Home » Posts tagged 'Reference'
Tag Archives: Reference
There are so many speculations on the recent crisis pertaining flight MH370 which could distract and hamper the search and rescue activities currently underway in the South China Seas.
Fortunately, the management of this crisis has been handled very well by Malaysia Airlines and the relevant authorities. With the Department of Civil Aviation taking charge of the search and rescue missions, it is commendable on the part of the agencies involved to remain professional in their duties.
The management of the crisis could have gone either way and it is a mark of true professionalism that Malaysia Airlines so far is on the dot in the proper procedures in handling this serious incident. Below is an article from the Business Insider which could have been taken as a case study on what not to do during an aviation crisis.
Asiana Airlines Needs Serious Help With Crisis Management
As the FAA and NTSB continue to investigate the July 6th accident in which 3 were killed and 182 were injured at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), crisis management experts are scratching their heads at the perplexing response of Asiana Airlines.
Crisis Management protocols
When there is a crisis, the proper procedure is for PR-savvy company representatives to talk with the public through the media to reassure them that everything is being done to investigate the cause and insure the safety of the airline and the wellbeing of its passengers.
The idea is to get ahead of the story and make current and future customers as comfortable as possible in doing business with the Airline. As Korea’s second biggest airline, Asiana needs to make every effort to take care of its passengers and protect its reputation while allaying the fears of the flying public.
Asiana, however, has done the opposite of what crisis management protocols suggest. With the exception of a brief apology to victims and families a day after the crash, Asiana has been largely silent. When CEO Yoon Young-doo arrived at SFO airport 3 days after the accident, he declined to comment. Even more surprising, the airline did not have a trained public relations representative accompany the CEO to address the media either. The following day, six of twelve flight attendants appeared at a news conference, but none of them said a word, and some hid their faces. It appears they don’t know that when you are silent, many in the public think you are hiding something. While lawyers often recommend you don’t talk, marketers know that silence is the opposite of what a company faced with such a crisis should do.
Attempt to silence passengers
What’s even worse is the Airline has instructed passengers not to talk with anyone. On Wednesday, CBS This Morning featured a story about the Xu family who told reporter Carter Evans in an interview he taped on his iPhone that the Airline controlled nearly every aspect of their lives and told them not to speak with the media. In fact, when the reporter arrived at their hotel, airline security tried to prevent him from speaking with the family. Since these efforts to stifle the media appeared on camera on a major news broadcast, they supported what the Xu family was saying and raised further suspicions about Asiana.
Even though the pilots involved in the crash were novices landing and supervising the landing of a Boeing 777 at SFO, they pointed the finger at the automatic speed controls of the plane. According to the head of the NTSB, there are no signs of failure of the automatic speed controls or other automatic flight equipment on the plane that crashed. Such accusations by the pilots do nothing to inspire public confidence – especially since the early evidence points to pilot error as a potential cause of the accident. Also, the fact that this is the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 777, which has a record of being one of the safest planes in the sky, makes the finger-pointing even more suspicious.
While flying is the safest form of travel, it is a risky business for those involved in making and flying the planes. When bad things happen, the best companies can do is to quickly figure out the problem and be forthcoming with customers. What can any business learn from this latest incident involving Asiana Airlines? Employ the fact procedure to protect your reputation.
- Admit the problem, and apologize if necessary (do not “point the finger” at others because it is likely to compromise your credibility).
- Limit the scope (in this case put the incident in perspective and provide data that shows that flying on a Boeing 777 from Asiana is very safe).
- Propose a solution so it will not happen again (if it is found to be the cause, a more rigorous training and pilot supervision program would be the solution).
If implementing the fact procedure is premature
In a case such as this when the cause of the accident is not yet known with certainty, the airline should not be silent as Asiana has been. And, it should not try to control what the passengers say to the media. This just fuels suspicion. It should make it clear to the flying public that it (1) is doing everything in its power to cooperate with the investigation and (2) will continue to do whatever is necessary to insure the safety of its airline and the wellbeing of its passengers.
Since Asiana has proven to be inept in this crisis, and some believe this may be a cultural issue, it should hire US crisis management experts for advice to protect its reputation going forward.
The curious case of (the maybe) mad grab for political power in Sarawak (and perhaps Sabah, too)
By Ruhayat X
I didn’t want to say anything about the Allah issue since there are too many idiots on both sides as it is. But then the Klang church decided to conduct their BM services using Allah, but not their Tamil and English ones. I found that curious. And enlightening.
Because the word for God in Tamil is not Allah?
News flash: neither is it in Malay.
A question of motives
I question the motive and the timing. I will argue that the motive is dictating the timing, as we will see later. For now:
The argument that has become a familiar refrain is that the Christian natives of Sabah, Sarawak and Indonesia have been using Allah to refer to God for generations. Well, then, I’m sorry to say, but for those very generations, they have been terribly misled by their shepherds.
To bow to Allah is like bowing to Krishna. Both heretical gods to Christians.
Or as a Christian commenter to a blog put it:
“Allah is not simply the Arabic word for “god” – the word Allah in pre-Islamic times referred to the Moon God in the Arabic pantheon of gods. To suggest that Jews insert “Allah” instead of the words which we do use (HASHEM, etc.) is blasphemy in and of itself. We might as well use the word Zeus or Shiva! (…) His name is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “Allah”.”
It seems the bibles should indeed be amended to reflect the truth, yes, but that truth is not what they might think it is.
When Allah is not god
Perhaps a brief appreciation of semiotics and etymology?
In England, Hoover is a brand that has become so ubiquitous it is sometimes used as hoover – small h – as a noun to mean vacuum cleaners, or a verb (to hoover) to mean vacuuming. Here, Colgate became the same. Malay to child: “Gi kedai beli colgate skek” – meaning, any toothpaste will do, not just Colgate.
The Malays will sometimes say Tuhan when what they mean is Allah. “Tuhan je yang tahu” – in their hearts, they think of Allah.
But it is NEVER used the other way. The Malays would never use Allah as a catch-all for Tuhan. I have never heard a single Malay say, “Orang Buddha pun ada Allah. Allah dalam agama Buddha kata…” Never.
So I said, the Christian natives have been badly led astray. Lead them back to the straight path. Teach them: it’s Tuhan, not Allah.
An Arabic God, then?
You may then want to argue about the Arab etymology of the noun Al-Lah. The God. A seemingly generic term. So you want to transfer the language specific to the usage in one community, into quite a foreign context, thinking the same meaning ought to apply. How colonial.
But it doesn’t matter – you are on the side of the righteous. So you suddenly champion the voice of a renowned international Muslim cleric, who says Allah is a universal entity and all humanity can use his name. Fair enough. But my advice then is this: if you wish to take the words of clerics from foreign realms, than take the whole of their decrees, not only whenever it suits you.
Take what they say about the universal usage of Allah if you must, but don’t reject their words once they start imposing syariah on you. Cherry-picking to suit arguments ain’t the traits of a learned person.
But another big but
We borrow again from a Christian source to share with you this revelation: that Allah is not the generic term for God. Viz:
“In summary, ArabBible uses the definite, common noun, “al-ilaah” to refer to God, rather than the Islamic proper noun, “Allah”. We believe this is based on good Biblical and linguistic precedents.
Yet know that in Islam the different realms have traditionally been governed by indigenous authorities who have autonomous power. That’s why our laws have some variations, to take into account the special needs and traditions of a given people and their environment.
Thus, without denying the authority of Yusuf Qardawi, I stand by argument that the term “Allah” has specific meaning to the Malays different than in the Middle Eastern context. We have Allah, and we have Tuhan. Whereas to the Arabs, Muslim or otherwise, Allah is Tuhan is Allah.
Educate yourself a little. Read the Quran and see what characteristics this Allah – who calls himself such – ascribes himself. And then know what the Malays mean when they say “Allah”.
Christians who deny Allah
We’ve already had the strange phenomenon of non-Muslims suddenly championing a Muslim cleric to state the case for Allah. You realise it works just as well the other way around, too, right?
“The names of Allah reveal him as a distinct entity. Likewise, the names of the God of Israel, reveal Him as a distinct entity. The conclusion is that the two beings do not agree in their names and therefore do not agree in their personalities, purposes, character, attributes or essence.
–2008 Hannah Henderson
Hannah Henderson is an ordained minister and writer for Heavenly Manna.”
And I did say, didn’t I, that if you use Allah instead of Tuhan, your akidah sudah terpesong. This is from another Christian personality:
““Allah is an extremely powerful demon. He is a demon God. What Muslims are worshiping is actually a demon. They think they are worshiping God, they’re deceived, they’ve been fooled, so I don’t want to be hard on them, the Muslims have been fooled, they’ve been lied to, they’ve been deceived, they think they are worshiping the true God but they are worshiping a demon-god, this is according to the New Testament.”
See? Now set ‘em back on the right path, Good Paderi Andrew, saviour of Christian souls!
And Allah for all…
While he’s on his crusade, we’re sure Paderi Andrew will sooner or later demand changes to both the Rukunegara and Negaraku, too. Yes?
Kepercayaan kepada Allah?
Rahmat bahgia, Allah kurniakan?
I will, however, accept the universal usage of Allah once the Vatican starts using it to refer the true God. Allah only for BM and Iban speakers? That’s hardly universal.
You know, if the Klang church had conducted services in all languages using the single term “Allah”, we wouldn’t even need to have this discussion.
It’s even stranger because a book store near my place plays Islamic ceramahs in Tamil all the time and guess what, they use Allah every time. So Allah exists in Tamil. Just not in church. And this is “universal”. Uhuh. Now we have to question the motive. Now we ask, wait, hang on a sec, what’s really going on?
The question of why
Christian natives in Sabah and Sarawak have been using Allah for ages with no big drama, nor does it raise even an eyebrow of their Muslim or other fellow citizens. So why now? And why such vehement insistence to extend its use on the Peninsula? For the sake of migrant Borneans? But they have been migrant here in drives for ages, too!
I can’t speak for all the Malay Muslims out here but frankly, I don’t like the stink of the motives. I don’t think he is sincere in wanting to use the “universal term” of Allah. I do think our pastor is dabbling in some pretty unChristian behaviour here.
So far there has been no big reaction from Putrajaya other than “Keep Calm And Remain Sane”. But whatever I might think of the Ah Jib Gor administration, I think he knows that the damage control he needs to do is not here in Semenanjung. But over there in Sarawak, and Sabah.
Because when you reflect on it to its logical conclusion – why is this happening = who profits the most out of it? – this is what the whole Allah campaign seems to be really about:
It hides the wedge of a knife into the BN honeypots of East Malaysia.
To risk disunity to wrest power, now that takes some special kind of crazy, don’t you agree.
How to fiddle in Rome
The tragedy is that could it be that Muslims are being pitted against Christians ostensibly so that some people could shake Sarawak, and maybe Sabah, and take power at the next General Election? If so, see what some people would do just to come to power.
At the Tuol Sleng in Phnom Penh I first observed, how evil could be so mundane. A torture prison set up in the ordinary precincts of a school. Can you imagine? It’s hard to as you stroll through the leafy walkway outside. It’s just a school. Until you see the rows and rows of faded black and white photos of the men, women and children who had been “processed” through it.
This is true also of Machiavellian politics. They make you think of some grand agenda, a clash of civilisations, something romantic.
But in the centre of it lies something so mundane: a simple political power play.
It is tiring to educate people on the issue of “kalimah Allah”. And it is even more exhausting to think that we have to explain to certain group of muslims on why the word ‘Allah’ should not be used by christians here.
Muslims in general, if they had known the real reason on why here in Malaysia it is offensive for christians to use it, they should not be supporting a church in Selangor who remained recalcitrant and arrogant in continuing the use of the word Allah in their hymns and masses.
Even people like Marina Mahathir and her like minded muslims friends are too ignorant and could not fathom the reason on why christians here in Malaysia should not use the word Allah in the face of the majority of Malaysians. And who are the majority of Malaysians? The muslims of course.
