Monday, December 22, 2014

Ride the Islamic tiger, risk becoming cat food

On this blue Monday (malas nak kerja lah what with the approaching long Xmas-New Year holidays, wakakaka, the mood is not quite there) I reproduce below what I wrote four years ago for the Centre for Policy Initiatives, then with the encouragement and support of a dear dear but sob erstwhile matey.

Even my other dear friend HY wakakaka left a comment there.

I had then left a friendly message for the DAP which is still very relevant today, especially today, wakakaka:

[note that my phrase below of 'God proposes, man disposes' is a role reversal of the original idiom 'Man proposes, God disposes', indicating the dangerous powers of some clerics ... indeed, of all religions ... where those 'Men' could claim to speak with the voice of, and mandate from, God]

A modern Asian myth has it that Lee Kuan Yew is the only man to ever ride a communist tiger without being eaten by the 'beast'.
In the mid-50s he teamed up with the incorruptible, dedicated and charismatic Lim Chin Siong (left), a left wing trade unionist, to form the People's Action Party (PAP). But Chin Siong was wrongly accused of being a communist, where some suspect he was set up by then anti-communist Lim Yew Hock, British Singapore's Chief Minister, and the British authorities.
Even Kuan Yew acknowledged Chin Siong was a selfless man with a Spartan lifestyle, and a mesmerizing orator who was totally dedicated to his cause, and in fact the man who set the gold standard for Singapore's renowned integrity in public governance. But it was said too that Kuan Yew so feared Chin Siong's immense popularity with Singaporeans that he got rid of him when the latter formed the Barisan Socialis, detaining him under the ISA as a 'communist'. 
Though declassified British documents prove that Chin Siong was never a communist, Singaporeans continue to believe that he was one, as a result of years of the authorities' black propaganda against him. Thus the myth of Lee Kuan Yew surviving the ride on the communist tiger remains.
As the Italian say, Se non è vero, è ben trovato meaning "Even if it's not true, it's a good story."
In Malaysia today, we fear another such attempt in the making -- that of Lim Guan Eng riding the Islamic tiger. We do know not yet whether he will survive though my guess is, alas, he won't, for the reason majority-Muslim Malaysia today isn't the same as majority-Chinese Singapore in the 1950s.
Wooing the Malay electorate 
Since March 2008, some DAP leaders have been courting Malay voters in order to dispel the Barisan Nasional stigmatization of the DAP as a Chinese-based political party. Obviously this is necessary as more than 60% of Malaysian voters are Malays, and the DAP realizes that it can never aspire to be a significant political force without their support.
Ironically, like Lim Chin Siong, Lim Guan Eng is an incorruptible dedicated leader who too lives a personal austere Spartan lifestyle, and has shown his care for the poor and elders of Penang. These and his going to jail some years ago in seeking justice for an underage Malay girl are already redoubtable models to showcase the DAP as a worthy multi-racial party to the Malay voters.
Yet DAP has gone one step further, choosing to project itself as a pro-Islamic organization.
Guan Eng has often referred to the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz as his model for a scrupulously clean and thrifty government which cares for the ordinary people, while another DAP leader Nga Kor Ming is known for spouting quotations from the Quran. 
Apart from the obvious need to expand its Malay-Muslim base, there have been other compelling reasons for DAP to expedite its wooing of the Malays via the Islamic avenue. The party has been concerned about the future of Anwar Ibrahim as well as the politics of PKR.
Anwar has served a vital role as the bridge and glue for the new coalition, Pakatan Rakyat which has PAS and DAP with antipodal ideologies. If Anwar is forcefully removed from the Malaysian political landscape, it is unlikely that PKR will be able to provide a substitute of equal stature and charisma. Thus DAP has decided on the worst case scenario where it will be required to work directly with PAS. What better time than to start now, and perhaps sneak a ride on the Islamic tiger.
