Archbishop of Canterbury, Muslims, Christians & Jews

I went over to Lim Kit Siang’s blog to wish him a speedy recovery after I received an email from an obvious DAP supporter circulating the news that Mr Opposition has been suffering from a severe back pain.

In order to drop the well wishes, I had to register myself at his blog, not something I was enthusiastic about, but I did it. Anyway, I took the opportunity to browse around LKS blog and came across an article by Farish Noor that Uncle Lim has posted.

Farish told us that some while ago a far right wing Dutch pollie urged that the Quran be banned on the grounds that it was a ‘dangerous book’ that spread the message of hate and violence. Sounds like some Malaysians ;-) always too keen to blame the song instead of the singer.

Farish said that naturally the Muslim community of Holland and other European countries were terribly upset, averring the talk about banning Qurans was part and parcel of a wider trend of Islamophobia in the EU, essentially racist and an attempt to rob Muslims in Europe of their fundamental rights and liberties.

Then Farish posed the rhetorical question: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems?

A case in point is the recent seizure of thirty-two Bibles from a Malaysian Christian who was on her journey back to Malaysia from the Philippines. Upon arrival in Malaysia, her bags were checked by the customs authorities and all of the Bibles were confiscated, on the grounds that they had to be vetted by the Ministry of Internal Security. But since when were Bibles deemed a security threat in Malaysia, and to whom might they pose a danger?

Predictably the first to react to the seizure of the Bibles were the Christians of Malaysia. But it is sad to note that the same level of anger and outrage that was expressed by Muslims over the Muslim-bashing sentiments of a Dutch politician thousands of miles away was not evident when this outrage was perpetrated on their own shores.

Farish also asked of the Christian (and other) communities: When Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists alike realise and respect the sacredness in the other, and drop the claim that they alone monopolise all that is good and holy; perhaps then we will be one step closer to recognising the fundamental humanity we share with each other – whether we like it or not.

Indeed.

I decided to post my first comment (apart from the speedy recovery) on Uncle Lim’s blog. The following is essentially what I had written but expanded here to include additional material I have subsequently obtained.

I started with a universal truth, that any religious issue may involve and/or invoke irrational emotion, and when that issue is linked with, and thus compounded by another irrationally emotional issue, that of a disliked or feared race/ethnic group (thus the inevitable bigotry), it becomes a situation for intolerant fireworks.

Take the recent case of what the Archbishop of Canterbury was alleged to have said. I regret that the subsequent ruckus has been all bigotry, prejudice and intolerance (with some Malaysians* eagerly joining the lynching mob) without checking or actually evaluating what Rowen Williams had actually said or not said.

* the same shameful behaviour was observed when the Palestinians broke out of Gaza to obtain badly needed food in Egypt. Those clowns attempted to trivialise the suffering of a people wrecked by starvation seeking food as rushing into Egypt to buy cheaper TV. Is there no shame in perpetrating such cruel lies?

In a BBC interview on Thursday, Williams had merely touched on the possible (and unavoidable) use of the syariah to resolve some personal or domestic issues among Britain’s Muslims, much like the way Orthodox Jews have their own courts for some matters.

In fact the following was what transpired in his lecture delivered before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. The lecture was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.

The Archbishop actually made no proposals for syariah in either the lecture or the subsequent interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

No doubt an inconvenient fact for the usual mob of bigoted Islamophobes.

It was during the subsequent interview, rather than the wild allegation of proposing a parallel system of law, Archbishop observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law".

Then, when the question was put to him that: "… the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?" he indicated his assent.

It seems that his argument or observation that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" were completely/deliberately ignored for the opportunity to either lambast him or to exploit the occasion for another round of Muslim bashing. And our local wonders of course predictably and eagerly jumped into the deep end.

Next, for those pro-Zionist Islamophobes, this was what happened too.

At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another". This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.

Suck on that.