So here is the answer from a renown scholar by the name Dr. Zakir Naik. The answer gets interesting after the 2.30 minute mark. This is 9 minute video in which the muslims and the christians should watch:
Basically, what Dr Zakir is saying, christians can use the word Allah – but if you associate Allah (the one True God) with Jesus Christ or the Trinity, then you are ‘kufur’. Why would us muslims want to permit ourselves to become kufur just like the christians?
Why would Marina Mahathir, who worships Allah S.W.T. whereby Allah that she worships does not have a son, and certainly have got nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, is crying on top of her lungs to defend the christians on their right to equate Allah with Jesus, or Allah with the Holy Spirit?
Now this is why it is offensive for muslims (except for some muslim politicians and the more liberal muslims) to see the christians using the word Allah in their christian and sermons.
Those liberal muslims are so naive in their freedom of speech and religion of other people they forgot what effect this will have on muslims here.
The christians in Malaysia especially in Selangor have never used the word Allah in any of their prayers before. We at this blog have never met any of our christian friends who had prayed to Allah all this while. And apparently, not all christian churches in Malaysia agreed to use the word Allah in their mass. To them, Allah as a God is a different concept altogether from their own understanding of God – Yahweh, Jesus Christ etc.
If you are christian and reading this, do you use Allah in any of your prayers? Unless of course you are that small part of East Malaysians who actually used the word Allah in their bibles over there. But that is another matter which will be discussed later below.
But first, what is the agenda of this one Father Lawrence Andrew who insisted that christians in Selangor must be given the right to use the word Allah? Why is he so insensitive to jeopardise the harmonious relationship between muslims and christians over here? Christianity teaches blatant disregard towards tolerance and
If Father Lawrence himself never prayed to Allah all these years, it will be hypocritical for him to start now. It does not matter if he lamely stated that just recently, his flock has many East Malaysians now. Is he saying that being tolerant towards the sensitivities of muslims in Selangor takes a back seat over the need of much smaller community?
There should be give and take when looking at the bigger picture.
The other problem besides the muslims giving permission for other people to equate Allah towards something the He is not (syirik), is the potential fraud and subterfuge that comes with the use of Allah in Christianity.
This was somewhat shown in one of the previous article “Worshiping Jesus in Islam”. This time, the covert Christian evangelicals and their tactics can even be read openly in their portals such as the article “Son and The Crescent” in the Christian Today portal, as well as in the article “Case for God“. The links provided in latter has examples on the proselytisation of muslims into christians.
The evangelicals use tactics which they term as Conceptualisation and Localisation when preaching christianity to muslims. They use terms and jargons familiar with the muslims in the effort to convert them. To cut the story short, that is the reason why the malay bibles exist today with the word ‘Allah’ transcribed into them instead of the word ‘Tuhan’ which is a more logical translation for God.
Ultimately, the christians in East Malaysia during the British era was taught the bible using the bibles from Indonesia and this is what the Father Lawrence and Marina Mahathir is frighting today – that the christians in East Malaysia have used the word Allah in their bibles for centuries, which incidentally, this argument is based on the wrong facts and entirely founded on the grounds of subterfuge propagated by the christian missionaries a couple of centuries ago. How unfortunate.
Below is the video by christians, for the christians on how they covertly change their proselytisation technique to suit every culture they come across. What these evangelicals want it to spread Christianity and Jesus Christ around the world.
This deception and double-dealing is something that is real which muslims must be wary about. We have enough agitators which want nothing more than to see chaos and racial upheaval in Malaysia so that they can benefit from it one way or another. Does Father Lawrence want to see this happen by remaining stubborn and wilfully defiant?
Even an imam (Imam Muhammad Musri) from in the USA recently wrote something in Huffington Post recently. Although he is quite ignorant in his article especially pertaining to the real happenings here in Malaysia, he did mention about the stealth of christians in trying to proselytise muslims:
His only ignorance is when he thought the word ‘Allah’ is the right term for ‘God’ among Malaysians. Which is definitely not true. The right term for God is Tuhan. For Malaysians, Allah is an arabic word recognised only by muslims as God.
But as Muhammad Musri said above, fraud (stealth proselytisation) deserves appropriate penalties (which obviously is stated in our own Constitution) and it is up to the muslims to defend themselves against these tricksters.
As a conclusion, there are two fronts on why the muslims are against the word ‘Allah’ being used by the Christians:
1) they do not want to be an accomplice when some people equate Allah for something He is not, and;
2) the element of trickery evidenced by the centuries of proselytisation methods among the evangelicals towards the unsuspecting muslims.
If you are a muslim and your iman is strong, congratulations. But there are many muslims out there who are ignorant and not strong enough to counter the onslaught from some christian missionaries whose sole objective is to bring the muslims to embrace christianity.
If you have not listened to what Dr Zakir Naik said in the video above, please do so. It will give you some comprehension on the subject. And please watch the second too. Thank you.
If anyone of the readers here haven’t read the Confessions of an Economic Hitman book, here is a Youtube video where the author summarily describes the content of the book in about 11 minutes.
Locally, our own economy is floundering.
None of the great economic consultants employed by the Prime Minister are able to find the right formula to revitalise the local economy yet. Today, the blogger Darah Tuah wrote a snapshot on the economic position of this country right now particularly the economic relationship between the bumiputera and the non-bumiputera. The blogger gave recommendations as well.
Maybe PEMANDU and other advisers can learn a little bit of something about it too.
Please have a read HERE.
Thanks to blogger SatD, we came across this intriguing article on covert Christian evangelicals in East Africa. It tells a story of a muslim man who became an ardent follower of Christ eventhough outwardly, he is still deemed by the general community as a muslim.
But as the interview progressed, it is becoming clear that he is really a pure Christian at heart whereby he discounted the role of Prophet Muhammad and elevated the position of Christ (Isa Al Masih) and of course, believe in the Trinity (Holy Spirit, Father and Son).
In the belief system of any muslim, the centre of it all is the iman; and the most important part of the iman is the belief in Allah. The one true God. He neither begets nor was begotten. Which runs contrary to the Christian beliefs.
However, from the interview below which appeared in the web portal Christianity Today, the interviewee (known as a pseudonym of “Abu Jaz”) is clearly a member of an evangelical movement trying to subvert the unassuming muslims into a practising christian.
Remember SatD’s post about the type of muslims which are targeted by the Evangelicals? Within the post there is a schedule on the types on Christians in the muslim world:
Abu Jaz is clearly a C5 type of christian. And together with his movement, they are trying to move into C6 where they will be perceived as muslims but privately, they are christians. Note that for a muslim, the moment you believe in the Trinity and the bible, in substance, you are no longer a muslim. And Abu Jaz cited extensively verses from the bible and not once from the Quran. He even talked about syncretism between Christian and Islam.
Do read below on their modus operandi, which among others, telling muslims that they (the Christians) worship Allah too. The opening paragraphs are just misdirection in stating that Abu Jaz is still a muslim and not necessarily be a christian. But as mentioned before, as the interview progressed, it is an obvious fact that Abu Jaz is clearly a christian. We assure you this interview is a really great read in knowing the intricacies of the evangelical movement in East Africa.
Worshiping Jesus in the Mosque
Can people from other religious traditions genuinely follow Jesus without becoming “Christians”? The question is a point of much dispute within today’s missions world. Those who follow Jesus yet don’t formally express Christian faith are said to belong to insider movements. And no insider movement has received more attention than Muslims who embrace Christ yet stay within their Islamic community. “Insiders” are hard to access due to cultural, geographic, and linguistic barriers. As a result, many Christians have taken positions on insider movements without ever having met or spoken with someone who belongs to one. In the following exclusive interview, we hear from just such an insider.
The following is the synthesis of two interviews conducted in 2011 with “Abu Jaz,” a key leader in a movement that describes itself as the People of the Gospel. This group represents several thousand Muslims in eastern Africa who have converted to faith in Christ during the past decade, but who have remained in their Muslim communities. Abu Jaz is married and has three children. He started followingIsa al Masih (“Jesus the Messiah”) as the Savior 18 years ago.
The interview was conducted by “Gene Daniels,” a missionary in the Muslim community for over a decade, who has published many articles in missionary journals. Christianity Today has verified the authenticity of the interviewer and interviewee, whose real names are withheld so that the work of the People of the Gospel will be protected.
Describe your conversion to Christ.
One night the only food my wife and I had was a small portion of macaroni. My wife prepared it very nicely. Then one of her friends knocked on the door. I told myself, The macaroni is not sufficient for even the two of us, so how will it be enough for three of us?But because we have no other custom, we opened the door, and she came in to eat with us.
While we were eating, the macaroni started to multiply; it became full in the bowl. I suspected that something was wrong with my eyes, so I started rubbing them. I thought maybe my wife hid some macaroni under the small table, so I checked, but there was nothing. My wife and I looked at each other, but because the guest was there we said nothing.
Afterward I lay down on the bed, and as I slept, Isa came to me and asked me, “Do you know who multiplied the macaroni?” I said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I am Isa al Masih. If you follow me, not only the macaroni but your life will be multiplied.”
He didn’t tell me that he was God; he didn’t tell me that he died on behalf of me; he didn’t say, “I am the Son of God.” He didn’t talk to me about any complicated theological issues. He only told me that if I followed him, he would multiply my life. At that time, I was very happy if he only multiplied the macaroni like he did that day. I didn’t understand what he meant when he said that my life would be multiplied. Now I understand what that means. But at that time, I accepted him simply as the “lord of macaroni.”
Much like the crowds in the Gospels who accepted him as “lord of bread.”
Yes, I just accepted him as one who satisfied my needs. That day I understood that because Allah loved me, Isa came to my home.
When I think back now, the kingdom of God came to my home. Jesus said, “[I]f I cast out demons … the kingdom … has come upon you” (Luke 11:20, NASB). Any miracle that takes place by Isa al Masih speaks of the kingdom of God. It was not because I was poor that Isa came to my home; there are many poor. It is not because he wanted to multiply my macaroni. Maybe there might be other people who can multiply macaroni, like magic. So what is the purpose? Isa al Masih came to my home with the kingdom of God. He didn’t completely explain theological issues, he only said, “If you will follow.”
I went to an [evangelical] church after that, and I faced a cultural challenge as a Muslim. Everything was different—their way of worship, the way they sang songs, the way they danced. Nothing was familiar to me.
I have my own expression of worship. When it comes to greetings, I say, As-salaam ‘alaykum (“Peace be upon you”), and I expect people to reply, Wa ‘alaykum Salaam wa rahmatu l-laahi wa barakaatuh (“Peace to you and may God’s mercy and blessings be upon you”). And we Muslims have a way of shaking hands. But in the church, it was totally different. Nobody liked my expressions. Brothers and sisters told me that As-salaam ‘alaykum and Wa ‘alaykum salaam were from the Devil, so it was hard for me to join and start life with members of the church.
One day the pastor came to me and said, “How are you?” I answered, “Alhamdulillah!” (“Praise be to God!”). The pastor was very angry. He said, “No, brother! No more Alhamdulillah. Your God is changed from Allah to God [using the tribal name]. You have to express your thanksgiving to God as a Christian, and we have our own expression of thanksgiving to God.” He ordered me to say, “Praise the Lord” and “Praise to God.” He asked me to not use the term Allah because Allah is evil, Allah is the Devil, Allah is the black stone, Allah is an idol. That was the first time I had heard [anyone say] that Allah is an idol or evil. I was shocked. When I do my spiritual duties, I think I am doing them for Allah. He is the one who created the universe, sustains the universe, and judges the universe. I couldn’t in my mind imagine that Allah is an idol or evil.
The next day the pastor asked, “How are you?” I wanted to replace his words with my own Alhamdulillah, but since the pastor warned me not to, I didn’t. I tried to say, “Praise the Lord,” or “Praise to God,” but for 33 years I had never used these words or the tribal name for God, and it was difficult to do so. So I stayed [in the church] without sayingAlhamdulillah for more than three months. I simply said, “I am fine.” I wanted to express my gratitude to Allah, but because of their understanding [of the term], I suppressed it.
Then I started questioning the justice of God. I asked him, “God, you are the one who put me in a Muslim culture; it was not my choice. They don’t allow me to express [my praise] in the congregation. When they hear Islamic terminologies, they immediately rebuke me, so I prefer to keep silent. You like the Orthodox culture, you like the traditional African culture, you like Jewish culture, you like the European culture, you like cultures of other people groups, but you dislike the Muslims. So you are not just.”
