Friday, November 30, 2012

Political WTF 2 - Musa Hassan

Free Malaysia Today reported in its news article No plans yet to bring Musa Hasan into PKR, the BIGGEST hint yet by PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution that it is likely to admit former IGP Musa Hassan as its new member.

Musa Hassan is patron of NGO Crime Watch Task Force
NGO is headed by R Sri Sanjeevan, a PKR member; its advisor is S Gobi Krishnan, also from PKR

PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said that when someone ‘important’ decides to join the party, the application is given special attention.

“Approval of applications is done on a monthly basis. When we have distinguished names of ‘big people’, of course we take note of it.” [...]

When asked if Anwar Ibrahim would be the stumbling block if Musa wants to join PKR, Saifuddin said the decision is made collectively.

“When there are applications made by big names, the decision to approve them is made by the party leadership,” he said.

He explained that usually the supreme council members will come up with the decision. He further stated that it is definitely not done by an individual.

Manmanlai, indeed.

Incidentally, Saifuddin Nasution was one of those UMNO Youth thugs who violently disrupted the international forum Apcet II in 1996 at Asia Hotel in KL some years ago when Anwar Ibrahim (then in UMNO) was the acting PM, bringing humongous shame to our country.

After Apcet II was forced to be abandoned by the UMNO-initiated violence, acting PM Anwar Ibrahim praised the violent hecklers and stated very proudly: "Our mission was to stop the conference and we did just that."

And that was THE acting PM of Malaysia!

Of course our wonderful men in blue did bugger all when UMNO Youth went on that rampage.

I think Anwar, Saifuddin and Musa Hassan will make wonderful company. 

UN upgrades recognition of Palestine

One of the most startling political happenings has just occurred, when Australia abstained from siding with Israel and USA in opposing UN 1st-step recognition of Palestinian as a State.

The UN Assembly, not the UN Security Council (UNSC), has designate Palestine a non-member observer state, which is the same standing accorded to the Vatican.

Unlike the UN General Assembly, the UNSC is where 5 original nuclear-power nations (USA, Russia, China, France and Britain) have veto powers. It's also where the USA has repetitively misused this veto powers to veto UNSC resolutions against Israel, by more than 140 times since 1972.

It has been reported that the USA had, during the period between 1972 and 2001, (mis)used its veto power in the UNSC a humongous 39 times to block resolutions critical of Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, more than all the other 4 countries with veto powers have used their veto on all other issues combined.

But leaving aside the predictable USA, a hopeless politico-religious slave to Israeli interests, the abstention of Australia has been a watershed decision in the Australian-USA-Israeli relationship.

Australia is like the USA, tied by political alliance and allegiance to foreign countries like the USA and Israel. The Israeli lobby in Australia is particularly powerful but more subtle than its American counterparts. But it's still too powerful to be ignored or to offend in the eyes of Australian main political leaders

Julia Gillard

Many had predicted (quite correctly so) that Australia would AUTOMATICALLY side with the USA and Israel to object to UN Assembly recognition of Palestine. But PM Julia Gillard had to abandon her politically-natural intentions to do so when the Labor Party caucus (top party council) revolted against that plan.

The Labor Party caucus and indeed membership are sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed Palestinians.

It's a wonderful decision, a 1st step in the right direction  and we eagerly await the day when Australia will move beyond mere abstention and actually vote FOR the full recognition of Palestine as a UN member state.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Political WTF 1 - Musa Hassan

Could/will it be!

Is it be likely that Musa Hassan will re-occupy his old job as IGP PDRM if Anwar Ibrahim becomes PM?

I ask only because the ex IGP, one of the most despised and most accused person, has lately been rubbing pally-buddy shoulders with PKR-affiliated NGOs, and making virtually anti-Government statements and accusations, some of which, laughingly, had been attributed to his term as IGP.

Has there been a done deal between Musa Hassan and PKR?

Or, is the ex IGP just another Dr M, wanting to rewrite his place and performance in Malaysian history?

