Pakatan Rakyat Buzz & Blog

Amaran jika adik Thaksin jadi PM

MalaysiaKini l BANGKOK: Para aktivis melancarkan semalam kempen menentang pemimpin parti pembangkang Thailand yang juga calon perdana menterinya, Cik Yingluck Shinawatra, sambil memberi amaran kepada beliau supaya jangan membantu abangnya, Encik Thaksin, mantan perdana menteri yang hidup dalam buangan, pulang dengan memaafkannya jika parti beliau memenangi pilihan raya umum pada 3 Julai.

Kumpulan anti-Thaksin berkata mereka akan mula mendapatkan tandatangan menentang Cik Yingluck jika beliau mendapatkan permohonan maaf bagi Encik Thaksin berhubung kes menyembunyikan asetnya.Beliau didapati bersalah dalam kes itu tahun lalu. -- Reuters.

Mahathir haprak

MalaysiaKini l KUALA LUMPUR :Setiausaha Agung PKR, Saifudin Nasution Ismail menyifatkan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (gambar) sebagai ahli politik yang haprak apabila menuduh Karpal Singh berjaya menyekat PAS laksana hudud.

Ini kerana, ketika Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan meluluskan rang undang-undang jenayah Syariah II yang di dalamnya terkandung undang-undang hudud, Dr Mahathir yang menyekat pelaksanaannya.

Ia disekat melalui satu surat amaran yang dihantar beliau selaku Perdana Menteri kepada Menteri Besar Kelantan, Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz pada tahun 1993 lalu.

Enakmen Undang-undang Kanun Jenayah Syariah (ii) 1993 (Hukum Hudud) telahpun diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan pada tahun 1993.

Ini berikutan dengan janji PAS untuk melaksanakan Hukum Hudud pada pilihanraya 1990.

Selepas muktamar PAS baru-baru ini, Tun Dr Mahathir melalui blognya menulis dengan berkata, Karpal yang berjaya menyekat mendirikan negara Islam yang akan kuatkuasakan hukum hudud sudah tercapai.

"yang menang besar ialah tokoh yang tidak hadir dan bukan pun ahli PAS. Ianya ialah Karpal Singh. Perjuangannya supaya PAS gugurkan matlamat untuk mendiri negara Islam PAS yang akan kuatkuasakan hukum hudud sudah pun tercapai," tulis Mahathir.

"Dr M hantar surat amaran kepada TG Nik Aziz jangan laksana hudud, aneh hari ni Dr M kata Karpal berjaya sekat PAS jalankan hududd...haprak!" tulis Saifudin (gambar bawah) dalam Twitternya.

Bagi beliau, Dr Mahathir ti! dak laya k bercakap Karpal anti Islam.

"Mesej saya mudah Dr M tak layak langsung cakap Karpal anti Islam sebab rekod Dr M sendiri paling membenci Islam," tegas Saifudin yang juga anggota Parlimen Machang, Kelantan.

Menurut beliau, Dr Mahathir pernah berkata kalau dibuat hukum hudud habis orang Islam mundur sebab kena potong tangan..."hari ini Dr Mahathir salahkan Karpal."

Bagi beliau, Karpal sekurang-kurangnya tidak menyekat bantuan untuk Sekolah Agama Rakyat namun Dr Mahathir membuatnya!

"Sebab katanya sekolah agama ajar murid benci pemerintah ...siapa sebenarnya benci Islam?" soal Saifudin.

Bagi Saifudin, kalaupun Karpal tolak negara Islam dan Hudud beliau boleh memahaminya sebab dia bukan Muslim, tetapi Dr Mahathir tentang negara Islam dan Hudud, ini yang beliau tidak dapat faham.

Surat Dr Mahathir

Surat Dr Mahathir sampai kini masih diingati oleh Tuan Guru Nik Aziz hatta dalam satu majlis baru-baru ini.

(Tun) Dr Mahathir (ketika itu perdana menteri) datang ke Kelantan memberi amaran sekiranya (kerajaan) Kelantan laksana hudud, kerajaan pusat akan mengambil tindakan.

Sebelum ini, Kelantan pernah digantung perlembagaan oleh Mageran Jadi kalau (kita) tak boleh buat semua, jangan kita tinggal semua, katanya.

Kalau kerana hukum hudud, satu Kelantan kena Mageran dan kerajaan Kelantan nak digantung oleh kerajaan pusat, (jadi) itu tak cerdik, kata Nik Aziz dalam satu dialog bersama penulis blog dan facebook di Hotel Grand Season di ibu negara, baru-baru ini.

Mursyidul am PAS itu berkata, sekiranya ketiadaan kuasa untuk melaksanakan undang-undang tersebut, maka tidak boleh ditinggalkan semua undang-undang berkenaan.

Dengan mengumpamakan tindakannya itu sebagai seguni beras, katanya, sekiranya tidak mampu untuk membawanya, maka diambil secupak-secupak sehingga habis.

Oleh itu, kita tak laksana hudud (keseluruhan), tetapi kita laksana (Islam) satu persatu. Alhamdulilllah kaum Cina dan India menyokon! g PAS, k atanya yang mendapat tepukan kira-kira 130 penulis blog dan pemilik Facebook.

UMNO ketaq lutut kerana depa tak dapat kawal masjid lagi...

Langkah Umno menentang pemilihan jawatankuasa masjid di Pulau Pinang oleh anak kariah membayangkan ketakutan Umno kalau-kalau cengkaman mereka ke atas masjid di negeri itu hilang. Ini kerana, sistem melantik pengerusi dan jawatankuasa masjid yang dibuat Umno sebelum ini memastikan Umno mengawal masjid bukannya anak kariah masjid berkenaan.

Sehubungan itu, Pesuruhjaya PAS Pahang, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man meminta rakyat negara ini tidak risau tentang isu pemilihan jawatankuasa masjid yang dicadangkan oleh Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang (MAIPP) kerana ia bukanlah perkara baru. Bahkan ia hanya menjadi perubahan mekanisme dengan penggunaan kaedah yang lebih tersusun dan akan terlebih baik, kata Tuan Ibrahim, bekas pensyarah Pendidikan Islam UiTM itu.

Isu ini tidak sepatutnya menjadi polimik kepartian, kerana ia bukanlah pilihan berdasarkan parti politik. Pemilihan adalah berdasarkan merit seseorang calon pda pandangan ahli kariah.

"Ia sebenarnya jauh lebih baik dari kaedah yang digunakan sekarang apabila kerajaan yang memerintah boleh melantik jawatankuasa tanpa mendapat persetujuan ahli kariah, kata Tuan Ibrahim (gambar kanan) dalam satu kenyataannya hari ini kepada Harakahdaily.

Beliau meminta semua pihak melihat apa yang berlaku di Selangor sekarang apabila kariah memilih nazir hingga ke jawatankuasa masjid melalui pemilihan anak kariah dan disahkan sahaja oleh Majlis Agama Islam negeri. Ia telah menyebabkan semua masjid dan surau di Selangor begitu makmur dengan pelbagai program khasnya program ilmu.

"Adakah ini yang ditakuti oleh Umno," soal beliau ketika mengulas bantahan Umno terhadap cadangan Pulau Pinang yang ma! hu melak sanakan sistem pemilihan untuk jawatankuasa masjid di negeri itu.

Bagi memburukkan keadaan, Umno menuduh DAP mahu menguasai masjid di negeri itu melalui cara ini.Kebimbangan Umno sekarang disebabkan kebimbangan jawatankuasa yang dilantik terus di kalangan pimpinan Umno tidak lagi terpilih, kerana mereka yang dilantik sebahagiannya bukanlah ahli kariah dan bukan pula kaki masjid, tambah Tuan Ibrahim.