This stayed with me for two years. But finally, because I had no other alternative, I completely accepted the evangelical cultural context, and I dissolved all of my Islamic cultural identity. No more Islamic terms; [you could say] that in my context I became circumcised. Then people finally accepted me as a believer, but it isolated me from my own Muslim community.
Did the church accept you when you abandoned your Islamic identity?
When I changed my culture they thought I had finally become a believer; before that they did not consider me one. When I changed my culture to become like them, they even clapped their hands and said, “Now Abu Jaz has become a believer.” But I had already believed for two years.
After some time, I had the chance to go to a Bible college. While I studied there, I learned the difference between the supracultural substance of the Word of God and the cultural form that expresses it. Then my question was answered, [and I understood] that God really does love everyone. God opened my eyes to understand that all cultures are equal in his eyes. It is not holy contexts, only holy texts.
From that time, 1998 by the European calendar, I started to prepare myself to speak with my own community. In the Bible college, I discovered myself, and I wanted to restore my cultural identity again, the identity of my culture, not for the sake of the people, but to express myself and my faith in God. I went back and restored my former Islamic cultural identity. Then I rejoiced that God is just.
Still, even if I had theological and cultural challenges in the Christian community, I experienced love there, a love that was alive. The believers showed me and my wife kindness and love. So I praise God for these people.
But I understand the pain of Muslims. I understand what they fear. When they hear the Good News, they want to have Isa al Masih, but because they have been told that it is only Christians who think about him, they reject him. But now we are not repeating the same mistake.
Talk a little about the theology of your movement.
We do not use systematic theology, even though I studied [it] in Bible college and understand how and when Christians developed different Christologies, for example. I know church history, and I know the creeds and when they started. The early church fathers faced external and internal challenges; they wrote the creeds to solve their own challenges, in their own contexts. So if [the] church fathers solved their own problems by finding answers in the Word of God, then the people who are working among the Muslims have to identify their own problems and even call councils to discuss the challenges and apologetic [issues] in these contexts.
How do you go about sharing the gospel in your context?
It is important to start [by asking], What is the purpose of preaching the gospel? We find our thinking in Acts 14:15, where Paul says, “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.” So bringing the Good News to people is turning them back to their Creator God. Of course, we must do this in Isa, in Jesus, but we have to start just as Paul did, with the Creator God.
This is general revelation. If we destroy general revelation, there is no more special revelation. As far as I know, Paul directly addressed non-Jewish religions twice, and both times, he started with general revelation but ended up with Jesus, the ultimate revelation of God, as the one appointed by God the Creator to save people. The Book of Acts tells us that. But to believers, in the Epistles, he taught them that Jesus is divine. No one can say Jesus is Lord without the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).
Muslims believe there is a Creator of heaven and earth, and his name is Allah. If you tell a Muslim about the Creator of heaven and earth, but say that the Creator is not Allah, the Muslim will be very confused. What you are telling him is not good news.
If you believe that even Muslims have received general revelation, then you have to start there. If you don’t believe this, you don’t believe your own [evangelical] theology. But if you come to them with good news, [to] restore their relationship with the Creator God, then you have to receive the name they have for him, Allah. If we say that the one they know as Allah is not God, we are not [speaking] against the religion of Islam, or Muhammad or Qur’an, but against the doctrine of general revelation. The missionary must first receive the name of the Creator God from the people, and then they have heavenly authority to give the people the name of the Savior, Isa al Masih.
How is this different from simply believing in the Muslim prophet Isa, as in the Qur’an?
Muslims believe that Isa is a prophet and messenger of Allah, but that he is superseded by Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. According to Islam, salvation is based on the teaching of Muhammad. But you still have something to start with in Islam. You start with their limited Christology and Christ’s role in the kingdom of God, mainly his role in the Day of Judgment. Muslims start to think from Islamic Christology, but they end up with Isa [as the one] who overcame the power of death. They progressively understand him, from prophet and messenger to Savior and then to Lord. But this takes time and the Holy Spirit, as it also did for Peter.
But while they are slowly coming to understand who Jesus is, why don’t you also slowly bring them into the Christian church?
It is possible for Muslim-background believers to join the existing church. But the evangelical church in my country represents a mixture of two religious forms, the Coptic Church and traditional religion.
If I say to Muslims, “Come to this church with me,” I am inviting them to a very strange thing. Also, this is saying to them that they do not deserve a church that connects with their community. This is why we need a Muslim-focused church-planting strategy, because it will produce a church that uses the terms and forms from their Muslim community, not something from other religious communities.
Many Christians in the West would agree that Muslim-focused evangelistic strategy is needed. But many of them also feel that a Muslim-focused church is going too far.
Why is it too far? All people have a church-planting strategy that fits their religious context. Why is there a [problem] when we come to Islam? So we ask, “Do Muslims deserve a church that fits their cultural context?” We are not trying to bring them into the already [existing] evangelical church. They should have a church that reflects their culture. Then we can say that we have an indigenous church, one that grows from the soil of the Muslim community. To “hook” one person into the evangelical church is possible. But the question is how we can fish with a net.
When you are talking to one person you [are also] talking to his community. He represents the whole community. What we say to one will go back to all the rest. So we want to reach a whole community and bring community transformation. The content of church is from heaven, but the form of the church should be from the ground, the culture. The church should reflect Muslim culture, not Muslim theology.
How do the people in your movement view Muhammad? Is there confusion?
First, we cannot rule out syncretism at the beginning of a new believer’s life. The purpose of discipleship is to separate their old beliefs from their new beliefs. So when they put their faith in Jesus, they may have at the same time Muhammad in their heart. But when they start to pray in the name of Isa for their own need, they experience joy, assurance, and peace. And when they pray in the name of Jesus and find people healed and demons cast out, they completely stop thinking about Muhammad. It is a process of the Holy Spirit.
[We should] categorize people in how they relate to Jesus: Where are these people, and where is Jesus in their life? We should ask, “Does this person accept Isa as Lord of their life?”
But what about Muhammad?
Before [they believe in Isa], Muslims acknowledge Muhammad as the final prophet of God. Then we tell them about Isa al Masih. They already know that Isa al Masih was a prophet that raised people from the dead. They know that Isa al Masih did miracles and that he will come as the sign of the Day of Judgment.
Even though they know all this, they are not intentionally thinking about Isa; they are thinking about Muhammad. But when we tell them the gospel, they begin to think about Isa intentionally as the one who will save them from the Day of Judgment, from Satan, from antichrist, from death.
At that point, they mix Muhammad with Isa al Masih. Before, Isa was not the issue. Muhammad was the issue. But when they hear about Isa, they start to bring Isa up to the level of Muhammad. Before, Muhammad was the one who controlled their life.But when they hear the Good News of the kingdom of God, they start to think about Isa. Now syncretism has started; before there was no syncretism. If missionaries don’t ever want problems with syncretism, then just leave them with Muhammad [grins].
But syncretism did not start with us. It started even in Paul’s time. That was the reason Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians. It is not [an] issue because we are Muslims; syncretism starts because people normally start with their own religious background. When people start to think about Isa intentionally, the Holy Spirit has room to lead them into all truth, even if they first mix Isa and Muhammad. The Holy Spirit through time will glorify Isa al Masih in their lives.
So after the new birth, the Holy Spirit begins to open their minds to understand more fully the Messiah.
Yes, of course. Before they believe in Jesus, the Holy Spirit will convict them about sin, righteousness, and judgment. As soon as they give their will to Jesus, they will receive the Holy Spirit and be born again and become a child of God. Then the Holy Spirit starts to live in them. Because the Holy Spirit lives in them, he will lead them to all [the] truth of Jesus. Then the Holy Spirit will give them revelation, and they will say that Jesus is Lord.
The [rest of the community] have started to think now, and they say, “Lial lial rasul Isa“—”These are the people of the messenger Isa.” They’ll say, “Who are these people? These people are not Christians. These people are not Muslims. Who are they? Let’s go and hear what they are thinking.” We explain as much as possible from the Bible. People ask us, “Who is Isa for you?” Our answer is, “He is the Word of Allah.” Then we quote from the Qur’an, but explain what the “Word of Allah” means from a biblical perspective.
If the Muslim community thinks the new believers “are not Christians and are not Muslims,” what do the new believers themselves think? What is their self-identity?
When they first come to believe in Isa, of course they still think [of themselves] as Muslims. What else could they think? We are not telling them they are now Christians.
But when they understand the gospel more clearly, they don’t want to have an Islamic religious identity. Yet they also do not want to let go of their cultural identity as Muslims, which naturally includes forms from their previous way of life and worship.
Where is Jesus in the life of the people in your movement, the People of the Gospel?
When people want to know our faith articles, we can tell them. But when it comes to individual people, we cannot say so easily, because they are not all on the same level. We find some people who say Jesus is God, some who understand that Jesus is the Savior. Others say he is the Word of Allah, without explanation, as they are struggling to understand what that means. Sometimes they understand Isa, other times they don’t. So we have to instruct them.
We have to teach them from the things that they already know. For example, some people may not [understand] if I tell them that Jesus died on their behalf. Islam has a different theology of sin; they don’t accept that Jesus died on their behalf. It is true that he died on their behalf, but it is not the only benefit [of Christ's death].
When he died on the cross, he defeated death and the one who owned the power of death, Satan. And because God raised Jesus from the dead, he was appointed by God as a judge on the Day of Judgment, and the Savior from the Day of Judgment. The Cross is the answer for every [issue] in life. It is the solution regarding our relation to God, Satan, sin, death, and so on.
It is the evangelist’s responsibility to choose which benefit of the Cross is the answer for the spiritual needs a Muslim feels. Then gradually the Holy Spirit will explain the benefit of the Cross as it relates to their sin.
Muslims are afraid of evil spirits; they are afraid of the Day of Judgment. They are afraid of the Devil. I have a message from the kingdom of God that addresses all of these spiritual needs. So we are using the Muslim way of thinking about Isa, even if it is incomplete. If Muslims understand even one of these, they will call to Isa, and the Holy Spirit can lead them to understand more benefits of the Cross.
There are lots of opportunities in Islam; there are also lots of challenges. But the opportunities are bigger than the challenges. We must remember that it is not we who are bringing God to the Muslim people. He was already here.
Oh dear, we think MALAYSIAN INSIDER has really gone down the drain in terms of editorial quality.
An article which was filled with factual errors and major delusions was published by this portal.
That article which was titled – ‘May 13 was not a racial riot’ was written by one called Stephen Ng.
We do not know who this Stephen Ng is, but we wish to correct his writing.
Maybe he was ignorant. Maybe he was brainwashed by Kua Kia Soong. But one obvious fact remains, he got his facts and chronology of the events wrong.
Basically, Stephen Ng was writing fiction.
Just like how DAP intended to falsify history by telling the current generation they were innocent and was not involved in the riots AT ALL, Stephen Ng was trying to divert the blame entirely on Umno; which he massively failed to do so.
Son, if you wish to rewrite history, please do so among your other gullible and ignorant friends. But you are writing for public consumption. You have ended up being a fool.
So let us begin.
We shall ignore the first part of his article since that was merely a justification to show the audience that he is credible enough to talk about May 13. But being a 5 year old boy in 1969 doesn’t warrant him any credence what more by only referring to Kua Kia Soong as his source of materials. Thus, based only by experience as a 5 year old boy living in the East Coast and using Kua Kia Soong’s laughable May 13 book as reference, we can already establish Stephen Ng’s expertise on the subject is next to nothing.
As a boy, I was listening in to every conversation that took place between my mother and other relatives and friends. There were horror stories of Malays killing the Chinese, and Chinese killing the Malays. But a phone conversation between my mother and my father that has never escaped my attention was that everything was peaceful in the East Coast.
My Father said that the Chinese and the Malays were having breakfast together. There was no riot in the East Coast. It was business as usual for them. Muthusamy, Ali and Ah Chong were still friends, when things went awry in Selangor. Why is that so, Datuk Seri Nazri?
