Yang bersih dan Beriman

 

Tatkala Presiden UMNO dan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata, label rasuah dan sombong yang ada pada UMNO perlu dibuang segera, tak ada pun kalangan pemimpin parti yang ke depan menyokong kenyataannya. Atau pemimpin UMNO lain menyifatkan kenyataan Pak Lah cuma PR statement semata-mata.

Terlalu sedih untuk menerima hakikat bahawa UMNO tidak akan jadi relevan. Ini juga kata-kata yang keluar dari mulut orang yang sombong. Pak Lah kena faham bahawa minda pemimpin UMNO sekarang sedang bercelaru. Mereka sibuk mencari maklumat risik mengenai siapa Perdana Menteri selepas ini. Supaya senang merangka strategi. Hinanya pemikiran mereka.

Pemimpin perhubungan negeri sibuk mencongak samada mahu bertanding jawatan Naib Presiden. Kalau lawan, siapa yang akan sabotaj. Segera cari mereka, tentukan mereka menyokong. Bayangkan apa akan berlaku.

Mereka tak perasan apa yang bakal berlaku pada UMNO. Yang ini tidak penting. Yang penting cepat-cepat cari kerusi sebelum orang lain kebas. Inilah wajah UMNO yang sebenarnya.Bukan saja korup, sombong tetapi tamak kuasa.

Para pemimpin UMNO patut segera membuat post mortem yang serius mengenai label rasuah yang melekat terus pada parti itu. Kenapa jadi korup. Sebab itulah status pemimpin UMNO. Mereka mahu dilihat hidup mewah. Mereka yang kaya raya lebih dihormati. Hisap cerut RM400 sebatang jadi lambang pemimpin yang hebat sedang dalam kawasan pilihanrayanya ada lagi rakyat yang miskin. Senang saja mahu mengabui mata orang Melayu. Beritahu YB pergi umrah . Rakyat akan berkata, alhamdullilah, warak YB tu. Kenapa mahu menyorok disebalik kesucian agama, masyallah.

Kenapa pemimpin UMNO tidak boleh hidup sederhana saja, punya budi pekerti tinggi, hebat ilmu agamanya, selelau rendah diri, sentiasa melemparkan idea bernas membangun negara, agenda besar untuk generasi masa depan dan sentiasa berkorban.

Sebenarnya kalau mereka tidak mempunyai ciri-ciri ini,mereka tidak layak menjadi pemimpin. Mereka cuma akan menjahanamkan negara,bangsa dan agama. Pemimpin sekarang rasa hebat apabila mereka dapat habuan dengan cara rasuah dan penipuan, yang menjadi sah melalui helah politik yang sebati hinggakan ia menjadi satu sistem yang sukar lagi dirungkai lagi.

Poliitik UMNO sekarang bukan lagi mahu mempertahankan martabat orang Melayu, tetapi memalukan kelompok Melayu di negara ini. Pada kacamata bangsa lain, orang Melayu hanya pandai makan rasuah. Imej ini dlihat melalui gelagat pemimpin UMNO. Terus mereka mempersoalkan hak keistimewaan orang Melayu, kedudukan Raja-Raja. UMNO patut mempertahankan semua ini. Bukan asyik dengan agenda mengenyangkan diri sendiri.

UMNO kini adalah jenama yang tidak lagi laku walaupun dijual dengan harga murah. Orang akan senyum sinis jika diberitahu anda orang UMNO. Apa yang tinggal pada UMNO?

Kembalikan keyakinan orang Melayu pada UMNO, pulihkan kredibiliti parti di mata masyarakat, pilih and lantik pemimpin yang besih dan beriman, sebab akhirnya kita terus meminta keberkatan dari Allah juga.

Tidakkah kita perasan bahawa bencana yang diterima oleh UMNO ialah kerana perbuatan pemimpin dan anggotanya yang tidak ambil peduli dosa dan pahala. Jangan salah menyalah, menuding jari memaki hamun sebab kita sudah terlanjur jauh.

Is this not true democracy?

In spite of all the talk about Malay Agenda all these while, Malay share of the economic pie is still only about 20% and Malay enrolment in universities is not more than 55%, while their performance in the SPM is ...% ? ( you know the figures), and everyone knows the Malays have little economic power...

Hence, positive discrimination for the poor and those socially and economically handicapped is still necessary. Give the figures for government aid in education, etc. to non Malays (in terms of number of scholarships, places in universities (subsidised by the government), etc. Add to that the setting up of the ACA Commission, The Malaysian Institute of Integrity, the Judicial Committee as well as other measures the government has recently taken – measures that are already heading the right way without sacrificing political & economic stability. Also, do not forget that the Malays/Pribumis make up 60% of the population. Reading in this context, the media is not representing Malay views commensurate with their percentage of the population.

