Can President Mubarak survive the greatest Egyptian people challenge against his 30 year rule?

"Its soldiers were paratroops, some in red berets, others in helmets, gun barrels pointed across the square, heavy machine guns mounted on the turrets. "If they fire on the Egyptian people, Mubarak is finished," she said. "And if they don't fire on the Egyptian people, Mubarak is finished." Of such wisdom are Egyptians now possessed."

Can President Mubarak and his regime survive the popular uprising partly driven by high food prices and high unemployment? From what is being reported by prominent Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk, I think not. 


Mubarak's future is more difficult now by open support of the Israelis and the cautious support of the American of his rule. How the Military reacts to Mubarak and his regime will be the key to his survival which is looking slim as the protest continues unabated.

Egypt engulfed:
How much longer can Mubarak cling on?
Robert Fisk reports from Cairo on the protests that refuse to die
Monday, 31 January 2011(The UK Independent)


The old lady in the red scarf was standing inches from the front of am American-made M1 Abrams tank of the Egyptian Third Army, right on the edge of Tahrir Square. Its soldiers were paratroops, some in red berets, others in helmets, gun barrels pointed across the square, heavy machine guns mounted on the turrets. "If they fire on the Egyptian people, Mubarak is finished," she said. "And if they don't fire on the Egyptian people, Mubarak is finished." Of such wisdom are Egyptians now possessed.


Shortly before dusk, four F-16 Falcons – again, of course, manufactured by President Barack Obama's country – came screaming over the square, echoes bouncing off the shabby grey buildings and the giant Nasserist block, as the eyes of the tens of thousands of people in the square stared upwards. "They are on our side," the cry went up from the crowds. Somehow, I didn't think so. And those tanks, new to the square, 14 in all that arrived with no slogans painted on them, their soldiers sullen and apprehensive, had not come – as the protesters fondly believed – to protect them.


But then, when I talked to an officer on one of the tanks, he burst out with a smile. "We will never fire on our people – even if we are ordered to do so," he shouted over the roar of his engine. Again, I was not so sure. President Hosni Mubarak – or perhaps we should now say "president" in quotation marks – was at the military headquarters, having appointed his new junta of former military and intelligence officers. The rumour went round the square: the old wolf would try to fight on to the end. Others said it didn't matter. "Can he kill 80 million Egyptians?"


Anti-American sentiment was growing after Mr Obama's continued if tepid support for the Mubarak regime. "No, Obama, not Mubarak," posters read. And Mr Mubarak's face appeared with a Star of David superimposed over his face. Many of the crowd produced stun-gun cartridge cases fired last week with "Made in the USA" stamped on the bottom. And I noticed the lead tank's hull bore markings beginning "MFR" – at this point a soldier with a rifle and bayonet fixed was ordered to arrest me so I ran into the crowd and he retreated – but could "MFR" stand for the US Mobile Force Reserve, which keeps its tanks in Egypt? Was this tank column on loan from the Americans? You don't need to work out what the Egyptians make of all this.


And all the time Egyptians walked up to foreigners – and a grey-haired Englishman doesn't look very Egyptian – and insisted that a people who had lost their fear could never be reinjected with fear.


"We will never be afraid again," a young woman shouted at me as the jets screamed over again. And a former cop now claiming to be a liaison man between the demonstrators and the army said that "the army will be with us because they know Mubarak must go". Again, I am not so sure.


And the looting and burning go on. The former policeman – who should know – told me that many of the looters are members of a group which belonged to the Mr Mubarak's National Democratic Party, whose previous role had been to bully Egyptians to go to polling stations and vote for their beloved leader. So why, we all wonder now, are these men trying to loot and burn, crimes which are being blamed on all those who demand that Mr Mubarak leave the country? Those demands, incidentally, now include the expulsion of Omar Suleiman, his former top spy, who is Vice-President.

Read the full report by Robert Fisk here.


A Hungry man is a very angry man. High food prices and High unemployment causes hunger. 


Governments around the world should pay heed to the rising food price. It is a clear and present danger situation around the world and not limited to the Middle East.


In Malaysia, we are blessed with a Government who provides subsidies to the rakyat for food and try their very best to provide employment to its people. We are so blessed that Malaysians are likely to die from overeating than because of not enough food. Say thank to ALLAH.