Untuk mengatasi masalah pemilihan ini diragui, Tuan Ibrahim(kanan) berkata soal mekanisme pendaftaran ahli kariah mampu dilakukan tanpa sebarang persoalan yang besar.

Bahkan, kata beliau, dengan data ahli kariah yang lebih lengkap dapat diperolehi, ia sudah tentu dapat mendatangkan kebaikan kepada urusan pentadbiran.

Sayangnya sikap buruk sangka yang menebal di kalangan pemimpin Umno terhadap kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat menyebabkan mereka tidak lagi rasional dalam membuat penilaian terhadap sesuatu kebaikan, kata beliau dengan kesal.

Tuan Ibrahim juga menasihatkan Umno untuk melihat kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor, Kedah dan Kelantan yang berjaya menjadikan masjid sebagai pusat tarbiyah dan pembangunan komuniti yang hebat. Kerana keghairahan mereka untuk membina masjid yang indah dengan peruntukan jutaan ringgit tidak bermakna seandainya masjid itu kosong, sunyi sepi dari sebarang aktiviti selain sembahyang fardu.

Barangkali, kata Tuan Ibrahim, Umno membantah dalam isu ini kerana mereka resah terhadap kehadiran ratusan umat Islam mengikuti kuliah kerana beranggapan fenomena ini sebagai satu kebangkitan pembangkang khususnya PAS.

Lantaran itu, sistem pemilihan jawatankuasa masjid ya! ng satu masa dahulu dibuat oleh ahli kariah melalui undian (angkat tangan) telah ditukar dengan mengambilalih melalui perlantikan secara terus.

"Akibatnya, pelbagai kepincangan penyelewengan telah berlaku seperti kegagalan mengadakan mesyuarat agong dan sebagainya, ulas beliau.

Disebabkan kelemahan inilah, kata Tuan Ibrahim kerajaan pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat cuba memperbaiki sistem dengan mengembalikan hak kepada ahli kariah melalui kaedah pengundian.

Disebabkan kebimbangan teruk bahawa 'kuncu-kuncu' Umno akan tewas, maka mereka terus menentang tanpa berfikir panjang. Sedangkan ia adalah satu sistem terbuka bagi ahli kariah memilih siapa yang paling wibawa bagi menguruskan masjid, terang Tuan Ibrahim.

Umno dan lidah rasmi Perkasa, Utusan Malaysia muktahir ini mempersoalkan munasabah untuk mengadakan 'pilihan raya masjid' di Pulau Pinang kerana bimbang ada pihak mempunyai agenda tersembunyi untuk menjerumuskan institusi masjid ke kancah politik kepartian.

Menjawab balas tuduhan Utusan, setiausaha politik kepada Setiausaha Agung DAP yang juga Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Zairil Khir Johari (kiri) berkata DAP tidak terlibat sama sekali dengan soal pengurusan masjid di Pulau Pinang yang berada di bawah pentadbiran Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang.

DAP tidak ada wakil yang menduduki MAIPP. Jika MAIPP sendiri yang berpendapat langkah itu sesuai, ia terpulang kepada MAIPP dan umat Islam di Pulau Pinang. DAP tidak ada sebarang penglibatan dalam usaha itu, katanya yang dipetik Roketkini.

source:harakahdaily

'The reason behind UMNO's! outrage over mosque committee elections'

Semasa zaman pemerintahan BN,MAIPP bersama Exco hal-ehwal agama,buat lantikan terus Pengerusi dan AJK Masjid. Akibatnya, hampir semua lantikan tersebut diisi oleh orang2 UMNO dan ada setengah daripadanya tak pernah sua muka di masjid ketika waktu sembayang fardu.....

cheers.

UMNO ketaq lutut kerana depa tak dapat kawal masjid...

Umno menggelupor dengan negara kebajikan

MalaysiaKini : TEMERLOH, 8 Jun:Mengapa Umno menggelupor dengan negara kebajikan? Ia adalah kerana PAS menawarkan penyelesaian kepada rakyat di tengah-tengah kegagalan Umno BN untuk menjaga rakyat marhaen.

Demikian kata Pesuruhjaya PAS Pahang, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man ketika mengulas sikap Umno dan medianya yang terlalu melampau dalam menunjukkan kebimbangannya dengan negara kebajikan itu.

(Gambar:Presiden PAS berucap ketika membentangkan gagasan negara kebajikan di Muktamar PAS ke 57)

Apabila PAS mengutarakan negara berkebajikan, tak tersangka pula Umno yang mengelupor dengan istilah tersebut, bak kata tok bomoh picit lada hitam pada jari kaki orang masuk hantu. Barangkali memang Umno ini dah lama kena rasuk Cuma mungkin tak kena cara tiupnya saja.

"Kini, kita boleh lihat dengan nyata bahawa Umno benar-benar terasa dengan istilah negara kebajikan ini kerana ia memberi ancaman kepada mereka.

"Maklumlah, PAS menawar sebuah negara berkebajikan di tengah-tengah kegagalan Umno menjaga kebajikan rakyat marhaen demi menjaga hati kroni yang semakin angkuh, sombong dan tamak, nukil Tuan Ibrahim dalam satu kenyataannya ke Harakahdaily hari ni.

Semenjak Presiden PAS, Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang membentangkan gagasan penubuhan sebuah negara kebajikan semasa ucapan dasarnya di Muktamar PAS ke 57, pimpinan Umno dan medianya telah menyerang bertubi-tubi untuk menguasai pemikiran rakyat terhadap parti Islam tersebut dengan tuduhan kononnya PAS telah mengubah dasar perjuangan.

Walhalnya konsep negara berkebajikan, keadilan, keselamatan, kesejahteraan, kemakmuran adalah intipati dari negara Islam, kata Tuan Ibrahim.
!
Isti lah negara kebajikan yang dilaungkan PAS, kata beliau telah berjaya menunjukkan kepada rakyat isi perut Umno sebenar yang sememangnya rakyat dahulu menjadi mangsa dalam segala hal berkaitan dengan program pengurangan subsidi berbanding kroni-kroni Umno BN seperti penjana tenaga bebas (IPP).

Mengenai serangan Umno terhadap pimpinan baru PAS, Tuan Ibrahim berkata selain istilah negara kebajikan, Umno juga menerima tamparan hebat apabila pewakilan PAS membuat kejutan dengan memilih barisan kepimpinan baru yang di luar jangkaan mereka.

Kebijaksaan perwakilan membaca keperluan barisan pimpinan bagi mengempur Umno menyebabkan mereka rasa tertekan. Ini dapat dibaca dari luahan kenyataan mereka.

"Mulanya menyerang, kemudian menyatakan bahawa Umno sudahpun melaksana negara kebajikan dan kini bertukar kepada rayuan 'Umno tetap membuka ruang untuk penyatuan Melayu' dan kad simpati dengan mengatakan Umno kecewa PAS tolak perpaduan dan sebagainya, terang beliau.

PAS: Saf baru, tambah perkasa

PAS: Saf baru, tambah perkasa

Muktamar berlalu nada membara
Saf baru tambah perkasa
Membawa impi menawan Putrajaya
Langkah disusun menunggu jaya

Pimpinan terpilih penuh gaya
Tiada rasa hilang upaya
Jangan tertawan tipu daya
Helah musuh sudah diteka

Pemuda Muslimat Ulamak bersua
Dewan Himpunan turut berada
berkongsi usul dengan mesra
Tanda Pakatan maju sentiasa

Islam dibangun kebajikan dijaga
Rakyat dilindung tanpa prasangka
Berlain bangsa juga agama
Kerana Islam untuk semua

Budaya fitnah amalan dicerca
Jangan kita ikut sama
Bukan cara amlan kita
Itu semua Umno angkara

Ayuh bangkit pemuda bangsa
menentang arus ubah negara
Slogan dibina Pemuda beria
Jom Ubah tawan Putrajaya

Banyak kata tidak berpada
Ayuh bangkit jangan lupa
Sembilan Julai kita bersua
Himpunan Bersih cuci negara

! Info sya ir: klik di sini

Envoys said courts Perak decision sanction of undemocratic takeover...