Malay views hardly dominate any media much less the alternative media. Within this scenario, perhaps the Chinese and Indians should consider ceasing calling themselves Chinese or Indian...just call theselves Malaysians...

If not, why object to Ketuanan Melayu (which simply means the Raja Melayu as Head of Government, who even exempts the non-Muslims from wearing the Songkok in Royal Audience and functions.

In 1946, the Malays objected to to the idea of the Malayan Union simply because the British had wanted to do away with the Malay Royalty as the Head of Religion and Customs, and the majority of Malays concentrated in the former Unfederated states and outnumbering the others still had strong sentiments for Islam and the Raja Melayu.

Economically, Malaysia is still ruled by the minority. Is this not true democracy? Share power (political, social & economic) wisely or we may find ourselves going the way of anarchy as in Lebanon, Southern Philippines, Fiji, Iraq, etc...Do we want that?

Just because the Malays are not assertive enough doesn't make anti Malay sentiments (disguised in various forms) noble or democratic. The poor and handicapped will always be timid and less articulate.

Maksud patriotisme dalam konteks kontrak sosial

 

Patriotisme adalah mengenai agenda kontrak sosial melalui perkongsian kuasa berpaksikan ketuanan Melayu (menghormati tuan rumah).

Di Malaysia kaum bukan Melayu bukannya menjadi hamba. Ini nyata walaupun pecahan menyaksikan ekuiti ekonomi Melayu hanya 19% dan profesional hanya 35% walaupun peratusan bilangan orang Melayu 65%.

Dalam pada itu cuma ada SRJK (Tamil) dan SRJK (Cina) sementara bahasa Tamil dan Mandarin pula di ajar di SMK/SK.

Dasar ini seolah-olah mengakui ketuanan Cina/India. Pendatang/imigran mesti menyesuaikan diri di negara yang dikunjungi - negara yang memberikan kerakyatan kepada mereka. Semua mesti akur kepada segala keperluan dan sekiranya tidak menyetujuinya, mereka bebas untuk berhijrah ke negara lain.

Mana ada negara lain yang sanggup membenar diadakan SRJK?

Malaysia a secular state? I say not...

When Karpal says Malaysia is a secular state, he is only partially correct. What he forgets is that in our Constitution it is stated that The Head of Govt is a Malay Ruler, whereas a Malay Ruler MUST be a Muslim and he would also be the Head of Islam of a State.

A Muslim is obliged to accept the Laws of Islam . When a Muslim has to accept the operations of the Syariah court, can we fairly say then that he is secular?

Hence, when the Constitution says that Islam is the Religion of the Federation ( Article 3) , it also states that while other religions may be practiced freely "dengan aman & damai". I take that to mean without threatening Islam or its continued practice by the professed Muslims.

How then can we say Malaysia is a secular state in the case of the Muslims? Do not forget that Muslims form the majority of Malaysia still.

Anwar Ibrahim: Wolfowitz's Knife in Asia's Back

On Sept 1,1998,Dr Mahathir shocked the world by breaking all the rules of IMF orthodoxy,imposing selective currency controls,ending speculation in the ringgit (the national currency) by pegging it to the dollar-and firing Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar and a handful of followers went on a rampage,attempting to carry out a popular revolt to overthrow Dr Mahathir.

Despite open support from neo-conservative in the West,including especially U.S Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,Anwar's "people's power" revolt went nowhere,and he soon found himself in prison,convicted of abuse of power and morals charges.

The results are well known. Despite the screams from the IMF and the Anglo-America banking institutions,that Dr Mahathir was leading Malaysia down the road to Hell,that his nation would soon find itself destitute,cut off from the "responsible" world,and would likely find itself begging for the IMF to come to its rescue,the opposite occurred.

While all those nations subjected to IMF policies suffered social crisis and a massive increase in poverty,Malaysia alone among the Asian countries attacked by the speculators retained social stability and relative economic well-being.

The devastation in neighboring Indonesia was the worst,as the currency was driven down to a third of its former value,tripling the country's huge foreign indebtedness virtually overnight,while poverty rates exploded.

The Indonesian economy has only partially recovered still today.Even the IMF admitted (although long after the fact) that the vicious austerity and credit contraction policies it had imposed on the desperate government of Indonesia hadbeen a terrible mistake.