Dr Mahathir gave Nik Aziz a lesson he will not soon forget unless he is too senile to remember

MB PAS Kelantan yang patut lama dah pencen yang baru sahja keluarkan fatwa syok sendiri dia melabelkan orang Melayu Islam diTenang Johor yang mengundi calon BN sebagai Jahil, di bahasakan dan dikritik hebat oleh Dr Mahathir selepas dia membuat kenyataan "Melayu tolak Islam lebih teruk dari Kuan Yew"

NIK AZIZ DAN KWAN YEW
By Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on January 31, 2011 4:40 PM


1. Kata Nik Aziz, "Melayu (di Malaysia) tolak Islam lebih teruk daripada Kwan Yew". Ternampak Nik Aziz lebih utamakan peluang untuk memburuk musuh politiknya di Malaysia daripada mempertahankan serangan terhadap Islam dan penganutnya oleh Lee Kwan Yew. Nik Aziz anggap nasionalis Melayu lebih teruk ke-Islaman mereka.


2.Di zaman British ramai pembesar Melayu minum arak dan ada pekerja Melayu yang minum toddy. Masjid pun tidak banyak dan ramai yang tidak sembahyang. Hasil perjuangan nasionalis Melayu negara sekarang diperintah oleh orang Melayu Islam. Mereka mengharamkan arak dalam majlis rasmi Kerajaan, menerap nilai-nilai Islam dalam pemerintahan, membekalkan wang Kerajaan untuk kegiatan-kegiatan agama Islam, memudahkan orang Islam buat kerja haji, mendirikan masjid-masjid, menubuhkan Universiti Islam, Bank Islam, Takaful, badan-badan dakwah, mengharamkan loteri nasional dan berbagai-bagai lagi yang disuruh oleh agama Islam. Teruk sangatkah orang nasionalis ini dalam mengamal ajaran Islam?


3.Sebaliknya apakah yang dilakukan oleh PAS dan Nik Aziz? Hasil yang terbesar ialah memecahbelahkan orang Islam di negara ini. Penubuhan PAS itu sendiri berjaya memecahbelahkan orang Melayu Islam setelah mereka bersatu dalam UMNO untuk memperjuangkan nasib bangsa yang beragama Islam.


4.PAS turut memecahbelahkan orang Melayu Islam di Malaysia sekali lagi apabila PAS mengadakan sembahyang Jumaat dua Imam, larangan terhadap perkahwinan orang PAS dengan orang UMNO, larangan ahli PAS menghadiri kenduri orang UMNO dan pengasingan kubur orang PAS dari orang UMNO, seolah-olah di Akhirat juga PAS ingin pecah belah orang Melayu Islam terus berlaku.


5.Apabila PAS bertanding dalam Pilihanraya 1955 dan seterusnya hingga 1986 ia mendakwa bahawa UMNO yang bekerjasama dengan orang bukan Islam, mereka menjadi kafir. Ini juga memecahkan perpaduan orang Islam di Malaysia.


6.Kemudian PAS bergabung tenaga dengan Semangat 46 dan DAP dalam Pilihanraya 1990 dan 1995. Dengan ini Semangat 46, serpihan dari UMNO mendapat nafas dan orang Melayu Islam terbahagi kepada tiga kumpulan.


7.Alhamdulillah Semangat 46 kembali semula kepada UMNO dan perpaduan orang Melayu Islam dalam UMNO dipulih semula. Tetapi apabila Timbalan Presiden UMNO di keluarkan dari parti, Nik Aziz dengan cepat memberi sokongan kuat kepadanya supaya parti serpihan yang ditubuh boleh menarik keluar sebahagian daripada ahli UMNO dan penyokongnya supaya parti orang Melayu Islam yang terbesar ini menjadi lemah.


8.Hasil daripada sokongan Nik Aziz orang Melayu sekali lagi berpecah tiga. Tidak cukup dengan ini Nik Aziz sanggup bekerja keras dengan DAP untuk menubuh Pakatan. Bahawa dahulu PAS mendakwa kerjasama oleh UMNO dengan orang bukan Islam menjadikan mereka kafir dilupakan sahaja kerana ingin menjadi Pakatan musuh UMNO yang kuat. Dengan cara ini Nik Aziz menentukan kali ini perpecahan orang Melayu Islam kepada tiga pasukan yang lemah menjadi kekal.


9.Inilah sumbangan Nik Aziz kepada Islam di Malaysia ini. Bahawa satu dari ajaran Islam yang penting ialah orang Islam itu bersaudara tidak dihirau oleh Nik Aziz.


