Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Letter to PAP MPs on Rules of Prudence – Lee Hsien Loong

Recently the PAP party of Singapore won a landslide election winning 83 of 89 seats and 70% of the votes. After the elections the PAP Secretary General and Prime Minister of Singapore wrote letters to PAP MPs:

Letter to PAP MPs on Rules of Prudence – Lee Hsien Loong
Published: 29 September 2015 7:15 PM

It is a tradition for the prime minister to send a letter on “Rules of Prudence” to all the PAP MPs after an election. The context each time may be different but the subject remains constant, because integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental to our party. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance.

2. Our party has won 83 out of 89 seats in the just concluded general election, with all seats contested. Overall, the PAP won 69.9% of the votes.

3. The people have endorsed what we have done in the previous term, and given us a clear mandate to take Singapore forward beyond SG50. Now we must fulfil what we have promised to do in our manifesto. We must never break faith with the people, but must always carry out our duties to them responsibly, address their worries and advance their interests.

4. Be humble in victory. As MPs, always remember we are servants of the people, not masters. Do not mistake the strong election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken.

Much work remains to be done tackling issues which concern Singaporeans, and finding new ways to improve people’s lives. Listen hard to voter concerns, help them to tackle pressing needs, and convey their worries and aspirations to the government.

Persuade them to support policies which are in their own long term benefit, while helping the government to formulate good policies and stay in close touch with the people.

Upholding our reputation and integrity

5. One vital factor that has enabled the PAP to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity.

The PAP’s reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. As PAP MPs, your personal standing reflects this high standing of the Party as a whole.

I cannot stress strongly enough that every MP must uphold the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, and do nothing to compromise them. Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to ministers. That would discredit both you and the Party.

6. As MPs, you will come across many different sorts of people. Many altruistic, public spirited individuals will help you without wanting anything in return, spending time and money to get community projects going and to serve residents. But a few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence ministries and statutory boards to make decisions in their favour.

Gift hampers on festive occasions, entertainment, and personal favours big and small are just a few of countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obligated to them.

7. You must distinguish between these two groups of people, and be shrewd in assessing the motives of those who seek to get close to you. At all times be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.

8. Be scrupulously proper in your contacts with government departments or public officers. Do not lobby any ministry or statutory board on behalf of anyone who is not your constituent or grassroots activist. Do not raise matters with public officers on behalf of friends, clients, contractors, employers, or financiers to advance their business interests.

Conduct business with government agencies in writing and avoid making telephone requests. If you have to speak, follow up in writing to put your requests on record.

9. MPs are often approached by friends, grassroots leaders or proprietors and businessmen to officiate at the openings of their new shops or other business events. They usually offer a gesture, such as a donation to a charity or constituency welfare fund.

Though it may be awkward to refuse such requests, once you accept one, you will be hard-pressed to draw a line. As a rule, you should decline invitations to such business events. If you feel you should attend, please obtain prior approval from the Whip.

Separating business and politics

10. Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies, or who sit on company boards should be especially vigilant.

You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must always be above board.

11. MPs who are employed by companies or industry associations may at times have to make public statements on behalf of their company or industry association. If you have to do so, make it clear that you are not speaking as an MP, but in your private, professional or business capacity.

12. Do not use parliamentary questions as a means to lobby the government on behalf of your businesses or clients. When you raise questions in Parliament related to your own businesses or your clients, be careful to first declare your pecuniary interest in the issue.

13. You may, however, speak freely to Cabinet ministers, who are your parliamentary colleagues. Ministers will listen carefully to arguments on principles, especially when they relate to the general policy of their ministries.

But ministers will not exercise their discretion to change individual decisions without very good reasons which they can justify publicly. Parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state who intervene in their ministries to reverse or alter decisions should promptly report the matter to their ministers to protect themselves against possible accusations of misconduct.

The government must always base decisions on the merits of the issues, and cannot yield to pressure from interested parties.


14. MPs are often invited to serve on the Boards of private and publicly listed companies. This is a sign that the private sector values PAP MPs’ integrity and experience, and reflects the high standing of the party and of PAP MPs in general.

