Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka

Tanggal 31 Ogos 2010

Hari Merdeka ke-53

Marilah kita sama-sama mendoakan

kestabilan dan kemakmuran negara kita.

Pemimpin PAS tidak faham kah? When DAP says no to Hudud it means no not maybe

I wonder whether PAS leaders are playing a political drama on the Hudud and Islamic State with the DAP or what. Otherwise PAS must accept that a DAP "NO" to Hudud and the Islamic State means a NO, not maybe, not for further discussion when the time is right and not leave it to the rakyat to decide either:

Sunday August 29, 2010

Karpal sticks to no hudud and Islamic state stand

By K. KASTURI DEWI
kasturidewi@thestar.com.my


GEORGE TOWN: A fresh round of objections has surfaced as DAP slammed PAS over the implementation of the hudud laws and the setting up of an Islamic state.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh said there was no such thing as referring the hudud issue to the people as the Pakatan Rakyat partners had all agreed to support a secular state.

Reminding PAS not to divert from the agreement, Karpal said it was important for all parties in the alliance to honour what had been agreed upon.

“It is an agreement among the DAP, PAS and PKR that hudud and the Islamic state are not within Pakatan’s policy.

“What has been agreed upon should not be diverted.

“Therefore, the question of referring the implementation of hudud and the Islamic state to the people cannot arise,” he said in a statement here.

Karpal was commenting on a newspaper report that quoted Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad as saying that PAS would persist with its hudud plan despite resistance from its partners in Pakatan.

He had reportedly said that the implementation of hudud would be referred to the people and, in the end, the people would decide.

Karpal said the Federal Constitution pointed to Malaysia being a secular state and this constitutional guarantee could not be amended even by a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat.

So where do you go from here PAS? Stay with the DAP and PKR and eat humble pie and be humiliated as usual or defend and uphold your party mission and Constitution and leave the secularist Pakatan loose coalition.

A very timely call: Dr Chua tells the DAP not to be too eager to use Islam

It is not often a Leader of the MCA go in public to chide the Opposition DAP in the open. Dr Chua is one such leader and what a timely call it was:

Sunday August 29, 2010

Don’t be too eager to use Islam, Chua tells DAP leaders

By HAMDAN RAJA ABDULLAH and CHAN LI LEEN
newsdesk@thestar.com.my


MUAR: MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek urged DAP leaders not to use Islamic platforms in their eagerness to gain support from the Malays.

He said that, of late, some DAP leaders had been using such platforms without knowing the sensitivities of the Muslims.

He said MCA understood their aim of winning support from the Malays but reminded DAP that they should be more careful as they knew very little about Islam and its teachings.

“We don’t want them, in their eagerness to win Malay support, to use Islam by going to the mosques and without being properly attired,” he said after opening a joint Muar, Bakri and Pagoh MCA local councillors’ service centre in Jalan Bakri yesterday.

Last Sunday, DAP Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching landed in hot water after she entered a surau prayer hall in Kajang to deliver a speech without covering her head.

Dr Chua said there were many things in Islam which most Chinese did not understand and actions of some DAP leaders could be misconstrued as Chinese leaders not respecting Islam.

He said this could give rise to a lot of unwanted controversies which certain parties might exploit and turn into racial issues.

Dr Chua said his statement did not refer to any DAP leader in particular.

His statement, he said, was only aimed at urging opposition party leaders to understand the sensitivities of the Muslims.

read the rest here.

A tale of an insensitive DAP, a naive rookie MP and a clueless PAS

The incident in the Surau Al Huda at Kajang Sentral should never have happened had the DAP and their MPs had tried to get to know the sensitivities of the majority Malay Muslims better instead of taking it for granted like the way they treat their clueless PAS partner in the loose Pakatan coalition.

No matter what the reason given by rookie MP Teo Nie Ching, she has inadvertently exposed herself and the DAP to criticism which I think is damaging to their quest for the Malay hearts and minds.