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Haram-ish heels-dragging & tap-dancing PAS

Star Online - Nik Aziz admits ‘oversight’ in gender policy on hair-cutting

... but as I commented on same article in Malaysia-Today, PAS is merely making a tactical withdrawal because it badly needs non-Muslim votes in the coming general election.

'Tactical withdrawal' means its strategic intent is still to impose Islamic laws on everyone and to f* with the non-Muslims.

Notably, nowhere in the Star article has PAS said one single word that Islamic laws do NOT apply to non-Muslims.

Besides, it took PAS several days after the unisex haircut brouhaha before it was prepared to crawl out to make a half-hearted and vague statement.

That the PAS Kelantan government mumbled "... did not intent to implement any Islamic moral laws on non-Muslims ..." is nothing more than a hypocritical 'ooops' and not the same as stating explicitly that it is NOT imposing Islamic laws on non-Muslims.

If fact, the news article reported:

However, it has yet to decide whether to revoke the municipal by-law that prohibits women and men hairstylists from attending to customers who are of the opposite gender, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

“I will bring it up at the state exco meeting to be confirmed
before making any official stand on the issue,” Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat said yesterday.

... meaning, the official stand could be anything ...

“First and foremost, we must up-hold the Syariah-based laws. Insya Allah (God willing),” he said, responding to questions on whether he would consider the appeals by hair salons to either scrap or review such by-laws.

... tap dancing again ...

“It is possible because they (those who object) are non-Muslims.

... surprise surprise ... [but basically a Bullshit act dunno!]

“Islam allows them to practise their culture, as long as it is not in violation of the (Islamic) religion.”

As can be read, Pak Haji Nik Aziz has been heels-dragging tactics, when it could easily come out firmly with a government ruling that syariah laws would NOT apply to non-Muslims, full stop.

Instead, and very ominously, he said “Islam allows them to practise their culture, as long as it is not in violation of the (Islamic) religion”, which is the same as saying Islam laws does apply to non-Muslims.

Meanwhile, PAS President said in KL: ... the Kelantan Government did not intend to implement any Islamic “moral” laws on non-Muslims. This was proven with the introduction of the Syariah Criminal Code (11) Enactment, which did not apply to non-Muslims.

But if it already has, then why couldn't Pak Haji Hadi Awang come out with a simple statement, that Islamic rules do NOT apply to non-Muslims, full stop!

Instead, he tap-danced around with words like “The party central committee ... is ready to consider suggestions from non-Muslim groups on the best ways of solving this problem based on the concept of freedom of religion for non-Muslims” and ...

... “PAS is committed to solving any problems through discussions.” 

All we want is no no no, not heels-dragging 'discussion', and not the bullshit of 'offering suggestions', BUT for PAS to fulfil its promise and state unequivocally and explicitly that it would NOT apply Islamic laws on non-Muslims.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Faith & Salvation

Currently, on the eve of GE-13, Pakatan is unnecessarily embroiled and tied down in Gordian-like knots over a haircut because some lil’ Napoleons (of the mullah-ish variety) had the temerity to impose Islamic rules on non-Muslims.

Like Samson of the biblical Israelite Judges, Pakatan is severely weakened on the eve of battle, all because of the haircut.

Samson & Delilah

I suppose the misogynists can once again blame the politically enervating hair-cut on Delilah's or the Jezebel's, Eve's, Salome's, Lilith's, Ataliah's, Mrs Lot's and her incestuous daughters (ancestors of Moabites and Ammonites, and coincidentally the Israelites' enemies, thus nasty Hebraic badmouthing was in order).

While we non-Muslims consider PAS just over-absorb in matters of a sexual nature, to wit, sex, sex, and sex, they OTOH believe they’re merely doing God’s work, though I suspect, God doesn't want to have anything to do with their unnatural obsession with women and sex.

With a large dose of hubris, they have thus declared their faith and their unswerving holy duty to implement hudud. If you have a mouthful of hair, that's just the initial unpleasant taste of what can possibly come later.

Ah, Faith!

While Science may give us answers to almost all we want to know, it can't assuage/answer our mortal fears, that of the so-called 'hereafter'.