10.Sesungguhnya Islam Nik Aziz lebih teruk dari Islam nasionalis. Beliau rela mempertahankan Lee Kuan Yew dengan menganggap cadangan Lee Kuan Yew supaya orang Islam Singapura tidak terlalu kuat berpegang kepada ajaran Islam adalah tidak seburuk dari Islam nasionalis Melayu.


11.Cadangan Lee Kuan Yew ini dianggap oleh Nik Aziz sebagai lebih baik dari segala-gala yang dilakukan oleh nasionalis Melayu di Malaysia. Bayangkan sahaja Islam di bawah pemerintahan Nik Aziz dengan Karpal, Kit Siang, Guan Eng. Jika pendapat rakan bukan Islam Nik Aziz menuntut supaya amalan ajaran Islam dilonggarkan, Nik Aziz mungkin bersetuju kerana Islam nasionalis lebih teruk daripada Lee Kuan Yew.

Baca sepenuhnya diBlog Negarawan Terulung Malaysia disini.


Saya rasa Tok Guru Nik Aziz sudah lama sangat pegang Jawatan MB Kelantan dan Mursyidul Am PAS, muhassabah dirilah jangan ingat ilmu ugama sudah tinggi sangat.  Saya insan kerdil yang jahil ini pun tidak berani untuk mengata orang Islam sesama kita sebagai jahil atau kafir, kerana hanya Allah sahja yang lebih mengetahui.


Pada hemat saya, 


PAS bukan Islam, Islam bukan PAS.


Ahli PAS orang Islam, Ahli UMNO orang Islam juga!


Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia sepatutnya mengharamkan mana-mana parti politik di Malaysia ini dari menggunakan perkataan "ISLAM" didalam nama parti mereka. 


Ini untuk mengelakkan kekeliruan, pecah belah dan terjadi kenyataan-kenyataan merapu dari politikus parti tersebut yang menggunakan Ugama sebagai perkakas politik dengan sewenangnya, saperti kafir mengkafir dan menjahilliahkan orang Islam yang tidak berdosa kerana tidak sama fahaman politik.

Teoh Beng Hock's Death: Gobind puzzled by AG move to seek High Court revision despite formation of a RCI

Updated 4:00pm:

Teoh Beng Hock inquest: Verdict review mention on Feb 17

SHAH ALAM: The scope of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh Beng Hock’s death should first be determined before the open verdict in the inquest can be reviewed. 

Read the rest in the Malay Mail here.

Original Post:
Interesting piece from the MI:
Teoh family puzzled by A-G’s motive

By Debra Chong

January 31, 2011

SHAH ALAM, Jan 31 — Teoh Beng Hock’s kin is baffled by the Attorney-General’s insistence on holding two separate proceedings into his death at the same time, the family lawyer said today.

Gobind Singh Deo, who has been representing the Teohs in court from Day One, questioned the A-G’s motive in urging for a review of the coroner’s open verdict in the young political aide’s death even though the prime minister has announced a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into the same case.

“Is the RCI allowed to take a different position in the High Court,” Gobind raised at a news conference today.

“We can’t have separate findings in the RCI and in the High Court revision,” he said, and called on the A-G to withdraw the court application and continue with the RCI proceedings to avoid confusion later on.

Senior government lawyer Dzulkifli Ahmad had earlier said in court he had received instructions from the A-G to go ahead with the review application in the High Court here despite the RCI’s much-widened scope to also look into the controversial circumstances surrounding Teoh’s fatal plunge from a high-rise office complex housing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) state headquarters two years ago.

Dzulkifli told reporters it was because the A-G had filed for a revision of the open verdict before the RCI was set up and its scope and terms of reference expanded.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had initially announced the RCI would only investigate the MACC’s procedures for breaching human rights but later bowed down to public pressure to include Teoh’s death.

The A-G was reported to be unhappy with the January 5 open verdict and had filed for the case to be reviewed two days later.

“Our stand is there can’t be an open verdict... We have written a letter stating our stand but I can’t disclose it now,” Dzulkifli said when asked if the A-G wanted a verdict of suicide or homicide.

Gobind challenged the government lawyer’s statement.

“I was informed in open court they are pushing for suicide,” he told reporters, but sidestepped when pressed further on when the deputy public prosecutor had told him so.