The event have even caused the DYMM Sultan of Selangor to be angry at her actions. A warning letter from MAIS to Teo is therefore forthcoming. Teo has just make herself cannon fodder delivered on a platter to the relentless BN political machine lead by UMNO bent on taking over the state of Selangor and there's no way that she would be allowed to take the role of an innocent bystander because she is not.

here are some news on the gaffe of gaffes by the DAP's rookie MP:

Teo to apologise to Sultan over surau gaffe - TheStar

For Serdang MP, a lesson in the politics of religion — The Malaysian Insider

As usual a clueless PAS who will most likely lose the Muslim Malay votes they gained in March 2008 in the next GE, due to their seemingly blind kow towing to whatever the DAP does, has this to say despite the DYMM Sultan obvious "Murka" to the Surau affair in Selangor:

Nik Aziz defends DAP MP over speech in surau

Interesting to see what the reaction will be in Kelantan if the "broad minded" PAS leaders invite YB Teo to deliver a short speech clad in figure hugging kebaya without a tudung on her head in a Surau in Kota Baru.

Diambang Merdeka: Muhibbah, Muhibbah

I remember this nostalgic patriotic song when I was way younger, the days when we could talk about our race without being labelled racists or being asked to go back to where we come from. This song should be sung again in ALL of our schools and universities after singing our national anthem, Negaraku.

The NEP vs. the dangers of meritocracy in a multiracial Malaysia

This is a thought provoking write up in TheStar by P. GUNASEGARAM entitled "What the NEP meant and means"

excerpts:

We need more debate and less rhetoric in ironing out the real issues of affirmative action.

WITH all the brouhaha over Malay and non-Malay rights and the relentless rhetoric of race-based politics coming to the fore in the economic arena yet again, it is time to revisit the tenets of the original New Economic Policy (NEP) and separate fact from fiction.

Sadly, the major problem with the NEP is that the 30% equity target for Malays and other bumiputras became the very visible and de facto criterion for measurement of the very success of the NEP.

The other contentious part was quotas for all manner of things and preference given to bumiputra companies and individuals when it is related to procurements and contracts from the Government, often as a means to achieve that 30% target.

Both of these were administrative measures and targets and did not even form part of the policy aims of the NEP.

Very few people, if any, are likely to disagree that the broad twin aims of the NEP, formulated in the wake of the racial riots of 1969, were to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and to eliminate the identification of race with economic function.

The first aim, according to government figures, was very much achieved with hardcore poverty being virtually eradicated. And there have been major strides made in terms of Malays and bumiputras, and jobs with them making major inroads into all areas.

continue reading here.

The article in TheStar drew an immediate response from intellectual blogger Jebatmustdie in his latest post "Questioning the NEP?"

excerpts:

Managing Editor of The Star, P. Gunasegaram wrote an article about the NEP. Specifically, what the NEP meant to him. He called for more debate on the NEP and particularly, the real issues of the affirmative action.

He said, “major problem with the NEP is that the 30% equity target for Malays and other bumiputras became the very visible and de facto criterion for measurement of the very success of the NEP.”

I believe he had got it wrong on this one. While he was correct in saying that the objectives of the NEP are to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and to eliminate the identification of race with economic function, he was definitely wrong when he said that the measurement of NEP’s success is the quota of 30% equity target.

The quota, for those who don’t know, is stipulated in the Constitution. In fact Article 153 of the Constitution, gives the powers to the Yang DiPertuan Agong to preserve and observe a reasonable reservation of positions of the bumiputras in terms of business, educational scholarships and in the public sector. It is all there to see.

Now the Constitution said all these. But how can the Government act on this particular law?

Before NEP existed, the Government at that time did not seriously pursue the issues on poverty and the absence of economic strength of the bumiputras despite the fact that the Constitution of 1957 clearly stated the need to uphold the survival of the bumiputras.

As the result, by the year 1969, huge gaps existed among the races. The chinese, having cornered the economic pie, remain the wealthiest in the nation. Rural areas are only fit for the Malays. There were less than 2% bumi doctors at that time. Most of the Malays fell into the very low income level.

These are the disadvantages of meritocracy. In a homogeneous country, the benefits of meritocracy outweighs its disadvantages. In a multiracial country of ours, meritocracy may have serious pitfalls if it runs unchecked.

A level playing field must first be achieved if everyone have to compete on equal grounds. Thus NEP, the so called affirmative action, is developed to achieve this.

The biggest achievement of the NEP is the creation of large middle class for all races. In the 60′s, nearly 80% of the people are poor. Now, nearly 90% fall into the middle class category.

This could not have happened if the majority of the kids back in the 60′s and 70′s did not receive scholarships to further their studies. Most of the students who had the chance to pursue their studies came from wealthy family. Not surprising, most of them were chinese and a few sons and daughters of malay aristocrats. The rest, would have received government’s scholarships. But these were given on merit basis. And so, only a sprinkle of Malays got the chance to further their studies. With NEP, opportunities were given to these children to get out from the vicious cycle of poverty. Where their future was stuck to become fishermen, they now can become engineers or accountants.