The party permits MPs to serve as directors, provided you keep your private and public responsibilities rigorously separate, and your private appointments do not compromise your duties and performance as an MP.

15. The public will closely scrutinise your involvement in companies, because you are a PAP MP. Conduct your business activities so as to bring credit to yourself and to the party.

Adverse publicity on your performance as a director, or lapses in the companies you are associated with, will tarnish your reputation as an MP and lower the public’s regard for the party.

16. You should not solicit for directorships in any companies, lest you appear to be exploiting your political position to benefit yourself.

17. You should not accept directorships where your role is just to dress up the board with a PAP MP or two, in order to make the company look more respectable.

18.   Some grassroots leaders are businessmen who own or manage companies. You should not sit on any boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders appointed by you, so as to avoid the perception that you are obligated to them or advancing their business interests.

19. If you are offered a directorship, you have to decide for yourself whether to accept. The Party is not in a position to vet or approve such decisions.

20. Before accepting, consider the possible impact of the directorship on your political life. Ensure that the company understands that you are doing so strictly in your private capacity, and will not use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf.

21. Make every effort to familiarise yourself with the business, track record and background of the key promoters of the company. Satisfy yourself that the company is reputable, and that you are able to make a meaningful contribution. Specifically, just like anyone else contemplating a directorship, you should ask yourself:

a. How well do you know the company, its business strategy, financial status, shareholding structure and the underlying industry?

b. Do you know your fellow directors, the way the board and its committees fulfil their responsibilities, the reporting structure between board and management and the relationship between shareholders and the company?

c. Do you have sufficient industry, financial or professional expertise to fulfil your expected role and responsibilities as a Director? Do you understand your obligations under the law and the Code of Corporate Governance? Will you be able to discharge your fiduciary duties properly and without fear or favour?

d. Will you face any conflicts of interest, and if so can you manage them? If in any doubt, you should decline.

22. Once you have decided to take up a Directorship, please inform the Whip. Detailed reporting requirements are listed in the Annex.


23. MPs are expected to attend all sittings of Parliament. If you have to be absent from any sitting, seek permission from the Government Whip. Please inform the Whip if you have to leave the Parliament premises while a sitting is on.

24.  If you travel abroad, or need to be absent from Parliament for any reason, you must apply to the Speaker for leave, with copies to the Leader of the House and the Government Whip. You should also inform the Whip where you can be reached while abroad.

25. I have asked the Speaker to give all MPs, particularly new MPs, ample opportunity and latitude to speak in Parliament. Your first opportunity will be during the debate on the President’s Address at the opening of Parliament in January 2016.

Following that, at the Budget Debate, all MPs should speak up. Script your speeches or put your key points in note form to structure your presentation and help the media.

26. The public expects PAP MPs to express their views frankly, whether for or against government policies. During debates, speak freely and with conviction. Press your points vigorously, and do not shy away from robust debate.

However, please exercise judgement when putting your points across, and do not get carried away playing to the gallery.

27. Bring out questions and issues that Singaporeans and your constituents have concerns about, and grapevine talk for the government to rebut, but avoid unwittingly lending credence to baseless gossip. This will show that you and the party are in touch with the ground, and speaking up for Singaporeans.

Bringing up pertinent issues and questions in a timely manner helps ministers to put across the facts, explain the reasons for policies and decisions, and maintain public confidence in the openness and integrity of our actions.

28. Your honest, informed views are an important political input to ministers when they formulate and review policies. Ministers will accept valid, constructive suggestions, but they have to challenge inaccurate or mistaken views.

Over time, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better.

Important public occasions

29. On certain occasions, like the National Day Parade and the Investiture Ceremony for National Day Awards, the whole establishment, i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, will be there. Those who cannot attend must have very good reasons. Those who have accepted the invitation must attend, otherwise they leave empty seats, which does no credit to them or to the party.