Even in religions which do not recognize the existence of an omnipotent omniscient Creator ‘God’, like Buddhism and Jainism  these religions still attempt to assuage our fears by presenting a train of logical process as to our 'hereafters', a series of rebirths in Samsara, … BUT which belief nonetheless still requires a leap of faith, though admittedly a minor one in comparison to the Abrahamic faiths which demand a gargantuan Grand Canyon-ish leap of faith.

Other religions like Taoism and Confucian(ism) deftly side-skip the issue of a Creator, and focus on Man's obligation and moral behaviour towards, respectively, the universe and society. These ideological approaches save subscribers from the problem of having 'faith' in order to achieve 'salvation'.

Aiyah, those Chinese (like kaytee) are damn tricky ones ler, wakakaka, tap dancing their way around the matter of a required leap of faith.

You can blame Confucius for it, for the venerable sage told the Chinese, “Revere the gods BUT keep them at a bloody distance”.

Wakakaka, good old Kongfuzi (Master Kong) – pssst, the word ‘bloody’ was added by kaytee to spice Kongfuzi’s saying up a bit.


Born 15 to 20 years before the Persians freed the Judeans (Israelites) from their Babylonian captivity, and when the bible was said to be written (during the Judeans’ captivity), Kongfuzi wasn't much into heavy metal theology. The grand old man focused specifically on strong family ties and loyalty, and associated stuff such as ancestor worship, respect of elders (especially by their children) and best of all, respect of and obedience to husbands by their wives, wakakaka.

He was the originator of the saying "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself".

The other indigenous Chinese religion, Taoism, is often and most unfortunately mistaken with Chinese folk religion. Taoism is not unlike Confucianism or Buddhism, where it doesn't give a fig about an Omnipotent Omniscient Almighty Creator.

It is more into the ethical concept of wu-wei which in simple terms means 'action without action'. Oh, those tricky Chinese again, confusing us.

We are told, apparently, that in ancient Taoist texts, wu-wei is sometimes analogous with flowing water, in particular on the fluid’s yielding nature - water flows but on meeting an obstacle like a boulder, doesn't exert any force but instead yields and flows around the rock – thus, 'action without action'.

Wikipedia has this to say: Taoist philosophy proposes that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts their will against the world, they disrupt that harmony. Taoism does not identify one's will as the root problem. Rather, it asserts that one must place their will in harmony with the natural universe.

Thus, a potentially harmful interference is to be avoided, and in this way, goals can be achieved effortlessly.

"By wu-wei, the sage seeks to come into harmony with the great Tao, which itself accomplishes by nonaction."

I am sure you have heard of the popular saying “Be at One with the Universe”. Now, you know where it came from!

I also suspect Taoists were the original Greenies. Once I visited a Taoist monastery in Kunming, Yunnan, on top of Mingfeng Hill, where I found the place to be the most tranquil in my life’s experience. The environment was truly peaceful, soothing and serene.

Kunming Golden Temple

I am not sure whether it’s the fengshui layout of the monastery or the pine trees in its gardens and surrounding areas.

Laozi was said to the founder of Taoism, and Chinese often tell the story of how Confucius, his contemporary (or even junior), deferred often to the Taoist sage and sought Laozi’s advice.

When asked how he wanted to be interred when he passed away, Lao Tze was reputed to have said, “Bury me and the worms get my body, leave me exposed and I would be feeding the birds, so what’s the difference?”

But being the typical cunning tricky Chinese, he scooted out of China to the West (India?) before he died, and was never seen again. Thus there was no body of his to be claimed or fought over for interment.


Then Buddhism came from India to China, and (like most invaders) soon assumed a Chinese character and became Chan (Zen) Buddhism.

Taoism, Confucianism, Chan Buddhism - These three major Chinese religions (apart from Chinese folk religion) share a humanist philosophy emphasizing moral behavior and human perfection.

Humanist philosophy prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith.

Thus, it’s little wonder the Chinese were more receptive to communism, though, mind you, they have since change their minds, preferring instead the advice of Deng Xiaoping, who said “To be rich is glorious,” wakakaka.