The United States embassy here concluded that a well financed political coalition could persuade lawmakers to cross over and shift power through undemocratic means, following a Federal Court decision confirming Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir as Perak Mentri Besar, a leaked diplomatic cable to Washington said.

The document released by whistleblower website Wikileaks and published by the Malaysia Today news portal today said the US embassy here also concluded that the court had allowed the Perak Sultan to legitimise changes without voter input.

Before this Federal Court decision, the assembly would have instead been dissolved for fresh elections, but now the sultan can legitimise the takeover without voter input, said the cable classified by the embassys political affairs counsellor Brian D. McFeeters.

It also said that the February 9, 2010 decision in favour of Barisan Nasional (BN) raised renewed questions about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, already in question in connection with the (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim (sodomy) trial and other cases. Three assemblymen had left PR and backed BN as independents, allowing Zambry (picture) to be sworn in by the Perak Sultan as mentri besar on February 6, 2009.

The ousted Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin then challenged the validity of Zambrys appointment in court, claiming the state constitution did not allow the Sultan to order him to resign as MB and that BNs majority had not been tested in the assembly.

The cable also said that Nizar told a political officer in February 2010 that the ruling would result in the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister holding office at the pleasure of the King or the Sultan, setting a dangerous precedent.

Nizars lead lawyer Chan Kok Keong had also said that he was certain the apex court would make a political decision and rule in favour of Zambry, thereby rewriting its own decisions and the constitution.

But Zambrys political secretary and assembly speaker Datuk R. Ganesan both told the embassy official that the court will make the right decision by ruling in favour of BN.

The decision came under fire from the opposition and other voices such as retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Chan Nyarn Hoi who said the apex court contradicted itself in its judgement.

They say Nizar can take a vote of no confidence now, but why couldnt they do it earlier? he had said.

The leak comes as Anwars sodomy trial, which has been in the spotlight internationally, progresses to the defence case. Questions have been raised over the conduct of the trial in which the former deputy prime minister has thrice failed to recuse the judge, although the matter is currently being appealed at the Court of Appeal.

An independent poll of Perakians in February 2010 also found that three-quarters wanted fresh elections to solve the political crisis. However, anger over the takeover appears to have dissipated as PR surveys show that it would have won 40 seats or a two-thirds majority in the 59-seat assembly back in February 2009 but only 33 if an election was held now.

source:malaysia insider

cheers.

Blame Umno for its own paralysis

Umno has become an organisation feudal in nature where its leadership depends on coming from the right loins.

The leadership in Umno is therefore no different from the method of ascribing extraordinary abilities to being conceived from a buloh betong, materialising from a cows vomit or suddenly beamed from across the terrestrial highs to Bukit Si Guntang Mahameru.

From thereon, the majority of Umno suckers pledged eternal loyalty to the blue blood.

This is the earliest symptoms of the inability of Umno to manage success.

Over the years, Umno attracted aggressive and independent-minded individuals and a vibrant ward of supporters.

It personalised political inclinations as success unavoidably does; its continuity and longevity depended ultimately on the ability to manage all that diversity.

However, the current crop of leadership spawned unfortunately during the Dr Mahathir Mohamad era failed to do this.

Umno has failed to produce elastic leadership that is capable of adapting.

Instead, it has led to the emergence of a leadership hell-bent on preserving freakish control and one opposed to internal transformation.

Some of them (leaders) are there because of they have the right bins.

Unable to adapt

You are bin somebody, therefore you are leadership material.

This is a fundamental defect of Umnos leadership, which incidentally I will continue to criticise despite attempts by Umno diehards to vilify me.

The biggest problem with Umno now is, it just doesnt know how to manage success.

It cant because it doesnt have the right leadership with the right values and the right institutions to manage the overall success that Umno has generated for the country.

It is still a party held b! ack by o ld tools of its trade and unable to deal with new realities.

The developments made possible by Umno the rise in educational level, increased expectations, infusion of new values, new experiences are all never appreciated to the full by Umno.

As a result, its a party that has refused to adapt.

Najib Tun Razak as the current Umno president is now desperately trying to force Umno to adapt.

But, like I said once before, the people chiefly responsible for that paralysis within Umno are the leaders themselves.

The excerpt is from the writers blog sakmongkolak47. The writer is an FMT columnist.

My Moving Forward column in the Edge: Let the Parents Choose

from niknazmi.com

I used to have strong opinions about private education – in that I was against it. Maybe this was because of my social democratic leanings or because I was educated in government schools (although perhaps La Salle Petaling Jaya and the Malay College Kuala Kangsar are not your average national schools).

With the birth of our first child, Ilhan, however, my wife and I began to seriously talk about his education and his future—as all young parents do. Let me say here that we still plan to send him to a national school.

We believe that he will ultimately benefit from the experience and also that whatever money we would spend on a private school should instead be reserved for college and university, where the real learning in life begins.

We also know that we have to take charge in educating Ilhan, to chip into teaching him to read, write, speak, think and be a moral person. We realise that a child’s education is something parents need to actively contribute their time and effort (rather than just money) to, rather than abdicate it to the teachers and complain if things go wrong.

To be frank, it’s disgusting when ministers who shape Malaysia’s education policies send their children to foreign or private schools. How can they claim to know what’s best for our national schools when they don’t even send their children there?

But now, as a father, I understand why many ordinary Malaysian parents want a range of options – whether vernacular, private local, private Islamic or international schools—in which to send their children. Parents—and not bureaucrats or politicians—deserve to choose what they think is best for their children.

My own experience confirms this sentiment. Kolej Yayasan UEM, where I did my A-Levels is an independently-run college modelled on British public schools. Free from government interference, the quality of education in KYUEM is leaps and bounds over other institutions.

This debate is not confined to Malaysia. For instance, the Labour Party of the UK tried to create greater equality in British education by creating comprehensive schools where all students regardless of ability would go through the same system.

This approach was fiercely critiqued, and indeed such “one-size-fits-all” systems are similar to our national school system. The curriculum, administration and even architecture of national schools are alike, with little variation allowed.

While I believe the desire to have this uniformity was based on a valid desire to forge national unity, the results were far from satisfactory.

The reason why the UK’s comprehensive schools system was criticised was because it led more middle class parents (who were fearful of the effect lumping students together without regard to their abilities) to send their children to private schools. This meant that the educational gap in the UK has increased.

Ivor Roberts from Oxford University argued that while British politicians like to blame top British universities for not being inclusive towards students from socio-economically disadvantaged students, the real problem is the quality of comprehensive schools in Britain. Poor but bright students previously were able to flourish in government grammar schools that took the best and brightest students.

There are parallels to this with what’s going on in Malaysia. The deteriorating state of our national schools mean more parents are choosing to educate their children elsewhere. 90 per cent of Chinese parents send their children to vernacular schools, as are a growing number of Malays and Indians. Others enrol their children in private, international or Islamic schools. Some are even sending their children abroad, to Singapore or even further afield.

I am humbled by how hard these parents work, or the sacrifices they are willing to make to send their children to these schools: simply because they believe this is better for their children. Not all of them are the stereotypical rich parents but ordinary Malaysians. What makes it even more surprising is that these parents were often not educated in such schools themselves.

These parents expose the callousness of those who think that we can solve the problem of national unity and integration by simply shutting down vernacular schools. The latter seem all-too willing to run roughshod over other people’s rights to achieve their goals. Outlawing vernacular schools is not going to make the problem of racialism disappear overnight, and indeed will make Malaysia seem like it has no respect for freedom of choice.