30. At all public functions and constituency events, punctuality is of paramount importance.


31. You should not accept gifts which might place you under obligations which conflict with your public duties. If you receive any gifts other than from close personal friends or relatives, you must declare them to the Clerk of Parliament who will have the gifts valued. If you wish to keep the gifts, you must pay the government for them at the valuation price.


32. Party branches should not raise funds on their own without permission, for example by soliciting advertisements for a souvenir magazine or a carnival.

If you intend to raise funds, please clear it beforehand with the organising secretary. When your branch embarks on a collective fund-raising activity, eg. a Family Day or Walk-A-Jog, you must follow the rules strictly.

Financial prudence

33. As MPs, you should manage your personal financial affairs prudently. Do not over-extend yourself or become financially embarrassed. This would be not only a potential source of personal embarrassment, but also a weakness which may expose you to pressure or blackmail.

34. In particular, be careful about making major financial commitments assuming that you will continue to receive your MP’s allowance. While MPs typically serve several terms, you cannot assume that you will automatically be fielded in future general elections, or that if fielded you will definitely be re-elected. There is neither tenure nor job security in politics.

Declaration of income

35. For your own protection, every MP should disclose to me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of government ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or clients.

Office holders need not do so because you will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct for ministers. This should be done by 31 October 2015.

General misbehaviour

36. The PAP has held our position in successive elections because our integrity has never been in doubt, and because we are sensitive to the views and attitudes of the people we represent.

MPs must always uphold the high standards of the party and not have lifestyles or personal conduct which will embarrass themselves and the party. Any slackening of standards, or show of arrogance or indifference by any MP, will erode confidence in him, and ultimately in the party and government.

New MPs can pick up the dos and don’ts from older MPs. You should conduct yourselves always with modesty, decorum and dignity, particularly in the media. You must win respect, not popularity, to stay the course.

Media publicity

37.  I am releasing a copy of this letter to the media so that the public knows the high standards we demand of our MPs. – September 29, 2015.

* Lee Hsien Loong, the Singapore Prime Minister, is Secretary-General of the People's Action Party (PAP).

Read in full  here.

This is what I am talking about when I said Malaysia needs Honest and Competent politicians like in Singapore, where the Secretary General of the ruling Party PAP and Singapore's Prime Minister even writes to PAP MPS how to carry their duties as servants to the electorate.

Malaysia? We can't even act decisively until the China Ambassador had to raise his concerns about worsening race problems. Hope there is a leadership change soon, the present one is too bogged down with too many personal problems to lead Malaysia into the future. We need leaders in the mould of Lee Hsien loong and his father the late Lee Kuan Yew. We really need them fast.

Friday, 25 September 2015

Fatalism in Islamic Thinking discussed by Mustafa Akyol

The meaning of fatalism:fatalism
Line breaks: fa¦tal|ism
Pronunciation: /ˈfeɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/

Definition of fatalism in English:


1The belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable:fatalism can breed indifference to the human costs of war
1.1submissive attitude to events, resulting from a fatalistic attitude:he experienced a sense of fatalism that kept his fear at bay

Comfortable sitting on your chair? Ok now you are ready to read this article, an Op-Ed in the New York Times by Mustafa Akyol who discusses fatalism in Islamic thinking:

Islam's Tragic Fatalism


"Earlier this month, on the Muslim holy day of Friday, a horrible accident took place in Mecca near Islam’s holiest site — the Kaaba. A huge crane fell on the mosque that encircles the cube-shaped shrine, killing 118 pilgrims and injuring almost 400. This tragedy was the deadliest crane collapse in modern history, and thus it begged for an investigation. Yet, in a highly religious country, the technicians that operated the crane, the Saudi Binladen Group, had an easy way out. One of them spoke to the press and simply said: “What happened was beyond the power of humans. It was an act of God.”

To their credit, the Saudi authorities did not buy this argument...." 

Continue reading the article, in the New York Times here.

Good food for thot......but Wallahualam.

Comment from Syed Akbar Ali which I copy pasted from his latest blog post:

Friday, September 25, 2015

No Fatalism (qada' qadar) In The Quran

My Comments : The following is an essay from The New York Times titled 'Islam's Tragic Fatalism by the well known Turkish writer Mustapha Akyol.