Must read more here.

Jebatmustdie also highlighted a great post by blogger Hidup Tuah in his post of one year ago titled "Malaysia must avoid British Disease"

excerpts:

NEP

The Policy’s architect was the revered and greatly respected statesman in TUN HJ. ABD RAZAK HUSSEIN, our beloved second Prime Minister.

8.The policy was widely acknowledged as successful though its implementation was heavily criticized. Some of the significant achievements were drastic poverty eradication, improving income levels, bridging income gap, producing more professionals and creating the BCCI. The economy did not suffer and FDI continued to pour in.

9.The bottom line was that ALL races, including foreigners, had benefited from the said Policy. It was not ala-Robin Hood.

10.DS Najib, TS Muhyiddin, DSAI, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim. DS Hadi Awang, Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar, Dr Mujahit, TS Sidek (KSN), TS Ismail Adam (KPPA), DS Ong Tee Kiat, Dr Koh Tsu Koon, Dr Subramanim, Datuk Devamany, Lim Guan Eng, Gobin Singh Deo, myself and my family, to name a few, admittedly, are the products and beneficiaries of the NEP through the mechanics of distribution with growth. Hence, these beneficiaries cannot afford to be NEP- and poor-blind.

11.One thing that must be specifically mentioned in the context of this article, tho‘. It is the NEP that successfully broke the monopoly enjoyed by the products of MCKK, Penang Free School, VI, St. John, KGV and Melaka High Schools since the colonial era. They were the children of the royal and rich families. They monopolised the top posts in the legal, judiciary, police, military and the government service.

12.Thanks to Tun Razak and the NEP. One can find the children of poor farmers and fishermen occupying top positions in those sectors now, including TS Sidek, the KSN and Zaid Ibrahim who won’t become rich if not because of the NEP.

13.Unfortunately, all these socio-economic engineering efforts will probably be destroyed. The socio-economic landscape of pre-NEP period, ipso facto, will then be revisited if the present government under the leadership of DS Najib is pursuing vigorously to liberalise the economy, adopting meritocracy, practicing free competition, abolishing the quota system, prematurely diluting affirmative actions, etc in the name of rejuvenating and resuscitating the economy and globalisation.

read more of the persuasive post here.

And lastly a straight forward post by the Grand Old Man of Malaysia himself "IS MERITROCACY RACIST?"

excerpts:

8. When the Malays, understanding the implications, protest against meritocracy, they were condemned as racists. Faced with being labelled as such, most Malays dared not support even the NEP. Some, perhaps due to mistaken pride have begun to support meritocracy, undermining the Malay position further.

9. Today we see a lot of Malay NGOs trying to defend the Malay position. Invariably they have been labelled racists. The unfortunate truth is that those who labelled them are equally racists because of their advocacy of meritocracy.

13. What we are seeing today is not a campaign against racism but a campaign by racists against racists. The meritocrats are as much racists as the Malay NGOs, and Perkasa.

read the whole of Dr Mahathir's post here.

I am a proud product of the NEP, I am convinced that in this Malaysian multiracial environment, the call for meritocracy is nothing but a call by those who have crossed the bridge but now wants to burn the bridge so others are not able to follow or compete with them.

I agree with Jebatmustdie that "if meritocracy favors only the rich, and the rich are made up with people of the highest per capita income or comes from one racial community, then meritocracy is indeed, a racist tool disguised under the cover of a really nice concept we call ‘meritocracy‘".

FELDA loses civil suit because its own lawyer did not attend trial?

Updated post 29 August 2010:

Felda to punish lawyers over settlers’ suit

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — Felda will take action against a legal firm which was involved in its suit against 354 settlers at Felda Kemahang 3 in Kelantan.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Ahmad Maslan said Felda was currently studying suitable action to be taken against the firm which had caused the agency to lose its suit against the settlers.

“The absence of the lawyer during the hearing due to technical reasons were very much regretted and has tarnished Felda’s good name,” he said in a statement to the media after the Umno Supreme Council meeting here today.

Yesterday, the Federal Court dismissed Felda’s application to review its ruling which denied the agency leave to appeal against the Kota Baharu High Court’s decision on Jan 13, 2008.

With the decision, Felda will now have to pay RM11 million in general damages and interest to the settlers.