Deng Xiaoping

When I was doing my HSC I recall reading an essay, I think one by Radhakrishnan), on the difference in Indians and Chinese political thinking or thoughts. He wrote that the former was so bound by Hinduism and the caste system that communism had no or very little chance of gaining a foothold amongst Indians who probably (then) needed the social system most, whereas those Chinese who “revere the gods but keep them at a distance” had no problem of faith and readily took on the new ideology of communism.

But back to the issue of faith, all (or most, if you exclude those tricky tap dancing Chinese religions, wakakaka) require some leap of faith, where the only difference would be what quantum of leap, a gi-normous one for each of the Abrahamic faiths or a teeny weeny ‘step over the local longkang’ type of leap for Buddhism and Jainism.

Symbol of Jainism

Ironically, the ones which require huge leaps of faith are the easier religions to follow – just do what you have been told, and you’d be saved – whereas the ones like Buddhism and Jainism are immensely difficult to follow, more so when there’s no brimstone and fire or Nicky waiting threateningly at the end.

As the nun-mentor of my late mum used to tell my family when she came to see my mum, “Buddhism is not a religion of mere following and just obeying, but a religion of doing. One cannot be a Buddhist by just believing; one must live and action the precepts of Buddhism.”

But regardless of gigantic or microscopic leaps of faith, of believing-obeying or actioning, faith in religions in the final analysis is all about saving oneself, of ensuring one's ‘hereafter’ (or 'hereafters' for Buddhists) will be akin to a 5-star international Hotel at Phuket or a 1st class sea cruise hosting a Playmates’ workshop.

To ensure your faith, some religions (surprisingly not Judaism) have old Nicky or Satan (the Syaitan Dr Mahathir said you know), who I believe becomes the unfortunate scapegoat for God’s negligence or mistakes, just so to ensure your faith in an infallible God does not falter.

Yes siree, God has a wonderful job description, namely, “take all credits for the wonders of this universe, miracles and acts of compassion, kindness and generosity, but blame the Devil for all wrongs, disasters and anything you don’t want to be associated with. And if cornered with unpleasant facts (eg. 350,000 innocent Indons killed during the Boxing Day tsunami), use the phrase ‘God works in mysterious ways’.”

Again, the damn Chinese are ever tricky, assigning the job of hell to a (folk religion) god, not unlike the ancient Greeks’ Hades (Romans’ Pluto). Thus a Chinese, who is neither a Christian or Muslim, can’t blame all evils to Satan, because there isn't any Satan. And if you badmouth the Chinese God of the Underworld, you won’t be popular when you meet that divine Auditor, who I am informed, has 36 levels of 'Correction' Halls, wakakaka.

Taoist, Confucianist, & Buddhist Chinese (like non-Chinese Buddhists) have learnt for thousands of years they themselves are responsible for their own mistakes, evils or moral crimes, which fortunately don't include visits to unisex hair salon or attending the concerts of Elton John or Inul Daratista or celebrating Valentine’s Day.

Inul Daratista

Faith! As my matey John used to tell me when my faith in his promise falters, “kaytee, have faith in me, trust me, after all I’m a lawyer.”

Hah, Faith! And who will be saved?

PAS tactical redeployment?

Malaysia-Today (26 Nov 2012) - K'tan govt firm on implementing Islamic law on non-Muslims

The Kelantan government remains firm on implementing Islamic law on non-Muslims despite strong objection from DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.
State Housing, Tourism, Arts and Culture Committee chairman Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan said the state government was prepared to face the risk of being sued by non-Muslims as each policy made in Kelantan was in line with the provisions in the Constitution.
"I don't want to comment on Karpal's statement. Firstly, I did not hear it directly from him, and secondly, if Karpal sees this legislation, he will agree with me. He's a lawyer.
"It's his right to sue the Kota Baharu Municipal Council (MPKB)...but read this law carefully, otherwise he (Karpal) will have to pay the (court) costs. We are not trying to be smart when we draw up a law or an act," he told a press conference at the MPKB building, here, today.

The Islamic morality by-laws implemented by the Kota Bharu Municipal Council are not meant to be expanded and implemented on non-Muslims, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said today.