Before that, another disaster happened in Mecca yesterday 24 September, 2015. There was a stampede and more than 710 people were trampled to death. 

Just two weeks earlier on 11th September, 2015 a crane crashed in Mecca and killed 117 people. 

An engineer from the crane operator, the Bin Laden group said that it was 'fate' - 'an act of "god" that caused the crane to crash. Meaning it was not their fault.

Mustapha Akyol says in his article that it has now come to light that it was indeed the contractor's fault. They did not observe some safety precautions.  It was not an act of "god".

The religious folks talk about two major sets of 'beliefs'. 

One is called The Five Pillars of Islam (prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, zakat money payments and reciting the shahadah).  

The shahadah and zakat as money payments are not found in the Quran (although the word zakat is mentioned numerous times in the Quran)

Other than mention of the word salat, the details of prayer are also not found in the Quran at all. 

The pilgrimage is also not fully detailed in the Quran.

Then the religious people also speak of the Six Articles of Faith ie belief in
  1. Allah
  2. the Messengers
  3. the Books
  4. the Malaaikah
  5. the Last Day and 
  6. qada' and qadar (predestination or fatalism). 
 Only the first five are found in the Quran. 

The sixth however is not found in the Quran. 

There is no qada and qadar (predestination or fate) in the Quran. The Quran does not speak about fatalism.

Here is a portion of  Surah 4:136 :

"and whoever disbelieves in Allah, His Malaaikahs, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray."

Only five are mentioned : 1. Allah 2. Malaaikah 3. Books 4. Messengers 5. Last Day

The words qada and qadar cannot be found together in the Quran, especially carrying the meaning predestination or fatalism. 

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

Sekolah Satu Aliran gaining acceptance of influential Malaysians?

I am optimistic that one day this idea of One School For All or Sekolah Satu Aliran will be accepted by  Malaysian politicians, professionals and the general public:

'Putrajaya perlu memberikan keutamaan dalam usaha mempertahankan sistem sekolah satu aliran bagi memupuk perpaduan kaum'
Menteri Wahid Omar

“Masih tidak terlambat untuk negara dirikan sekolah satu aliran. Biarlah orang kata ‘sesat di tengah jalan tetapi pulang ke pangkal jalan’ daripada terus membiarkan negara dijajah semula oleh orang asing. Kerana itu mempertahankan perpaduan perlu segera dilakukan,”
Prof. Teo Kok Seong

"Secara peribadi, saya tidak menolak bahawa lebih baik jika kita ada sekolah satu aliran di mana semua pelajar boleh belajar bahasa ibunda mengikut bangsa masing-masing sebagai subjek dan bahasa pengantar bagi subjek-subjek lain adalah bahasa kebangsaan, demi perpaduan,"
Menteri Khairy Jamaludin

Where there is will, there will be ways....InsyaAllah...If God Wills It.

A Tale of Two Malaysians

First Malaysian:

Once upon a time there was this very macho man (ex-military) who got off the hook for making what is apparently an inflammatory speech at Low Yat, watch here. Well thank goodness he was charged for that dangerous speech, read here.

But a few days ago the new AG dropped the sedition charge on Ali Tinju:

Second Malaysian:

Once upon a time there was this nice lady dancer:

and today:

Congratulations to Ali Tinju and Good Luck to Bilqis.

Monday, 21 September 2015

Section 124B: A neutral comment on ‘activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy — Surendra Ananth

“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ramai Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat telah membangkit isu ini iaitu berkenaan dengan aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Cuma di peringkat awal saya ingin menyebut iaitu aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy means an activity carry out by a person or a group of person design to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi kalau setakat dalam Dewan macam Yang Berhormat dari Kubang Kerian yang pakai tai berberi pada hari ini ya, dia mengutuk kerajaan, dia hentam kerajaan itu biasa sebab ianya bukan mengikut violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi, takkanlah kita nak mengatakan dia telah melakukan satu kesalahan. Ayat yang penting di sini must be, dengan izin, by violent or unconstitutional means. Itu yang penting dan hal yang lain buatlah. Kalau bercakap, menjerit kah, apa kah atau di luar nanti marah saya sebagai Menteri. Macam-macam dia cakap, cakaplah tetapi itu bukan by violent or unconstitutional means.”
Menteri Nazri Aziz diParlimen bertarikh 17 April 2012 