My point is that we need to let parents choose which schools they want to send their children to. Whatever the stream, parents should be able to choose without any restrictions: provided of course they are able to bear the financial consequences. At the same time, these schools, as custodians of the nation’s youth, must also do their part to prepare them for citizenship—and that includes ensuring that their charges are fluent in the national language, aware of other cultures and able to function in such environments.

Liberalising our education system will really help draw back Malaysians abroad. The shoddy state of our education system is what’s holding them back. But in the long run, what’s most needed is a comprehensive revamp of our national schools. It’s still the only system that the vast majority of Malaysians attend.

Our national schools must become more inclusive and improve their academic standards. We should not worry about how many A’s our students score but real objective indicators: are they being educated to work and live in the real, globalised world? We must not let some “Little Napoleons” impose narrow racial or religious agendas in national schools.

The government should provide more autonomy to schools and allow special programs for bright students. But it should always be an open system where late bloomers who might not do well in primary school can catch up if and when they find their niche. Furthermore, greater leeway must be provided for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to ensure that it is fair for everyone.

As I mentioned in my book Moving Forward: Malays for the 21st Century, I accept that our divided educational system poses a major challenge for Malaysia. But as I wrote earlier it is a fantasy to think that a “one-school for all” approach will make things any better.

Its proponents are fond of citing Lee Kuan Yew’s closing of vernacular schools in Singapore. They forget however that he was able to do so only by making national schools the school of choice for everyone and only acted it when only a small minority of Singaporean parents were sending their children to vernacular schools. Also, do these people seriously think that such primordial authoritarianism is appropriate in this post-2008 Malaysia?

In Moving Forward I proposed the creation of a Unified Stream (as opposed to national or vernacular streams), that incorporates the best elements from national and vernacular schools. I believe some form of this idea is being explored by the government. My idea was that there would be sufficient space not only for the students to learn their mother tongue and cultural heritage, but to learn about the different cultures in the country as well as a stronger grounding in civic education.

Till then, my Ilhan will most likely attend a government school but as mentioned I hope to improve his experience by providing a good environment at home and supplementing it with various activities. My only hope is that he and Malaysian children like him will one day grow up as upstanding, decent and hardworking citizens serving a better country than we have now.

Something that never happened and never can happen

This article is an imaginary situation. This incident never happened and never can happen in a country like Malaysia. Nevertheless, let us break away from the reality of our miserable lives and allow our imagination to run wild just for once and fantasize just like in a Hollywood movie.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Your Honour, Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says: Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

My client may be regarded as a Muslim, Your Honour, and I stress the word ‘regarded’, as we shall come to that again later, and I am a self-professed atheist, but as Your Honour can clearly see, the Constitution stipulates that my client is allowed to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Your Honour can’t forbid me from representing my client on the basis of my religion, or in this case my rejection of religion. To do so would be a violation of the Constitution and therefore a breach of my client’s fundamental liberties and civil rights.

This court cannot impose any other laws and rules on my client, religious or otherwise, as Article 4(1) of the Constitution says: This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

This means, Your Honour, the Constitution reigns supreme and overrides all other laws, especially if those laws were passed after 31st August 1957 and are opposed to and inconsistent with the Constitution.

In this case, Your Honour, this court cannot forbid me from acting for my client based on my religion or non-religion as the Constitution says that my client can be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and there is no stipulation in the Constitution as to the religion of that practitioner.

Your Honour, Article 5(1) of the Constitution says: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

This means, Your Honour, the proper laws must be applied and these laws must be consistent with and in compliance to the Constitution and any laws passed after 31st August 1957 that are in violation of the Constitution are void.

In other words, Your Honour, this court cannot move the goalposts, so to speak.

Your Honour, Article 6(1) of the Constitution says: No person shall be held in slavery.

Your Honour, we shall be calling expert witnesses who will testify that religion is a form of slavery and therefore to impose religion on my client is to subject my client to slavery.

Our expert witnesses are renowned psychologists with no less than 40 years experience and who have lectured and written numerous books on the matter. They have also conducted intensive studies to determine that since time immemorial the ruling elite has been using religion to control and imprison the minds of the populace and subject them to mental slavery, which is more effective and dangerous than physical slavery.

Your Honour, Article 8(1) of the Constitution says: All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Now, my client is being denied this right, Your Honour. He is being brought before this court because he is regarded as a Muslim and has openly professed that he is an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God. However, if he were not regarded as a Muslim he would not have been subjected to this trial.

This means, Your Honour, my client is being prosecuted because of his faith, or in this case his rejection of faith, which also means he is not being treated equal before the law or being given equal protection of the law.

Would someone who is not regarded as a Muslim be subjected to what my client is being subjected to? Would a non-Muslim who rejects his faith be here today? The answer, Your Honour, is no! So this is a violation of Article 8(1) of the Constitution.

If Your Honour were to look at Article 8(2) of the Constitution, it says: Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Your Honour, my client is being discriminated against because of his religion, or rejection of it, and this, again, is a violation of the Constitution.

Your Honour, Article 11(1) of the Constitution says: Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

This means, Your Honour, this court cannot take away the right of my client to believe in whatever he wants to believe in or not believe in whatever he chooses to not believe.

This court may argue that Article 11(4) of the Constitution overrides Article 11(1). Article 11(4) says: State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

This Article merely talks about propagation, not belief. My client is not propagating anything, especially to persons professing the religion of Islam.

Now, Your Honour, let us go to the laws of Islam, in this case the Quran, the only true guidance for those who profess the religion of Islam.

Chapter 2, verse 256 of the Quran says: Let there be no compulsion in religion.

Your Honour, the Quranic passage, la ikraha fi d-dini, or there is no compulsion in religion, is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.

As it is understood here, Your Honour, this statement represents a principle of religious tolerance.

Historically, the People of the Book, that is, the members of the older religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in any territory under Islamic domination, only to recognise the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax.

In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They were even allowed to establish their own internal administration.

The situation, however, was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After Islam became established and had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam. To state it more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or face death in battle against the Muslims.

This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law that came long after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

However, Your Honour, all this stands in open contradiction to the meaning of the Quranic statement: la ikraha fi d-dini. The non-Muslims at that time were clearly compelled to accept Islam unless they preferred to die.

In view of these circumstances we must return to the real meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini. And this, Your Honour, becomes clearer in chapter 10, verse 100 of the Quran, which says: And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would believe together. Wouldst thou compel men until they are believers?

In other words, Your Honour, the Quran says that God could have made all people of the same faith had He wanted to but He purposely did not. And the Quran questions us: Wouldst thou compel men until they are believers?

That means the Quran is asking us whether we are trying to do what God Himself does not do.

Your Honour, in the contemporary world of Islam, the acknowledgement of religious tolerance is well established. And it is made clearer in the Quranic statement: la ikraha fi d-dini.

Your Honour, we must always keep in mind that in many ways the circumstances governing early Islam differed from those of today and that the presuppositions for a general and complete religious tolerance were not given at that time.

And that brings us to my client’s case, Your Honour. Is this court empowered to try my client and impose upon him not only what the Constitution forbids but what the Quran also clearly does not propagate or allow?

Is this court playing God and doing the job of God when the Quran clearly states that God could have made everyone of the same faith if He had wanted to but intentionally did not?

This, Your Honour, will be what the Defence will be raising if this court persists in continuing with this trial and refuses to withdraw the charge of apostasy against my client.

