Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Sempena Ramadhan

A beautiful song sung by Indonesian Gita Gutawa:


jalan lurus sepuluh yang mesti ditempuh
yang pertama bahwa Allah maha esa
yang kedua Muhammad rasul kita
yang ketiga cinta ibu cinta ayah kita
yang keempat cinta guru-guru kita
yang kelima cinta tanah air kita

diri kita memancarkan cahya cinta
semoga Allah membimbing kita semua
jalan lurus sepuluh yang mesti ditempuh

yang keenam solat mari ditegakkan
yang ketujuh Quran baca diartikan
yang kelapan sedekah dengan dermawan
yang sembilan puasa penuh keikhlasan
yang sepuluh senyum sopan senantiasa
keramahan perilaku diri kita
semoga Allah membimbing kita semua

Semuga hidup kita dirahmati dan diberkati Allah keakhir hayat

Monday, 30 July 2012

After 55 years Merdeka, why must Gomen still give approval for more Chinese independent schools

"Setting up more Chinese independent schools and recognising its United Examination Certificate will create further obstacles to national unity"

“It’s already a fact from the very beginning that vernacular (schools) can be set up by the different communities, which has resulted in our young people not being together and that has become a hindrance towards unity among the people,”
Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Chinese independent schools does not contribute to unity among races, it only encourage voluntary segregation and encourage Malaysians to live separate lives oblivious to the majority of the population. 

Come 31st August 2012, we will be celebrating our 55th Merdeka. A nation going into its 55th year as a sovereign and independent entity should be celebrating unity of its multiracial population but sadly there are still citizens of this country who demand that more Chinese Independent School whose curriculum are based on a foreign country to be built in this blessed country of ours. 

Dr. Mahathir cannot be more blunt when he said:

More Chinese independent schools will divide people

Sadly the Gomen caved in to obvious political pressure and approved another Chinese Independent School  in Kuantan [read here] about a month later. Fresh from their success to pressure the seemingly weak BN Gomen in the run up to the next GE13, the Dong Zong and their supporters are upping the ante, and are now campaigning for a Chinese Independent School in Segamat read here

I am not holding my breath to see whether the Dong Zong who advocate that even non Mandarin speakers cannot teach in Government/Government aided vernacular schools will get what they want in Segamat, as I think this very friendly BN Gomen will capitulate and say ok to more voluntary segregation of the races in this country. 

Presumably, with more approvals from the very Generous Najib BN Gomen for more Independent schools coming up all over the country, then what Dr. Mahathir say will one day come true:

“If we recognise Chinese education and their certificates, we will have three different people talking in three different languages and I think we will not be able to live together as a whole,”
Dr Mahathir Mohamed

It will be a  sad,sad,sad day indeed when that day comes.

Friday, 27 July 2012

Tidak sepatutnya berlaku...

Saya tertarik dengan penulisan Blogger Helen Ang mengenai satu surat dari CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA (PERSEKUTUAN KRISTIAN MALAYSIA) KEPADA GEREJA-GEREJA DAN UMAT KRISTIAN MALAYSIA BERKAITAN PILIHANRAYA UMUM KE-13 YANG AKAN DATANG bertarikh 18 Julai 2012 yang ditandatangani oleh Uskup Datuk Ng Moon Hing Pengerusi dan Ahli Jawatankuasa Eksekutif, Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia. 

Saya tidak berminat untuk membincangkan merit  atau demerit surat tersebut, saya fikir itu hal merekalah untuk memberitahu pengikut mereka apa yang patut lakukan atau tidak, mengikut lunas lunas agama mereka dan undang-undang negara Malaysia yang dirahmati ini.

Walau bagaimanapun ada satu perenggan didalam surat tersebut yang tidak berapa manis dibaca oleh rakyat Malaysia terutama mereka yang beragama Islam:

Link kepada surat PKM tersebut disini
Apakah maksud PKM dengan perenggan ini:

Sebuah negara di mana kebebasan agama merangkumi kebebasan untuk menganut, mengamal dan menyebarkan agama di mana ia dibenarkan berkembang tanpa sebarang pembatasan yang tidak wajar dari undang undang, penegahan ataupun larangan.