In light of current events and arrests citing Section124B of our Penal Code perhaps this article would enlighten those observing events as they unfold:

AUGUST 3 — Over the past few days, many people have been investigated under section 124B of the Penal Code, which prohibits “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”. This provision was passed in the House of Representatives on April 17, 2012 and came into force on July 31, 2012. There are no reported cases on this section. This article seeks to shed light as to the scope of the section.
In interpreting a provision of law, a construction “that would promote the purpose and object underlying the Act shall be preferred” (section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967). How do we determine the purpose and object of an Act? One of the most common methods is to look at the speech of the Minister introducing the Act during the parliamentary debates. This method has been recognized by our Federal Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 701.
So, what did the relevant Minister say when introducing section 124B? On April 17, 2012, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, in introducing the amending bill to the Penal Code, stated the following on sections 124B-N (pp. 65-66):
“Rang undang-undang ini akan dapat membantu mencapai matlamat untuk pelaksanaan dan pentadbiran sistem perundangan yang lebih adil di samping memelihara kebebasan hak asasi individu sebagai mana yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Selain itu, pindaan ini dilihat dapat memastikan bahawa keselamatan negara serta ketenteraman, keharmonian dan kesejahteraan rakyat dan negara terus dikekalkan.”
Two things to note from the above; first, the minister had earlier noted that the term “Parliamentary Democracy” carried a wide meaning. Secondly, the provision must be understood in the context of the fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. A heated debated took place after the minister’s speech. Concerns were raised as to the possible abuse with such a wide term. Ultimately, and pertinently, the minister replied by setting out two very important restrictions on the new provisions. The minister expressed:
“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ramai Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat telah membangkit isu ini iaitu berkenaan dengan aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy. Cuma di peringkat awal saya ingin menyebut iaitu aktiviti detrimental to Parliamentary Democracy means an activity carry out by a person or a group of person design to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary Democracy by violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi kalau setakat dalam Dewan macam Yang Berhormat dari Kubang Kerian yang pakai tai berberi pada hari ini ya, dia mengutuk kerajaan, dia hentam kerajaan itu biasa sebab ianya bukan mengikut violent or unconstitutional means. Jadi, takkanlah kita nak mengatakan dia telah melakukan satu kesalahan. Ayat yang penting di sini must be, dengan izin, by violent or unconstitutional means. Itu yang penting dan hal yang lain buatlah. Kalau bercakap, menjerit kah, apa kah atau di luar nanti marah saya sebagai Menteri. Macam-macam dia cakap, cakaplah tetapi itu bukan by violent or unconstitutional means.
This is pivotal, as it sets down the scope of section 124B. Essentially, an activity detrimental to “Parliamentary Democracy” must be “violent” or carried out by “unconstitutional means”. This was crystallised in section 130A of the Penal Code. Additionally, and interestingly, the minister also pointed out that expression of criticism or anger by way of “shouting” wouldn’t be an offence. The minister then explained the meaning of the term “unconstitutional” (p. 116):
“Jadi kita hendak sebut cara yang unconstitutional ini. Unconstitutional means adalah cara yang tidak berlandaskan dengan perlembagaan pula ialah sekiranya sebagai contoh because you want to know what is meant by unconstitutional means. For example, contohnya seorang telah melantik dirinya sendiri sebagai Perdana Menteri sedangkan menurut perenggan 2(2)(a) perkara 43 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, lantikan tersebut hendaklah dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Itu dia tadi what is meant by unconstitutional means? Bermakna perkara yang boleh berlaku hanya dibenarkan dalam perlembagaan itu sahaja yang boleh berlaku. Akan tetapi kalau kita melakukan perkara yang tidak dibenarkan oleh constitution, it means unconstitutional lah.
On the term “violent”, the minister said (p. 120):
“Tuan Yang di-Pertua, cara yang ganas tersebut, tadi kita bercakap tentang unconstitutional dan sekarang ganas. Cara yang ganas tersebut mungkin melalui pelbagai cara yang tidak dibutirkan di sini. Ia mungkin merangkumi pembunuhan atau assassination ketua negara, rampasan kuasa berdarah oleh pihak-pihak yang ingin menubuhkan kerajaan seperti kumpulan Al-Ma’unah ini memang kenalah, pemberontakan bersenjata, perang gerila, guerrilla warfare dengan izin, keganasan atau kerosakan harta benda. Sebagaimana yang kita sedia maklum, kumpulan Al-Ma’unah bermatlamat untuk menggulingkan kerajaan secara kekerasan bersenjata. Bagi tujuan tersebut mereka telah merompak senjata api di Kem Tentera Grik. Semua ini kita rangkumkan dan kita tengok inilah dimaksudkan dengan violent means tetapi apa yang kalau Yang Berhormat mengkritik kerajaan dalam Parlimen, itu bukan violent. Jadi jangan bimbanglah, tidak kena dalam akta ini.”
The examples given by the minister suggests a high standard of violence. The freedom to assemble is a right guaranteed under Article 10 of our Constitution and has been upheld by the courts. It is also pertinent to note that the Minister relied on the United Kingdom Security Services Act 1989 in introducing the term “detrimental to parliamentary democracy”. As far as the UK cases (see R v Shayler [2002] 2 WLR 754) are concerned, such provisions must be applied with a legitimate aim and in a manner necessary for a democratic society. It is fitting to end this article with a passage from a European Court of Human Rights case, which was adopted by the UK courts.
“Nevertheless, in view of the risk that a system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security may undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it, the Court must be satisfied that there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.”
- See more at:

I suppose the best explanation and decision will come from our learned Judges when these Section 124B cases are put to trial.

Additional read:

Legal experts critical of Penal Code section



Bangsa Melayu terkenal dengan kehalusan budi. Bahkan sebelum kami berhijrah ke Islam, ramai antara kami tertarik mengenal Islam hasil kewibawaan akhlak Melayu.

Kami memartabatkan hak istimewa Melayu tetapi Allah SWT meletakkan setiap hak istimewa sebagai tanggungan di dunia yang akan di jawab di hadapan Allah SWT kelak.

Maka, Melayu Muslim memikul tanggungan yang lebih berat untuk menunjukkan contoh sebagai khairu ummah. Ramai keluarga kami yang belum Muslim berusaha mengenal Islam. Jangan biarkan Islamofobia berlarutan bila segelintir umat Islam menghalalkan kata-kata kesat seperti Cina Babi dan menghalalkan rasisme dengan mengaitkannya dengan Islam.

Kami Pertubuhan Cina Muslim Malaysia atau MACMA, mempunyai 19 cawangan seluruh Malaysia, meminta pihak-pihak berkenaan untuk kembali menghayati Islam dan memohon maaf atas keterlanjuran kata.

Bak kata pantun Melayu:

Yang kurik itu kendi
Yang merah itu saga
Yang cantik itu budi
Yang indah itu bahasa.

Firman Allah SWT dalam surah Al Hujurat 49: 11 yang bermaksud:

"Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Janganlah satu kaum mencemuh dan merendah-rendahkan kaum yang lain. Mungkin kaum yang dicemuhkan itu lebih baik daripada mereka."

Profesor Dr. Taufiq Yap Yun Hin, FASc
Persatuan Cina Muslim Malaysia

........di harap ultra2 dan auta2 melayu yg dok syiok sendiri yang menyulitkan lagi perhubungan diantara kaum diMalaysia ini baca dan fahami maksud diatas.

Semua orang Malaysia ada tempat di negara ini, berhentilah membakar isu perkauman ini...jahanam negara kita nanti.

I have nothing more to add.