But you of course will get ultra rightwing British Jew like Melanie Philips crucifying (pun not intended) Rowen Williams regardless of what he might have or not said. Philips has used her Daily Mail columns and her blog to criticise, amongst other issues, progressive teaching methods, scientism, Islamism, and anti-Semitism; to defend Israel; to oppose equal partnership rights for homosexuals - basically the yin to the yang of the Perak Chief Mufti - I hope the two would one day meet ;-)

Wiki also tells us that "In a recent article, she [Philips] criticised the membership and leadership of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches in Britain, and specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, accusing them of anti-Semitism because of remarks made by the Archbishop about the plight of Bethlehem Christians under Israeli occupation; another factor was an opinion poll showing that the majority of Anglicans were opposed to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank".

No doubt Rowen Williams is a favourite target for her diatribes!

Anyway, back to Rowen Williams - regrettably two items the Archbishop mentioned slipped by either unnoticed or were deliberately ignored in the rabid mouth-foaming eagerness to ‘attack’.

Firstly, his “… much like the way Orthodox Jews have their own courts for some matters.”

Hmmm, that seems OK for those British conservatives. But when it comes to matters Islamic or Muslims, the usual mob would go on a rampage. In Malaysia, it’s the same mob mentality, except the table is then turned around, with some local Muslims wishing to go on a violent jihad, either with their keris-es or mouths.

We also saw that Western double standard hypocrisy when David Irving was hounded for his crazy revisionist book on the Holocaust deaths whilst the British press went into overdrive pontificating on Western values re freedom of expression when the Prophet Mohammad caricatures were published.

Please read:
(1) What happened to British 'Freedom of Expression'?
(2) European 'Freedom of Expression' took nosedive!
(3) Europe's Dilemma - Holocaust Denial vs Caricatures

Likewise poor Prince Harry was equally persecuted when he wore a swastika armband to a fancy dress party (a fancy dress party, for God’s sake, where one could have met someone dressed as Dracula or Stalin) until he was forced to apologise and his dad had to publicly announced the poor lad (then still young) would be sent to Auschwitz to study (or repent?), all that to appease the Hebraic ‘gods’.

Read Jewish Goose, but no Arabic Gander where Harry was described as 'evil' by a British Jew. Wonder whether that bloke has heard of Sabra & Shatila? Now that's modern day 'evil', yet unrequited!

Anyway, so much for the much vaunted Western bullshit value of ‘freedom of expression’!

Secondly the Archbishop referred to a Jewish jurist query on the issue of 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another", something that is currently happening within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice, in other words “… to resolve some personal or domestic issues …”.

Is this so bad? If it’s OK for the Jews, why have there been frothing and foaming at the mouths over the Archbishop’s response to the question of a Jewish jurist? How about some intelligent debate/discussion before screaming about Muslim terrorists ‘chopping hands’ or ’stoning someone to death’?

OK, let’s return to the topic Uncle Lim posted, the illegal confiscation of the bibles. As I have often mentioned before, it has to do with petty officials behaving like religious zealots. It’s a weakness of Malaysian culture that government officers believe they are Datuk Bendahara's transported from the court of Malacca's Sultan Mansur Shah, and often taking it upon themselves to make the 'rules' as they come across a situation they have a personal bias against.

In my post Marina Mahathir on 'The Art of Fear' I discussed what Marina had alluded to, that of those dangerous ‘Little Napoleon’ zealots acting beyond policy guidelines or even regulations.

I stated: Today, many of Malaysia’s social and institutional ills arising out of ethnic imbalance in appointments in all government organisations (the Public Service, Judiciary, Police and Armed Forces, etc) and government funded institutions (universities, etc) have been due to those Little Napoleons’ hands acting beyond official policies. Yes, the implementation went beyond the call of official, though not of covert, duty.