Tidak munasabahlah  jika PKM sebagai sebuah persekutuan agama yang dianggotai rakyat Malaysia tidak tahu mengenai Perlembagaan Malaysia:

Ekstrak daripada Perlembagaan Malaysia (Sumber disini):

Perkara 11. Kebebasan beragama.
(1) Tiap-tiap orang berhak menganuti dan mengamalkan agamanya dan, tertakluk kepada Fasal (4), mengembangkannya.
(2) Tiada seorang pun boleh dipaksa membayar apa-apa cukai yang hasilnya diuntukkan khas kesemuanya atau sebahagiannya bagi maksud sesuatu agama selain agamanya sendiri.
(3) Tiap-tiap kumpulan agama berhak—
(a) menguruskan hal ehwal agamanya sendiri;
(b) menubuhkan dan menyenggarakan institusi-institusi bagi maksud agama atau khairat; dan
(c) memperoleh dan mempunyai harta dan memegang dan mentadbirkannya mengikut undang-undang.
(4) Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.
(5) Perkara ini tidaklah membenarkan apa-apa perbuatan yang berlawanan dengan mana-mana undang-undang am yang berhubungan dengan ketenteraman awam, kesihatan awam atau prinsip moral.

Saya tidak kisahlah parti-parti politik yang mana pilihan kalbu yang dimaksudkan oleh PKM didalam surat mereka itu, tetapi adalah tersilap besar jika mereka ingat Perkara 11 Perlembagaan Malaysia boleh diubah/reform dengan sewenang wenangnya oleh mana mana Parti politik yang memenangi PRU13 yang akan datang.


Thursday, 19 July 2012

I sure miss the Emergency Ordnance Act

A shocking lack of monitoring of suspected criminals released following the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance is equally frightening. The number of ex-EO detainees involved in crime has been piling up and yesterday Selangor police disclosed that six ex-Simpang Renggam detainees were arrested in connection with robberies and car theft over the past 48 hours. 
Source: Frankie D'Cruz Malay Mail here

The Emergency Ordnance Act which was introduced following race riots in 1969, allows suspects to be detained without charge for up to two years if permission is granted by a Minister. The  useful Act was repealed late 2011 and since then there are these perceptions of increasing crimes that may have been caused by the  release of exEO detainees as a result of the repeal.


Now, MIC works on plans to allow them to lead positive and useful lives

Six former Simpang Renggam detention centre inmates held in Klang Valley

These are incidences  reported just in the Klang Valley alone, what about ex-detainees released all over the country. I like any other citizens greatly care about the safety of my wife,  my family and my fellow Malaysians and visitors to this country. We have the right to feel safe to walk on our streets, the car parks or wherever in this blessed country. 

I do not care what those minority human rights activist and NGOs or any foreign do-gooders have to say about the EO, it was a good Deterrent Law that protected the MAJORITY of peace loving Malaysians. 

When it concerns our safety and security I do not give a damn about law reform or reform minded politicians/law makers...I want and will vote for a Gomen that can protect the majority of its citizens from criminals out to cause us  harm.

I am not blaming the hard working men and women of the PDRM, they are only following the orders of the Executives in Government in the release of the EO detainees.  I hope the Gomen will have a thorough study on the repeal of any other Good Crime Deterrent/Prevention Laws, demanded by the minority human rights do-gooders who only think about themselves and their interests. 

I trust that the Main Stream Newspaper will continue to highlight the ex-EO detainees crime incidences. We Malaysians have the right to know so that we can take more precautionary measures besides putting pressure on the relevant authorithies to beef up security measures as a consequent of the slew of Law reforms/repeal.

read also Blogger Tuan Syed: 

Results Of Repealing ISA & EO : Padan Muka

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Lynas Gebeng: Apology from an Opposition News Portal

Supporters of the Lynas Gebeng plant and I guess many right thinking Malaysians who are not taken in by the fear mongering of the opposition parties and NGOs about the safety of the  Lynas Gebeng processing plant are overjoyed with this apology from the obviously anti BN news portal:

Source here.
This is the apology:
"We refer to the articles previously published by us which claim that the Lynas plant may be unsafe. We apologise for these publications as such claims do not have a scientific basis. The regulatory review of the Lynas plant has been thorough and diligent"

I am just wondering when the others will follow suit.