WIKILEAKS: Perak episode sets a dangerous precedent

A well-financed political coalition could persuade members of Parliament to support the other side, shifting power through undemocratic means, as many allege occurred in Perak. Before this Federal Court decision, the assembly would have instead been dissolved for fresh elections, but now the sultan can legitimize the takeover without voter input.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KUALA LUMPUR 000092

SIPDIS

FOR EAP/MTS AND INR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/19/2019

TAGS: PGOV, PREL, KJUS, MY

SUBJECT: COURT DECISION ON STATE POWER PLAY ENDS LEGAL BATTLE, BUT SETS WORRISOME PRECEDENT

REF: A. 09 KL 342 -- PANDEMONIUM IN PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY

B. 09 KL 78 -- NAJIB LEADS TAKEOVER IN PERAK

C. KL 20 -- WHAT IS GOING ON IN MALAYSIA?

Classified By: Political Counselor Brian D. McFeeters for reasons 1.4 b and d.

Summary and Comment

1. (SBU) Malaysia's Federal Court, the highest level in Malaysia's judicial system, announced on February 9 that the Sultan of Perak had the legal authority to appoint a new Chief Minister in his state, as he did in February 2009, after concluding that the ruling National Front (BN) coalition commanded the majority of seats in the Perak state assembly.

The case effectively ends the Perak constitutional crisis, which has been simmering since three opposition politicians declared themselves independents friendly toward BN, tipping the balance of seats in the state assembly toward BN (refs A and B).

The Sultan came under unprecedented scrutiny because replacing a Chief Minister is not specifically mentioned in the state constitution. The opposition coalition People's Alliance (PR) announced that they would no longer contest the issue as they had vigorously done for the past year, and instead work alongside the BN for the benefit of the people of Perak, if certain conditions were met.

A recent independent poll confirmed that most Perakians believe that the only way to fairly resolve this crisis would be to hold snap elections in the state, which the BN has announced they will not do prematurely.

2. (C) Comment: This Federal Court decision in the BN's favor raises renewed questions about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, already in question in connection with the Anwar Ibrahim trial and other cases (ref C).

While the GOM argues that the decision is based on a sound interpretation of the Perak constitution, opposition figures disagree and argue the decision legitimizes political maneuvering to change the results of democratic elections, setting a dangerous precedent by implying that the King could remove the Prime Minister, without a no-confidence motion in Parliament.

The February 9 Decision

3. (U) The Federal Court ruled on February 9 in a unanimous 5-0 vote that the Sultan of Perak, Azlan Shah, had the authority to appoint a new Chief Minister if he believed that a different political coalition commanded the allegiance of a majority of seats in the state assembly.

In announcing its decision, the Federal Court confirmed that the Sultan was correct in his February 6, 2009 decision to verify that veteran politician Zambry Abdul Kadir, a member of UMNO (the United Malays National Organization -- the dominant political party in the BN) had the support of a majority of the members of the state assembly, replacing Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin.

The switch in support came after three members of the People's Alliance simultaneously declared themselves to be independents friendly to the BN in early February 2009, a maneuver that is widely believed to have been driven by the BN. Zambry's attorney Cecil Abraham went to great lengths to stress that "this decision is binding on the state government and the federal government."

Predictions and Reactions

4. (C) Poloff and Pol Specialist visited Perak from February 1-3 (to be reported septel) and discussed the (then upcoming) February 9 Federal Court decision with politicians and attorneys familiar with the case. Nizar's lead lawyer Chan Kok Keong told Poloff ahead of the February 9 decision that he was certain the judges would rule in favor of Zambry.

He opined that it would not be a "constitutional decision" but rather "a political decision." Chan pointed out that when he and his legal team were making their submission at the Federal Court, all five judges "were extremely hostile" to them. Chan added that by ruling in Zambry's favor, the Federal Court "will be rewriting its own decisions and the constitution."

Former Chief Minister Nizar told Poloff that a ruling in favor of Zambry would result in "the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister holding office at the pleasure of the King or the Sultan." Nizar added that this would set a "dangerous precedent." DAP Vice President and Member of Parliament from Perak Kulasegaran also told Poloff ahead of the decision that the courts would favor Zambry because "the political stakes are too high for Prime Minister Najib."

Poloff also spoke with Zambry's political secretary Abdul Rahman and the assembly speaker S. Ganeson; both expressed confidence that the court "will make the right decision" by ruling in favor of Zambry.

5. (U) After the February 9 decision, BN Chief Minister Zambry was quoted in the media on saying he was thankful for the court's decision, adding that "hopefully all parties can accept this decision and this political crisis in Perak can finally be put to rest."

Prime Minister Najib appealed for everyone to respect the court's decision, commenting "We have to accept the decision of the country's highest court. The issue and saga of who is the right Chief Minister of Perak has been decided, and I hope they (the opposition People's Alliance) accept this decision."

National opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim slammed the decision, claiming UMNO "does not have the courage to face the people" in elections. Democratic Action Party leader Lim Kit Siang called the verdict "legalization of BN's coup d'etat." Former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim called the decision "warped legal reasoning" done for "political expediency."

Nizar: Will Work with UMNO in Perak, but with Conditions

6. (SBU) Former Chief Minister Nizar convened a special meeting of state PR leaders on the day of the Federal Court's ruling, announcing that the opposition would give its full cooperation to the BN government in Perak. He said, "for the good of Perakians, we have decided to become a strong opposition in the state assembly and lend our services to the Barisan National government in implementing policies that are good for the people."

Nizar, however, caveated that the opposition would only give its full cooperation if Zambry's government agreed to four conditions.

First, they must allow opposition parties to use public premises for the purpose of hosting functions; second, they must give memberships to opposition assemblymen to special committees; third, they must provide all opposition assemblymen with allocations of RM 150,000-RM 200,000 (approximately $40,000 to $55,000 USD) per year; and fourth, the BN must base its administration "on the principles of honesty, integrity, transparency, justice, and welfare." Chief Minister Zambry responded on February 10 by stating "we have never discriminated against them on the allocations, so no need for conditions. We must help the public. That's the yardstick."

(Note: The BN traditionally only grants "development funds" to constituencies held by BN representatives. Just prior to the takeover last year, former Minister in the PM's department Ahmad Zahid Hamidi -- who is now the Minister of Defense -- announced that each BN assemblyman would receive RM 300,000, while the other constituencies would receive nothing. End Note.)

Poll: Decide Through an Election, not a Court Decision

7. (U) The independent Merdeka Center announced results of a poll taken of Perak voters on February 5, in conjunction with the one year anniversary of the BN's takeover of the state.

Among the key findings of the poll: 74% of the respondents feel that fresh state elections are the best way to resolve the political crisis in Perak; 65% of respondents believe the Perak political crisis remains a relevant issue after one year; and 60% place a higher priority on having a democratically elected government than on improving the economy.

Looking Ahead

8. (SBU) Although it appears that both sides want to move ahead, there are still two pending legal cases that could, theoretically, result in a shift in power. The first case involves a lawsuit by former state assembly Speaker Sivakumar, who was not initially removed from his position until after the first state assembly session under Zambry was conducted. As speaker, Sivakumar held the power to suspend people for contempt; during the first meeting in April 2009, he suspended Zambry and six others for assuming their new positions before the initial court decision (Nizar v. Zambry) was complete.

Although it is unlikely the courts will find in favor of Sivakumar, if they do it is possible that his authority to suspend Zambry and six others will stand, thereby giving Nizar the majority of seats again. The second case concerns the alleged resignations of the three state assemblymen who defected from the PR. Just prior to the defections, Nizar claimed that the three had resigned from the state assembly, and held undated letters of resignation from each as proof.

The Election Commission, however, did not accept these letters as legitimate and refused to call for elections to replace the three. The PR filed a lawsuit for the letters to be recognized as legitimate, currently under judicial review at the Federal Court. All legal decisions on this lawsuit thus far have rejected the PR's assertions.

KEITH

Pakatan wants to ban smoke & booze but totally happy with steal and rob ?