But PAS, unlike the Singapore trade unionists, is no ordinary tiger. It is endowed with divine Teflon stripes. In a religious state, when power hungry men can overturn the tables into 'God proposes, man disposes', the potential for gross injustice cannot be understated or overestimated.
Take for example what PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang said in a press conference on Nov 12, 2003, after the launching of the blueprint on the introduction of Islamic laws in Malaysia. When asked what would happen to the existing [BN] policies which give focus to bumiputeras such as quotas under PAS's claimed meritocracy in an Islamic state, Hadi answered:
"The reality today is that the majority of the poor are bumiputeras. Hence, for the initial period, focus will be on the bumiputera. There may be a situation in the future that the bumiputeras will overcome their problems, and the Indians become the majority of the poor. Then, it will be the responsibility of the country to look after the Indian community. It will depend on the situation. [...] We are not disposing or dispensing with the term bumiputera." 
Not unlike Umno, PAS' Islam would be an Islam with a strong Malay flavour. Under the Islamist party, even the already proven-to-be-marginalized Indians have to wait until the Malays have been 'rescued'.
The matter of hudud 
Then there's PAS Youth chief, Nasrudin Hassan (left), who was looking for an excuse to insert hudud into Malaysia's justice system. He saw the horrendous murder of businesswoman Sosilawati Lawiya and three others as an opportunity to propose that hudud replaces the current system. How hudud would have prevented the murders when the current justice system hasn't was not explained. 
Mind you, this is the same PAS leader who blamed Valentine's Day and New Year's eve celebrations for the social ill of baby dumping. Of course he didn't explain why Valentine's Day is celebrated all over the world without incurring Feb 14 pregnancies (and our kind of baby dumping) in those countries. 
We've also read of how in Saudi Arabia, three supposedly learned Islamic judges victimize the minorities, i.e. a Shiite, or one of the female gender (rape victim). The usual apologists in Malaysia offer the predictable excuses that the Saudi clerics' outrageous injustice was not influenced by Islamic jurisprudence but rather Arab tribal custom -- despite the obvious fact that the verdict had been delivered by Muslim judges in an Islamic nation that is the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad.
'Tribal custom' was the same pathetic excuse offered when Pakistan, a nation which subscribes fully to Islamic laws, saw the horror of the oxymoronic 'honour rape' perpetrated against Mukhtaran Bibi.
Even the already ridiculous claims of tribal revenge against the woman and her teenage brother were subsequently discovered to be the sheer fabrications of lustful men. But the criminals were not apprehended while their victim was harassed and ostracized. 
Where was the syariah and hudud laws in all of this? It had to be secular international pressure which forced the Pakistani president to order the arrest of the criminals. 
But syariah laws or not, those 'honour rapes' continue in Pakistan even after that shameful case. Three years after the victimization of Mukhtaran, another sensational case occurred where seven men kidnapped and gang-raped a woman over two days in retaliation for some perceived wrong.
Were these the examples that the PAS Youth Leader wants us to believe his hudud laws can prevent? 
But what worries me most was when PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat recently claimed only DAP chairman Karpal Singh in his party was against the implementation of hudud laws, whose implementation, in their mind, would solve all of the world's problems, the Pakistani and Saudi shameful examples notwithstanding. 
In asserting the DAP (all of party cadres and leaders) only minus Karpal is for hudud, Nik Aziz might have harboured high expectations from Guan Eng and Kor Ming's frequent references to Islamic governance and the Quran.
Let me advice those DAP leaders who want to ride the Islamic tiger that you are unlikely to succeed! 
Its consequence would not only be the riders becoming meals for a big cat but in a reiteration of my earlier remark, in a religious state, when power hungry men can overturn the tables into 'God proposes, man disposes', the potential for gross injustice cannot be understated or overestimated.