The Teoh family are equally unhappy with the open verdict and have been pushing for it to be changed to homicide, based on their Thai forensic expert’s testimony.

Thailand’s top pathologist, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, had testified in the inquest that Teoh’s death was likely a homicide, pointing to a neck injury that suggested he had been strangled before falling out of a window.

Gobind said he will be writing a letter to be allowed to sit in on the RCI’s first meeting to find out the details of its scope of investigation and if they would overlap with the court review.

The RCI, led by Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong, will sit for the first time on February 14.

High Court judge Datuk Wira Mohtarudin Baki fixed February 17 to mention the review case again.

Read in full here.


Certainly this is getting interesting, however Gobind should allow the RCI and the AG to do their work instead of badgering them to do this or that according to what he thinks is correct. 


Both the RCI and the revision application is to seek the truth, whatever the truth may be, is it not?

Tenang By-Elections - BN win with higher majority but question mark on Chinese support

The people of Tenang has spoken:

BN keeps Tenang with 3,707 majority
(MI) UPDATED @ 12:16:35 AM 31-01-2011 By Adib Zalkapli January 30, 2011


LABIS, Jan 30 — Barisan Nasional’s (BN) retained the Tenang seat today with a 3,707 vote majority, short of the 5,000 majority the ruling coalition had expected from the Umno stronghold.


BN’s Azahar Ibrahim polled 6,699 votes against PAS’s Normala Sudirman, who took 2,992 votes from the 12 polling districts.


A total of 9,833 voters or 67 per cent of the 14,753 electorate turned up to cast their ballots despite the rain. 

Read the rest here.


Congratulations to BN, Tenang is however an UMNO fortress and the likelihood of PAS ever throwing out UMNO is very slim. The majority votes showed that the Malays and Indians are coming back to BN and will likely to continue to the GE13.


I think the MCA needs to buck up if they ever hope to recover from the March 2008 debacle because it looks like the DAP still holds the Chinese votes. The trend which can be seen starting from the Bukit Gantang, Perak by-election will likely continue until the GE13.


The BN will have to relook their strategy now, because if they think that with all the goodies thrown at the Chinese community would be enough to make them return to BN fold then I think they are severely mistaken. Chinese votes cannot be bought that's for sure.


Lets not talk bull about voting for reform, justice and transparency shall we, in Malaysia communal politics still prevail as long as the vernacular schools exist.  I think it is timely now to have the best of the MCA/Gerakan candidates put against the DAP candidates, one on one in the next election. The Chinese must decide who they want to represent them in Malaysian politics, the MCA/Gerakan or the DAP. While the best of UMNO/MIC candidates to go one on one against PAS/PKR candidates. 


The Pakatan loose coalition will for sure put a DAP candidate in Chinese majority area and Malay candidates in Malay dominant areas, the BN has to play the same game. There is no time for camaraderie and generosity in the next election, its all about getting as many votes as possible, the wrong choice of candidate means BN could well loose the Federal Government. UMNO, MCA, MIC and other BN component parties have their work cut out for them, its a matter of survival now.

DAP's proposed Pulau Pinang's Freedom of Information Bill disgusting?

Its not everyday that the Aliran come up with a article critical of the Pakatan:

Penang’s FOI Bill ‘disgusting’ — Sarajun Hoda Abdul Hassan

January 30, 2011

JAN 30 — The Penang government is inviting feedback on its proposal for a Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill. A closer scrutiny reveals that this enactment proposal is basically a carbon copy of the Selangor FOI Bill that was launched much earlier. The inconsequential

changes in two or three sections are limited only to a different choice of words. Otherwise in essence, spirit and meaning, it is exactly the same. Not surprising because it must have come from the same “Gani Patail” camp of thinking.

Like the Selangor FOI Bill, Penang’s FOI Bill is all too pretentious. It is poorly and purposely prepared to fail the state government’s desire for reform from the onset. Despite having access to some of the best legal minds in the country, the Penang Pakatan government did not think it fit to better prepare the Bill before putting it up to the people for their consideration. Appreciate that more than half Penang’s state assembly members from Pakatan are lawyers. Yet, coming with such a vague FOI Bill is not only disappointing but utterly disgusting.

As it is, my story published in Aliran Monthly, Vol.30, No. 9/2010, provided detailed feedback for the Selangor FOI Bill. Those comments stand for the corresponding sections of this Penang FOI Bill. It’s like peas in the same pod. That’s how identical it is, with all the

same shortcomings.