Ahmad said it was feared the case would be misinterpreted by other settlers as the agency was now facing two other charges for manipulating oil palm grading filed by the settlers in Felda Maokil, Pagoh and Felda Gugusan Raja Alias in Negeri Sembilan.

“I would like to stress that the Federal Court ruling was not due to fraud or conspiracy committed by Felda as alleged by certain quarters,” he said.

Ahmad said every transaction was made in a transparent manner and the sales and purchase receipts were given to each Felda settler who sold the oil palm yield to the Felda factory.

“If they don’t agree with what was stated in the receipt, they should bring it up to the factory immediately, and not make a compilation of fraud allegations over a long period of time,” he said.

Hence, he also reminded the settlers not to be influenced by any quarters, especially those with personal interests, to file a legal suit against Felda. — Bernama

Original Post

Rather strange news about lawyer not attending trial for Felda from Bernama:

Felda loses case because lawyer did not attend trial
August 26, 2010

BANDAR SERI JEMPOL, Aug 26 – Felda has ordered its lawyer to release a sum of RM11 million to the law firm representing 354 Felda Kemahang 3 settlers in the wake of the Federal Court’s decision today, its chairman Tan Sri Dr Yusof Noor said today.

Dr Yusof said Felda lost the case because its lawyer did not attend the trial, depriving it of the opportunity to defend itself.

The settlers sued Felda in 2002, seeking between RM20,000 and RM30,000 each in general damages, claiming that the agency had understated the quality of their oil palm fruits during the period from 1996 to 2002 which caused them to suffer losses.

On January 13, 2008, the Kota Baharu High Court ordered the agency to pay RM7.8 million plus interest to the settlers after its counsel failed to turn up for the hearing of the suit, and decided in their favour after accepting the evidence of three witnesses.

The amount had since increased to RM11 million with accumulated interest, with each settler expected to receive about RM30,000. – Bernama

I have assisted in defence of many civil suits by individual/individuals against companies in my time, I have known of lawyers who discharged themselves from cases but really never heard of a lawyer not attending the trial thereby causing his client to lose a civil suit. This suit started in 2002, I presume unless there are changes in the lawyer set up, the same Law firm must have represented FELDA.

FELDA will also have its own in house legal advisors to monitor this suit which would have far and wide implication against the Felda Management, wonder what they are doing in their job, makan gaji buta ke.

Anyway, unless there is anything to the contrary I think the non attending Lawyer representing Felda must be named so that the public is spared of irresponsible lawyers and Law Firm who do not guard the interest of their client in Malaysia. Kalau syarikat saya ada kes sivil tentu saya tak mahu ambil firma peguam inilah.

Beside asking show cause why the lawyer did not attend the first trial in the High Court, I think Felda's Dr Yusop should also make a complaint to the Majlis Peguam (Bar Council) so that the matter can be investigated by them professionally and maybe some form of punishment could be meted out against the non attending Lawyers for tarnishing the image and bringing shame to the Bar.

YB Nurul Izzah grounded in submarine controversy

On 4th August 2010, PKR's YB Nurul Izzah gave an interview to Indonesia's Kompas.com magazine in Jakarta. The following is what happens if a rookie YB makes a politically loaded statement which among others also criticise her own country's defence capabilities in regards to the operational readiness of our first submarine without first checking the latest technical facts and figures in a foreign country....well, she gets shot down with egg on her pretty face looking like a fool:

Zahid Hamidi: Stop politicising national defence issue,"Although we may have differences in opinion, we should stick to the truth and not go to the extent of damaging the country's image, especially in matters concerning national defence,"

Kapal selam bukti keupayaan operasi persenjataan

This will be very bitter for YB Nurul; KD Rahman Submerges, Traitors Surface

In Malaysia, the first missile is fired from its submarine

Such is the seriousness of the damage that she has done to the image of our country's defence capabilities on foreign soil, even the lame spin by the FMT, I am no traitor, Nurul tells the 'patriot' does not work.

For YB Nurul's info, the Exocet is the best antiship missile system and is the only battle proven missile of its class in the world, our Armed Forces in particular the TLDM has made a very wise choice. Read here.

Instead of making a defiant stand against the Kementerian Pertahanan and the Malaysian Government in what is clearly a lapse in judgement, she should actually make a public apology. That would be a more wise and brave thing to do.

For everybody else this is a salute to our Angkatan Tentera Malaysia:

Diambang Merdeka: Ahmad Jais - Bahtera Merdeka

This is a superb patriotic song, enjoy.....