But unfortunately and predictably, the political leaders who were/are in the know and in authoritative positions to slap those zealots back into line have failed miserably to do so. Instead they even cover up or protect their ill disciplined Little Napoleons - remember the previous IGP who threatened UMNO MPs in a private briefing session that if they allowed the IPCMC to be established the Police could not guarantee their successful re-election?

Indeed, what is far more troubling has been the lack of promptness by ministers, including and especially the prime minister, in publicly disowning, if not condemning such illegal/unauthorised actions by their officers. And because there’s so much religion in politics and vice versa, those damn ministers including the PM are kiasu scared that they may be seen to be giving way to the non-Muslims.

So lacking the necessary leadership and moral courage, they would go into elegant silence and act dunno, hoping their officers’ acts of illegality will hopefully go away or be eventually forgotten or subsequently resolved on the quiet.

To conclude this longish post, I repeat Farish Noor’s call to the Malaysian Christian (and other) communities) for them to respect the sacredness in the other, and drop the claim that they alone monopolise all that is good and holy.

In similar tone, if Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing orang putih politician could stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims oppress those of other faiths (smashing down Hindu kuil and Taoist temple) and treat their holy texts with disrespect?

Well, kaytee believes maybe that would be too ambitious. Perhaps some of them could start off by not jumping on the lynching mob’s bandwagon at the first whiff of a non-believer (of whatever faith)?

Hot KL pre-election politics

This is hawtie news from the Star Online column.

Sweetie Joceline Tan, probably the chief publicist and spinmeister for the Barisan Nasional has dropped us some luscious tidbits in her Insight column, with this week’s article titled KL seats safe but not so safe.

Needless to say, the title tells us she’s hedging her bets. Like Wong Chun Wai, she draws parallels to the American Democratic party’s primary’s where she asserted that:

The people in Kuala Lumpur are supposed to be more urban and well informed but the city is not going to rock on national issues like corruption and judicial independence. Instead, rice-bowl sort of issues will prevail in the 11 parliamentary seats.

She continued: Those who think that KL urbanites will be voting based on national issues like corruption, the keris, or the scandalous revelations of the Lingam video inquiry will be disappointed.

Like the United States primaries, which had started off with big issues like the Iraq war and terrorism, the build-up to the general election had been heavy on big issues like corruption, judicial freedom and religious concerns.

And like the primaries, it is quite apparent that the main concerns of Malaysian voters will boil down to rice-bowl sort of issues – costs of living, jobs, and matters that affect their daily lives like crime and security.

“Even issues like human rights, it is important in civil society but there's no market for it in places like Batu,” said Datuk Ng Lip Yong, Batu MP and Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister.

Well, my dearest tweetie sweetie, the US Democratic Party primaries tussle between Obama and another sweetie (that I have also been considering in my Lustful Fantasies), Hillary, has been more about their sell of ‘change’ versus ‘experience’, against the background of an America traumatised by the Iraqi War and the divisive impact of its 2004 presidential elections, where that nation was described as divided between the ‘reds and the ‘blues’ because of Bush’s dirty tricks campaigning.

While I am not disputing the important ‘3 bows of rice’ concerns among the general Chinese Malaysian voters, if there is any parallel to be drawn with the Yanks, then among the Chinese middle class it’s also about ‘change’ and ‘status quo’ (sometimes touted as ‘experience’ or more correctly, ‘corrupt experience’).

But to be fair to sweetie JT she did quote DAP politician and researcher Liew Chin Tong, ‘these everyday kind of concerns could not be more pronounced than in highly urbanised KL where the pressures of day-to-day living are more acute and the shortcomings of bureaucracy and government policy more keenly felt.’

According to sweetie: ‘The DAP has been hoping that if there is a swing against the ruling party, it would show in a place like KL where people are presumably more sophisticated, better informed and more up to date with current affairs.’

In other word, my argued version for drawing parallels to the American Democrat primaries.

Sweetie believes that while some ethnic votes may drift one way or another, the status quo of the BN with seven seats and the DAP with four will be maintained. But like everyone, she wondered about the H-power, and mentioned Lembah Pantai with its multi-ethnic composition of 53% Malay, 25% Chinese and 20% Indian.