Friday, 18 September 2015

"If people don't learn together, they won't be able to live together" - Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi

In light of the aftermath of the Bersih Yellow Shirt and the Perhimpunan Melayu Red Shirt demonstrations....there is a need to say Something that has been said before and needed to be said all the time until it is universally accepted by All Malaysians:


This is what an eminent Constitutional expert Professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi say:

Contrary to what is being touted by some political parties, vernacular schools are not protected by the Federal Constitution, said an eminent law professor.

Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi from Universiti Teknologi Mara said while the constitution permits the learning of other languages, it does not say that the medium of instruction must also be in vernacular languages.

"Contrary to the constitution, vernacular schools have become entrenched".

"They are not protected by the constitution, but many political parties, to gain popularity, are saying this is in the Constitution," he said on the sidelines of a national unity conference yesterday.

His statement comes amid calls to abolish Chinese schools made at the "red shirt" rally in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

It was reported that a banner with the words “Hapuskan SJKC” (abolish national-type Chinese schools) was among those held up at the rally.

MCA Youth has lodged a police report over the banner which they claimed was seditious.

Shad said that, the reality was that vernacular schools were not the uniting factor but a dividing one.

"If people don't learn together, they won't be able to live together.

"And the statistics is very sad, 90% of Chinese are sending their children to vernacular schools," he added.

Shad said vernacular languages should instead be promoted in national schools, and urged national schools to allow prayers of all faiths.

"By all means, promote languages, I don't see why Tamil, Mandarin, Hokkien and others cannot be promoted in national schools.

"I also don't see why national schools cannot have prayers other than reading the Quran.

"Even in Islam, it says 'to you, your religion, to me, mine', so that is not a problem," he added.

He said that he did not think Muslim children would get confused if the prayers of other faiths were said in schools.

"I don't think we will get confused.

"I know there are some people who are confused, who think everyone is as low as their level.

"Our children don't get confused, we don't get confused," he said in jest. – September 17, 2015.

Monday, 14 September 2015

I have a dream that the end of race based parties is near

Watch this video please, what do you think?

I think race based parties which thrives on fear mongering between the races, would soon be extinct with the coming of new generations of young people who will decide the elections after PRU14.

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Malay Supremacy James Chin? I think its human Greed !

You ought to read James Chin article:

The Costs of Malay Supremacy

I think its wrong to blame a race for the ills that plague this blessed nation, its more about Greed, and Greed Mr Chin sir cuts through race and religion.

Here is a bit more lengthy article from one of my wassap group written by a Malay which totally debunked Mr Chin's wacky and I must say bordering on racism article:

My brief comment: to the article written by one James Chin, in the Malaysian Chronicle. MALAYSIA IN CRISIS: THE COSTS OF MALAY SUPREMACY
Prior to what Mahathir did for 22 years, yes the non-Malays especially the Chinese were controlling almost 90 of the economy. This racial imbalance in the economy does not reflect the ethnic composition of the country. Although the Malays dominated the political.scene, the non-Malays especially the Chinese were dominating the economies. With their economic power, the Chinese began to flecks their muscles and thumbing their nose at the Malay ruling majority to finally resulted in the May 13 1969 race riot. This awaken the Malays that their supposed political domination and their sacrifice to share political power with the non Malays were not being appreciated rather they were.looked down upon because of their economic deficiencies.

The Chinese domination of the economic environment does not allow Malays to venture beyond the level of petty traders. The Chinese knew this and the Malay knew this.

Under the British rule, the Chinese with their businesses, lives in towns and urban areas with all the upto date facilities - electricity, telephones, schools. The Chinese were allowed to have their own schools with their teaching staff coming from China and Taiwan. This allowed.the Chinese to further their tertiary education to their motherland and this kept them attached to ancestorial home. This makes the Chinese a more informed and knowledgeable community.

Contrary to the Chinese the Malays were mostly peasants living in rural areas without electricity. Schools were makeshift mud floors and bamboo walls and nipah roofs. Opportunities for tertiary education was negligible to the extend of non-existent. Their level of  knowledge do not exceed standard 6. But that is enough to put them in the clerical service of the British administrations.