Sadly they do not make lyrics nor sing like this anymore.

In a multi-religious country like Malaysia desecrators of places of worships must be punished severely

Updated 28 Aug 2010:

Three teens plead guilty to splashing paint at surau (Updated)

By SARBAN SINGH (TheStar)

SEREMBAN: Three teenagers pleaded guilty to two counts of committing mischief by splashing paint on the exterior walls of a surau and for throwing bottles into the compound of the recently completed building in Taman Pulai Impian Indah near here on Monday. T

he three, aged between 16 and 17, and from Ulu Temiang and Sikamat near here, were brought to the Child's Court here about 3.10pm Friday to face the charges under Section 427 of the Penal Code, read together with Section 34 of the same code.

All three, clad in saffron coloured lock-up uniform, looked remorseful and were quickly whisked into the court by policemen. Reporters were not allowed into the court room.

The court was also packed with family members of the accused who had turned up several hours earlier.

Another 18-year-old teenager who was also arrested in connection ith the crime has since been released.

The trio allegedly committed the offences between 3am and 4am on the said day. Those convicted of mischief can be jailed up to two years and fined or both.

Under the first charge, all three friends were accused of throwing the bottles into the compound of the surau. For the second charge, the second and third accused had allegedly splashed red paint at the exterior walls of the building.

The first accused was also charged with abetting his two other friends to splash red paint at the surau.

Worshippers who turned up at the month-old-surau on Monday morning had a shock when they saw the surau vandalised.

Police arrested the four within hours, and produced them at the magistrate's court here on Tuesday morning and obtained a four-day remand order.

The four apparently vandalised the place of worship after they were told off by members of the congregation for playing firecrackers in the surau's vicinity.

On Wednesday, the parents of the four teenagers held a press conference where they apologised for the boys' actions.

They expressed shock that their children could resort to such an irresponsible act and begged the Muslim community to forgive them.

Magistrate M. Mageshwary later released the trio on a RM2,000 bail each and fixed Sept 22 for a remention pending a report from the Welfare Department.

The three friends were represented by Lee Kong Fei while Mahmud Abdullah prosecuted.

Original Post:

Congratulations to the PDRM for quick reaction in nabbing the suspects of the Surau paint splashing incident in Seremban.

Its a good thing that the NS Police Chief said that it is not a racial or religious issue BUT whatever the motives of the incident, the full force of the Law should be applied on these youths as they have intentionally desecrated a place of worship and there can be no excuse for what they have done which could cause unnecessary religious and racial tension in our community.

From the MI:

Teenagers arrested over surau paint splashing
By Adib Zalkapli August 24, 2010(MI)

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 24 — Four teenagers aged 16 to 18 were arrested early this morning in connection with red paint splashed at a surau (Muslim prayer hall) in Seremban yesterday.Negri Sembilan police chief Datuk Osman Salleh said initial investigation showed that the four Chinese teenages acted following misunderstanding with members of the surau.

“They played with firecrackers a day earlier and was told off by the people from the surau,” Osman told a press conference.

“This is not a racial issue or a religious issue,” he said.

Osman described the attack as a mischievous act motivated by minor misunderstanding.

Osman also attempted to play down the incident saying that the attack did not leave any major damage to the surau.

He said one of the suspects is unemployed while the rest are working.

Osman said the four would be remanded until Friday and are being investigated under Section 295 of the Penal Code for allegedly offending a religion, which punishable by imprisonment of up to two years.

The surau in Taman Pulai Jaya Seremban was found splashed with red paint early yesterday morning by local Muslims before performing dawn prayers.

Several broken liquor bottles were also found within the surau compound.

Early this year, two churches in Seremban were attacked following the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling allowing Christians to use the word Allah outside of the Muslim context.

Firebombs were thrown at one of the churches, leaving scorch marks at its front door, while another church had one of its windows broken.

Two mosques near Petaling Jaya also suffered attacks early this year when pig’s heads were found within their compounds. Pigs are considered unclean and offensive by Muslims.

Los Angeles Times - War in Iraq, Mission Accomplished?

A must read editorial by The Los Angeles Times on the follies of the Iraq war, any war for that matter.

Mission accomplished?

The U.S. combat role in Iraq ends Tuesday. What exactly did we gain in seven years of fighting?