JT sees incumbent MP, sweetie Shahrizat Jalil as more conscious about the Chinese than the Indians voters. JT advised that she should not neglect the latter as it’s a far more urgent factor – kaytee translates that to mean, ‘Sharizat, don’t take the Indians for granted.’

Now, why did I say that JT wrote Shahrizat Sweetie Shahrizat Jalil is more conscious about the Chinese voters?

Because sweetie Shahrizat ‘has appeared at recent functions wearing one hot-looking Chinese outfit after another.'

Holy moley, as I said, this is hawtie news from the Star Online column. If sweetie Shahrizat had been wearing cheongsum, I am going to kill myself for not being there to see her sauntered by with the dress side slits, hopefully to hypoxic altitudes.

It seems Shahrizat may be borrowing a leaf out of Maxime McKew’s book. Incidentally Maxime McKew has been the giant killer of Australia’s Bennelong parliamentary seat where she did the virtually impossible, kicking former PM John Howard out of his once stronghold with the support of the Chinese voters there. See my post What is 'Wong' with this country?

Sweetie JT suggested that sweetie Shahrizat ‘may also want to use her exotic Indian roots to woo her Indian constituents.’ Hmmm, perhaps one of those sexy Bollywood styled sari? Yummmy papadom!

But JT was a wee catty in writing that ‘Teresa Kok, all set to win a third term in Seputeh, has grown into a national figure in the DAP and seems incapable of doing any wrong in the eyes of her constituents. Her only shortcoming, quipped one of her supporters, is her dubious dress sense.’

I hope Teresa will put on a cheongsum A.S.A.P – Oooooooooooooooo!

photo from macumbalove

Israelis' new medical boost to continue screwing Palestinians?

From The Australian:

Israeli fighter pilots may soon be receiving Viagra-style pills to help them to perform better at greater heights, according to a study by military officials released yesterday.

While the potential use of anti-impotence pills may make pilots' enemies in the Middle East crack a joke or two at their expense, military researchers believe the ingredients that allow improved blood flow for men suffering from sexual problems may help flyers operating at very high altitudes.

The proposal, to be presented to the air force by a retired general, was developed from a study by Israeli doctors among climbers scaling Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, according to Bamahaneh, an official military magazine.

The study found that tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, a Viagra-like drug, helped climbers to ward off fatigue.

With combat pilots operating hi-tech equipment in low-pressure environments, doctors believe the drug could enhance their operational abilities.

********

Yawnnnnnnnn ... those Israeli pilots have been screwing the Palestinians (with missiles, rockets and strafing) for so long that this will just be another proposal for them to continue doing so.

Ang Pow

To celebrate the Year of the 2008 Rat, I have updated an old post Secret of Ang Pow’s and post same at my other blog, Ktemoc Kongsamkok.

The 'Miracle' of Israel

Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: RamzyBaroud.net

********

Israelis and their supporters tend to depict Israel as a country of miracles. What else could explain the country's astonishing "birth" and subsequent survival against all sorts of "existential threats"? How else would Israel develop at such a phenomenal pace, making the "desert bloom" and continually scoring a high ranking amongst developed nations in most noteworthy aspects?

Meanwhile, Palestinians continue to be depicted as "their own worst enemies", a people who "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" and who stand outside the parameters of rational human behaviour. Israel is often, if not always, contrasted against a regional backdrop of "backward", "undemocratic" and essentially violent Arabs and Muslims.

Such depictions -- of luminous, civilised Israelis facing wicked, backward Arabs -- are the building blocks of a polemic sold tirelessly by Israeli, American and Western media. Most often, it goes unchallenged, thus defining the West's understanding of Israel and its moral "right to exist". The argument is rooted in the horrors of the Jewish holocaust; however, Israel's handlers have managed to turn deserved sympathy for that tragedy into an unwarranted assertion, somehow equating Palestinians with Nazi Germany in order to justify a constant state of war in the name of self-defence.