Friday, 13 July 2012

"Guan Eng went to prison for a Malay family"; Truth or DAP's urban legend?

The DAP always like to quote that Lim Guan Eng went to prison for a Malay family. Is this true or is it a urban legend that Guan Eng wants to perpetuate for political purposes. I am no lawyer lah but I did me some googling in the internet and found the written judgement of the Courts of Appeal in respect to Guan Eng versus the Public Prosecutor.

Guan Eng was  charged in the High Court in 1994 was found guilty and was penalised with a fine, which he and the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Higher Courts of Appeal.

These are excerpts of the Judgement of the Courts of Appeal which detailed the Facts and Background of the case against Guan Eng which should enlighten readers and to make your own conclusion :

  1. These four appeals came before us on 1 April 1998. Two of them were by Lim Guan Eng whom we shall, throughout this judgment, refer to as ‘the appellant’.
    • The first of these was directed against the conviction and sentence on a charge under s 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (‘the PPPA’).
    • The second was directed against the conviction and sentence upon a charge under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948.
    The other two appeals were by the Public Prosecutor who complained that the sentence passed upon the appellant in respect of each proved offence was inadequate. Although the appeals by the Public Prosecutor were lodged in point of time, we decided to hear the appellant’s appeals first. Counsel for the appellant and the learned deputies who appeared for the respondent agreed to this course.
  2. After carefully considering the arguments addressed to us, we dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence, but allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal. We set aside the sentence passed upon the appellant by the High Court on each charge. We then sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment on each charge with effect from 1 April 1998, and ordered that these sentences do run concurrently. The reasons for our decision are as follows.
  3. The appellant is the Member of Parliament for Kota Malacca. He is a prominent political figure whose views command much influence over the Malaysian public. He is, and was at all material times, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Democratic Action Party (‘DAP’), which is the political party that leads the opposition in Parliament. He is also the National Chairman of the DAP Youth. These are positions of some importance.
  4. Rahim Tamby Chik (‘Rahim’) was the former Chief Minister of the state of Malacca. He was charged with certain offences, the particulars of which are irrelevant for present purposes. However, the Public Prosecutor, after a consideration of the material before him came to the conclusion that there was inadequate evidence to proceed with the case against Rahim. Accordingly, the charges against Rahim were withdrawn and he was acquitted of them.
  5. The case against Rahim attracted much publicity in the print and the electronic media. Wide publicity was also given to the allegation that Rahim had had sexual relations with a girl below the age of 16 years. The truth of this allegation was never tested in a court of law. However, the Attorney General in his capacity of Public Prosecutor made a public statement to the effect that there was insufficient evidence to show that Rahim had committed any offence in relation to the girl in question.
  6. Although the girl’s name appears in the record of proceedings before us, we directed that it be not published. Henceforth, we will merely refer to her as ‘the minor’.
  7. The evidence available on record shows that the minor was at one point in time detained by the police. But she was not, according to her own evidence, placed in a lock-up. She was subsequently placed in protective custody pursuant to an interim order made by the magistrate’s court under s 8(2) of the Women and Girls Protection Act 1973. There was then an attempt by her grandmother to have her set at liberty. However, the habeas corpus proceedings instituted for that purpose failed, the minor having filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to be removed from the protective custody in which she had been placed. After the dismissal of the habeas corpus application, a final order was made under s 8(4) of the aforesaid Act. We may add that this final order was made at the instance of the minor.
  8. The appellant was unhappy with these events. He asked questions about them in Parliament. He was given answers to these questions. But he was still dissatisfied.
  9. On or about 15 January 1995, there was published at his instance, 5,000 copies of a pamphlet (exhs P11 and P11B) which gave intimation of a gathering at the Emperor Hotel in the City of Malacca to be held on 19 January 1995. It was headed ‘ceramah kisah benar’ ('a gathering for a true story'[a]).
  10. One of the topics upon which speeches were to be made at the gathering in question was described by the pamphlet in the following words:

    The Rahim Tamby Chik sex scandal 
    Wither justice and women’s rights 
    Victim imprisoned, criminal free.
  11. The words ‘Mangsa dipenjarakan’ (‘Victim imprisoned’) are the subject matter of the first charge against the appellant which alleged that these words amounted to false news that had been maliciously published by the appellant contrary to s 8A(1) of the PPPA.
  12. The gathering of which the pamphlet gave notice took place as scheduled. The appellant made a speech in which it is alleged that he said: 
    1. that he was dissatisfied with the laws of Malaysia because of the double standard which resulted in the rape case involving Rahim not being brought to court and the Attorney General had stated that Rahim was not involved in a rape case involving the minor; and
    2. that he was dissatisfied with the fact that the court had ordered the minor to be detained for three years whereas Rahim, who should have been imprisoned for violating the law, was instead set free.
    These two comments became the subject matter of the second charge against the appellant, the allegation being that he had committed sedition contrary to s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948.
  13. There were about 300 persons present at the gathering. A preponderance of them were of Malay community. Among those present were police officers assigned to monitor the gathering. They were PW2, 7, and 12. Mr. Yew Kok Kee (PW14), the publicity secretary for the Malacca DAP and a member of the Malacca State Assembly was also present. It was this witness who had applied for and obtained a permit from the police to hold the gathering.
  14. Later, a police report was lodged. Investigations commenced. At their conclusion, the appellant was charged with committing the offences of which we spoke of a moment ago.
  15. After a trial lasting several days, Mohd Noor Abdullah J, in a reserved decision delivered on 28 April 1997, found the appellant guilty on the first charge and sentenced him to a fine of RM10,000, in default six months’ imprisonment. On the second charge, the judge found the first comment not to have been proved. He, however, found that the appellant had committed an offence in respect of the second comment. He entered a conviction against the appellant upon the second charge and imposed a fine of RM5000, in default three months’ imprisonment.
  16. The appellant’s appeals are directed at both convictions and the sentences passed upon him.
The rest of the Written Judgement can be read here

Anyway to cut a long story short, after a series of appeal Guan Eng was sent to jail for 18 months but was released after 12 months on 25 August 1999. I guess the rest is history.

So did Guan Eng went to jail for a Malay family?

As for me, from the facts of the case, I believe the Malay girl in question certainly did not need Guan Eng or her Grandmother to defend her, read para (7) above.  Guan Eng went to jail because he broke the Law, he was found guilty to the charge of spreading false news and Sedition, read para (1),(11) and (12) above.

I leave it to  readers to form their own conclusion. 

Thank You.

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Penang Port to Penangites? If yes, then CM Post to Penangites too, agree?

The privatisation of the non performing Penang Port is now being politicised and used to the hilt by the DAP State Gomen of Penang to rally the people to support the Penang State Gomen lead by DAP supremo son Lim Guan Eng a state DAP reject from Melaka (but nepotism rules in DAP meh) . This is a welcome respite for the under siege  Penang DAP having to answer many questions on the Hill Developments, the Bayan Mutiara sham deal, the lack of low cost housing even personal questions about CM Guan Eng and his wife.

Non Penangites not Welcome to operate Penang Port?
Never mind that the port's privatisation will bring much needed benefit to the lethargic port under it would be new operators who have made Johor Port and the Port of Tanjung Pelepas a success. 

The DAP also asked that dredging be done for the Port with a construction cost of RM350million. I say  Guan Eng you think if the Penang Port navigation channel and turning basin is deepened then ships from other major liners would be clamouring and queuing to use the Port? Shows how much you know about ports lah...zilch. 