August 22, 2010

Those who have lived through the Iraq war have never been certain whether they were at the beginning, middle or end of hostilities. Preparations for the U.S.-led invasion began well before the March 2003 launch of "shock and awe." American forces toppled Saddam Hussein within weeks, but rather than bringing an end to the combat as expected, the collapse of the regime and subsequent dismantling of the Iraqi army gave rise to an insurgency and brutal sectarian conflict. Now, as the United States formally concludes its combat role on Aug. 31, it is time once again to ask: What was the U.S. mission in Iraq, and what was accomplished?

Hussein was a ruthless dictator whose henchmen tortured the political opponents they didn't execute. He invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He tried to build nuclear weapons, and he used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against his own citizens, killing at least 5,000 Kurds in Halabja alone in March 1988. All told, more than 180,000 Kurdish men, women and children were slaughtered in his Anfal campaign in the north. Meanwhile, the regime drained marshes and starved hundreds of thousands of Shiite Arabs out of the south. These were horrible crimes committed over decades, many of them long before President George W. Bush decided to seek a "regime change." But did they warrant a U.S. invasion?

The Bush administration made the decision to go to war in Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that were plotted by Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and carried out by Saudis, not by Iraqis. It offered many reasons for turning its sights on Iraq. First, Bush made the radical case that the attacks in the United States justified preemptive strikes against potential threats to Americans. He said it was necessary to disarm Hussein, who allegedly was hiding a program to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The administration claimed a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and warned that Hussein could provide the terrorists with WMD. Neoconservative ideologues added that removing Hussein would open the way for a democratic government in Iraq and have a ripple effect throughout the Middle East — domino democracy — that would stabilize the region.

Opponents of the war ascribed other motives to Bush: He sought to "finish the job" for his father, who stopped short after driving Hussein out of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, or, as many Iraqis believed, he wanted to get his hands on Iraqi oil.

At least 4,415 American troops died in combat, and tens of thousands were wounded. Iraqi casualties have been harder to count. The Iraq Body Count's website puts the civilian death toll between 97,000 and 106,000; hundreds of thousands were wounded, and many others displaced, forced into exile. The Bush administration initially calculated that the war would run $50 billion. Seven years later, the bill is tallied at about $750 billion, and nearly as much likely will be needed to tend to the physically and psychologically wounded service members who have returned. By any measure, the price has been high in blood and treasure, and in the damage to American moral authority.

From the beginning, this page argued against the war, saying the administration had failed to prove that Hussein had WMD or a connection to the 9/11 perpetrators. Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld famously responded to skeptics by asserting that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The administration pointed to suspect aluminum tubes and alleged mobile bio-laboratories, and went to war despite the opposition of most of its allies and without United Nations approval.

After the fall of Hussein, it quickly became clear that the administration had been seeing things it wanted to find rather than finding the truth. There were no WMD; no 9/11 plotters in Iraq. Bush had taken the country to war on false pretenses. The United States was not safer after the war, because there had been no imminent threat before it. Arguably, Americans were more at risk. Al Qaeda exploited Iraqi resentment of U.S. troops, who were viewed as occupiers rather than liberators by much of the Muslim world. Abuses committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison fanned anger and anti-Americanism. Though Al Qaeda was not a force in Iraq before the war, it was after. And rather than stabilizing the region, the war shook a strategic balance. Hussein's Sunni regime had served as a useful if unsavory counterweight to the Shiite government of Iran.

After the invasion, Tehran began to hold sway over the Shiite majority that rose to power in Iraq, as U.S. prestige dimmed with its failure to deliver security, electricity and stability. This page supported the U.S. troop "surge" as a way to pacify the country, allow an Iraqi government to assume power and bring an end to the war. But the country is still unstable. Now, as the U.S. draws down its forces, its influence is waning, and Iran is just one of the neighbors jockeying to fill the void.

Hussein was captured, tried in an Iraqi court and hanged. Iraqis today have greater freedoms of expression and political organization, markedly free and fair elections, and a more open economy. And yet they have traded Hussein's well-ordered tyranny for the chaos of sectarian violence — quotidian bombs, assassinations and civilian bloodshed.

Democracy has not taken firm root in Iraq, let alone spread across the Middle East as the neoconservatives predicted. This spring's election produced a deadlocked parliament that has been unable to form a new government; Shiite leaders don't agree with one another on a leader, much less with Kurds and Sunnis. Seven years after the fall of Hussein, they have yet to figure out how to share power, land and the country's oil wealth.