JMD : Indeed there were no riots and relatively peaceful in the East Coast because the racial riots happened in Klang Valley. This IS a fact. Riots and racial clashes did happen. Stephen should be thankful his chinese neighbours didn’t provoke the malays there in East Coast. Why is that Stephen Ng? Because the chinese there were in the minority and at a minuscule percentage as compared to the much bigger chinese population in Klang Valley.
Racial riots? No way!
My answer is simple: May 13 was NOT a racial riot. It was the work of a few politicians who capitalised on sentiments of the day.
Although there were obvious bad vibes between the races, mainly perpetuated by politicians, citizens of the newly-minted country, who had already learnt to accept each other, were beginning to enjoy being fellow Malaysians.
In Kelantan and other parts of the country, or should I say, where PAS was in control, people were able to live more harmoniously since the day of Prophet Muhammad!
JMD : Yes because there were no DAP or Labour Party or Gerakan Party in Kelantan in 1969. Of course people in Kelantan lived harmoniously.
Who then caused the May 13 riots? I only found the answer very much later when I started reading the book by Dr Kua Kia Soong, May 13, and made my own observations in the past six years.
JMD : Please read other books than Kua Kia Soong’s heavily biased book. Kua Kia Soong was just trying to exonerate DAP.
Let me briefly share my thoughts.
May 13 is the work of politicians who lost the 1969 general election. The opposition had tied with the Alliance for control of the Selangor state legislature, a large setback in the polls for the Alliance. The big difference now is that Selangor is totally under Pakatan rule for the good of the people.
Several factors had created the tension. The then Menteri Besar of Selangor, Haron Idris was discontented with the results of the election. At the same time, another camp was discontented with Tunku Abdul Rahman, our beloved Bapa Malaysia.
At that point in time, Dr Mahahtir Mohamed had been sacked after his book, The Malay Dilemma, was banned. Tunku had warned that Mahathir was a big troublemaker, and Umno would be making a big mistake if it was to take him back into its fold.
JMD : Tun Mahathir was sacked by Umno more than TWO MONTHS after the racial riots. So Stephen Ng’s stupid assertion that May 13 happened because Tun Mahathir was sacked is not true at all. May 13 happened two days after the general elections. Therefore Stephen Ng, when was it Mahathir got sacked which had caused the riots?
Furthermore, Malay Dilemma was published a year after the riots (1970). Stephen Ng, when you say “At that point in time, Dr Mahahtir Mohamed had been sacked after his book, The Malay Dilemma, was banned”, you were dead wrong. Did you even made any serious attempt to read before you attempt to write this? Tunku never warned about Mahathir being a troublemaker prior to the riots. What are you smoking Stephen?
In his book, Dr Mahathir was able to create a sense of insecurity amongst the Malays and later to control their minds. This was a necessity for a non-Malay, like Mahathir to later become the country’s leader.
JMD : So Malay Dilemma which was not even written yet on 13th May 1969 was creating sense of insecurity amongst the Malays which caused the riots? Don’t you feel like an idiot now Stephen?
Knowing that his own kind is generally not accepted even amongst the Malays, till today, he would not admit that his father was from Kerala in India.
JMD : This paragraph above is the most racist thing this Stephen ‘I am not a racist’ Ng had written. Tun Mahathir’s father wasn’t from India. He was born here in this country. How delusional can you be? And you said Mahathir’s kind wasn’t accepted by the Malays? Care to elaborate what ‘kind’ is that? The condescending and supremacist undertone in Stephen Ng’s writings is not lost among the readers.
Seizing the opportunity to force the Tunku to step down, Dr Mahathir, Abdul Razak Hussein and Haron Idris were the key players in Umno politics.
JMD : So, since the chronology is all wrong, Stephen Ng had to improvise about this fictitious plot. If he had read Tunku’s own book, May 13 Before and After, Tunku himself admit there was no such thing. In fact, Tunku was the one suggested to form Mageran (don’t know what Mageran is? Look it up, Stephen).
To reach that state of Emergency, they had to lash it out on the economically stronger community – the Chinese, and in particular, the DAP, accusing the DAP as a provocateur. Why only the DAP and not the MCA, as both were also Chinese? The present MCA does not even come close to the MCA of those days, when it was still popular with the New Villages.
JMD : Stephen Ng must be such a simpleton. It was the DAP and the Labour Party who acted as provocateurs. There are no two ways about it. The undeniable FACT is, DAP was the provocateurs! Why is this so hard to swallow? Of course MCA wasn’t involved in the victory procession and provoking the malays in Kuala Lumpur on the 11th, 12th and 13th of May 1969. MCA was with the Alliance. And they lost badly. Why on earth would Stephen Ng want to bundle up MCA as the guilty party as well?
Fact is, DAP members who are mostly chinese and the now defunct Labour as well as Gerakan Party which were made up mostly of Indians and chinese were doing all the rankling against the malays.
It clearly shows this was not a racial riot, but the political manipulation by a few.
JMD : Yes and this is based on all the above fiction? Have you not seen pictures from that day?
In my opinion, everything was lumped into one big blame on the DAP because they won big. This is the same modus operandi used by Umno Baru till today, except that this time around, it is not only the DAP, but Pakatan taking over the state of Selangor.
JMD : Your opinion is wrong. Yes Stephen, your effort to absolve DAP of any guilt is as absurd as Kia Soong’s book. We can smell the desperation there. Afraid that your beloved DAP was actually a villain back then? Couldn’t accept the reality that DAP then (and now) were racist to the core? Judging from your racist jibe about Mahathir, you and DAP are in the same mould as well.
Our advice to Stephen Ng is this – in order to be a good writer on history or any subjects, one must read a lot more materials. Not just books by Kua Kia Soong, but also books from other writers.
Therefore to save society from people who write bad articles, we beg Stephen Ng to read just thesee two materials as a start:
The true and fair view of 13th May 1969 Racial Riots (there are some cool pictures in here Stephen, mostly on the chinese DAP etc throwing insults and provoking the malays)
After reading these two, we assure Stephen Ng that the riots on May 13, 1969 were indeed, racial. Please do not lie to your readers. It is already too much that you look down on other people’s ‘kind’, please do not be a liar too.
Why is DAP so eager to censure Tanda Putera without any of their leaders seen it?
DAP is so against Tanda Putera because it is a fact that they were one of the villains during May 13 racial riots and one of its leaders at that time is still alive today.
Don’t torture yourself with endless possibilities; for more information, just read:
Thank you and Selamat Hari Merdeka!
Top 10 Little Uncircumspect, Uncircumcised Reasons for the Malay Vote Swings in PRU-13
A total political tsunami, including a massive exodus of malay voters swinging over to the Pakatan, would have happened had it not been for some minor silly mistakes that the entire PR machinery had brought about. Remember: the kingmakers are the rakyat. And in particular, the Kampung folks and the deep suburban housewives and youngsters, and the oil palm plantation workers and the estate rubber tappers. The east coast fishermen and the west coast factory workers. These are the silent giants, the mute decision makers. You won’t want to cross them. And crossing them was what happened in the recent election. Let’s have a look at some of them here: some of them had been gelled for some time already, while some of them emerged just a few days before election day:-
1) Cute But Vulnerable Election Slogans. It’s good to have catchy little slogans that people can carry and shout around, not to mention to make stickers with which you can stick everywhere. But if you do that, can you please make sure that they are soooo invincible that it leaves no one, and I mean no one, able to find alternative, albeit equally catchy, phrases? So for example:-
a) Asalkan Bukan UMNO. Or ABU, as created by lawyer Harris Ibrahim. Almost overnight, its sensation and impact drizzles down when the pro-Umno guys came up with an alternative of what the acronym really stands for: Allah Bersama UMNO! Yes, that Allah that the DAP wants to share, remember? But frankly, among the kampong folks, which one do you think is more appealing: the Asalkan Bukan one or the Allah Bersama one?
b) Ini Kali Lah. I thought this one would be cute too, when lo and behold, the BN Dead Poets Society came up with their own version of what the PR reeeeaaaalllly means: Lain Kali Saja Lah …
2) Cute and Witty but Harmful Remarks. Irrespective of how much you hate Dr Mahathir, no one (apart from some die-hard Mahathir dissenters in Rocky Bru’s comment columns) would so much hate the former Prime Minister vehemently. So imagine your PR number one man saying something like “Kalau mahu mati, mati saja lah …” So the karma goes back to him. And what about that do’a by the brother of Nik Aziz: “KO UMNO! KO UMNO! KO UMNO!” So it got the common and ordinary folks into thinking … hey this is really unbecoming of a group of people who claims truth and righteousness side with them. And they voted …
3) Cute Little Multimedias. Well, we’ve seen them all. The mirip Anwar sommersaulting the China Doll. The mirip Anwar groping a guy’s scrotum in a hotel room. The mirip Anwar sweet-talking a boy in another hotel room, believed to be the rudimentary beginnings of foreplay. Then there’s the mirip Azmin Ali offering some Cornetto to a lady friend in a bathroom. The mirip Stopa Ali asking his … err… wife… to massage him for RM1400 after … err… performing his duty as a husband. Yes yes I know. People are tired and loathsome with all these raunchy videos, but then, they either go back to their homes believing that UMNO is such a GRRREEAAAT filmmaker to come up with movies so very much like the original people that even great Hollywood directors could not do, or … there MAY be something to it. There MAY be something to all these allegations and proofs after all. And they thought and they thought. And then they voted.
But the voters look beyond these videos and multimedia. They observe silently, pool all the information they gather around them, and put two and two together. For example, this is what they have been thinking:
- Nasharuddin Isa takes a trip with Najib to meet some Mid East scholars and he’s expelled? (When he was shown flanking ranks with some DAP harbis he was considered a hero)
- Hassan Ali insisting that malay-filled Shah Alam should not be selling alcohol in public and raided a premise that did, and when he opposed Ronnie Lieuw to ask the government to “put them alcohol back”, he was expelled?
- When Stopa Ali’s mirip video was shown, the entire PAS machinery deem it Unislamic to expose a person’s keaiban? But much earlier Hadi Awang goes on record to say that it is okay to expose the wrongdoings of a leader, and he means his raunchy ones too, if it is for the reason of telling the voters what kind of man that that particular leader is. He was, of course, referring only to BN leaders.
- When PR leader championed LGBT, Pluralism, Israeli rights etc, none of the PAS leaders bat an eyelid?
4) A Little Over-the-Top Be Bop Flip Flop. Well how would you like to vote for leaders who, at one point says that there shall be no hudud and thereafter says that there shall. First the name of Allah can be used by those who don’t believe in His Oneness and then (for the sake of votes) say that they can’t. First you say Lynas will produce mutant babies and therafter say that it is safe. If you can flip before elections, say the voters, what makes you think that you cannot flop right after it?
5) The Lahad Datu Fiasco. Reports of Tian Chua and Sivarasa’s trip to Manila just before the intruders intruded, and Nur Misuari’s open support for PR as well as Anwar Ibrahim’s meeting before him prior to the fiasco, made people wonder just what the hell is going on. But when lives are lost, they decided they if they can’t defend their sovereignty using guns, they would do so using their voting rights. And they did.
6) The Open Zionist Israeli support for the PR. Oh Brother! Of all these 10 reasons, this one is perhaps the stupidest of all. I mean, what were they THINKING? And who was it that convinced those Israeli firsters to shoot a video of themselves and send it to Ziono-phobic Malaysia to gain votes? I mean, I would even to start believing that there are certain sections in DAP out to sabotage the party by convincing them to do this one up. Either that, or the DAP really should replace their strategists. This point is self-explanatory.
7) Increasingly glaring revelations by Anwar’s closest friends and aides. Yes. The ones who know Anwar rightly and deeply are not the Surendrans or the Sivarasas or the Rafizi Ramlis who just got to know Anwar only since last year or so. The people who were with Anwar for like more than 4 decades—the ones who created ABIM together with him, who supported him even before he was UMNO, the ones who were his schoolmates, the ones who defended him in court 15 years back, the ones who taught together with him in Yayasan Anda right during the days when Anwar still goes around in buses in rubber slippers. These are the ones who have left him, for good reasons. And the reasons, the gory details for their doing so, is scattered everywhere in the the net. And it’s not a pretty picture, I tell you!