In this specific context, the power of the media cannot be over-emphasised. It has defined a fallacious reality based on a skewed narrative. Never in history has a story been so slanted as that of Palestine and Israel. Never has the victim been so squarely blamed for his own misfortunes as the Palestinian. This is not an arrogant counter-narrative to Israel's concoctions. It's a glaring truth that continues to be either ignored or misunderstood.

The "miracles" often associated with Israel are not random; they are assertions. Miracles are a religious notion, referring to the unexplained and supernatural. Thus they become exempt from rational questioning. This formula has served Israel's strategic purposes well. On one hand, Israel's existence is portrayed as a resurrection of sorts: from near-annihilation to a "miraculous" rebirth. Indeed, considering how the birth of Israel story is offered, the narrative is no less impressive than biblical legends. Such discourse has been used successfully to appeal to a much larger group than those who identify with Israel on ethnic or religious grounds. It has impressed tens of millions of Christian fundamentalists worldwide. In the United States, Christian Zionists represent the popular backbone of the pro-Israeli camp. While American Jews tend to vote based on economic or political interests, Christian Zionists see their allegiance to Israel as a religious duty.

Like all religious miracles, Israeli miracles are "matters of faith". They can either be accepted as one package or rejected as such; the bottom line is that they are beyond argument, beyond the need for tangible proof. Those foolish enough to deconstruct this -- and thus question Israel as a state accountable to law, like all others -- are subjected to the wrath of God (in the case of the "true believer") or the wrath of the media and the Zionist lobby (in the case of the sceptic).

When an American politician, for example, is accused of not standing "fully behind Israel", the accusation doesn't warrant justification. It stands on its own, like a biblical command that has survived the test of time and reason: Thou shalt stand fully behind Israel. The accused politician can only defend his record of support for Israel; he cannot question why this is necessary in the first place, or ever acknowledge the fact that the latter's track record is soaked in blood, sullied by illegal occupations, and grounded on human rights violations and defiance of international law.

As the 60th anniversary of the so- called birth of Israel draws near, a most impressive -- albeit grotesque -- misrepresentation of that history will be offered in abundance. Media pundits and politicians will celebrate the miracle, omitting how Israel was delivered on top of the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages. The killing and ethnic cleansing that became known as the Palestinian Catastrophe -- or Nakba -- was not the work of invisible and miraculous seraphs, but rather well trained and well-armed Zionist gangs and their supporters.

Nor did Palestinians lose the battle due to their laxity or backwardness. Their bravery, for those who care to consult serious historical works (such as those of Israeli historian Ilan Pappe or late Palestinian Professor Edward Said), is a badge of honour that will be carried by Palestinians for years to come. They lost because, as parallel historic experiences demonstrate, neither bravery nor fortitude are enough to withstand so many powerful forces at play, all plotting for their downfall.

Moreover, those celebrating Israel's miraculous efforts in making the desert bloom -- the inference being that "nomadic Palestinians" failed to connect with the "neglected" land, and only the "return" of its rightful owners managed to bring about its renewal -- will most likely forget that it was the Palestinian proletariat -- the cheap, oppressed, and dispossessed labour force -- that mostly worked the land, erected the homes and tended to the gardens of the miracle state. No less than $100 billion of American taxpayers' money contributed to Israel's current economic viability, as well as military preparedness.

All of this is likely to be overlooked as Israel and "friends of Israel" around the world celebrate another miraculous year of survival and affluence. Will they pause to wonder why over five million Palestinian refugees are dispossessed and scattered around the world? Will they lend a moment's silence to the many thousands who were brutally murdered so that Israel could live this fallacious miracle? Will they ever understand the pain and the tears of successive generations dying while holding onto the keys of homes that were destroyed, deeds to land that was stolen, and memories of a once beautiful reality from which they were violently uprooted?