Embrace of the IMF and Wolfowitz

On the occasion of Anwar's recent apperearance at SAIS, EIR asked him the following question : Even the IMF has acknowledged that its prescriptions for the Asian economies after the speculative attack of 1997-98 only made the crisis worse. Your policies for Malaysia after the attack were well known to be consistent with those of the IMF,until they were reversed by Dr Mahathir's currency controls,and your simultaneous removal from office.

Are you also now willing to admit that,had your policiesbeen followed,the result would have been a disaster foryour country?"Anwar's response,and his presentation generally,indicate that he is not primarily interested in regaining any position of trust or leadership within his own country,or even within the party which was created in order to build support for him after his arrest,Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Rather,he is embracing,by name and with littlereservation,the persons and the policies of the much hated (in Malaysia and else where) George Soros,the architect ofglobal speculation; Paul Wolfowitz,the leading promoter of pre-emptive war; and the bankrupt and discredited IMF.

"I was right,of course," proclaimed Anwar. He claimed that he had some differences with the IMF, "the way the country was spending had to be addressed,whether they were among the IMF prescriptions or not.

" He said that it was "beneficial" for the IMF to come intoMalaysia and discuss their ideas. He expressed support for the IMF's denunciation of all major infrastructureprojects,as wasteful "megaprojects," as if their only valuewere to provide financing for the "cronies" who were involved in the construction.

The Bakun Dam was singled out for condemnation. Hacknowledged that he had circulated Soros's papers topolicymakers,and had defended Soros when Dr Mahathirdenounced him as a thief and a moron. And,on the success of Dr Mahathir's program in saving Malaysia from the fate of its neighbors,Anwar said:

"Yes,the growth was robust,the people escaped poverty-but that was all on the surface [!]. Underneath,there was corruption,no transparency,authoritarian leaders,and nofree media."

Most disturbing,even to his supporters in Malaysia,was Anwar's effusive praise of Wolfowitz. In a Bloomberginterview in Hongkong on March 18,Anwar welcomed the Wolfowitz appointment to head the World Bank,saying that Wolfowitz "passionately believes in freedom,and understands that issues of poverty,environment degradation,living conditions and health issues which are very much a World Bank agenda.

"While people in Iraq may find this characterization less than amusing,Anwar is careful to explain that he was not a supporter of the U.S invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless,he displays how far he is willing to go in defense of theneo-conservatives who are sponsoring him,by adding: "But I don't believe that war was directed against the Muslims or the Iraqi people."

The Deputy President of Anwar's Keadilan Party, Dr Syed Husin Ali,rushed to distance himself from this embrace of the hated Wolfowitz. "He is an advisor," Syed Husin told the online opposition news service Malaysiakini on April 18,referring to Anwar.

"He can give advice to us,but he cannot determine the party's polivy," he said, insisting that Anwar's backing of Wolfowitz was only his personal view,and did not reflect the party's position.

Turning Indonesia Against Malaysia

The clue to Anwar's intentions (or rather,the intentions of Wolfowitz,with the assistance of Anwar) were revealed in his attempt to set Indonesia against Malaysia. Indonesia's democratic transformation since 1997 crash,said Anwar,has been the "most important development in the Muslim world in this century. " Although many people describe Malaysia as a model of a successful,democratic Islamic nation,said Anwar,this totally wrong. Malaysia is a dictatorship,even after Dr Mahathir's retirement,he insisted,while the true model of Islamic democracy is Indonesia.

Ironically,Anwar admitted that Indonesia was in dire need of economic growth and an end to corruption,but the contradiction did not seem to concern him in the least.

In an interview in The Age of Australia on March 21,Anwar described the devastation following the speculative destruction of the Asian economies in 1997-98 as a positivedevelopment, "a gale og creative destruction that shook the complacency of Asian societies and the governments."

The tie to Australia is significant.

The Australia government of Prime Minister John Howard is closely allied with the Bush Administration on all strategic matters,andis participating in the Wolfowitz effort to woo the new Indonesian government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to ally with the neo-conservative regimes in Washington and Canberra,in exchange for military deals and investments.

Howard has induced Yudhoyono to support Australia's effort to be included as a founding member of the East Asian it (EAS),when it is launcheh later this year. This is strongly opposed by Malaysia and China, among others,and thus puts

Indonesia at odds with Malaysia.

Howard,however,has most likely poisoned any chance Australia may have had to be admitted to the EAS,when he refused to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN,even though it has been signed by Japan,China,South Korea,and India,among others.

The Treaty forswears the use of military aggression against other co-signers. Howard,like the Bush Administration,refuses to give up the right to pre-emptive military intervention against his neighbors,a threat which no nation can afford to ignore in the Bush/Cheney era.