No allegation here. They hinted they want to steal and rob.

Pakatan reps slam ‘simplistic’ Suaram over alcohol, smoking bans

By Boo Su-Lyn

June 07, 2011

SHAH ALAM, June 7 – Two members of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) rejected today the human rights group’s backing of bans on alcohol consumption or smoking as long as a majority favour it.

Selangor state executive councillor Elizabeth Wong (picture) said she did not support the “tyranny of the majority.”

“The minority also has rights in society,” Wong, who is a Suaram member, told The Malaysian Insider today.

The human rights group said today, however, that the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows detention without trial, was exempt from public opinion.

Suaram coordinator Hasbeemasputra Abu Bakar said the right to smoke or drink was not explicitly stated in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), unlike the right to a fair trial.

Wong said individuals had the right to smoke or drink that should not be violated through outright bans, but should be regulated instead.

Suaram co-founder R. Sivarasa also opposed the NGO’s “simplistic” stand on supporting such a ban.

“You can regulate drinking or smoking, but you can’t have a nationwide ban because then, you’ll be interfering with individual rights to drink or smoke,” Sivarasa told The Malaysian Insider today.

“The minority has rights to smoke or drink as long as they do not do it in a way that endangers others,” the Subang MP added.

Sivarasa also stressed that the right to smoke or drink was not a “human right”, but an “individual right”.

“The duty on the part of the state to protect public health doesn’t extend to banning people from smoking on the street,” said the human rights activist.

In a statement sent last night, Hasbeemasputra had said “the state has the responsibility to make laws that regulate society and has a duty to ensure the wellbeing of the people, and gazetting no-smoking zones helps to fulfil these two roles.”

But Suaram had initially said yesterday afternoon that the gazetting of entire districts in Malacca as no-smoking zones violated one’s right to smoke.

Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai recently declared five areas — Alor Gajah, Jasin, World Heritage City, Taman Melaka Raya and the Malacca International Trade Centre in Ayer Keroh — as smoke-free zones effective June 15.

Wong said the government was violating individual rights if it banned people from smoking in private premises like their homes or offices.

Apa nama's blood sucking IPPs....

Many,many years ago, our country suffered the worse outage in our nation's history. We were without electricity for many days. Manufacturers lost a lot of money. Industrialists were screaming their heads off and their voices reached Sri Perdana, the abode of the 4th PM then.

He came up with the solution. We have this problem because TNB has a monopoly. Monopoly is not good. Dependency on one supplier isn't strategic. It can be outright dangerous not to mention can cause untold economic damages if the system breaks down.

Let's deregulate the electricity industry he proclaims. So Ananda, YTL, Genting and others came rushing in. we can supply electricity sir. But we need to have iron clad agreements so that our investments are well covered. We must have a guaranteed purchase from TNB at secure prices.

But sir in order to generate our current, we need cheap fuels. Otherwise we bungkus or consumers will have to pay more.

Never mind says sir, I control PETRONAS. I will ask them to sell you natural gas at subsidized rates. And so government pays subsidies up to RM 19 billion a year.

As many people now know, the electricity we consumed passes through 4 stages. Generation, transmission, distribution and retailing. But boss, we will only generate electricity. We won't go into transmission, distribution and retailing. These are costly. Tarak untung. Kadang kadang untung.

In other words, TNB which has to invest in all 4 stages can offer us cheaper tariffs, but the IPPs awarded license which offer only generation! of elec tricity cannot. How can this be? Apa nama? Macam mana?

Deregulation created an opposite effect in Malaysia. We ended up having to pay higher electricity tariffs because TENAGA was forced to buy electricity from IPPs who charged more for the electricity than if Tenaga produced it itself!

We come now to the stupid remark by the minister who says the government is powerless to reveal details of the PPA. Wasn't it the government that 'negotiated' the deals with the IPPs? So why can't we have access to the details?

Who were the first entrants to the IPP business?

Genting Sanyen, YTL Power, Malakoff, SEV, Prai Power,Powertek, GB3, Tanjung Bin Power and Kapar Energy are among the two dozen or so IPPs in Malaysia. All of the above are owned by the Genting Lims, Francis Yeoh, Syed Mokhtar and Ananda Krishnan. These were the usual suspects consisting of the connected businessmen who get most of the big deals.

YTL Power's profit for 2010 was more than RM1.6 billion on revenues of RM13 billion.

Malakoff in 2009 had a profit of RM380 million on revenues of RM5.6 billion.

Powertek had revenues of RM1.34 billion and a profit of RM450 million.

So Francis Yeoh makes RM1.6 billion and

Ananda Krishnan makes RM450 million from his IPP while collecting subsidies from public money.

What make these blood-sucking IPPs so lucrative?

First, these IPPs have contracts to supply on take-it-or-leave-it basis. In other words, they will generate at the rated capacity and supply to TNB whether or not TNB wants the electricity.

! Second, the IPPs are protected should gas prices go up. They have "pass through" cost clauses, meaning if gas price goes up this is immediately billed to TNB, that is, us.

Third, at the time when the first few IPPs were created, they sold electricity at 15-16 sen per KW when at that time TNB could generate its own at 12 sen.

It is essentially a transfer of funds from the people's pockets to the IPP's vaults, through TNB, aided and abetted by the government. But the imbecilic minister says we can't reveal. Of course we can't reveal because that would expose the scandalous amount of profits these business luminaries make.

Look at the Thai power producers. They do not get subsidies and have to buy fuel at market prices. Fuels cost more in Thailand.

Yet, despite the higher cost of fuels, Thai power producers sell electricity at a lower price than Malaysian IPPs sell to TNB. Apa nama punya economics ini?

Peter Chin, the minister in charge of TNB must be mentally deranged. He claims that he cannot release the IPP contracts because it is between two private entities. 1.TNB is not a private entity; it is mostly government-owned. 2.the subsidies given to the IPPs are not private monies, they are public funds! - Datuk Ariff Sabri

source:sakmongkol.blogspot.com

TNBs latest annual report,shows Che Khalibs! total r emuneration last year was RM1.1mil, of which RM600,000 was his annual salary.

Che Khalib earns RM1.8 million a year in total.While paying the big chiefs the above amount, in the same year, TNB kept its minimum wage at RM750 a month, only slightly higher than POS Malaysia's RM635.

Gaji saja tinggi, tapi masih tunduk kepada penyamun2 IPP ini. Apakah kita bayar gaji supaya dia mendiamkan diri. Lu pikiaq mai.....

cheers.

Pemilihan PAS 2011 Adalah Kemenangan Arwah Fadzil Nor

NOTA EDITOR: Saya dah tau lama dah pasal pertembungan aliran Ustaz-Ulama orthodox (dikenali sebagai kumpulan "ulama") dgn pembaharuan yang mahu dibawa Arwah Ustaz Fadzil.

Tulang Besi ada pengalaman pribadi bagaimana kumpulan ulama di dalam PAS begitu memusuhi pembaharuan yang mahu dibawa oleh Arwah Ustaz Fadzil Nor.

Saya tahu secara pribadi, agenda "PAS untuk Semua" telah disabotaj golongan "Ulama"(UG) dan golongan ini menggantikan dengan "Dokumen Negara Islam" sebelum pilihanraya 2004.

Kesannya adalah PAS kalah tergolek pada 2004 dari 27 kerusi Parlimen turun kepada 6 kerusi. Juga, PAS hilang negeri Terengganu. Hilang habis segala harapan PAS untuk memerintah Malaysia selepas 2004. Segala harapan hanya tinggal abu.

Kekalahan teruk 2004 telah menyebabkan Timbalan Presiden PAS pada masa itu, ustaz Hasan Shukri diturunkan takhta serta diganti oleh Ustaz NAsa yang diharap dapat membawa perubahan arwah Ustaz Fadzil Nor.