Our only protection is the current constitution and the secular civil courts, warts and all.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Dilemma of Muslim Pollies

TMI - PKR Muslim MPs undecided on PAS’s hudud bill

Melayu mudah lupa?

PKR's Muslim MPs have refused to say whether they will vote against a private member's bill to be tabled in Parliament by PAS which would pave the way for hudud to be enforced in Kelantan.

PKR secretary-general Rafizi Ramli said the party would only make a stand on the issue once it sees a draft of the bill.

“It is premature for me to comment on this. If there is a draft of the bill, we want to see it first. Then we will bring the matter up for discussion at the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) presidential council.”

Rafizi said he respected Kelantan PAS’s right to proceed with their state assembly sitting, adding that PR will discuss how to respond to the proposed bill.

“I do not want to jump the gun on this. We want to methodically deal with this at the national level, just like how we did so in the past,” said Rafizi, who is also Pandan MP.

Poor bastards (and I mean 'bastards' in the Ozzie way which is the same as 'blokes', wakakaka), I don't blame them at all, much as I love to blame PKR pollies (politicians), wakakaka.

And this is what I mean by my post title, that for a Muslim, hudud or any Islamic issue is a sensitive subject, and even if he/she wants to, is not something he/she can speak his/her mind freely, as Nurul Izzah found out to her horror, fright and subsequent panic - for more on Nurul's fright, read my March 2014 post titled 3 sweeties, only 1 real Princess Reformasi.

I wonder whether she has thrown her guitar away by now? wakakaka.

Canto says "Hoe t'ai mm hoe sek"

DAP's two Malay MPs (Zairil Khir and Ariff Sabri), I suspect, will toe the party's line against PAS' desire to implement hudud. Zairil has said so openly while I have read a much earlier post on hudud by Sakmongkol (Ariff Sabri) who, if my recollection is correct (and I take responsibility for any faulty recall, apologies in advance), had said it's not quite time yet to bring in hudud.

Unless a Muslim is like Siti Kassim, the delectable SIS sweeties or Marina Mahathir, all of whom wear the pants with real male-type gonads (my apologies to the sweeties for my pseudo-idiomatic expression, wakakaka), it's dangerous to say anything against the clerical-official stand in any controversial Islamic issue - poor Nurul Izzah.

This has been how those (Kassim Ahmad's) priesthood caste (of many many religions) has gotten away with their nasty religious doctrines, pronouncements and teachings for several thousand years - also read RPK's God does not believe in human rights.

was that really God's law?

or of those misogynistic priesthood caste?

what about No 3?
Satan's work?

But it also spells the end of Pakatan as we had known it between 2008 to 2013 and prior to the lamentable Rancid Satay episode.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Hudud - now elastic, now not so?

Hudud is known as a 'claim of God' or His divine laws, and therefore are immutable.

Immutable means 'unchanging over time or unable to be changed'.

Under hudud, sodomy between man and man, and man and a woman who is not his wife is punishable.

However, the Islamic law is silent on a husband shagging his wife in her behind.

I wonder whether this has to do with the clerics staying clear of a married man's affairs (in other words, what the husband does to the wife is his own business) or it has to do with the value system of the Middle East in those ancient times, where a wife was considered as chattel or a mere property of her husband.

So, amidst such legal silence, a Muslim husband could sodomize his wife with impunity, consensual or otherwise.

In fact, I dare say the word 'consensual' didn't even enter into the equation as, recall, she was a mere chattel and therefore possessed no opinion or free will.

All that will changed soon in Kelantan as its PAS government has avowed that such an act, that of a husband sodomizing his wife, will be considered an offence under hudud - for more, read the Malay Mail Online's No anal sex in marriages, Kelantan clarifies in hudud amendments.

Praise be, praise be, what wonderful news. I am so impressed by the PAS government which has announced this important news about an amendment to the hudud. We can straightaway see they have their priority right - indeed, right where the anus may be affected.

But wait, I do have a slight niggling concern, not that I should as I am only a non-Muslim.

Isn't hudud immutable?

So how could PAS amend the the current Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code Enactment II, or hudud law, which was passed in 1993 and which, as we discussed above, only prohibits anal sex between men or between a man and a woman out of wedlock, but not between a hubby and wifey?

But look, if they can amend the hudud on an aspect of anal sex, and mind you we have to acknowledge this is quite quite quite important (at least for PAS), does this mean that they can further amend said Criminal Code to do away with, say, amputation of limbs and various body parts, and also lashing and whipping?

Obviously they can as what's good for the safety and security of the goose (or wives' anuses) should be also good for the gander (or limbs, body parts and skin, flesh and bones).

Yessiree, if Kelantan's PAS government can amend one law then logic tells us they can other laws as well.

But I doubt they will as clerics who are so concerned about punishing people would be unlikely to support removing the scary part of hudud, because if they can't scare people how will they be able to control them.

916 - allegations of royal involvement

FMT - Anwar tried to get Mohd Puad to switch parties

KUALA LUMPUR: Umno Supreme Council member Mohd Puad Zarkashi told the High Court here today that three individuals including opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim attempted to get him to switch parties in 2008.

The two other individuals were former PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution who contacted him in Taiwan, and Anwar’s friend, Abdul Rahim Ghouse who met him in Johor. Both incidents took place in September 2008, according to the witness. [...]

“Anwar told me, ‘Puad, we have enough members and it’s going to happen but we still need a Malay MP from Johor like you to be with us’.”