The Port facilities like cranes, storage area etc. and the industrial hinterland must be efficient and big enough to warrant it to become a major port like West Port, Klang and for that matter PTP and Johor Port, that's why you need the port to be privatised so that it would become efficient first before you can call the major liners with their super big ships. The RM350million is better of to be used for dredging at other minor and major ports in Malaysialah like the ones at Sg Dinding, Sg Sarawak or even Miri Port. Penang port does not exist in its own vacuumlah, there are much inter relation between the ports in Malaysia and those overseas, let the Ministry of Transport handle the big picture issue OK.

Anyway the Malaysiakini picture above does have an eerie likeness to the picture below from Malaysiakini too, DAP Dear Leader is prominent in both pictures also:

Teachers who cannot speak Mandarin  not welcome in Chinese Schools?

Going by this convoluted logic of the DAP then it is only right that the Chief Minister Post of Pulau Pinang should be a Penangite. I think Penangites should really start a campaign:

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Justice for Saiful? Sodomy 2 moves from High Court to Appeals Court

The Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy case now moves from the High Court to the Appeals Court:

Sodomy II prosecutors insist DNA samples not suspect

KUALA LUMPUR, July 11 — The prosecution in Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case today applied to the Appeals Court to set aside a High Court decision acquitting and discharging Anwar of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

It also applied to have Anwar convicted under Section 377B of the Penal Code on the offence of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature.

The applications were made on the grounds that High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who heard the case, had erred in doubting the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.

The prosecution contended that Mohamad Zabidin had ruled at the end of the prosecution’s case that the “male Y” obtained from the DNA profile analysed by a chemist, Dr Seah Lee Hong, was from the semen extract that matched the DNA profile obtained from samples taken from the lockup occupied by Anwar.

These were among the grounds given by the prosecution in its petition of appeal, filed last Monday at the Appeals Court registry.

The prosecution submitted 10 grounds in the petition.

It also said that Mohamad Zabidin, at the end of the prosecution’s case, ruled that that there was no way for investigating officer DSP Blacious Jude Pereira to have used the DNA samples obtained from the lockup cell to tamper with the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.

The judge, according to the prosecution, had also erred in law and in fact when finding that there were doubts on the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful when he (judge) had called Anwar to enter his defence on the charge at the end of the prosecution’s case.

“The honourable judge had erred in law and fact when he failed to decide that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case beyond any doubts at the end of the defence case,” the prosecution contended.

The prosecution also claimed that the judge had erred in law and fact in assessing the testimony pertaining to the collection, handling and analysis of DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.

The judge had considered wrongly the testimony by defence witnesses Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald who gave their views based on incomplete and incomprehensive theories, without taking into account theories and findings by specialists produced by the prosecution, it said.

The prosecution felt that the judge had also erred in law and fact when he failed to assess Dr McDonald’s expertise and experience in DNA examination, and also that of Dr Seah and Dr Nor Aidora Saedon, a chemist, both of whom gave their opinions based on their own examinations and analysis, compared with Dr Wells and Dr McDonald whose opinions were only based on theories.

It argued that the judge also failed to take into account that there was other evidence which supported Mohd Saiful’s testimony, and had erred in law and fact when placing the burden of proof higher than the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution to prove its case.

Last Monday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court handed over its 80-page written judgment, together with the appeal record, to the prosecution to facilitate the latter in the filing of the appeal.

On January 9 this year, Mohamad Zabidin acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a unit in the Desa Damansara Condominium, Bukit Damansara, here between 3.10 pm and 4.30 pm on June 26, 2008. — Bernama

I am probably one of many who had thought that the Prosecution had an iron clad case against Anwar Ibrahim in the Sodomy 2 case, I hope that the Appeals Court agree with the Prosecution this time.

Monday, 9 July 2012


This is an email I received from my good friend who knows exactly what he is talking about, please read especially my Anti Lynas, Stop Lynas, Himpunan Hijau, PAS, DAP and PKR friends, its a lesson in life too:


The chance of dying one day is 100%. So do not worry yourself to death about it!