This is clear in the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment (II) 1993, which is not applicable to non-Muslims, Hadi said in a statement.

* Tactical redeployment = retreat (temporarily? for a future advance?)

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Theocratic 3 P's - prohibit, persecute & punish

The lamentable incident (or incidents, since there have been more than one case) of municipal authorities in Kota Bharu applying Islamic laws and/or regulations on non-Muslims has been in some ways a blessing at this particular point in time, when many non-Muslims particularly Chinese are just about to vote overwhelmingly for PAS, an unusual voting trend even far greater than the one in March 2008 or in the several by-elections since.

Two factors have influenced the unusual non-Muslims' change of political preference for an Islamic party, one which they had previously feared (prior to the last general election). These factors have been:

(a) Their revulsion, particularly by Chinese Malaysians, for UMNO's utter corruption and unabated greed, vile, frightening and hurtful racism and, most of all, the sheer unabashed feral and teflon-ized arrogance, combined with total disgust for the sycophantic effeminate ineffectual political voice/influence of MCA, MIC and Gerakan, and

(b) PAS presentation of itself with a softer face, a party more concerned with combating corruption than religious proselytization, one that will promote social welfare and justice, and an antagonist, antithesis and antidote to the monstrous UMNO, as exemplified by the attractive personalities of Nik Aziz, Mat Sabu, Khalid Samad and most of all, Nizar Jamaluddin. Recently, even anti-Valentine Day's Nasrudin Hasan, the Chief of PAS Youth, has moderated his right-wing stance to assume a more affable persona.

popular and trusted Nizar Jamaluddin

But from time to time there have been slips by PAS where we caught glimpses of their true face, even of/from the leaders we had deemed very tolerant, those whom we could trust, respect and even love.

In August 2010, the frail grandfatherly-looking Pak Haji Nik Aziz showed his hard face when he called for the death sentence for those who dumped their babies born out of wedlock, but without mentioning or considering the social, cultural and yes, religious circumstances which left those young and probably teenage mums no or very little other choice.

The treatment by a secular state would have been diametrically opposite to Nik Aziz's cruel crushing capital punishment for those very much frightened 'mums', already suffering from desertion, desperation, and deprivation of love, support and compassion.

We should be placing emphasis on education, guidance and counselling rather than stoning people to death. And if society has been more understanding, and parents or families of the unfortunate young women provide support in accepting and caring for the unwanted babies, we would have less of ‘baby dumping’.

As if that was not cruel enough, he shocked us further by demanding that illicit (unmarried) lovers be stoned to death.

It's bad enough to have capital punishment without that barbarous Middle-Eastern atrocity, which is best left to the Arabs and Israelis (recall in which country was this first said “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her”?).

In Malaysiakini's Karpal locks horns with Nik Aziz over baby dumping, Karpal Singh commented that Nik Aziz's proposal was far too harsh, when more should instead be done to study the root cause of the baby dumping.

Bhai stated: “I am somewhat disturbed by the statement of Nik Aziz, who not only supports the use of capital punishment for those found guilty of dumping babies but has also asked for those committing illicit sex to be stoned to death.

“Nik Aziz should realise we do not live in primitive times. In the present time and age, the punishment of stoning to death, which is a cruel and unjust punishment, does not, and cannot have a place.” 

“What is required is an in-depth study of the reasons which lead to what has become a topic of grave concern ... what has to be looked at with the eye of a hawk is not the symptoms, but the cause, before resorting to cries for the death penalty.”

Mind you, UMNO couldn't claim any high grounds on the baby dumping tragedy, because Malaysiakini also told us that:

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil had previously called for cases of baby dumping to be filed as attempted murder or murder cases. According to the Penal Code, anyone convicted of murder carries a mandatory death sentence.

Datuk Paduka Marina Mahathir had once lamented in her Star column (as best as I can recall, in my own words) that one of Malaysia's deficiencies in its Islamic programs and implementations has been the poor educating of the government's Islamic clerics.