Those from the Malay elite, were given a further opportunity to further their studies to a selected boarding schools.and thereby a opportunity to further their education in London or Singapore. These small number of elitist Malay will be groomed by the British to take over the administration of the country if and when the British left. But the majority are in the kampungs. Most do not have access to electricity, safe drinking water or even good medical treatment. Schools have no libraries. Homes have no radios. They were ignorant of the outside world.

Within these constrains, definitely the Malays are left far behind in almost every field compared to a more urban Chinese. But does the British bother? No! They only care for their trade and exploiting the rich resources of Malaya.

Since the Chinese have connections to their home country, they also have business connections everywhere with their country men who have migrated to other parts of the world. This put the Chinese far ahead in the business world compared to a Malay who are more likely to be a government servant than a business man. When the British finally left Malaya, the British trained Malay elit took over the political and administration of Malaya. The Malays were asked by the British to accept the Chinese in the political administration of Malaya though the Chinese were more interested in running their business. The Chinese have no problem with Malays dominating the political landscape as long as they can carry out their business without hindrance. And the Malays too have no problem as long as they feel that they are in control of the political administration of Malaya.

In fact this occupational setup was fine until the Chinese began to demand more say in the political administration. As time goes by, the Malays began to feel that their political domination is being threatened. And it blew up on May 13 1969.

The writer stated in his last paragraph;  "The Malay agenda is hurting Malaysia".  The writer is trying to blame the present political and economic crisis on the Malay. Well he is wrong. It is not the Malay agenda that is hurting Malaysia. It is greed that is hurting Malaysia.
Why is it in the US, the economy is crumbling and most world economists are predicting the collapse of the American dreams. There is no Malay agenda there yet the economy is floundering? The answer is GREED.
Why do you think the Americans are fighting all over the world. GREED. Wars bring billions of dollars to the oligarch of the American Empire. These people thrives on the misery of others. Why do you think that Greece is in a economic crisis? GREED. Why do you think that Ukraine is a failed state? GREED. The EC and the greedy investors wanted to take over the Greek assets. The thousands of beautiful islands for their own secluded retreat.

GREED by the the "Corportocracies", by those greedy bankers and investors and fund managers. Micheal Hudson in his book title "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy", stated that the economy will collapse when the parasites will be destroyed togather with the host.

It is easy to blame the Malay agenda. That is what the Chinese wanted. 

The Corportocracy wants to privatised  every public asset and bankrup the Government. Then put pressure upon the rakyat to increase taxes (GST) while at the same time reducing corporate taxes. Thus making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is a liberal capitalists agenda and our leaders fall into this traps. But the blame fell upon "the Malay agenda". How convenient.

The reasons why the blame fall upon the "Malay agenda" was because these privatisation went to the Malay cronies. Not to certain Chinese. So these Chinese blames it upon the Malay agenda. Look at the 1MDB, who was the man behind all the fiasco? Jho Low. Oh excuse me is he a Malay? There was once a man called Vincent Tan, and then another Lim Pek King. Oh another one Eric Chia or was it George Tan and so many others. Were they Malays? All this Malay agenda are bullshit. While the Chinese are cashing in and making billions, they immediately point their fingers at the Malays whenever they fail in their investments.

Facts are, even Malays do not benefits from these privatisations by the Malay ruling elit. In fact, Malays are the first to suffer because they were on the marginal lifeline. All those talk about special privileges of the Malays were in reality Malays who are in the corridors of power. If this "Malay special privileges" were true, why do we see on "TV3 Bersamamu" poor Malays living in makeshift hut or even in stables for goats and cows. These people should be living in banglows driving BMWs. But instate we saw daily the Chinese were living in bangloos and driving BMWs, yet they point fingers at the Malay agenda.
So let us stop fooling around and admit that the problem facing our country is GREED by those that we have entrusted to take care of us - be they Malays or Chinese or Indians. Greed knows no bounds. Greed cuts across race and religions. This is our enemy. This is our number one enemy. Let us all fight th[truncated by WhatsApp]