Wolfowitz presents himself as a "friend of Indonesia," using his experience as Ambassador to Indonesia in the 1980s as evidence of his competence to run the World Bank. "People in Indonesia have a different view of me" from that of this critics, Wolfowitz told Bloomberg News on March 18.

While Anwar contrasts Indonesia's democracy to the supposed dictatorship in Malaysia,Wolfowitz often contrasts Indonesia to the Islamic natio s of Southwest Asia,to justify U.S military adventures to bring "democracy" to the Arabs.

Wolfowitz served as Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1989,while hot money was pouring into the country,leading to significant development andrelative prosperity-and a good reputation for Wolfowitz.

However,a was painfully learned after 1997-98,the foreign contracts which brought about this development were of the "economic hit man",variety,since the entire risk had been imposed on the Indonesian side.

Enron and other power companies,for instance,succeeded in getting guarantees from the Suharto government (usually with a member of the Suharto family involved),that the government would purchase the full capacity of power plants whether or not it was needed or used,while it was to be purchased in dollar-denominated prices.

The foreign debt was.also to be paid in dollars. When the speculators destroyed the Indonesia currency and economy in 1997-98,the nation's debt tripled overnight,while the government was forced to purchase unneeded electricity a triply-inflated prices.

The memory of Wolfowitz as a friend of Indonesia darkened a bit. His subsequent role as architect of the imperial war on Iraq turned it to black. For Wolfowitz to imagine that he is still admired in Indonesia,is as far from reality as Anwar's fantasy that the neo-conservatives will win him a place of respect in Malaysia.

MAHUKKAH KITA MENERIMA ANWAR SEBAGAI PM?

"Anwar tidak mempunyai agenda memperjuangkaan bangsa Melayu. "

Kata Ezam, bekas orang paling kanan Anwar (wawancara dalam Mingguan Siasah terbitan 27 April 2008), "Saya memperjuangkan bangsa Melayu di dalam PKR, Anwar menolak dan tidak mempertahankan saya."

Tambahnya lagi, "Memang ramai bukan Melayu mengundi Pakatan Rakyat kerana Anwar berkempen mahu menghapuskan DEB..."

Renungkanlah nasib bangsa Melayu di bawah Anwar dan PKR...

Komen:

Bukankah negara kita mengamalkan demokrasi? Bukankah majoriti dalam negara ini orang Islam (60%)? Dan bukankah sudah lama termaktub dalam Perlembagaan bahawa agama rasmi ialah Islam, Bahasa Melayu bahasa negara dan Orang Islam/Melayu yang sudah lama dijajah dan sengaja dimundurkan itu perlu pembelaan?

Dan walaupun Kerajaan sudah lama mengamalkan DEB, majoriti yang miskin dan keterbelakang masih lagi Melayu dan Pribumi. Dan bukankah kuasa ekonomi masih lagi di tangan orang Bukan Islam? Apa lagi yang harus dikongsikan dengan yang Bukan Islam? Apakah DAP dan Karpal Singh itu benar-benar anti Islam atau anti Pri Bumi dan Melayu ? Apa dosa Melayu kepad mereka?

Sedarkah kita anak-anak budak Melayu masih lagi dibelakang dalam bidang pendidikan, ekonomi dan lain-lain?

Oh ya...Melayu korup!....Adakah bermakna yang bukan Melayu tak korup? Bapa dan Ibu Ayam, Ah Long, Towkay judi, Gangster dan juga sindiket pengedar dadah semuanya Melayu sahaja ke atau siapa?

Fikir dahulu sebelum terpengaruh dengan kata-kata kononnya DEB itu tidak adil. Di bawah DEB jugalah begitu banyak biasiswa dan tempat di IPTA masih lagi diberi kepada bukan Melayu. Setiap tahun, anak siapa yang mencapai 1st class honours di hampir kesemua IPTA?

DEB sebenarnya dilaksanakan dalam bentuk asalnya hanya hingga 1990. Mana adil?

 

Karpal, whats the fuss?

What use are laws if the ordinary people who gave the legislators the mandate to make the laws cant understand them ?

If ours is a democracy, and if the majority are Muslims (who are obliged to be governed by the Syariah court), it makes no sense to insist that ours is a secular system altogether.

In so far as the operation of the law at least, Muslims already are migrating to the Syariah Court, so why the fuss?

It doesnt affect the non Muslims, why are they so worried? Non Muslims are not obliged to be governed by the Syariah Court. So, why is Karpal so sensitive about statements that claim we want to be a Muslim country? Does he understand Islam and how its laws are operated?