Now, if PAS' learned Mursyidul Am (spiritual advisor) could be so ferociously cruel in his outlook towards some Islamic 'crimes' (instead of being compassionate), what hope then is there for balanced and compassionate considerations from those less educated and less learned than him, plebes like those intrusive Kota Bharu municipal officers. 

Then to add chillies to the sad tragedies, as reported by Malaysiakini’s Valentine's Day blamed for baby dumping PAS Youth Chief Nasrudin Hassan bizarrely blamed celebrations on Valentine's Day and New Year's Day as the root cause, where these celebrations encourage free sex that has led to ... yadda yadda yadda ... culminating in baby dumping.

Nasrudin claimed: "It's an indication that the 'mating season' occurred during the New Year's Day celebrations."

My dear Nasrudin, New Year's Days and Valentine’s Days have been celebrated all over the world, yet other countries haven't had our kind of baby dumping. Why?

'Coz their societies are far more humane, compassionate, caring, supportive and less misogynistic. And we could certainly do with less of such nonsensical PAS self-interests-driven pronouncements.

Quite frankly, I have never heard of any theocratic state which was tolerant, balanced or compassionate, not even in medieval theocratic (Buddhist) Tibet.

Invariably, lowly educated or/and young clerics or religious enforcement officers, given almost unrestrained powers, would sense an uncontrollable compulsion to prohibit, persecute (not prosecute, though that'd come subsequently), and punish - if anything, just to show their powers, and to invoke fears (which they possibly mistake for respect).

This was amply demonstrated in the infamous Zouk nightclub raid by JAWI officers, where and when we witnessed how supposedly trained JAWI religious officers behaved like savage predators.

Some people just cannot handle power, and as I have just mentioned, would feel an overriding compulsive and sometimes addictive need to exercise that power.

And that’s exactly what occurred at the Zouk nightclub, where a religious departmental campaign to curb or stop un-Islamic, un-Malaysian behaviour, or that viewed as offensive to Asian values, degenerated into a disgraceful un-Islamic show of unfettered power and oppressive dominance by empowered officials.

Instead of counselling those young (and supposedly) social degenerates, the JAWI officials exploited their position of religious power to humiliate and terrorize the victims.

Those co-called moral police immorally forced the young sweeties caught in the nightclub to urinate right in the open in front of their hot, hungry, lustful and ogling eyes.

But I suppose we could still argue in the favour of those religious department officers by claiming they were diligently scrutinizing those young wayward women for any signs of deviant behaviour, for example, like peeing while standing up.

Their barbaric bad behaviour is guaranteed to happen again because the system provides near unbridled power to officials who lack knowledge in depth, intellectual capacity or good character to handle such authority. Abuses are likely to occur when power is not moderated by knowledgeable and scrupulous responsibility.

This was what occurred in police station such as in the notorious case of the nude ketuk ketumpi (ear-squats), and rape, as had recently occurred to an unfortunate Indonesian woman, as well as deaths.

PDRM's ketuk ketumbi

The common denominator is the unauthorized and uncontrolled exercise of power by those in authority on their unfortunate victims, namely, the power to dominate the victims, to make them do what the authority so desires, sometimes to stretch the exercise of power as far as the oppressors' imagination permits.

In such an innocent matter as unisex hairdressing in Kota Bharu, non-Muslims have already felt the adverse impact of Islamic rules, so what can we anticipate or forecast will be the case of the more punishing hudud for non-Muslims?

We now have to ask this question because it's evident from the Kota Bharu incident that we non-Muslims can no longer believe in PAS assurance the implementation of hudud won't affect non-Muslims.

In January 2009, when Lim Guan Eng was in Kuala Terengganu to campaign for PAS in a by-election, he was grilled by reporters on the hudud issue.

According to Malaysiakini’s Hadi, Guan Eng grilled over hudud, Lim Guan Eng firmly asserted:

"If any problems occur, we will resolve it through musyawarah, that is through discussions. All three parties must hold discussions and if a consensus is not reached, it must be discussed again.”

"This means, should PKR and PAS agree to implement hudud and DAP disagrees then it cannot be implemented. Everything must be discussed until all three parties agree.”