8) Saiful’s Kaabah Sumpah Laknat. Folks, do not belittle the power of Sumpah Laknat. You know, the one that starts with Wallahi, WaTallahi, WaBillahi … A muslim can rob, a muslim can steal, a muslim can entertain his neighbour’s wife playing konda-kondi wearing expensive Calvin Klein socks and nothing else, but ask him to perform this sumpah, he wouldn’t dare. And in front of the Kaabah? Doubly wouldn’t dare. And isn’t this the very exact introductory sumpah that became the pivotal statement of Najib’s oath as a Prime Minister in front of the Agong yesterday? And let’s say, takdirwise, and nau’zubillah, that Anwar DID become prime minister. Wouldn’t he have to undergo the same sumpah in front of the Agong? That very sumpah that Anwar says is unislamic, unnecessary and above all, means nothing? And latest is, just a few days before the polls, came the exploding revelation of this former Anwar aide by the name of Rahimi. He was a close friend to Saiful, and man! Those who had any doubts in Saiful before, better be hearing this guy out. The details, the very clear picture of what happened at the heights of the Saiful allegations on Anwar, those few hours preceding it … there is absolutely no way at all that this guy could be lying. Who else would know that much detail? And equipped with all this, the silent voter goes to the polls.
9) Very dubious Characters of PR strongmen. And very strange ones too, not to mention horny. First they caught a PAS guy doing acrobatics with another man’s wife inside a train—caught red handed by the jilted husband himself! Brought him to the Tok Guru, and the latter, in the manner of a Catholic Pope, announced that said playboy had already been pardoned by Allah! Luckily no monetary indulgences were necessary. And then they trapped this PKR biggie talking to a mole in the internet, who was able to convince the guy to open up his pants and beat his meat in front of the camera. And then they sort of put two and two together, and lo and behold, suddenly Mat Sabu’s Room 121 case, Ustaz Badrul Amin’s tryst with another guy’s wife in hotel room etc etc seem all too real, too believable and too … humanly possible!
10) The sudden realization of what the WHOLE thing means. There is an overwhelming suspicion that says the Chinese are really not against corruption and fairness and transparency etc etc at all. For if applying the same standards, they would have equally complained about PR-led states like Selangor and Penang too. But of course when cornered they can always shift the blame to faulty Microsoft Excels or convenient typing errors, such errors sometimes potentially costing a billion ringgit or two. But apparently, the Object of Contention is the Malays! Yes, their slogan Malaysian Malaysia really means, Chinese Malaysia. I mean, that’s what are in the minds of these simple folk voters as to what it really means. And after the ordeal is over, especially in Gelang Patah, it is clear that chinese voters would prefer Mummy-Foo’ed Kit Siang who, in his 40 years of existence, had absolutely nothing to prove of his worth as a Malaysian politician, over squeaky-clean Ghani Othman, the architect of Modern Johore Development, just because Ghani is a malay and Kit Siang is a chinese. That, along with pictures like the ones shown below, are not helping voters to side not along racial lines at all:-
Suddenly, the voters awoke from their slumber. Suddenly, the kampong voters stop to ponder what it all means:-
- Here’s a vote to allow LGBT to take roots in Malaysia
- Here’s a vote to make me complicit in establishing pluralism as a national Ideology
- Here’s a vote to abolish, or reduce, article 153
- Here’s a vote to UBAH … for the worse !
Update 18 October 2012:
It seems that the Auditor General himself never said such things. Have a read here.
The opposition portal, Free Malaysia Today, gave a sterling review of the Pakatan Rakyat’s states by arrogating that the Auditor General had given the states run by Pakatan ‘top marks’.
Although the words ‘top marks’ or its malay equivalent of ‘markah tertinggi’ were never mentioned in the report itself, Free Malaysia Today felt the need to embellish their story in order to satisfy the opposition’s agenda of giving false information to the public.
The fact is, the AG report gave a blanket approval of ‘memuaskan’ in other states as well. But Pakatan Rakyat through all their mouthpieces gave the impression that only the Pakatan states did well.
Although the overall content of this article was somewhat fair by giving an instance of several weaknesses, the title itself is misleading;
AG report: Top marks to Pakatan states
KUALA LUMPUR: The 2011 Auditor-General’s report indicates good fiscal management by all four Pakatan Rakyat-controlled states with revenues improving.
DAP-held Penang led the way in terms of revenue collection, recording a RM192.19 million or 46.8% increase compared with the RM410.70 million made in 2010 while Selangor, Malaysia’s richest state, increased by RM62.50 million or 4% for the same period.
Kedah, on the other hand, saw its surplus drop when it recorded an increase in operating expenditures despite boosting its revenue, but the report noted that the PAS-led state government had more or less maintained a “satisfactory” balance sheet.
But the rice-bowl state, considered as one of the country’s poorest, is still far from achieving its debt target, said the report.
“The state government’s commitment to the remaining public debt now stands at RM2.60 billion compared with RM2.61 billion in 2010; it is still high,” it read, adding that Kedah must do more to improve its revenue collection.
Oil-rich Kelantan, too, was rated satisfactory due to the increase in its consolidated fund by RM86.17 million or 58.1% to RM234.47 million as compared with the RM148.30 million recorded in 2010.
The PAS-conrolled-state also saw investments in 2011 increase by RM95 million from RM16.33 million in 2010 to RM111.33 million in 2011.
The state’s overall financial performance statement, whereby revenue as compared to total management and development expenditures for 2011, recorded an increase from total deficit of RM171.70 million in 2010 to RM141.53 million in 2011.
But the AG report highlighted poor debt management by Kelantan.
“Public debts increased by RM27.85 million from RM1.11 billion in 2010 to RM1.14 billion in 2011. The arrears of debts repayment to the federal government also increased from RM121.57 million in 2010 to RM179.81 million in 2011″.
Meanwhile, the report noted marked improvements in the performance of state agencies with most rated “excellent” compared to 2010, although it recommended Kelantan and Kedah to provide more training for its officers to improve.
Selangor and Penang were praised for their initiatives to bolster their financial management performance.
As the result, Pakatan Rakyat went to town with this poster:
Coming from the back of Scorpene debacle where all the opposition organs of Malaysian Insider, Suaram, MalaysiaKini etc were back pedalling and tripping over their own lies about the trial that wasn’t, Pakatan Rakyat are really trying hard to disseminate lies in order to prop up their performance which in actual fact, is lacklustre or average at best.
There are several instances of millions of money have been lost via loss making state agencies and other types of omissions that didn’t appear in any of the opposition websites or in any of their leaders’ blogs such as:
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN PERTANIAN SELANGOR
- Projek Penghutanan Semula Di Hutan Simpan Rantau Panjang Dan Hutan Simpan Bukit Tarek
Pengauditan yang dijalankan antara bulan Oktober 2011 hingga Januari 2012 mendapati pada keseluruhannya, sasaran Projek Penghutanan Semula oleh PKPS tidak tercapai sepenuhnya, di mana hanya 66.3% daripada 10,000 hektar kawasan telah dibangunkan dan ditanam semula. Selain itu, terdapat beberapa kelemahan dalam pengurusan projek yang diperhatikan antaranya:
- Rancangan lewat disediakan.
- Penanaman jenis pokok tidak mengikut kelulusan.
- Tanah lewat dipajak.
- Pokok lewat ditanam selepas perjanjian ditandatangani.
- Tunggakan hutang syarikat pemajak yang belum dikutip.
- Pelantikan syarikat pemajak tidak teratur.
- Kekurangan pemantauan.
YAYASAN WARISAN ANAK SELANGOR
Skim Tabung Warisan Anak Selangor (TAWAS) yang diwujudkan pada tahun 2008 merupakan salah satu projek penting dalam agenda Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor (MES). Melalui skim ini, sejumlah RM100 dalam bentuk Sijil Simpanan Tetap (SST) diberi kepada setiap anak kelahiran Selangor. Pada usia 18 tahun, anak ini berpeluang menerima RM1,500 seorang hasil daripada caruman di dalam pelaburan dana ini. Skim TAWAS diuruskan oleh Yayasan Warisan Anak Selangor (YAWAS) iaitu sebuah organisasi yang diperbadankan di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 dan secara khusus di bawah bidang kuasa Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) [MBI]. YAWAS mula beroperasi pada 5 Februari 2009 dengan dana peruntukan daripada Kerajaan Negeri berjumlah RM13.50 juta. Daripada dana tersebut, sejumlah RM8.50 juta adalah diperuntukkan untuk pemberian SST berjumlah RM100 seorang bagi maksud pembukaan akaun TAWAS peserta manakala baki RM5 juta untuk kos operasi YAWAS. Setakat bulan Disember 2011, sejumlah RM7.82 juta daripada peruntukan dana yang diluluskan telah dibelanjakan. Perbelanjaan ini meliputi perbelanjaan pembukaan akaun TAWAS berjumlah RM2.92 juta dan kos operasi RM4.90 juta. Bagi tempoh kelahiran dari tahun 2008 hingga 2011, sebanyak 60,972 daripada 74,212 permohonan yang layak telah diluluskan. Daripada pendaftaran yang diluluskan, 21,918 akaun ahli TAWAS telah dibuka. Tempoh matang pertama bagi peserta yang didaftarkan adalah pada tahun 2025 iaitu 18 tahun dari tahun pertama Skim TAWAS pada tahun 2008.
Pengauditan yang dijalankan antara bulan September hingga Disember 2011 mendapati sungguhpun sasaran pendaftaran dan kelulusan keahlian Skim TAWAS sehingga akhir tahun 2011 telah dicapai namun terdapat beberapa kelemahan yang perlu diberikan perhatian. Antaranya ialah:
1. Liputan faedah program ini tidak menyeluruh iaitu hanya 19.4% anak kelahiran Selangor telah diluluskan menjadi ahli TAWAS.
2. Aktiviti pelaburan bagi pembiayaan pengurusan skim yang telah dirancang belum dilaksanakan.
3. Sijil Simpanan Tetap juga lewat dikeluarkan.
4. Garis panduan atau Standard Operating Procedures YAWAS/Skim TAWAS tidak lengkap.
MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBADANAN)
- Pendidikan Industri YS Sdn. Bhd.
Pengauditan yang dijalankan antara bulan November 2011 hingga Januari 2012 mendapati secara keseluruhannya, prestasi kewangan PIYSB adalah tidak memuaskan kerana mengalami kerugian sebelum cukai, kerugian terkumpul dan jumlah liabiliti PIYSB telah meningkat pada tahun 2010 berbanding tahun 2009. Sungguhpun nisbah bilangan pengajar berbanding pelajar mencapai nisbah yang ditetapkan dan prestasi akademik pelajar adalah memuaskan, namun terdapat beberapa kelemahan aktiviti lain yang perlu ditangani antaranya:
- Pengambilan pelajar tidak mencapai sasaran.
- Tunggakan yuran meningkat.
- Sebahagian kemudahan universiti tidak disenggarakan dengan sempurna.
- Aspek tadbir urus korporat seperti Audit Dalam tidak berfungsi, Jawatankuasa Audit Dan Pemeriksaan tidak ditubuhkan, Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan tidak dijalankan, Standard Operating Procedures tidak diluluskan oleh Lembaga Pengarah serta kelemahan dalam pengurusan kewangan.
Penang Global Tourism
Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang (PDC) dalam mesyuarat Lembaga Pengarah PDC Bil. 2/2008 telah membuat keputusan untuk mengaktifkan semula DCT Consultancy Services Sdn. Bhd. iaitu sebuah anak syarikat PDC yang dorman dan menukar nama kepada Penang Global Tourism Sdn. Bhd. (PGTSB) bagi mempromosi dan memasarkan aktiviti pelancongan negeri Pulau Pinang. Penubuhan PGTSB juga bagi menggantikan fungsi Majlis Tindakan Pelancongan Negeri (MTPN). Modal yang dibenarkan Syarikat adalah berjumlah RM500,000 dan modal dibayar adalah berjumlah RM100,003 yang keseluruhannya dipegang oleh PDC. PGTSB merupakan sebuah syarikat yang tidak bermotifkan keuntungan di mana keseluruhan pembiayaan kewangan adalah daripada Akaun Amanah Jawatankuasa Induk Industri Pelancongan (JIIP) Negeri Pulau Pinang.