So while many Iraqis say they are relieved the Hussein regime is gone, others say toppling the dictator wasn't worth the pain, and some even long for another strongman to restore calm. Many Iraqis and Americans fear the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops will not mark the end of the Iraq war serve as the prelude to a civil war that spills over borders and throughout the region. That would be a colossal disaster.

Iraq may recover. Its sectarian communities may overcome centuries of distrust and violence and find a way to unite the nation. But if they do so, it will be to the credit of the Iraqi people, and will be despite the U.S. occupation, not because of it.

The war can be considered a victory in just one sense: It removed Hussein. In all other respects, the war in Iraq was a misadventure that compromised U.S. national interests, and was too costly for too little return.

How true! I think the USA is a lesser nation and has lost a lot of good will around the world because of the Iraqi war and have nothing much to show except the hanging of Sadam Hussein who remained defiant until the end.

Of Demagoguery and demagogues

This is a very interesting article written by Dr Ron Paul a long term US Republican Congressman on the gathering storm in the US about the building of a proposed mosque a few blocks away from 9/11 Ground Zero in New York, USA.

Please read:

Mosque Demagoguery Is Bipartisan
by Rep. Ron Paul, August 23, 2010

Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “Ground Zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion, it has come from the neoconservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The 19 suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong anti-American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al-Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult, if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us, but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition, conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the Left, which now claims to defend the property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, defends the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam – the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64 percent of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75 percent of the people insisted that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as much as individual dictators. Statistics of support are irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque near Ground Zero implies that Islam itself was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the 19 suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neoconservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the rule of law – in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamophobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the Right and the Left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

I think in Malaysia we have many demagogues, I count Tay Tian Yan of the Sin Chew whose racial profiling of the Malays and condescending writing as highlighted by blogger of bloggers at Rocky's Bru here as one of the many lurking in our midst.

DAP Lim Kit Siang tells PAS to stop dreaming about Hudud Law and an Islamic State

Until now any statement on DAP's position on Hudud Law and the Islamic State has been given by YB Karpal Singh. The occasional statements by Karpal will always be received by a chorus from PAS which says that it is just Karpal's personal opinion and like most disagreements in the loose Pakatan Pact it will always be swept very conveniently under the carpet by PAS, DAP and PKR who especially seemed to be totally detached when it comes to religious issues involving Islam.

Well just after Karpal's latest tiff on the Hudud Law with Nik Aziz as reported in the MI:Karpal denies he is alone against hudud law and Islamic state, DAP's Supreme leader and defacto Opposition Leader also de facto Pakatan Head Honcho came out strongly in his blog stating not only DAP's stand against the Hudud Law and the Islamic state but also reiterated Pakatan's agreed policies which PAS supposedly agreed.

The response from PAS leaders on Lim Kit Siang's DAP stand has been rather muted so far with Hj Hadi, Nik Aziz, Ustaz Nash even the cannot stop talking Mahfuz and Khalid Samad keeping a very low profile. Well I suppose this is the Big Boss of Pakatan speaking so to kow tow or not to kow tow, as their PAS supporters would be anxiously waiting for their Leader's brilliant response complete with nas-nas to support their decision.

Well a response which is rather meek, not here not there, typical of PAS post March 2008 came from its VP Tuan Ibrahim and Dewan Pemuda Head Nasruddin, read the MI here: PAS says DAP does not understand hudud

PAS basically say to agree to disagree with the DAP without the DAP actually acknowledging what PAS say in reply. When PAS say they want to make the DAP understand Hudud Law, it is just another word to sweep the problem under the carpet again.

I think PAS which is the best organised, supported and most democratic party among the three(PAS,DAP,PKR) is slowly but surely becoming a second class partner in Pakatan where its views are not sought nor taken.

I wonder what kind of political strategy is PAS applying in the loose Pakatan Pact. Whatever its merits I think the strategy is not working when issues that PAS holds dear are swept a side by the DAP as easy as knife cutting into soft butter.

So where is PAS going politically with the loose Pakatan pact, many Malaysians voters want to know before the next GE13.

Refer also to my earlier post on similar subject here.

DAP's CAT slogan is a sham

Update 27 Aug 2010:

Liu survives support letters stir

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — Selangor State Executive Councillor Ronnie Liu has emerged the winner from the controversy surrounding his support letters after the DAP decided that no further action would be taken against him.

Political analyst James Wong said this showed “it’s not easy to take any hard decision that could jeopardise his political career” as Liu was known among party circles to be loyal to veteran leader Lim Kit Siang and his son and secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

“Ronnie Liu has the support of some leaders in the party. Therefore, it will not be easy to take strong action against him,” he said in an interview.