Again, there is no seriousness by the Penang government to come out with a significantly different or better FOI enactment despite knowing that the Selangor government received loads of comments and input from civil society on its FOI Bill. The Penang government has also had enough time to consider some if not all the recommendations from civil society; yet it just didn’t bother to and superciliously went ahead to come up with almost a carbon copy of the same seriously deficient and flawed Selangor FOI.

Selangor’s FOI Bill, being the country’s first, was understandably impaired. But, what excuse has Penang to come up with the same paltry replica of Selangor’s FOI Bill? It is so very unlike Penang, which has always prided itself on being a leader in bringing about reforms in

Malaysia. After all, “Penang Leads”, right? Yet, this senseless and futile exercise by the state government either takes civil society organisations for fools or it just aims to hoodwink them into thinking that this FOI will put all necessary reforms pertinent to good governance in place while effectively using it as a delaying tactic until the next general election.

With such copious shortcomings, having or not having the FOI enactment makes little difference. With this FOI Bill, freedom of information will just not be forthcoming. For example, there is not a single section anywhere in the proposed enactment that suggests general information shall be freely made available to the public by the various state departments for the sake of good governance. This proactive and unambiguous assertion, which is essential in any FOI enactment, is conveniently and conspicuously missing.

Why does one need to ask for information? Why not simply post information in publications, public notices or even on official websites? Why does one have to give reasons for accessing any information? And if information can be given once, why not a second time? The information belongs to the people. The state government is merely a temporary caretaker. Why does the public have to pay for what it owns in the first place? Why cannot the public have access to information that belongs to them?

Why does the state government need 30 days to divulge information? In emergency cases, they need seven days. If one is in a fix — police custody for example — and needs information to prove one’s innocence, isn’t seven days too long? Beng Hock was killed even sooner. The most devastating Section 7(3) says, “. . . if there is no response within the

stipulated time, it is deemed rejected”. So easy? And Section 8 says, “. . . information sought may be refused if the applicant is not entitled to it”. Who decides that?

The FOI Bill is surrounded by a million reasons stipulating why information ‘may’ not be given. Instead of asserting the opening up of access to information, it only speaks about conditions for not divulging information, and even more excuses for impeding access. It

finally sounds just as haughty, opaque and obfuscating as the Selangor Bill.

The Bill says that it “may” give information, and not SHALL. It hides behind excuses such as “likely to prejudice relations” if disclosed; “likely to cause serious prejudice to state government policy formulations, developments, administration, economic developments,

undermine a department, undermine an audit or test, or any documents it gazettes”. Information is also vaguely refused if the access to information interferes with the operation of the department, is deemed inappropriate, vexatious or unreasonable or for repeated application.

As well, the fact that appeal board members can be removed any time without assigning any reason also means that the FOI Bill loses its credence, defeats its consequence, undermines its independence mandate, and fails the confidence of the people. There is no separation of

powers between the appeal board and the state government, which obviously wants to have it under its full and final control. Then again, the appeal does not work on the basis of the majority. The Chairman can make his unilateral decision and it cannot be challenged in any court. Sound familiar?

Then the guillotine falls down hard. If the information accessed is used for a different reason and purpose, it will invite a fine up to RM50,000 and/or a jail term not exceeding two years. Is this chilling effect not deliberately designed to discourage potential applicants from trying to get information? On the opposite scenario, if the State Official refuses to divulge information in his custody, what then is the punishment?

All in all, it is a kangaroo FOI Bill with a slippery skin of an eel. — aliran.com read more here.

All in all, it is a kangaroo bill with a slippery skin of an eel...I couldn't agree more.

Anifah says PM's wife helps strengthen bilateral ties but some say isn't that the job of the Kementerian Luar Negeri

A report by the Malaysian Insider provoked attention:

Anifah: Rosmah helps strengthen bilateral ties

Jan 29 — Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman described Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor as a smart woman who has contributed in strengthening Malaysia’s relations with other countries.

He said Rosmah’s credibility was recognised by many foreign governments and this was proven from the various invitations she received to deliver keynote addresses at various international conferences, particularly on early childhood education as well as on women and social development issues.

Read the rest here.

I know YB Anifah has done great as our Menteri Luar Negeri, I dare say much better than the 3 Menteri Luar Negeri before him. But sorry, I do not know what to make out of this statement attributed to our current Menteri Luar, but, isn't strengthening of bilateral ties between sovereign countries the job of our Cabinet Ministers the PM, DPM in particular the Menteri Luar Negeri?