Objektif Syarikat adalah untuk membentuk imej negeri Pulau Pinang menjadi destinasi pelancongan bertaraf antarabangsa. Antara aktiviti yang dijalankan oleh PGTSB adalah program promosi, pengiklanan, pameran perdagangan, penajaan, aktiviti perhubungan awam, menjalankan program penyelidikan dan pembangunan pelancongan serta menganjurkan program dan acara pelancongan negeri.
PGTSB dianggotai oleh 13 orang ahli lembaga pengarah termasuk seorang wakil dari PDC dan dipengerusikan oleh YAB Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang. Pengurusan PGTSB diketuai oleh seorang Pengarah Urusan dan dibantu oleh 9 orang kakitangan.
Pendapatan utama PGTSB adalah bantuan geran daripada Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang melalui Wang Amanah Jawatankuasa Induk Industri Pelancongan. Bantuan geran Syarikat yang diterima pada tahun 2009 adalah berjumlah RM3.47 juta, RM2.75 juta pada tahun 2010 dan RM6 juta pada tahun 2011. Keuntungan PGTSB pada tahun 2009 adalah berjumlah RM0.79 juta dan kerugian berjumlah RM1.88 juta pada tahun 2010. Manakala kerugian terkumpul PGTSB sehingga tahun 2010 adalah berjumlah RM1.09 juta.
Pengauditan yang dijalankan antara bulan Mei dan September 2011 mendapati pada umumnya prestasi kewangan Syarikat adalah tidak memuaskan.
PDC Nusabina Sdn Bhd
Syarikat Nusabina Pulau Pinang Sdn. Bhd. telah ditubuhkan pada 24 September 1980. Nama tersebut ditukar kepada PDC Nusabina Sdn. Bhd. (PDCN) pada 12 Ogos 2004. Syarikat mempunyai modal dibenarkan sebanyak RM5 juta dan modal dibayar adalah berjumlah RM3.05 juta. Daripada keseluruhan modal berbayar tersebut sebanyak 95% saham syarikat dipegang oleh PDC Premier Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (PDCPH) iaitu sebuah syarikat milik penuh Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang dan 5% oleh Syarikat Nusantara Pulau Pinang Sdn. Bhd..
Visi Syarikat adalah untuk membina bangunan-bangunan yang terbaik bagi memenuhi kehendak pelanggan-pelanggan Syarikat. Manakala misi Syarikat adalah untuk melaksanakan kerja-kerja pembinaan dan perkhidmatan pengurusan pembinaan yang cekap melalui inovasi dan mempraktikkan pembinaan yang kos efektif agar dapat memastikan produk pembinaan berkualiti tinggi, menyiapkan produk-produk dalam tempoh masa yang telah ditetapkan dan kerja-kerja penyenggaraan yang efisien.
PDCN dianggotai oleh 4 orang ahli lembaga pengarah yang terdiri daripada pegawai PDC dan dipengerusikan oleh Pengurus Besar PDC. Pengurusn PDCN diketuai oleh seorang Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif dan dibantu oleh 15 orang kakitangan daripada 5 unit iaitu Unit Pembangunan Perniagaan, Unit Kawalan Keselamatan, Unit Pentadbiran Dan Kewangan, Unit Kualiti/Projek dan Unit Perolehan.
PDCN telah mencatat kerugian bersih bagi tempoh 3 tahun berturut-turut iaitu RM1.79 juta bagi tahun 2008, RM1.69 juta bagi tahun 2009 dan RM288,629 bagi tahun 2010. Sehingga bulan Disember 2010, kerugian terkumpul PDCN adalah berjumlah RM5.16 juta.
I guess they did not really get top marks after all. These are just samples. There are many, many more examples of weaknesses you can read in the report. And I didn’t publish Kedah and Kelantan’s reports too otherwise this article would be quite long.
But as always, there are many Pakatan supporters who will turn a blind eye or justify that the losses are insignificant to them. But these type of people have already been misdirected by the opposition and their portals. Their ignorance and hatred are key to Pakatan Rakyat’s survival.
To them, Pakatan Rakyat is God’s gift.
After the debacle Malaysian Insider went through in twisting Marina Mahathir’s and Bridget Welsh words, and after being chastised by both ladies for practising atrocious journalistic behaviour, the Insider were at it again with their pro opposition agenda of misinforming the general public.
An article by Bernama was published in Malaysian Insider as below. Please take note of the headline:
French official says Scorpene probe not at trial stage yet
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 8 — A prominent French government prosecutor has denied reports circulating among some Malaysian online news portals of an ongoing trial in France, on allegations of corruption by a French company over the purchase of two French-made Scorpene submarines by Malaysia in 2002.
Yves Charpenel said the media in Malaysia should be able to distinguish between rumours and facts, and between investigations and a trial.
“I am aware about all the fuss kicked up by certain media (organisations) in Malaysia over this matter but what I can say is that this is nothing more than a trial by the media,” he told Bernama here today.
Charpenel, who was a former head of prosecution in France and now a state prosecutor and an executive member of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA), was here to attend the four-day IAACA conference and general meeting which ended yesterday.
Following a complaint filed in 2009 by Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), a Malaysian human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO), that a French company had allegedly paid bribes to a Malaysian firm for the submarine deal, he revealed that two independent “investigating judges” started their investigations earlier this year.
Charpenel said that in France, as in other countries practising the rule of law, all investigations were done in absolute secret.
He said it was anybody’s right to file a complaint and due to the secret nature of the investigations, some resorted to complaining to the media.
He explained that for specific cases in France, the Justice Ministry would ask an independent judge, called an “investigating judge”, to investigate.
“He is just an investigator. This is an old system that started from the Napolean era. If the investigating judge wants someone to come to Malaysia, he has to ask from your government because we have what is called the Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance. And the Malaysian government can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It has to be decided by the Malaysian authorities.
“A French investigating judge cannot take his luggage, take a plane and go to Malaysia and ask someone to answer his questions. It is impossible, it is against the French law and it is also against international law,” stressed Charpenel.
He pointed out that in France, as elsewhere, the course of justice would not be dictated by the media.
As he put it, “In France, the time of justice is different from the time in media. Of course, the media needs data, information, news. It’s natural but the investigation is quite different. This is exactly the same, whether in France or in Malaysia.
“And, it has to be secret. We are now in the first step, maybe, we got another step, maybe not, and it is quite early to say more.”
Asked about media reports that French lawyers representing SUARAM in the suit would be coming to Malaysia to brief their clients, Charpenel said any lawyer from any country was free to do so because he was paid by his clients.
“He can speak freely to the press, that’s freedom or human rights. But he is not a prosecutor. He is not an investigating judge. He is not an official.”
In April this year, local opposition politicians here had even called for Malaysian officials to testify in Paris or risk being ostracised in the European Union.
“A trial is a trial with all the rules. Investigation is another thing,” said Charpenel of the misinformation generated by certain news portals over allegations that a trial was already underway.
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi also said over the weekend that the Auditor-General had declared the Scorpene deal was done in accordance with legal procedures. — Bernama
Note that the original title of the Bernama report was :
“NO TRIAL IN FRANCE OVER SCORPENE, SAYS LEADING FRENCH PROSECUTOR”
If read carefully, the french official was not even certain if there would even be a trial even after the investigating judge being appointed. The change of the original headline in its entirety and the inappropriate use of the word ‘yet’ in this context is misleading. See the difference between the two headlines?
In fact, the french official stressed that the media should discern between what are rumours and what are facts.
Hence Malaysian Insider should not delve in rumour mongering even further by giving slanted headlines just to satisfy their pro opposition agenda. By saying that a trial may yet happened, the editorial desk of Malaysian Insider is jumping the gun way ahead than what the french official had officially reported to have said. And to further, erode their news credibility, Malaysian Insider basically had changed the gist of the news reported by Bernama unnecessarily.
First rule of news reporting, never put words from the source’s mouth. That’s what put them into trouble with Marina and Bridget in the first place.
The very act of twisting the headline exposed The Malaysian Insider’s desperate act of pacifying Pakatan Rakyat’s rabid supporters. God forbid if their version of the Scorpene story could not be sold to the public.
The french government official also reiterated that any french lawyers that chose to go to Malaysia to brief their clients can freely go as they are paid by their clients.
He was saying this as the news of SUARAM getting french lawyers to give briefing on the Scorpene trial in our Parliament are being published for the past few days. It seems that all this while SUARAM has been feeding lies to the Malaysian public regarding this Scorpene deal and had paid these lawyers to assist them.
With this explanation from the French’s government official, it is more incumbent upon Suaram and also Anwar Ibrahim to explain themselves on why are they purposely and very determined to spread lies to the public?
With The Malaysian Insider and its ilk, together with the news that MalaysiaKini and Suaram are getting funds from foreign agents to bring down the government though unethical means, there is no doubt that the opposition and their foreign friends are getting frenzied and eager to grab power from the current government.
Importantly, we the Malaysian public should be smart enough to differentiate between lies spread by the opposition and their tools as well. They will try to mislead us on daily basis, hiding behind their favourite mantra of “we are independent news portal“, in order just to manufacture a negative public perception towards their enemies.
Malaysians need to be more aware than ever. Your misperception, is their survival.
This is the final part of the series. Thus far, readers can appreciate the fact that history does repeat itself and those who do not learn from it will commit the same folly again and again.
6. DAP: Tactics and campaign strategies in general elections
In 1974, DAP objected to Malaysia’s ties with China. The reason given was that it didn’t bring any benefits to the chinese in particular and Malaysians in genera (NST 21st August 1974). When former Prime Minister, the late Tun Abdul Razak paid the first official visit to China, the DAP accused the Barisan Nasional’s establishing diplomatic ties with China as an ‘election ploy’ to garner Malaysian chinese votes!
In 1987, Kit Siang questioned past government leaders criticising Malaysians investing abroad as being disloyal, but in 1994, when DAP’s closest political ally Semangat 46 chief Tengku Razaleigh questioned Malaysian chinese of their loyalty for their overseas investment in CHina, Lim Kit Siang chose the “deafening silence”, to illustrate that it was alright to sacrifice “principles” he often preached but never practices (even though Kit Siang disagreed with S46 Tengku Razaleigh’s comments and felt that the S46 leader was being out of touch from political realities).
In the 1974 election campaign, the DAP adopted the politics of desperation and racism, harping on sensitive issues despite knowing very well it could lead to racial tension. In chinese areas, the DAP put up posters “warning” chinese voters that chinese culture and education would be taken away from the by the BN. In malay areas, the DAP created issues of government inefficiency in combating inflation and corruption. The tactics were similar to those used for arousing communal hatred and dissension during and after the 1969 general elections (Straits Times 16th August 1974).
DAP promised Penangites in 1974 that if DAP captured the state government, it would investigate various allegations of malpractices and corruption against the ruling coalition and the “acquisition of sudden wealth” by prominent members of the ruling party in the last 5 years (1970 to 1974). The DAP also promised to recognise Nanyang and Taiwa graduates for appointment to local authorities and other state vacancies; grant book aid and scholarships to all needy children, and to set up a revolving book-bank; construct low-cost houses and resettle slums and squatters at permanent sites; and review the imposition of quit rents; dissolve the management committee and hold local elections; re-site the Penang bridge or to consider alternative linkage (Straits Times 1st August 1974).
In 1978, in a desperate move to uplift the DAP’s image, Kit Siang announced a DAP’s “shadow Cabinet” comprising 16 DAP MPs to monitor the respective Ministries in government. As soon as the 1978 general elections was over, the proposal frizzled out.
The 1981 DAP crisis in Penang state was worse than the one in 1978 with the Opposition party embroiled in power struggles, disunity, indiscipline and factionalism which spread from Penang to Perak, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor. Mass resignations dogged the days of the DAP crisis in Penang, resulting in ten out of the 17 branches leaving en bloc in support of the DAP dissenters against Kit Siang’s dictatorial rule. A former DAP leader from Penang commented that (quote): “any new DAP member who joins the party cannot afford to remain neutral and is bound to be drawn into the whirlpool of factionalism and power struggles among the leaders” (Star, 25th February 1981).