• Dying from heart disease -- 1 in 6 (lifetime risk) 
• Dying in an auto accident -- 1 in 75 (lifetime risk) 
• Committing suicide -- 1 in 71 (lifetime risk) 
• Being Murdered -- 1 in 140 (lifetime) 
DYING FROM CANCER - 1 in 5 (lifetime risk)
• Being struck by lightning -- 1 in 10,456 (lifetime) 
• Seriously injuring yourself while shaving -- 1 in 5,844 (annual risk) 
• Going to prison this year -- 1 in 139 
• Dying from falling out of your bed or chair -- 1 in 513,142 
• Being stuck and killed by a falling aircraft -- 1 in 25 million 
• Getting food poisoning -- 1 in 8 (annual risk) 
• Hiring a sleazy lawyer -- 1 in 8 
• Freezing to death (in non-tropical countries) -- 1 in 780,938 (annual risk) 


If one is already born, the best way to avoid dying from cancer is to die young from other illnesses like dengue, bird flu or malaria or from accidents!


VERY PLEASANT, NO PAIN, NO KNOWLEDGE, JUST LIKE GOING TO A NORMAL SLEEP AND YOU DIE UNDER THE CLEAR KNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR WIFE AND FAMILY WILL BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF FINANCIALLY because they will be able to sue the surgeon and hospital for millions of dollars ! Dying in any other way which include heart disease, infection, renal failure, lung failure, cancer or even "old age" can be rather painful and uncomfortable !

The risk of dying from a road traffic related accident in Malaysia is much higher than that which has been predicted for the death from radiation induced cancers.

For instance in 2009, there were 6,745 deaths in a population of 27.9 million giving a rate of 24.17 deaths per 100,000.

The main reason why the people of Kuantan is so frightened of the "Fukushimization" of the Lynas plant is pure and simple politics.

The chairman of the coalition of one of the anti-lynas organisation said in one of the Blogs:

Quote: "Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, the will of the people must prevail, IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LAMP IS SAFE OR NOT1" Unquote.

What the above statement means in simple non-Australian English is that THE WHOLE ISSUE IS 100% POLITICS AND THERE IS REALLY NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LYNAS PROJECT except that it is a fantastic political tool for certain politicians to gain POWER.



Dr Looi. 

Perhaps also the rabid anti Lynas Gebeng folks which more or less now means anti whatever BN, should pay a visit to this nice French town which had had a rare earth processing plant for decades without doing harm to the folks there, read here: La Rochelle, the 'Lynas of France'

"We heard that 90% of the inland revenue comes from Chinese, is it true?"

As a Malaysian who is a tax payer and who pays through his nose to satisfy LHDN requirement, I am really pissed every time I come across Malaysians who likes to speculate that the 90% of tax revenues comes from our Chinese brethren thus justifying the many demands of the minority.

I take exception to the statement in the CSL-LGE debate 2.0 when LGE said "Don't forget that the Chinese community pays the most taxes in Malaysia". These are mere assumptions to suit a particular political agenda, and is very divisive.

This is what the Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri CEO said on a question "We heard that 90% of the inland revenue comes from Chinese, is it true?"

"That is a misconception. It so happens that the majority of Chinese, especially in cities and towns, are in business and since business cases are often selected for audit through our risk management system, it is perceived that 90% of the income taxes are from the self-employed Chinese.
However, one should note that there are an equally great number of Malay traders in small towns and villages, albeit the volume of business could be much smaller, who are registered with our local branches.
There are also a great number of Malays and Chinese, too, who are in employment and these taxpayers are perceived to be paying every cent of their hard-earned income.
Although the IRB does not maintain records of taxpayers based on race, statistics of tax collection from individuals (including Indians and other races) is about 18% of the total tax collected of which 35% is from the self-employed group. I hope this fact dispels the perception that there is a racial bias in the tax system."
Source here.

The LHDN has spoken folks, please YB politicians, do not make sensitive and divisive statements that would upset us taxpayers who are from all creeds and religions in this blessed country called Malaysia.