In announcing the decision after last night’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) meeting, party chairman Karpal Singh said the CEC could not consider further action against Liu as he did not file any appeal after he was severely reprimanded by the Disciplinary Committee.

...and so there goes DAP's Competency, Accountability and Transparency dissappearing under a cloud of smoke.

Original post:

As a continuation from my previous post on the Ronnie Liu letter head issue, it seemed that DAP Supremo has taken the side of YB Liu and YB Karpal Singh has been asked to crack the whip to keep everyone's lips zipped.

Karpal orders gag order on Ronnie Liu controversy
IAN MCINTYRE

GEORGE TOWN: DAP chairman Karpal Singh has ordered a gag order on all party members over Selangor Exco member Ronnie Liu and the support letter controversy.

“I am directing party members to stop speaking to the media regarding the matter. I am not appealing. I am directing them," he(Karpal) said here Saturday.

Karpal, who is also the Bukit Gelugor MP, said the issue was an internal matter and it would be resolved within the party.

He, however, did not specify if his directive was meant only for the mainstream media or if also covered the alternative media and social media.

Karpal also admitted that the issue had smeared the party’s image in the eyes of the public.

Several DAP leaders, including those from outside of Selangor, have issued statement urging the party to sack Liu over his involvement in the support letter issue.

So much for DAP's C A T - competency, accountability and transparency,

their Disciplinary Committee is Incompetent;

Ronnie Liu does not accept accountability and;

Lim Kit Siang is not interested in Transparency.

Rais Warns Chua, DO NOT go against the Perlembagaan

Rais delivered a fierce warning to Dr.Chua yesterday, wonder what Dr.Chua's response will be:

DON'T GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, RAIS WARNS CHUA

FRI, 20 AUG 2010 14:43

JELEBU: Information Communication and Culture Minister Rais Yatim has described the call by MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek, for the gradual reduction of Bumiputera equity, as running contrary to the constitution.

He said Article 153 of the Federal Constitution guaranteed the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of other communities.

"When he called for the gradual reduction of the 30% Bumiputera equity in all sectors of the economy, he was going against the constitution of Malaysia.

"Maybe he did not realise this but I would like to remind that Article 153 is not a simple provision; in fact, it cannot be amended by any party unless with the consent of the Conference of Rulers and subject to provisions in Article 159 of the Federal Constitution," he told reporters here.

He said that although Chua might have tailored his remark to the political sentiment of his party, the Malays especially could not accept it.

"If the call were to be implemented, firstly we would be going against the Federal Constitution and secondly, we would be undermining the position of the Malay rulers, especially the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who is responsible for safeguarding these interests.

"This is not a mere practice but something that has been accepted by parties involved in the social contract in 1956-57 when the Reid Commission was formed, and when the constitution of the Federation of Malaya, and later the Federal Constitution, was formulated," he said.

Undermining the struggle

Rais said he hoped that in future, political leaders would refrain from saying things as they please, and should recognise things that had become pillars of the country.

These pillars, he said, should be accepted and not be changed based on current political sentiments.

"For instance, if Umno itself wants to amend Article 153, it won't be able to do so, let alone Chua Soi Lek, because there are layers of powers protecting it," he said.

Rais said the constitution also provided safeguards for other communities.

If Chua wanted make a demand, he said, he could do so under this spirit of the constitution and not by denying the rights of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Asked on Chua's statement that the MCA would not hesitate to share common views with the DAP for the sake of the Chinese community, Rais said Chua had shown that he no longer had respect for the vision of Barisan Nasional, which is headed by the prime minister.

"The Malays should therefore unite in the face of this. If we are strong, we cannot be easily manipulated by others. We should unite and voice out to defend what is rightfully ours.

"If this is not done, then people like Chua will continue to undermine the basis of our struggle," he said.

- Bernama

Not Long ago when UMNO made overtures to PAS for unity talks in the spirit of Islam it was immediately rejected by PAS's spiritual Leader Nik Aziz who said they would work with DAP under the Pakatan Umbrella. As such, I am very interested to hear DAP Supreme Leader's position on Dr Chua suggestion to share common views with the DAP for the sake of the Chinese community, seems the usually quick to exploit political opportunities Lim Kit Siang is lost for words this time, I wonder why. PAS and PKR would surely be interested to hear Lim's wise words in this matter too.