The DAP Penang crisis exposed Kit Siang’s support of Karpal Singh’s bias against DAP chinese educated members. In 1981, Karpal Singh told the Press that DAP has no place for those who talk in terms of chinese unity or malay unity or indian unity. Expelled DAP Penang vice chairman Seow hun Khim urged chinese educated DAP members not ot be fooled by Kit Siang, to speak up and not act against their conscience by remaining silent. Quipping a chinese saying about Kit Siang (quote): “Kit Siang can set a big fire, but his members are not even allowed to light a lamp”. On March 1981, DAP Melaka crisis began which later led to the sacking of chinese educated Chan Teck Chan.
7. DAP and other malay parties
Tengku Razaleigh in December 1980 when he was in UMNO, called on Kit Siang to retire from politics following the latter’s public announcement of his intention to do so. Expressing fears of DAP capturing the Pengkalan Kota seat would encourage the Opposition to take control of Penang, Ku Li said the DAP would use Pengkalan Kota as a base to project its ambition. And referring to Kit Siang’s resignation and the DAP crisis, Ku Li acknowledge that the DAP scenario “reflects the kind of dictatorship ruling the DAP”. The aftermath of Kit Siang’s withdrawing his resiugnation as expected also saw many of “DAP dissenters” who had challenged Kit Siang being axed from the Party (including former DAP political chief Chan Teck Chan).
In June 1979, former Umno Vice President Tengku Razaleigh once advised the people to be wary of opposition parties like DAP and PAS which he said indulged in politics of fear. He added that DAP and PAS are always looking for opportunities to belittle BN leaders and intimidate the people with sensitive issues that could widen the relationship gap between the government and people.
8. DAP’s tired calls for human rights, freedom and democratisation
For 27 years, DAP Kit Siang and his big boys have been singing the “song of freedom and democracy” and virtually projected DAP as having sole rights to free Malaysians from repression, sufferings and injustice. But if we remember, in 1980 after the tragic DAP defeat at the Pengkalan Kota by-election in Penang, Kit Siang had the discomfort of hearing that song being sung by his supporters. There was a difference. In 1980, the song was directed at him during a time of internal turmoil. It was also a time, when ousted DAP leaders gagged by Kit Siang for years of dictatorship, began to “spill the truth of Kit Siang”. It was also a time when Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir who was Deputy PM branded DAP as the ‘Dictatorial Party’ and democratic only in name. Adding that Kit Siang applies double standards in that he will not allow party members to criticise him, while he goes around criticising everyone in BN.
Hoping that the public’s memories are short of his calls for freedom and democracy, Kit SIang went about “chopping and changing DAP rank and file” as he wished, by gagging and disciplining those he did not like during the 1980 DAP leadership crisis. In short, Lim Kean Siew once complimented Kit Siang’s character as “what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander!”. The Socialist Democratic Part (formed by DAP dissidents in 1978) described the 1980 DAP crisis as a “comedy of errors”. Kit Siang conveniently accused the Malaysian press for discrupting and destriying DAP. For years, the double standard Kit Siang has accused BN government for not granting press freedom.
In 1981, DAP national publicity secretary Tan Seng Giaw charged former DAP MP Chan Teck Chan for committing a serious breach of discipline for publishing a book containing the latter’s speeches in Parliament without the consent and approval of the DAP CEC. This is the DAP’s version of “human rights and press freedom” which DAP practices within and without. On one hand, DAP challenges the government for press freedom while on the other, suppresses its own leaders’ freedom and rights to publish books (source: Straits Times 4th March 1981).
In 1980 when the press reported the DAP developments, Kit Siang questioned the “rights and freedom” of the press. He attacked the press for blowing the “small disagreements” out of proportions and therefore, irresponsible journalism. Yet, Kit Siang does the same or worse by using the DAP’s official organ “The Rocket” against Barisan Nasional government by sensationalising small issues. It was alright for the DAP to condone, promote and protect “irresponsible journalism” of the Rocket but not alright for the vernacular press to report the accurate picture of the DAP crisis.
This is the sort of mentality and attitude of Malaysia’s opposition leader in Parliament who has no courage to admit weaknesses of his leadership, but instead heaped blame against the Malaysian press and the BN for its internal turmoil. Yet, Kit Siang and his warlords are boastful and to the point of utmost arrogance to claim that they are courageous and brave to sacrifice “freedom and personal lives” for the sake of the people’s interests and rights even if they had to face the “repressive laws” of the BN government. For the wise voters, questioning the virtues of DAP must be a continuous affair. If DAP leaders cannot even admit “to themselves” their own weaknesses and faults in their leadership, where are the qualities of honesty, courage and bravery? By depriving these qualities, the DAP leaders are surmountable to being self deceiving, dishonest and cowardly “to themselves”. Needless to mention their leadership accountability and responsibilities toward voters.
……. (can we see the similarities between what happened years ago to what is happening now? A leopard cannot change its spots. A party doesn’t change its malicious ways no matter how much they are saying otherwise..)
In the 1970s the favourite political gimmick employed by DAP was to either ‘boycott parliamentary sessions and state assemblies’ or to stage ‘walk-outs’ even if the event was an important one such as Budget presentation. In 1970, 13 DAP MPs boycotted the Budget speech at the Dewan Bahasa on December 22nd, and the habitual boycotting of Parliamentary and State Assemblies became the norm of DAP’s political tactic and style for years to come.
Why is DAP adopting this irresponsible mode of representing the voters when it accused others of the same? Will such boycotting contribute to nation-building? DAP has an impeccable record of boycotts, the national education consultative council and numerous walkouts in Parliament and State Assemblies.
When DAP is not invited to give their views, the Opposition accused the BN of being undemocratic and dictatorial; but when they are invited, they have nothing to contribute. Instead they staged political gimmicks to obtain cheap publicity and political mileages. For once voters in the DAP constituencies should convey a strong message in protest against DAP’s trampling politics.
This contradiction is a typical example of DAP leadership since its founding years. Its wishy washy political policies are always subjected to the whims and fancies of its leadership depending upon the political moods of DAP leaders in exploiting the political circumstances of the day. In 1972, two DAP National Vice Chairmen left the opposition citing many of the current DAP leaders as “opportunistic, unprincipled and hankering for personal power and glory”. Many of the DAP staunched leaders like Goh Hock Chuan, Dr A. Soorian who had earlier condemned the policies of the Alliance, came to realise the ‘final truth’ of the DAP in later years.
By June 20th 1972, DAP lost four of its 13 MPs and twice that number of Assemblymen. The DAP was split in Perak, Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Melaka (the whole committee of Melaka Branch resigned in August) and Penang. The DAP fell foul of old friends with whom it had an election understanding in 1969 and refused membership of the National Consultative Council (just as it boycotted the NECC in 1989) and boycotted KL City Day. The DAP was virtually in the ‘dumps’. Dr A. Soorian, former DAP national vice chairman was expelled because he was increasingly ‘critical’ of Lim Kit Siang for having betrayed the trust and ideal of the DAP as laid out by founder members such as Devan Nair. Lim Kit Siang’s leadership according to the former DAP leader, had no fixity of purpose or sense of direction, and “Kit Siang behaves as though the DAP belongs to him”.
4. DAP devoid of ideologies and principles
As early as 1967, precisely on 5th October, 28 years ago, current DAP Chairman Dr Chen Man Hin who held the same position then, said that the DAP was a multiracial party which would ‘never’ desert its cause by aligning itself with a racialist party, (quote): “… be it the Pan Malayan Islamist Party (currently PAS) or any other chinese or indian chauvinist party” (unquote). In 1971, DAP secretary general outdone his Chairman by saying (quote) : “The DAP must learn from the mistakes of compromising with political opportunists. The people must not repeat the mistakes of desiring on “opposition unity” at “whatever costs regardless..” (unquote).
Yet, seven years later in 1978, the same Lim Kit Siang made a generous offer to PAS to work together “in the name of benefitting all Malaysians”. The pertinent question we have to direct to Lim Kit Siang is that: “What benefits have all Malaysians received from the DAP-PAS political “marriage of convenience”? We know that DAP has played a key roe in assisting PAS in capturing Kelantan State government. We know that the Kelantanese chinese community is living in fear and apprehension of PAS in imposing the proposed Hudud laws and all types of restrictions in the name of PAS Islamic rules are being enforced, restricting Kelantanese chinese community’s rights and freedom to their economic and cultural practices.
Yet, DAP was willing to sacrifice those purported principles it so gallantly preaches by covering up PAS’ misdeeds and seeks electoral pact with PAS to fulfil Lim Kit Siang’s personal ambition of becoming Penang Chief Minister. In 1990, Lim Kit Siang stated openly in the Malaysian Press that DAP was more than willing to work with PAS to further “its own interests”. In other words, DAP National Chairman Dr Chen Man Hin’s open declaration not to align with PAS was meant either to ‘deceive’ the voters or that DAP is void of “principles”. Can Malaysian voters place their trusts upon DAP national leaders who have no principles, and having been exposed to have said something at a particular time but doing something else at another time!
Kit Siang realising his past follies and own lies had caused uneasiness within his own rank and file is trying to make amends by recently “covering up with another lie” that DAP will go to the polls “alone” suggest that DAP will distance itself from PAS. Should Malaysians voters believe again and again these lies? Should Malaysians in the coming general elections, increase DAP representation knowing that DAP rank and file are powerless to stop their “unscrupulous” Kit Siang’s lone ranger actions and absolute powers. Kit Siang being an old fox is bound to change his political tactics to woo public sympathies by “lying” that he is old and ought to be given a last term in Penang state. In the 1990 general elections, did Kit Siang give Lim Chong Eu a last chance to serve the constituents? The answer is obviously ‘no’., Kit Siang is too arrogant and in 1990, politically killed Lim Chong Eu.
Now that Koh Tsu Koon has replaced Lim Chong Eu for Gerakan in Penang, it is time that Lim Guan Eng should replace Kit Siang in DAP. What assurances are there to stop DAP from exercising “dictatorial rule” in Penang, exactly the way Lim Kit Siang runs DAP? Greater liberalisation in supporting DAP means a support of “tyranny” (unjust rule by a person or small group of people who have power over everyone else in the state or party).
5. DAP & educational policies
DAP has no constructive educational policies. Since its founding years, the party’s policy has been one of opposing for the sake of opposing. When MCA initiated the Tunku Abdul Rahman College, the DAP in 1968 “accused the MCA of using education to produce a race of fanatics who were prepared to sacrifice ordinary laws to the party machinery (source: NST 16th September 1968)”. [JMD - very much like the DAP law-breakers we have now..]
It further slandered MCA by saying that TAR College teachers would be “indoctrinated with the beliefs of MCA and that text books would be written to glorify MCA”. The DAP compared MCA’s proposed TAR College to schools in Germany turning out Hitler’s Youth who graduated into the Gestapo.
This is the type of opposition leadership within DAP of yesteryears and the quality of its leadership has since deteriorated by employing new political gimmicks, malicious methods and destructive means to keep the DAP afloat. Not only does DAP wants to do nothing to the cause of Malaysian education, the DAP leadership also wants “others” not to do anything worthwhile towards education our younger children. Envious and jealous of MCA initiating the TAR College in 1968, the DAP spread malicious lies, sowed seeds of suspicions and doubts among the community just to sabotage a beneficial community project. If DAP had been successful in sabotaging the TAR College project, hundreds of thousands of Malaysians would be deprived of educational opportunities and careers. To be exact, 40,500 TAR College graduates would be deprived by DAP of their educational opportunities and thousands of careers wiped out at the costs of nation-building.
Today, DAP lies have been proven to be malicious and has further proven that those DAP leaders who made such lies are liars. None of these graduates has been ‘indoctrinated” by MCA and not a single graduate turned out to be a Hitler Youth! [JMD - but these days it is alleged that most students in UTAR are pro-DAP. Irony.]