But Malaysiakini's journalist Andrew Ong pointed out, that as Lim GE talked for 5 minutes on the Pakatan agreement for consensus before implementation, Pak Haji Hadi Awang was noticeably uncomfortable. [Was he squirming or rolling eyes or sneering?]

Andrew said the all too obvious body language forced Terengganu PAS chief Mustafa Ali to leap in to salvage the situation. Mustafa stated that hudud was not an issue in the Kuala Terengganu by-election as the results would not have any impact on the state or federal government.

Not so now

That was then, but what about now regarding the immediate situation if/when a Pakatan government rules the nation after GE-13?

As I blogged in Anwar Ibrahim misleading on PAS hudud intention,  Karpal Singh was less than impressed by Anwar's assurance to the (non-Muslim) voters in Kuala Terengganu that there was no need to reject the hudud proposal as it was only applicable to Muslims. He had also glibly dismissed Karpal’s remark that the PAS proposed legislation was unconstitutional.

But we then read in Malaysiakini's Karpal: Anwar's statement on hudud misleading that Bhai shot down Anwar’s statement as a fallacy! In other words, it was Grade 1 bull!

I recall before the demise of Lim Kean Siew, the well-known Labour Party politician and subsequently MCA leader, he remarked with a cynical laugh about (perhaps even  sneered at) MCA’s ignorance on the significance of Dr Mahathir proclaiming Malaysia as an Islamic nation, stating (words to the effect, that’s the best I can do) “they don’t know what an Islamic nation means, and just what they are getting into!”

Lim Kean Siew

So, MCA has been just as culpable and complicit in Dr Mahathir’s Islamic Malaysia, and thus in no f* position to point any finger at anyone, until it does so at itself, first!

But we should consider as a blessing in disguise the impulse of an increasingly arrogant PAS, as it believes it's on the threshold of federal ruling power, to show its cards, or to sting its water-carriage even before reaching the other shore. 'Tis its 3-P's nature.

Angkuh PAS has struck again

Malaysiakini - KB hairdresser in trouble for styling man's hair

A female hairdresser of a salon in Kota Bharu has been summoned by the municipal council for cutting a male customer's hair.

Kota Bharu municipal council secretary Mohd Anis Hussein explained that unisex service is banned in the town's hair salons.

According to a Sin Chew Daily report, the incident happened to Ong Lee Ting, a hairdresser with E-Life hair salon located in the KB Mall shopping complex.

Ong reportedly said that while she was working on the hair of a male customer at around 9 pm on Tuesday night, a municipal council enforcer in plain clothes suddenly appeared and issued her a summons for cutting the hair of a member of the opposite sex.

She claimed that her brother, also a hairdresser, was also banned from serving female customers, significantly reducing his commission. To make ends meet, he was forced to leave Kota Bharu two months ago to work in Johor.

"This is a shopping mall. The monthly rental is more than RM10,000. The operating cost is very high. The lady boss chose to open the salon here because of its crowd.

"In addition, our salon setting is very open, (outsiders) can see us cutting or dying hair for customers. It is impossible for anything unhealthy to happen here," she was quoted as saying.

Ong commented that
Kelantan state government should not enforce Islamic rules on non-Muslims.

PAS preferred barber for men

What says you PAS? What about your "guarantee" that hudud won't be applied to non-Muslism when such a simple non-hudud-ish situation like unisex hair dressing by non-Muslims (not Muslims) was pounced upon by your Islamic police?

or this

The scorpion has stung AGAIN in mid-stream - 'tis the nature of an increasing arrogant (angkuh) creature.

but definitely NOT this

Friday, November 23, 2012

Haris Ibrahim & RPK

Today I'll make a minor change or rather, adjustment, to my posting plan. I have prepared a post on the recent verbal stoush between Pak Haji Hadi Awang and Dr Mahathir on the subject of who is the Devil, wakakaka.

But this morning after reading Bro Haris Ibrahim's post (via Free Malaysia Today) titled Laying my RPK ghost to rest, once and for all I feel very very sad in realizing that a potentially marvellous partnership in the promotion of Malaysian civil liberty (cum nouveau political) awakening has now come to an end - thus this post instead of the prepared one on the 'Devil' you know all too well.

