar untuk menyerahkan bahan bukti?

Pasukan peguam pembela saya sekali lagi dihalang dari mendapatkan serta memeriksa laporan perubatan, rakaman video litar dan sampel DNA akibat dari keputusan mahkamah rayuan semalam untuk menyebelahi rayuan pihak pendakwa.

Kesemua bahan bukti tersebut merupakan bahagian penting untuk pembelaan saya dan hak untuk mendapatkannya dijamin undang-undang. Mahkamah Tinggi pada 16hb Julai lalu memerintahkan pihak pendakwa menyerahkan bahan bukti, antaranya dua laporan perubatan dari Hospital Pusrawi dan Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

Jelas ada pihak yang menghalang kes ini dari berjalan lancar dan menurut lunas perundangan. Sebaliknya mereka berselindung di sebalik dalih kononnya saya yang melengah-lengahkan perbicaraan. Jangan halang proses perundangan yang sebenarnya. Biarkan ianya berlangsung tanpa dicampuri dan digugat pemerintah.

Nah sudah terang lagi bersuluh kepada kita, siapa sebenarnya yang melengah-lengahkan proses perundangan dan pembicaraan. Mengapa gentar untuk membenarkan pasukan pembela saya memeriksa bahan bukti dan rakaman video litar? Barangkali takut muslihat jahat didedahkan; pecah tembelang membusuk dan memualkan.



Dear Ir. Syahrizan,

1. I am not going to deny that in my time Proton was protected. All countries including Britain, Germany, Japan and Korea protect their car market. Britain had Imperial Preference, Japan and Korea ensured no foreign cars could be imported, even America insists on Japanese, Korean and Germans producing their cars in America, employing Americans and paying high salaries.

2. The protection for Proton cars had been there all along. Without protection we would have no car industry. Proton gained 80 per cent of the market at one time benefiting from protectionism.

3. Because of the APs (Approved Permits) for cars from countries which Proton cannot penetrate (Korea and Japan) sales of Proton went down. Proton lost money, the foreigners made a lot of money with the lower price of their cars sold in Malaysia. Their lower price is due to volume i.e. economies of scale. We could not achieve this because of their protected car market.

4. Now Proton is fighting back despite imports of foreign cars. I was making a comparison only between Proton under the previous management and the present management. The present management is definitely more capable even though foreign cars are still coming in.

5. The keeness to buy Proton is because it is doing well and that it owns a lot of property.

6. I am not responsible for the recent National Automotive Policy. I am not in the Government now. Please make your complaints to the Government.

Jamil Slams PAS For Linking Party Loyalty To Divorce

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 6 (Bernama) -- Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom said it is unreasonable for PAS to link party loyalty to divorce.

He said the loyalty oath taken by PAS members of parliament and state assemblymen to prevent party hopping was not only cruel but could also hurt innocent family members.

"I like to remind those who made such statements to realise that divorce is a serious matter. I am worried that it will become a joke among the people," he told reporters here Friday.

The minister was commenting an English newspaper report today that PAS elected representatives had taken a loyalty oath that they would divorce their wives should they decide to quit the party.

Jamil said the 71st National Fatwa Committee Conference did not accept a proposal that 'lafaz taklik' (pronouncement of divorce) be included if the husband decides to practice polygamy.

"As such, it is unsuitable to invoke taklik in matters like party hopping. It is loose, irrelevant and unreasonable," he said.