He also said four Sultans had agreed and stated their support for Pakatan Rakyat to take over the federal government. He mentioned Perlis, Perak, Terengganu and Selangor.

“I asked Anwar, ‘How about the Malay agenda?’ and the plaintiff replied he would protect the Malay agenda.

Wow, an alleged royal imprimatur supporting 916?


Any plausibility on any of those 4 state rulers mentioned as they seem to me as most unlikely ones to support Anwar?

Monday, December 15, 2014

Can Sarawak's Christian god migrate to Peninsula?

Malay Mail Online - Are we immigrants or citizens? East Malaysian Christians ask amid differing rules on Bibles

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 13 — Bumiputra Christians living in peninsular Malaysia are feeling hard done by, as some of the rights they always had in Sabah and Sarawak have suddenly disappeared down the alleyways of regional rule-making.

Ending a standoff that started in January, Islamic religious authorities in Selangor recently returned over 300 Bibles they had seized but only after marking them in red with a warning against use in the state because the books refer to God by the Arabic word “Allah.”

That would not have happened in Sabah or Sarawak.

Although the Bibles were not meant to be used in Selangor, the situation has left many East Malaysian Christians feeling a little uneasy that the certainties of their home states are worth less across the South China Sea.

Forty something Sarawakian Oswald Bindin described the rules as problematic, forcing him to reflect on questions of identity, origin and citizenship after making Selangor his home for 22 years.

“We see a double standard. For example, I’m from Sarawak and there is no restriction there. I want to ask, what is my status now that I’m in the peninsula?

“I want to ask, am I an immigrant or am I a citizen, this is a question I want to ask, this is important,” the practising Iban Catholic told Malay Mail Online in Malay.

Malaysians “don’t have a choice” and are “ forced to follow” whatever the government, or the people in power decide, he added.

Oswald Bindin asked a very pertinent question on citizenship, where he felt (presumably still does) that the Selangor State prohibition on the use of the word 'Allah' for the Christian god has put a question mark over his citizenship as a Malaysian.

I have a lot to say, especially about citizens and migration*, and as a start I want to point out two things, namely:

[* immigration refers to relocation to a country, while migration refers to the movement from one region to another - either within a country or across national borders - from website]

(a) why should the prohibition raise questions on Oswald Bindin's citizenship because it is directed at all in Selangor, not just immigrants or migrants; Selangoreans of Peninsula extract have to comply as well.

Unlike Binin, his fellow Iban Matthew Jambon has not been ridiculously preposterous or merajuk-ish in his personal dissatisfaction but in fact very constructive-minded. Jambon has lived in Selangor for the past 19 years, and as quoted by TMI, said he accepts the rules here (ie. in Selangor) but insisted that it will not change the way he practises his faith.

“It’s alright, since we live in Selangor, we will just adhere to the rules in Selangor. If we are in Sarawak, we will follow the rules in Sarawak."

Well said, that 'when in Rome, ... etc etc etc'.

(b) it's also known, that is written in the Constitution, that the state Sultan is the head of Islam in his state and has within his purview all matters related to Islam and Muslims, including use of the word 'Allah', as already ruled by the Malaysian courts.

As background to (b) above, I quote the TMI report which states: The controversy over non-Muslim usage of the Arabic word for God erupted in 2007 when the federal government first banned the Catholic Church from publishing the word “Allah” in the Malay section of its weekly newspaper, Herald.

The Catholic Church retaliated by filing a legal suit against the government. A lengthy legal battle followed and Malaysia’s highest court ruled last year that the paper cannot use the word “Allah” as it is not integral to Christianity.

We are talking about Peninsula in general and Selangor in particular, and the Federal Court has been spot on in stating that in (Peninsula) Malaysia "the word 'Allah' ..... is not integral to Christianity".

I know Christians reading this will be outraged by kaytee's stand, and man, do I have many staunch Christian friends. But hey, my stand on the 'Allah' word has not been new as I, a Chinese Penangite from a Buddhist-Taoist-Confucian family (with a sprinkling of family members being Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and two distant cousins married to Muslims) but personally an atheist (wakakaka) have between 2010 to 2013, very much to the chagrin of my Christian mateys, posted the following, among many others on topic: 


Incidentally, Yayasan Lentera Bangsa, a publishing house in Indonesia, published a direct-translated al Kitab for Indonesian use which drops the word 'Allah' completely, and uses in place the Hebraic words Elohim and Yahweh.