I hope the current war of words between them won't affect their friendship, despite the infamous Malaysian Bush-like attitude towards political differences. 

Needless to say, those who have been long riled by RPK's comments unfavourable to Anwar Ibrahim and some PKR senior leaders have lapped up Bro Haris' post like starving hounds and smacked their lips with much relish, wakakaka - hah, at last their suspicions and anger against RPK have been vindicated by a credible person.

But for me, I reckon it's a very sad moment in the campaign by both to instigate Malaysian political-civil-liberty awakening, one that calls more for a dirgeful rather than celebratory or triumphant reaction. Anyway, that's kaytee's personal feelings at the humongous loss of this erstwhile tremendous partnership.

Another Anak Bangsa Malaysia, one of the commentators at Bro Haris blog, stood out from the pack of syiok sendiri salivating wolves in stating (note in particular my highlighted bits):

I am sorry to hear that you and RPK have called it quits. Together with others, the both of you have contributed much to making Malaysia a better place and I doubt if we would have come this far without you guys providing the leadership you have in the past and which you, Haris, are still providing today. 
I am taking on faith, the claims that RPK has been bought over but I also bear in mind that there is no solid evidence other than the words of others who have said so. 
On my part, I have no intention of ostracizing RPK despite what I have been told for the simple reason that I find some of his writings interesting from a philosophical perspective, eg some of his essays on Islam. 
Many of his articles are rather tiresome and bland due to the predictable nature of his ranting and it is easy to see why many people object to what he says. Personally, I think his intentions are to make people think but, unfortunately, slapping someone around the head and ramming something down a person’s throat whilst insisting it is good for you does not always endear one to others. 
RPK’s abrasive attitude is probably one of his shortcomings. I don’t know if it is due to his royal status or his bitterness at being excluded from the Malaysian political scene or the personal toll which exile has taken on him or what. 
Where you and ABU are concerned, my stance has not changed. I have always believed you are a person of great integrity and honesty deserving of my total support.
The fact that you stand up as being a Malaysian first and foremost also finds resonance with my own personal thoughts as I have always found it strange that when I was growing up, I seemed to be the only Malaysian amongst my Malay, Chinese and Indian friends. 
Maybe circumstances will change after GE13 and you and RPK can settle your differences under calmer conditions. Who knows? Until that happens, 
More power to you, Haris Ibrahim.

My exact thoughts!

Before I end this sad reflection, I suppose I could offer my personal thoughts on what I believe to be the possible cause of their current regrettable difference.

Bro Haris is very dedicated to the concept of ABU, which incidentally I don't agree 100% but support in general and only grudgingly, with many qualifications (I will soon have another post on this, my personal reservations about ABU).

He is single-minded about his ABU campaign because he cannot stomach any longer the gross excesses of the BN government, in particular UMNO. Every reservation or 'but's ...', etc, on and about this sweeping anti-UMNO campaign is to him trivial or insignificant by comparison to the unmitigated evil of UMNO.

RPK, on the other hand, has qualms about replacing UMNO with an UMNO-clone or more correctly, an UMNO entity all this while in sheep's clothing.

He had for years tolerated a known ferocious and carnivorous political macan tutul memakai kulit kambing (one which hasn't, can't and more dangerously, won't changed its spots) until, as I suspect, no longer has any expectation of the leopard, nope, none of Isaiah 11:6 (KJV) which tells us that:

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

I believe therein in their difference is the reason for their parting of ways a la Ezekiel 21:21 (KJV):

For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver.

One is prepared to tolerate Anwar Ibrahim in the highest political post if it means removing UMNO from government, while the other considers that there will be no change to the Malaysian political scenario if it is just about replacing UMNO with Anwar Ibrahim (and inner core).

Just my thoughts.


The other difference between Bro Haris and RPK that I have observed (correctly, I hope) and wish to add is that the former (Haris) is very scrupulous in his information while RPK (wakakaka) has a more easy going whatever-it-takes & bend-it-like-Becker attitude in presenting his stories, a sort of 'the end justifies the means' approach. ;-)