YB Gobalakrishnan finally left PKR

YB Gobalakrishnan officially resigned by PKR, some say it has lost its "Keadilan" long time ago, some say its now Parti Keluarga AnwaR, with Anwar Ibrahim as Ketua Umum, Wife Azizah as President, Daughter Nurul as Vice-President and Anwar's favourite friend Azmin as Timbalan President, so can we blame them. The story here:

Gobalakrishnan quits PKR, says Anwar 'trapped'

Gobalakrishnan quits PKR

All I can say is welcome to the club YB. The only surprise is you took a long time to finally leave PKR. 

Chinese Votes: where art thou?

Utusan Malaysia's Awang Selamat posed an interesting question today:

Ke mana undi Cina? — Awang Selamat

January 30, 2011

30 JAN — Selain menanti keputusan pilihan raya kecil Tenang pada Ahad ini, Awang teruja untuk melihat sikap pengundi Cina. 

Dalam 13 pilihan raya kecil lalu yang diadakan selepas pilihan raya umum 2008, tidak banyak perubahan kepada pendirian pengundi Cina yang lebih memihak kepada pembangkang. 

Walaupun pemimpin BN menunjukkan kemurahan hati dengan memenuhi banyak permintaan NGO dan masyarakat Cina setempat di sesuatu kawasan pilihan raya kecil, ia tidak diterjemahkan dalam bentuk undi. 

Inilah persoalan menarik. Apakah kali ini ada perubahan sikap kepada pengundi Cina yang kini lebih terikat dengan aspirasi DAP dan PKR? 

Berdasarkan perbincangan Awang dengan ramai penganalisis politik, pemimpin BN dan pengundi Cina, ada dua kesimpulan yang boleh dibuat. 

Pertama masyarakat Cina memerlukan lebih masa untuk menerima BN. Itu pun bergantung kepada perkembangan dan isu-isu yang kaum itu perjuangkan. Ini memerlukan kesabaran dan strategi yang kemas. 

Kedua, BN perlu bersedia menghadapi kemungkinan untuk tidak lagi bersandarkan harapan kepada pengundi Cina termasuk dalam pilihan raya umum akan datang. 

Jika ada peningkatan sokongan, itu dianggap bonus. Faktor perpecahan Melayu dan percaturan pemimpin pembangkang Melayu termasuk Pas yang sanggup tunduk kepada DAP, sedikit sebanyak mempengaruhi sikap pengundi Cina. 

Inilah dilema BN. Namun janganlah putus asa, peluang untuk memenangi hati kaum tersebut belum tertutup sama sekali. Ini kerana sebahagian orang Cina sedar bahawa kaum itu tidak boleh lari daripada politik arus perdana dalam menjamin masa depan mereka. 

Selama ini, masyarakat Cina menjadi dominan dalam ekonomi dan kekayaan negara adalah di bawah naungan BN. Seperti mana kata-kata pemikir dan strategis Cina, Sun Tzu, emosi dan kepentingan masa singkat tidak akan menentukan kejayaan jangka panjang. Lebih-lebih lagi, BN di bawah pimpinan Perdana Menteri, Mohd. Najib Tun Razak menunjukkan komitmen tinggi untuk membela nasib semua kaum sebagaimana yang dibuktikan menerusi gagasan 1Malaysia. 

Tetapi seandainya majoriti pengundi Cina masih enggan menyokong BN, usahlah bimbang. Awang percaya akan ada jalan keluar. Jangan lupa BN terutama UMNO belum hilang kekuatan dan pengaruh. 

Kita tunggu keputusan malam ini. Ia boleh menjadi titik tolak penting untuk BN merangka strategi baru termasuk bagi memperkasakan pula golongan yang sememangnya menjadi penyokong setia. 

Hati golongan ini yang perlu lebih dijaga. Jangan sampai mereka pula merajuk dan bertukar haluan, itu lebih parah. 

Maka berlakulah apa yang dikejar tidak dapat, yang dikendung berciciran. Jika itu berlaku, semuanya sudah terlambat. — Mingguan Malaysia

Depending on the Tenang by-election results, I think there will be much change in strategies by BN and Pakatan before the next GE13. 

Having said that, I am very impressed by the DAP fervent support of the PAS candidate and PAS's Hj. Hadi's heartfelt plea to the Chinese Community for votes in Tenang. 