I wonder whether it's this same al Kitab that was rejected by Father Lawrence Andrew of the Catholic Church and editor of its news weekly The Herald four years ago?

In case you do not know who is Father Lawrence Andrew, just read through my 3 posts above, wakakaka. He's the bloke who started the furor over the use of the 'Allah' word by Christians to refer to their god in Malay language church services and documents.

Okay, it doesn't matter whether it was the al Kitab offered by Yayasan Lentera Bangsa or not, Father Andrew told AFP in April 2009 about the release of a new Malay language bible that does not use the word ‘Allah’. The news item was picked up by the Free Republic, a conservative American online news portal.

The new al Kitab or Malay-language Bible had referred to God as ‘Elohim’ rather than ‘Allah’. This displeased Father Lawrence Andrew who stated:

"The Catholic bible that the church uses has the word 'Allah' for God whereas in comparison, this one does not."

"The new Malay bible weakens the argument for using the word Allah because some groups are trying to substitute God with a foreign name, whereas Allah is the Malay word for God and has been the accepted translation for centuries."

So, according to Father Andrew, Elohim is a foreign name for God while Allah is not. I wonder where the word Allah originated from?

WHAT??! From the same region as Elohim? Surely not!


I wonder whether he would also argue that Nabi Isa (pbuh) is considered a name of foreign origin while Jesus Christ is a name in the Malay language?

But far more importantly, one just has to ask: Why consider the new Malay-language bible as ‘weakening’ the use of ‘Allah’ when it has actually reinforced reference to God’s name as per the original ‘Elohim’?

Yes, what did Father Andrew meant by that, which I believe to be a Freudian slip?

Then, who other than him says "Allah is the Malay word for God and has been the accepted translation for centuries", and who decides on "the accepted translation for centuries" and what are the criteria for that process?

Let's leave Father Lawrence Andrew to his Malay versus foreign language mulling, wakakaka, and move on to another (earlier) piece of news report, namely, TMI's Sarawak church pleads for right to use ‘Allah’ throughout Malaysia. The report stated (extract only):

A major Sarawak church has made an impassioned plea for the right to use the word “Allah” for worship throughout Malaysia, telling Datuk Seri Najib Razak that state Islamic prohibitions have taken away "the most important thing in our lives".

The Sarawak-based Borneo Evangelical Mission or the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) finally broke its silence over the burning issue, weeks after the Selangor Islamic authorities returned to the state churches some 300 Malay and Iban Bibles containing the word “Allah” seized in January from distributor Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM). [...]

SIB president Reverend Dr Justin Wan said in a statement to The Malaysian Insider ........ hundreds of Sarawak and Sabah Christian students attending universities and institutes of higher learning in the peninsula, saying "the majority of whom were educated completely in the Bahasa Malaysia medium, the product of the National Education Policy and with little exposure to English."

"These students would only be comfortable worshipping in Bahasa Malaysia," he said, adding that many Sarawak and Sabah Christians educated in Bahasa Malaysia have flocked to and settled in the Klang Valley and other parts of the peninsula for better prospects in life but use "Allah" in their worship, similar to their parents and ancestors.

"And naturally, they will continue to do so in Semenanjung Malaysia. Therefore, even if the prohibition were to apply only to the states in Semenanjung Malaysia and not to Sabah and Sarawak, the high mobility of people between Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula makes observance difficult, particularly for our members.

"This will have the overall effect of harming national integration and destroying all efforts at realising the country's 1Malaysia vision," said Wan.

I am sure you know what 'evangelistic' means, wakakaka, and what it holds for non-Christians, wakakaka again.

But rather dwell on the churches' evangelistic nature I am more interested in Reverend Dr Justin Wan's remarks that "many Sarawak and Sabah Christians educated in Bahasa Malaysia have flocked to and settled in the Klang Valley and other parts of the peninsula for better prospects in life" and "the high mobility of people between Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula makes observance difficult, particularly for our members."

I have many Sarawakian and Sabahan friends and always treasure their presence in Peninsula which they have every right to be in, because it's their own country, inasmuch as Malaysia is for Perakians, Kedahans, Malaccans, etc.