There is a mentality among voters who support the DAP for the very reason that the opposition was needed to “voice their grievances” and to provide “checks and balances” in government. In reality, DAP is “morally and ethically incapable of voicing your grievances for the very simple reason that DAP leadership is no longer capable to protect your interests. DAP is predominantly occupied by protecting its own political survival.
Recently the dAP has adopted “new political technologies” to survive. It has mastered the art of “claiming credits” to its name. Never mind, whether the achievements are economic, political or social related. Malaysia’s development progress is attributed to DAP’s existence! And DAP hopes to “hoodwink” the voter in the street even though it might be an insult of intelligence to the man on the street. Another “political technology” employed by DAP since Tanjong Two failed to materialise was to “beg” for sympathies by threatening to “resign”.
Lim Kit Siang during his 25 year political career as DAP Secretary General has threatened to resign no less than 50 times either within DAP or to the electorate, an average of two threats per 12 months of his political office. His practice of using “tricks and threats” to solicit sympathies is synonymous to Lim Kit Siang’s norm and childish prank he endears to, in order to keep absolute power.
DAP has been this way since its inception. Wither Malaysia should they are given another chance to wield power in Pakatan Rakyat.
I found a few pages of brief analysis on list of ideological weaknesses of the DAP leadership recently. I thought I would share some of the points to the readers out there. It is an old document – written in 1995. Therefore, all of the events quoted and examples given were not up to date to the current political environment. Nevertheless, readers could appreciate the fact that history tends to repeat itself. Some with different actors with similar issues and some with same old actors but with different issues.
1. “DAP-itis”: A Form of Political Sickness within DAP Leadership
They preach democracy, human rights and freedom, greater liberalisation but within DAP its national leaders do not tolerate dissent, constructive criticisms and especially by Lim Kit Siang’s dictatorial rule as DAP Secretary General following Goh Hock Guan’s being ousted from the post. In Parliament, DAP national leaders “acted” and projected their public images as if they are loyal and principled “Malaysian leaders” who are impeccably honest, incorruptible, and a peolpe’s champion. Yet, DAP leaders suffer from “DAP-itis” during their overseas missions by bad mouthing Malaysia, conspired with left-wing union and labour organisations to disrupt congenial relationship between Malaysian government and local labour unions, threatening job positions (eg. GSP withdrawal, union strikes etc), spreading lies, rumours, and character assassinations in the name of human rights and freedom.
In 1966, former DAP secretary general C.V. Devan Nair set list if “do’s and don’t” for DAP:
a) ”A strictly non-racial approach to all social, economic, political and cultural problems of Malaysia.”
Comment: Today, it is habitual for DAP to exploit racially sensitive issues and with forked tongues. Playing one community against the other to gain political mileage.
b) “Acceptance of the Malaysian Constitution and loyalty to constitutional methods of political action.”
Comment: Today, DAP resorts to “foreign support” to exert international pressure in blackmailing our government to conform to DAP’s demands. DAP resorts to “protest rallies”, union strikes, disloyal methods of political actions at international forums and gatherings, often used for self vested purposes such as saving their own leaders from ISA detention.
c) “Honesty and incorruptibility in private life and public activities.”
Comment: Since Lim Kit Siang’s leadership, DAP leaders have unquestionably been involved in cooperative scandals, unaccountability in collecting public funds in the name of Bukit China, education and legal aid. There is completely no accountability after the funds had been collected, how it was spent, by who, and for what purpose? Receipts were not kept and one wonders any records were made and yet the DAP has the cheek to demand BN leaders to declare their personal assets while DAP national leaders openly fail in fulfilling the responsibility of public accountability in collection of public funds and refusing to set examples. And recently DAP leaders in the Trade Union were charged for misused of funds.
d) “No cheap slogan shouting, rabble rousing or playing to the gallery.”
Comment: Not only has the DAP leaders failed to comply the abovementioned, DAP members of parliament resort to abusing Parliamentary privileges by “behaving like schoolboys” such as name calling, walking out of parliamentary sessions in protest, slandering, launching personal vendetta against BN MPs, issuing personal challenges and staging “political gimmicks” during parliamentary sessions.
In 1978, DAP was known as the “Walkout Oppositon” for its blind attitude and constant walkouts in Parliament and State Assemblies so much so that staging walkouts was their way of representing the constituents. Since Lim Kit Siang took over the reigns of DAP leadership, a ‘new chaotic” dimension was added into the Malaysian Parliament with his lackadaisical fashions. The DAP should reform itself by not using the Parliamentary privileges to launch character assassinations and malicious lies before shouting for Parliamentary reforms, and start to act responsibly in its representation to the electorate. To cover its record of treating the Parliament like a coffeeshop, DAP hypocritically called for the BN government to reform parliamentary procedures. Yet electoral history has amply proven that DAP is more interested in winning electoral seats than representing them!
For decades, Kit Siang has been arrogantly boasting that DAP leaders have sacrificed their personal lives and freedom to speak out fearlessly for Malaysian democracy, yet when they are detained under the ISA for threatening national security, the DAP sent telegrams and letters to all over the world to denounce the Malaysian government, and like “cry babies” moaned and groaned about their predicament, seeking world sympathies and pressure to seek their releases! DAP leaders’ personal behaviours are a great contradiction to their false public images as “heroes” and voters must explode this myth which the opposition has repeatedly projected to deceive the public at large!
2. DAP preaches political ideals but applies double standards within
In 1967, Lim Kit Siang preached democratic socialism to strive for a society and members equal opportunities for political, economic, social and cultural development. He condemned the Feudal society where men occupy ranks in life not because they perform any socially useful function but because of their births. Does DAP national line-up today reflects the very principles preached by Lim Kit Siang 28 years ago? Chen Man Hin and Lim Kit Siang are the DAP national Chairman and Secretary General respectively today as they were 28 years ago.
Malaysia since then has changed Prime Minister thrice and its cabinet line up many times over. DAP’s leadership history is littered with bitter expulsions and personal vendetta with recent cases of former DAP leaders Lee Lam Thye and Hu Sepang being forced out of political positions. Today, Lim Guan Eng, DAP Youth DAPSY Chief, by birth right as Kit Siang’s son, is being groomed by his father, has a tremendous bright future to lead the opposition DAP. DAP professes political ideals as a political weapon to attack others but never applies within because DAP does not believe in “practising what they professes”.
The public has been misled that DAP is the champion for democracy and democracy is within DAP but democracy has been dead within DAP for a long time. DAP rank and file have no “human rights” to dissent against the mistakes and misdeeds of their leaders though they might be “freed” to do so through expulsion. Former DAP National vice chairman Daing Ibrahim in 1978, quit the DAP, describing the party being run by a handful of dictators, who had arbitrarily expelled political opponents from within. He had exposed Kit Siang’s true colour and “DAP’s own brand of democracy”.
Malaysians have been taken for a ride for too long to believe that DAP is the champion of democracy and political freedom. It is time DAP should put its own house in order before shouting for democratisation, liberalisation and freedom of sorts! DAP crises in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982 and 1990, had left a trial of desertions, defections and expulsions with open confessions of dictatorship and double standards of Kit Siang and his warlords. The record of sacked DAP top ranking leaders included staunched DAP leaders, DAP founder leaders and DAP leaders who had condemned the Alliance and BN governments. Lee Lam Thye and Hu Speang were only the latest additions and lineage to the long long list of former DAP leaders who finally woke up after a long, long political nightmare!
3. DAP: A record of self contradictions and selling out
The DAP, since its founding, has shouted for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ concept, not out of sincerity to the idea, but only as an election strategy and platform to capture votes. Till today, the DAP’s political concept merely exists in print and form. During the mid-1960s till up to the late 70s, DAP national leadership had to face widespread dissatisfactions and grievances among its supporters, that DAP never practised what it preached. Outside of its own homefront (DAP Party), its national leaders shouted the slogan of a Malaysian Malaysia. Within its frontiers, preferential treatment was given to DAP chinese leaders and supporters while ignoring the pleads of other communities within its rank and file. In 1978, DAP announcing its intention to absorb 20,000 malays into the party within 5 years, was looked upon as a political joke.
In actual fact, it was a “cover up” to hide the reality of many malays leaving the DAP in 1978. Today’s DAP remains a party that does not reflect the Malaysian Malaysia ideology, though at ground level, DAP leaders play a chauvinistic line to the tilt to deceive voters for their votes.
In 1969, former DAP national leader Lee Lam Thy strongly condemned the Alliance Government: (Quote Malay Mail 3rd April 1969): “The Alliance government is dictatorial by its ‘one voice policy’, undemocratic and unparliamentary in its practice of parliamentary democracy; intolerant of Opposition criticism; incompetent in its administration; wasteful in its expenditure; divisive in its nation building policies; shortsighted in its treatment of the people” (unquote). Little did Lee Lam Thye realised at that time that 21 years later, his criticisms and condemnations made against the Alliance were applicable to Kit Siang and his warlords. In 1990, Lam Thye quit DAP and wept openly, a disillusioned man. In 1983 and 1985, two disillusioned DAP leaders summed up the following comments on DAP before they quit the opposition Party:
a) Former DAP Youth leader (Perak): DAP lacks democracy, practices favouritism, double standards and opportunism. DAP leaders are dictatorial and hypocritical with passing weeks. They are the greatest political circus in Malaysia with threats, undemocratic restrictions, suspensions and expulsions. The DAP has lost its bearings and soul because it is being led by power crazy and autocratic individuals. A former DAP from Penang once summed up DAP leadership as “DAP has talked a lot about democracy but there is nothing in the party that is democratic at all.”
b) Former DAP State Treasurer (Melaka): (Quote) “The DAP’s activities are a danger to national unity and harmony among the different races in the country. The DAP should realise its mistakes as its efforts to harass the people and create disunity among them were totally rejected by the people.”
In 1972, hundreds of DAP members quit DAP partly attributed by disillusionments and sackings carried out by Lim Kit Siang. Popular former DAP national leaders to quit DAP included Lee Lam Thye and Hu Sepang during the 1990s. On August 3rd 1971, an entire DAP committee of the Melaka branch resigned en bloc. In 1972, the former deputy publicity secretary Encik Ainnol Jammal (DAP KL Branch quit DAP citing DAP as a chauvinistic party run by a dictator. In the same year, DAP Rocket adopted a chauvinistic approach by publishing an MCA official wearing a songkok and captioned it “the fighter ans saviour of chinese culture and education”.
Minister of National Unity the late Tun Sambathan chided DA for stooping to such a low form to score political points. In 1986, DAP carried out the chauvinistic and dirty tactic by concocting printed photographs of an MCA candidate wearing songkok and mass distributed to voters during the general elections. Since Lim Kit Siang took over the reigns of DAP leadership, the DAP is infamous for whipping up communal feelings and character assassinations for its selfish political ends.
In 1971, V. David (currently DAP national leader) who was with Gerakan had a verbal clash with former DAP leader Goh Hock Guan on the Selangor State Assembly meeting. V. David accused the DAP of playing “cowboy politics” and power crazy. Today, the same V. David is a DAP national leader who perpetuates the cowboy politics and supports “power crazy” DAP policies.
On 22nd April 1974, 102 DAP members from 5 branches in Selangor, resigned en bloc citing Kit Siang’s “dictatorial ways” as the chief reason for their resignations. (Quote): “In our investigations, we (former DAP supporters) found that Kit Siang was trying to keep power to himself by getting rid of people who did not agree with him. The DAP Constitution was changed to allow Kit Siang to assume more personal power and to mould the DAP according to his will” (unquote).
It is evident that Lim Kit Siang calls for greater liberalisation and democratisation today is hypocritical move when the DAP ideals which he personally refuses to practice and apply within his own political homefront. Voters must wake up to DAP’s hypocrisy and double standards which Lim Kit Siang steadfastly upholds for the past 28 years of his dictatorial rule . To ensure that the DAP Youth perpetuates this Hitler’s doctrine, he puts his son and future DAP successor, Lim Guan Eng to indoctrinate the younger DAP members and pro-DAP youth movements with anti-government and anti-establishment policies of the opposition.
——————————————– to be continued.