Times they are a changing, it used to be PAS telling of UMNO for working with the MCA, politics is certainly the art of the impossible, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.

The number 13 is an unlucky no. for some, 1+3=4 is unlucky number for some as as well.

The trial of Corporal Jenain Subi, I pray that justice will prevail

It must be appreciated that a Policeman on car patrol have a duty to ensure the safety of the General Public. In a car chase he has to make split second decisions and decide who he is pursuing is a criminal on the run or just a joy rider without a licence. A Policeman's work is made tougher when patrolling at night when visibility is low. 

Aminulasyid trial: Police have right to shoot, say cop’s lawyers

(MI) SHAH ALAM, Jan 28 — The defence lawyer for Aminulrasyid Amzah’s accused killer argued today that his client was given the right to shoot, although he did not intend to kill the deceased 15-year-old.

M. Athimulan, the lawyer for Corporal Jenain Subi, said Jenain was merely attempting to stop the fleeing car, during the submission in the Sessions Court here.

He quoted witnesses’ accounts of the teenage joyrider driving at about 120km to about 130km an hour, where the speed limit was at 60km.

In addition, witnesses claimed that the teenager had also run a red light in the middle of the high-speed chase.

“The car was doing a zig-zag, it was an endangerment to the public,” he said.

Aminulrasyid was driving a Proton Iswara Aeroback with the registration number plate BET 5023 just before he was shot to death last year.

He was gunned down at the end of a high-speed police car chase across the state capital in the early hours of April 26.

Earlier, the policemen who had pursued him in two patrol cars testified that the schoolboy’s refusal to pull over, coupled with his road devil antics, had caused them to think he was a criminal on the run.

Jenain, 48, a patrolman attached to the Section 11 police station here, was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Aminulrasyid.

He faces up to 30 years’ jail and a fine if found guilty.

Constable Izham Mahayaddin had testified that he had fired gunshots at the white Proton Iswara to stop the speeding vehicle.

Constable Mohamad Hafizd Mohd Yusof, who was driving a patrol car with Jenain as his passenger, had also said he saw the latter fire gunshots at the Proton Iswara in Jalan Tarian 11/2 in Section 11 here.

Corporal Azhar Hashim, who was driving one of the patrol cars during the pursuit, testified that shooting at the Proton Iswara was the only way policemen could have stopped the speeding vehicle.

He said the Proton Waja and Proton Wira patrol cars could not overtake the Proton Iswara during the car chase.

Aminulrasyid was found dead on that road after a bullet pierced through his brain.

His friend Azamuddin Omar, who was the front-seat passenger in Aminulrasyid’s car, survived the ordeal.

Athimulan said there was a lack of evidence to prove the person who had fired the bullet that had killed Aminulrasyid.

“There is no evidence of deliberate act of shooting,” he said.

He explained that it was an unintentional act of the shooter who was aiming at the the car to stop it.

“The police have the legal right to stop the car.

“Based on the facts of this case, the arrest was justified. This is not a case of indiscriminate shooting,” he said.

Athimulan said it was his client’s duty to stop reckless and unlawful behaviour, and in this case, he acted on the suspicion of a fleeing robber.

“He was given the right by the government to protect the country, and that was what he did,” he said.

He said the law empowered the police to prevent one from committing a seizable offence, such as driving in a manner that endangered public safety.

Salim Bashir, also Jenain’s lawyer, said his client had good intentions to stop the car.

“The situation triggered him to think that it is a criminal who is trying to run away, not a 15-year-old boy,” he said.

Salim added the police were given guns to discharge when the need to do so arises.

“He should be commended for doing that,” he said.

Investigating officer ASP Abdul Halim Haji Ismail had said that Aminulrasyid had committed a string of offences, including reckless and dangerous driving, during the pursuit that had ended in his fatal shooting.

Throughout the trial, the defence has focused on Aminulrasyid’s alleged reckless driving that caused the police to shoot in order to arrest what they thought to be a fleeing criminal.

Since Jenain’s trial began on October 12 last year, the prosecution has put 39 witnesses on the stand.

Judge Latifah Mohd Tahar postponed submissions to January 31 to hear the rest of the prosecution team’s submission.

My heartfelt sympathies for the family of  Allahyarham Aminul Rasyid but I empathise with Police Officer Corporal Jenain Subi too. 

I pray that justice will prevail in the end.