But I wonder whether Sarawakians and Sabahans like Oswald Bindin who has merajuk-ishly stated “We see a double standard. For example, I’m from Sarawak and there is no restriction there. I want to ask, what is my status now that I’m in the peninsula? I want to ask, am I an immigrant or am I a citizen, this is a question I want to ask, this is important,” know that Peninsula Malaysians have to have a travel document (based on KP or IC) as an alternative to the Malaysian Passport and Restricted Travel Document (in accordance with Part VII, Special Provisions For East Malaysia, Immigration Act 1959/63) to enter Sarawak and Sabah, as if they are foreigners, and worse, may even be denied entry or be deported, like Brother Haris Ibrahim, Ambiga Sreenevasan and many more.

Additionally the duration of their stay unlike that for Oswald Bindin in Selangor or any Peninsula state is limited to a maximum of 90 days, a duration I enjoy in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the USA, Canada etc.

Oswald Bindin, you have been welcome in Peninsula Malaysia precisely because you're a Malaysian but are you aware that your state has not only limit Peninsula Malaysians to only a maximum of 90 days stay like many foreign countries but has also banned and denied entry to many Peninsula Malaysians, so think before you talked about who's a citizen and who's an immigrant.

Indeed, think about which state is practicing double standards in its treatment of Malaysian citizens.

Di Mana Bumi Dipijak, Di Situ Langit Dijunjung is a great Malay peribahasa but it shouldn't extend to barring citizens as if they are foreigners, and on this I include Alvin Tan's case, wakakaka.

Friday, December 12, 2014

A troubled Sultan of Selangor?

Malaysiakini - Sultan: I could have opted for PAS MB, but...

Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah said he "could have" opted to install a menteri besar from PAS to end the recent MB crisis in the state, but he chose PKR's Azmin Ali for the "long term".

In an interview with The Star, Sharafuddin said he was "shocked" when PKR objected to Azmin's proposed appointment, saying that PKR was "very, very selfish".

"He is from the same party but they rejected (Azmin) because of self interest," the sultan is reported as saying.

He stressed that he was not against a woman MB, following the Selangor palace's refusal to accept the nomination of PKR president Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the new MB.

"I am not against any woman becoming MB but my benchmark is that she must be like the Bank Negara governor," he said. "They (the women) should be able to stand on their own without being under remote control."

I got him

and you too - thunderous applause please


Why has HRH come out to give the reason for his choice of MB to replace Khalid Ibrahim? By convention, he doesn't need to. Indeed, why did he do the unprecedented, in granting an interview with The Star for this purpose?

As I had posted on 28 September this year, in my post Only human and not a mere god-king:

HRH explained why he selected Azmin Ali as the new MB of Selangor, then he defended Khalid Ibrahim's record as the previous MB.

The former was in response to severe criticisms of his alleged breach of his constitutional role in ignoring the majority choice of Dr Wan as the new MB, while the latter was in response to him allowing Khalid Ibrahim to remain as MB for more than a month after Khalid Ibrahim was already expelled by PKR and rejected by the majority in the DUN, which in itself was also seen as a breach of his constitutional role.

In other words, his current explanation or justification for his decisions regarding the MB position or situation has NOT been his first, having been preceded by an earlier announcement in late September, almost two months ago.

Royalty doesn't simply provide news media with opportunities for interviews, so it would seem that for HRH to do so, again, he must have been deeply troubled by the unhappiness among his subjects, which would have reached his royal ears. And thus 'disturbed' and perturbed, he must have felt a compulsion to speak out again to explain his decision.

In September I had then written: But the point of this post is not to revisit all those arguments, but to mull over the fact that HRH saw fit to make public statements explaining his decisions over the recent MB issue, which many constitutional experts have criticized.

HRH needn't do so but his actions (in explaining his decisions), as I suspect, have shown him to be only human and not an aloof couldn't-be-bothered god-king figure.

Would we be correct in concluding he must have been troubled by the criticisms.

Yes, as humans we want to be liked.

What do you think? Will you be prepared to accept HRH's explanations as justified?

The majority of you must have said 'No', because from the interactive forums of news media I am afraid that even HRH's second explanation has not been well received by most commentators. And alas, we can't say HRH doesn't care two hoots because of the fact that he has seen fit to speak out twice, within two mere months.

Some comments from the news media interactive forums said the usual, that HRH lacks understanding of his constitutional role which, in the choice of a MB for the state, would be limited to only approving the nomination of the majority of the State Assembly, effectively the choice of the political party or coalition with the winning majority in the House.

By Westminster convention this seems to be the expected constitutional procedure.