Dan terbukti, agenda PAS UNTUK SEMUA serta Negara Berkebajikan dikedepankan pada pilihanraya 2008 berjaya membawa kejayaan gemilang kepada PAS.

Malangnya, agenda itu sekali lagi disabotaj oleh golongan ulama (orthodox) kerana mereka mengkedepankan agenda "KERAJAANG PERPADUANG".

Sungguh tidak disangka-sangka, golongan ulama dalam PAS telah belot kepada pejuangan PAS dan mahu membawa PAS duduk dalam satu kelambu dengan UMNO.

Maka keputusan 2011, perwakilan menolak golongan ulama dan menaikan mereka-mereka yang komited dengan perjuangan peninggalan Arwah Ustaz Fadzil Nor.

Semoga wasiat Ustaz Fadzil Nor ini dapat diterjemahkan dengan lebih baik dengan kepimpinan yang baru ini.

Ada kemungkinan kekalahan Ustaz Tuan Ibrahim adalah kerana ustaz Tuan tidak dilihat sebagai salah seorang yang membawa wasiat Arwah Ustaz Fadzil Nor.

Ustaz Tuan cuma dilihat lebih cenderung kepada golongan ulama yang anti kepada agenda Arwah Ustaz Fadzil Nor.

Kumpulan yang baru menang ini adalah mereka yang memikul amant Arwah Ustaz ! Fadzil M ohd Nor. Tidak lebih dan tidak kurang dari itu.

Wallahualam

ps pernah dengar dengan teliga Tulang Besi sendiri dari salah seorang ahli keluarga Arwah Ustaz Fadzil, bahawa beliau jelak dengan gaya dan cara golongan lulusan agama yang tiada jalan lain kecuali mengharamkan itu dan ini. Tidak ada jalan yang kreatif mahupun menarik bagi menarik umat kepada Islam. Hanya tahu haram,haram, haram.

Akhirnya impian Fadzil Noor tercapai oleh Liew Chin Tong

7 June 2011

7 JUN Selepas pimpinan PAS mengumumkan Dokumen Negara Islam pada 2003, setelah dicabar oleh Perdana Menteri pada masa itu Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, ia menjadi salah satu faktor utama parti itu tewas teruk dalam pilihan raya umum 2004.

Daripada 27 kerusi Parlimen yang dimenanginya dalam PRU 1999, PAS hanya mampu kekalkan 6 kerusi Parlimen. Banyak pihak mengatakan PAS kehilangan undi bukan sahaja dari kalangan bukan Islam tetapi juga dari orang Melayu yang dikatakan resah dengan konsep negara Islam parti itu.

Sebenarnya Dokumen Negara Islam 2003 adalah kosep yang berlawanan dengan cadangan asal yang dibawakan oleh Allahyarham Datuk Fadzil Noor selaku Presiden PAS, sejak 2001 dalam bentuk Memorandum PAS kepada Rakyat Malaysia Pemerintahan Islam Dalam Abad ke-21.

Di antara Disember 2001 dan Mac 2002, draf empat muka surat telah dibincangkan oleh sabahat-sabahat PAS termasuk aktivis NGO yang kemudiannya dibawakan oleh Fadzil dalam muktamar PAS ke-48 di Kota Bharu, Kelantan pada Mei 2002.

Fadzil yakin memorandum itu yang masih dalam peringkat persediaan itu mampu mencari titik pertemuan pelbagai peradaban, kepercayaan dan pegangan politik rakyat. Baginya, sifat pemerintahan Islam perlu ada syura, pemilihan dan demokrasi kerana pembinaan negara mesti berpaksikan kepada akhlak dan sistem nilai yang tinggi bertunjangkan sistem kepercayaan yang benar.

Beliau turut menjelaskan bahawa pentadbiran yang dicita-citakan PAS ialah yang mendukung kedaulatan undang-und! ang sert a menekankan aspek khidmat dan kebajikan sehingga melahirkan Negara Berkebajikan yang diharapkannya dapat memakmurkan negara dengan kebajikan serta mengelakkan kerosakan, pembaziran dan kemusnahan.

Tujuh perkara asas dalam Memorandum itu adalah:
Masyarakat madani
Hak saksama (al-musaawah)
Kedaulatan undang-undang berasaskan syariah yang luas makna dan ruang lingkupnya
Keadilan (al-adalah)
Meritokrasi (as-solahiyah)
Negara berkebajikan
Pentadbiran dinamik dan inovatif

Sayangnya, Fadzil meninggal dunia tidak lama selepas muktamar itu, pada 23 Jun 2002, yang mengakibatkan Memorandum itu tidak lagi menjadi keutamaan PAS.

Namun begitu, sebulan selepas perginya Fadzil, PAS menyusun semula Memorandum itu untuk dibincangkan bersama dengan rakan-rakan seperjuangan di luar parti di mana tujuh perkara asas dikekalkan dengan huraian yang lebih panjang.

Apa yang mengejutkan ialah satu dokumen yang berlainan sama sekali telah dikeluarkan pada November 2002 atas nama Dokumen Negara Islam yang direstui oleh Majlis Syura Ulama PAS.

Dokumen itu juga mempunyai tujuh prinsip, seperti mana Memorandum, tetapi ia berbeza dalam banyak segi.

Tujuh perkara asas Dokumen itu ialah:

Negara undang-undang di mana dijelaskan bahawa hudud, qisasa dan takzir akan dikenakan kepada orang Islam sahaja tetapi yang bukan Islam boleh memilih sama ada menerima hukum itu atau common law

Sistem khilafah di mana pemerintah mesti melaksanakan hukum Islam, jika tidak mereka dianggap pengkhianat amanah Allah

Takwa

Sistem syura (concensus) di mana ia akan membincangkan perkara-perkara yang boleh diijtihadkan sahaja, dan tidak boleh dalam hukum-hukum tetap Islam (qati)

Keadilan dan kesamarataan (al-adaalah wal musaawaah) yang dijelaskan tidak sama dengan persamaan (equality) dan sama bahagian (fairness)

Kebebasan (al-hurriyyah) yang tidak boleh bercanggah dengan s! yara

Ketuanan mutlak (as-siyaadah wal haakimiyah) atau sovereignty yang mana hak ketuanan adalah milik Allah dan tidak boleh diganggu oleh mana-mana pihak.

Walau apa pun niat baik pimpinan PAS dalam menyediakan Dokumen ini, persepsi orang ramai terhadapnya telah menyebabkan parti itu ditolak dalam PRU 2004. Ia dlihat sebagai menakutkan orang bukan Islam dan orang Islam yang berpendirian sederhana.

Menjelang 2007 di mana pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yang lemah telah membangkitkan rasa tidak puas hati rakyat, ramai pemimpin PAS terutamanya mereka yang bersikap sederhana telah menyertai gerakan-gerakan mobilisasi demokrasi seperti perhimpinan Bersih yang mendesak kerajaan Barisan Nasional supaya telus dan adil dalam pilihan raya.

Pada masa itu juga PAS mula kembali kepada idea asal Fadzil yang mahu parti itu menjadi lebih terbuka dan berarus perdana dalam menarik sokongan rakyat. Ia juga usaha sesetengah pemimpin PAS untuk membuktikan bahawa Islam bukan sempit ajarannya, Islam adalah untuk semua.

Kejayaan besar PAS bersama PKR dan DAP dalam PRU 2008 meyakinkan banyak pihak supaya parti itu berjuang bersama-sama dalam satu gabungan yang kemudiannya dinamakan Pakatan Rakyat.

Dengan adanya barisan baru PAS yang dipilih dalam muktamar PAS ke-57 di Kuala Lumpur hujung minggu lalu, hasrat Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang untuk meluaskan usaha promosi Negara Berkebajikan dilihat akan membuahkan hasil.

Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Hadi, Negara Berkebajikan adalah konsep yang berteraskan Islam dan boleh diterima oleh semua orang tanpa mengira agama dan kaum. Ini bermakna PAS tetap boleh memperjuangkan agenda Islam yang benar-benar memberi manfaat kepada semua manusia.

Memetik kata-kata Hadi, Kita mulakan dengan pelaksanaan Negara Berkebajikan. Ia ada dalam Islam dan al-Quran. Dalam al-Quran tidak sebut Negara Islam, ia sebut Negara Berkebajikan, ia mengingatkan kita semua kepada apa yang diperjuangkan oleh Allahyrahm Ustaz Fadzil untuk membawa! imej Is lam yang lebih demokratik, inklusif, terbuka dan adil tanpa mengorbankan prinsip perjuangan PAS.

Sejak 2004, PAS telah melalui jalan yang sukar dan penuh berduri. Rasa kurang keyakinan diri di kalangan pemimpin tertentu PAS juga membuatkan mereka serba-salah dengan tawaran UMNO untuk bersatu padu demi perpaduan Melayu.

Sekarang ternyata impian Fadzil sudah menjadi kenyataan. PAS dilihat sudah bersedia untuk kembali dengan penuh komitmen terhadap Pakatan Rakyat, selaras dengan impian Fadzil yang mahu menawarkan alternatif terbaik kepada rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama, untuk mengambil alih pentadbiran negara daripada UMNO dan BN. Roketkini.com

Liew Chin Tong adalah Ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera

Bola : Malaysia-Myanmar di Kota Bharu 18 Jun

MalaysiaKini : KUALA LUMPUR 7 Jun - Bagi memberi peluang kepada peminat di luar Lembah Klang menyaksikan perlawanan bertaraf antarabangsa, Persatuan Bolasepak Malaysia (FAM) akan mengadakan perlawanan antara Malaysia menentang Myanmar di Stadium Sultan Mohamad Ke-IV di Kota Bharu, Kelantan pada 18 Jun ini.

Setiausaha Agung FAM Datuk Azzuddin Ahmad berkata, perlawanan persahabatan tersebut yang akan bermula pada 8.45 malam melibatkan pasukan kebangsaan kedua-dua negara.

Perlawanan di Kota Bharu itu adalah atas permintaan Timbalan Presiden FAM Tan Sri Annuar Musa yang juga Presiden Persatuan Bolasepak Kelantan (Kafa), katanya.

"Presiden FAM Tuanku Ahmad Shah bersetuju dengan permintaan tersebut dan keputusan ini turut membuka ruang kepada peminat bola sepak di negeri-negeri lain untuk menonton perlawanan bertaraf antarabangsa, katanya kepada pemberita di sini hari ini.

Azzuddin berkata, walaupun Stadium Sultan Mohamad Ke-IV hanya mempunyai kapasiti penonton sebanyak 18,000, namun Konfederasi Bolasepak Asia (AFC) telah memberi kebenaran kepada Kafa untuk mengadakan perlawanan antarabangsa di stadium tersebut. - Bernama

Yang halang hudud tu,Karpal Singh atau Mahathir? Mahathir lupa kot...

Tulis Mahathir dalam blognya, "Tetapi yang menang besar ialah tokoh yang tidak hadir dan bukan pun ahli PAS. Ianya ialah Karpal Singh.

Perjuangannya supaya PAS gugurkan matlamat untuk mendiri negara Islam PAS yang akan kuatkuasakan hukum hudud sudah pun tercapai."

Setiausaha Agung PKR, Saifudin Nasution Ismail menyifatkan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sebagai ahli politik yang haprak apabila menuduh Karpal Singh berjaya menyekat PAS laksana hudud.

Ini kerana, ketika Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan meluluskan rang undang-undang jenayah Syariah II yang di dalamnya terkandung undang-undang hudud, Dr Mahathir yang menyekat pelaksanaannya.

Ia disekat melalui satu surat amaran yang dihantar beliau selaku Perdana Menteri kepada Menteri Besar Kelantan, Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz pada tahun 1993 lalu.

Enakmen Undang-undang Kanun Jenayah Syariah (ii) 1993 (Hukum Hudud) telahpun diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan pada tahun 1993. Ini berikutan dengan janji PAS untuk melaksanakan Hukum Hudud pada pilihanraya 1990.

Selepas muktamar PAS baru-baru ini, Tun Dr Mahathir melalui blognya menulis dengan berkata, Karpal yang berjaya menyekat mendirikan negara Islam yang akan kuatkuasakan hukum hudud sudah tercapai.

"Dr M hantar surat amaran kepada TG Nik Aziz jangan laksana hudud, aneh hari ni Dr M kata Karpal berjaya sekat PAS jalankan hududd...haprak!" tulis Saifudin ! dalam Tw itternya. Bagi beliau, Dr Mahathir tidak layak bercakap Karpal anti Islam.

"Mesej saya mudah Dr M tak layak langsung cakap Karpal anti Islam sebab rekod Dr M sendiri paling membenci Islam," tegas Saifudin(kiri) yang juga anggota Parlimen Machang, Kelantan.

Menurut beliau, Dr Mahathir pernah berkata kalau dibuat hukum hudud habis orang Islam mundur sebab kena potong tangan..."hari ini Dr Mahathir salahkan Karpal."

Bagi beliau, Karpal sekurang-kurangnya tidak menyekat bantuan untuk Sekolah Agama Rakyat namun Dr Mahathir membuatnya! "Sebab katanya sekolah agama ajar murid benci pemerintah ...siapa sebenarnya benci Islam?" soal Saifudin.
Bagi Saifudin, kalaupun Karpal tolak negara Islam dan Hudud beliau boleh memahaminya sebab dia bukan Muslim, tetapi Dr Mahathir tentang negara Islam dan Hudud, ini yang beliau tidak dapat faham.

Surat Dr Mahathir

Surat Dr Mahathir sampai kini masih diingati oleh Tuan Guru Nik Aziz hatta dalam satu majlis baru-baru ini.

(Tun) Dr Mahathir (ketika itu perdana menteri) datang ke Kelantan memberi amaran sekiranya (kerajaan) Kelantan laksana hudud, kerajaan pusat akan mengambil tindakan.

Sebelum ini, Kelantan pernah digantung perlembagaan oleh Mageran Jadi kalau (kita) tak boleh buat semua, jangan kita tinggal semua,
katanya.

Kalau kerana hukum hudud, satu Kelantan kena Mageran dan kerajaan Kelantan nak digantung oleh kerajaan pusat, (jadi) itu tak cerdik, kata Nik Aziz dalam satu dialog bersama penuli! s blog d an facebook di Hotel Grand Season di ibu negara, baru-baru ini.

Mursyidul am PAS itu berkata, sekiranya ketiadaan kuasa untuk melaksanakan undang-undang tersebut, maka tidak boleh ditinggalkan semua undang-undang berkenaan.

Dengan mengumpamakan tindakannya itu sebagai seguni beras, katanya, sekiranya tidak mampu untuk membawanya, maka diambil secupak-secupak sehingga habis.

Oleh itu, kita tak laksana hudud (keseluruhan), tetapi kita laksana (Islam) satu persatu. Alhamdulilllah kaum Cina dan India menyokong PAS, katanya yang mendapat tepukan kira-kira 130 penulis blog dan pemilik Facebook.

source:harakahdaily

Dr M: Karpal doesn't have to die anymore, PAS have given up

Dr M: Karpal the biggest winner in PAS polls

PAS: Kalah puak ulama, menang puak kopiah hitam, kata Dr M

cheers.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Social Political Buzz & Bulls