However, there is an occasion when the constitutional ruler may object to a political choice, and that would be when he has reason to believe the candidate for the position of MB (or at federal level for the Agong, the PM) cannot in general fulfill the executive role.

For example, the candidate could be suffering from serious illness, or have a history of financial improprieties, or is a bankrupt, or is already notorious for or even suspected of associations with disreputable social elements, etc, basically, a candidate seen to be unable to fulfill the role of PM or MB properly.

Back to just post-2008 general/state elections, the Regent of Perak might have come to believe an ex postman was not a suitable candidate for MB. Maybe HRH was then a wee snobbish but we saw him select a PAS man who was an engineer. Fortuitously, it was a wonderful serendipitous choice for us because Nizar Jamaluddin turned out to be an excellent MB.

Now back to Selangor, whether the original Pakatan choice for MB, Dr Wan Azizah, fell within such an unaccepted area, it was clearly stated by HRH that he believes that Dr Wan would be a state MB who could NOT be able, in general, to fulfill the executive role.

HRH gave the reason that Dr Wan Azizah would be 'remotely controlled' by you-know-who, meaning she would have become a puppet MB.

Whether we agree with HRH, and many of the readers on the news media interactive forums don't, wakakaka, let's nonetheless examine some issues which might have given HRH those adverse perceptions.

Firstly, Dr Wan Azizah is known by almost everyone to be a reluctant politician. Could such a reluctant politician be an effective MB, or as HRH suspects, a mere front for 'someone'? Regrettably we would never know because the opportunity for her to perform as MB has already passed.

Secondly, Dr Wan Azizah is known (and termed by kaytee) as the 'super sub'. In my July post with that title The super sub, I had written:

But we have to acknowledge that Dr Wan Azizah is Pakatan's super sub, the term being well-known in soccer.

It refers to (Wikipedia): "Players who are noted for scoring important goals when coming off the bench or frequently making appearances as a substitute."

Dr Wan Azizah belongs to the later group, those frequently making appearances as a substitute rather than who are noted for scoring important goals when coming off the bench.

She substituted for her husband as (his ousted UMNO) faction leader after he was jailed following conviction for sodomy; she also took his position as MP for Permatang Pauh; and now she replaces him as candidate for the recent Kajang by-election, the central figure of the so-called 'Kajang Move', ...

... and let's not deny or pretend not to know that was nothing more than a political manoeuvre to mainly satisfy PKR's internal leadership struggle. Thus she is expected to sub for Anwar as the next Selangor MB. 

I had also written in that September post:

But back to Dr Wan Azizah, what next for this super sub? The next PM of Malaysia? Or, like the Kajang Move, an own goal?

But wait, maybe I'm going too far ahead. Instead, let's look at her likelihood of becoming MB Selangor, a position with so many obstacles before her like male chauvinistic PAS, HRH's acceptance and approval, and of course not forgetting the Dwarf, wakakaka!

Wakakaka, it's okay - no nid lah to praise me for my prescience, wakakaka again.

Yes, unfortunately Dr Wan has been known to be a yo-yo pollie, who was MP for Permatang Pauh, then abandoned her important role as the representative of that constituency for her hubby, and who took up the candidature for Kajang in the Rancid Satay 'road to Putrajaya' and to forestall the evil Mahathir-led 'army' from invading Selangor, again for her hubby, and who was nominated for the Selangor MB position, again in place of her hubby.

And scarily, she is known to have preposterously declared that her hubby is God's gift to the people.

Wakakaka, her ludicrous balderdash description of her hubby aside, could all the above, which seem to us (me anyway, wakakaka) as unnecessary political antics, influenced HRH's perceptions?

No doubt you have your opinions, wakakaka.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

New PKR?

Hello hello, remember someone's moronic declaration that if Anwar was jailed, PKR members would storm the barricades at Putrajaya to place Anwar there? wakakaka.

Today I read at FMT the following:

reap what

you've sown

Commenting on Azmin’s recent replies to the media regarding Anwar Ibrahim being stripped of a title given by the Selangor sultan, Syed Husin tweeted: “Earlier when asked about the title of “Datuk Seri” being revoked from Anwar, Azmin said no comment. When asked again, he said he’s too busy. Something’s not right.”

Obviously feeling the sting of the statement, Azmin shot back with: “If we go by your thinking (selera), everything’s not right.”

In the entry,
[blogger] Omak Kau described Azmin’s reply as “arrogant” and “haughty”, rather valid observations given his obstinate refusal to face the media and deliver a manufactured reply as most political leaders in his shoes would have done.

Azmin’s preference in making feeble excuses instead has got tongues wagging and minds working overtime as to why the Selangor menteri besar is refusing to make a direct comment.

As some quarters have already proffered, Azmin had a role to play in Anwar being stripped of the title.

As alleged by suspended PKR activist Badrul Hisham Shahrin or Chegubard, Azmin is a member of the Dewan Di-Raja Selangor (Council of the Royal Court) who the Selangor Sultan apparently consulted before going ahead to revoke the title from Anwar.

If any of this is true, it would explain to a certain extent the MB’s reluctance to offer any comment whatsoever on the embarrassing issue.

From 'barricades down' to 'acting dunno', looks like we have a new PKR but with old UMNO blood, wakakaka.

Dr M: Now, do you f**kers don't believe me?


Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Fightback has begun

TMI - In civil v Shariah debate, Malaysia’s constitution is secular, forum told 

Malaysia’s constitution is secular and it is not an Islamic state, said prominent lawyers and a politician today, in response to recent attempts to give Muslim law a bigger presence in the country’s legal system.

As such, said Bar Council member Datuk Khutubul Zaman Bukhari, any state enactment passed or fatwa (decree) issued that is contrary to this principle would be ultra vires or in contradiction with the constitution.

Khutubul, who heads the Bar Council's Shariah Law committee, said this was further established by a ruling made by former Federal Court Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in a court case. 

Echoing Khutubul’s opinion, another panel member, former Cabinet minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said the problem stemmed from the fact that some politicians did not realise that the constitution was secular.

this good bloke was ABU-ed for a bloke like PAS' Ustaz Nasrudin Hassan At-Tantawi who's known for his obsession against Valentine's Day, who made the moronic accusation that babies abandoned through illicit births had been the results of Valentine's Day and New Year's Day celebrations, and who made reckless baseless attack against a Pakatan ally, Lim Guan Eng

For more, read 
ABU kicked out Saifuddin Abdullah for Ustaz Nasrudin Hassan

Stupid bunch of ABU shitheads

“The problem is that some people want the constitution to behave like it is an Islamic state constitution when it is not.

“You cannot look at the constitution and force it to do something that it was not meant to do,” said Saifuddin, who is chairman of the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM).

The fightback has begun, thanks to 25 Eminent Malaysians!

Read also my previous post Give 'em enough rope ... and the comments, wakakaka.

you wimps can't even handle a few mullahs?
look dumbos, I sorted out a pack of royals lah, you wuss


Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Give 'em enough rope ...

Please feel free to discuss my post title, which had its origin in the Book of Esther 7:10 (KJV) which says:

So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.

Hint: 25 top civil servants, wakakaka.

Saturday, December 06, 2014

Insulting Jibrail

TMI - Guitars, football kits haram, says Islamic scholar

well-known Muslim musician Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)

Collecting guitars or football kits is no music to the ears of Muslims, says an Islamic scholar who declared the religion forbids such hobbies.

His puritanical views tabled at a seminar in Kuala Lumpur come at a time when Malay Muslim groups are seeking a stricter implementation of Islamic laws in the country.

Abdul Raof Nurin said the majority of ulama forbid the use of musical instruments, such as piano, drum and saxophone, as they were deemed part of Western culture, which was not in line with Islamic values.

Only musical instruments like kompang or gong were encouraged, he said while presenting his paper at the National Seminar on Entertainment and Islam organised by the Malaysian Muslim Consumer Group (PPIM) and the Human Development and Investigation Bureau.

Sheer bullshit because the archangel Jibrail (pbuh) is known to blow a horn.

Furthermore the bloke should not cherry pick when he asserted that the above prohibited items "...  were deemed part of Western culture, which was not in line with Islamic values."

Then he should not, for a start, travel by car (including taxis and buses), trains, modern ships and airplanes as these inventions came from and are part of Western culture.

He should also not use a phone, computer, airconditioning room (is he now staying in a 5-star hotel?), nor even a microphone to deliver his speech.

The list of items from Western culture is endless. But the sickest joke is that he prohibits playing drums while encouraging the use of kompang - huh?

If he uses any of the above mentioned Western inventions he is just a bloody cherry picking hypocrite.

He should also pray for forgiveness from the archangel Jibrail (pbuh) for insulting the archangel as being unIslamic for blowing his horn.