If there is any miracle in Israel's existence it is that the lies upon which it is founded could be perpetuated for so long, despite glaringly obvious truths to the contrary. Indeed, it is a miracle that such grave injustice could reign for so long uncontested.

Giving Anwar Ibrahim a 2nd chance? (1)

While I can understand (but not agree with) the 'anwaristas' for idolising, mythologizing and promoting Anwar Ibrahim, , I can’t (understand, that is) those who claimed not to be ‘anwaristas’ (and even condemned him in private conversations) for promoting or attempting to soft-sell him.

A few of these people (the second group) have suggested that we should give Anwar Ibrahim another chance (implying we should consider supporting him) as he deserves it, whatever that word ‘deserves’ means?

They would go on to assert that he has changed (how would they know?), that he paid a heavy price being imprisoned, that while he may not be the perfect politician he at least has the political will, meaning that he ‘dares to do what he dares say’, that he is the only politician capable of challenging or confronting the BN.

Firstly, why should we give him a second chance just because he was in prison? Why should we non-UMNO people and non anwaristas compensate him for falling on his own UMNO sword?

It may well be that he was framed but that has nothing to do with us, the non-UMNO people!

Let’s get one fact straight – he didn’t go to prison for us, the non-UMNO sufferers, as a letter writer to Malaysiakini had attempted to mythologise – he wrote:

"Anwar himself was a freedom fighter in his youth. He later turned politician, not at the behest of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, but because after establishing intrinsic power in himself as a freedom fighter, he saw the political opportunity offered by Mahathir as a broader theatre to establish his truth. The real freedom fighter in Anwar surfaced when he chose to go prison instead of politically tacking when confronted by Mahathir."

Hahaha – I posted my response to that nonsense in Flagrant Fallacious Fable of a Freedom Fighter:

I was caught between wanting to laugh aloud at the author’s naivety and secretly admiring his brilliant gyroscopic vortex of bovine dust – yes, bulldust as it may be but of such pseudo-magnificent cyclonic proportion.

[…]

Get real – he was dragged to prison screaming and wailing. He didn’t have a damn choice. That he was probably framed would be a good argument in his defence, but to spin that he chose to go to prison instead of ‘politically tackling’ Dr Mahathir (whatever that means) is contemptible, loathsome, and despicable rubbish.

And didn’t his followers went out on to the streets of Kuala Lumpur, in a scene frighteningly reminiscent of May 13? Yes, come to think of it, it was more than just screaming and wailing.

This is the sort of fable making that not only have some naïve people thinking he’s a political reformer, but even the man himself believing he’s all that, and perhaps beyond. And most of all, Anwar is no martyr by any measure so let's not attempt to spin him into one and perpetuate such a lie.

Yes, he went to prison either for corruption and/or being framed because of an UMNO internal struggle. To we non-UMNO people, he was part of the problem and never the solution.

He had all the ‘chances’ he could enjoy, from joining UMNO at Dr Mahathir’s behest (and suck on that truth!) and mentored by the former PM until he rose to the exalted rank of Deputy PM and virtually on the threshold of being Numero Uno in Malaysian politics.

And during all that time, what did he do on those issues that he now claims to champion?

Did that ‘real freedom fighter’ fruitfully utilise the opportunity of ‘a broader theatre to establish his truth’?

I guess he was too busy with his duties of high office, horse riding and yes, tennis too, among involvements in many other trappings of high society.

Secondly, on his so-called ‘political will’, that he ‘dares to do what he dares say’, that’s patently a shameful myth; we should NOT perpetuate such nonsense.

When he was in various positions in UMNO (for several years) including, as I mentioned, the exalted position of DPM and acting PM on a number of occasions, he dared NOT act on what he now daringly says he would. All he could do to excuse his inaction during his term in power was to wimp, for example: “Some said that I should have been more firm but I wasn’t. But if I had done that, I would have been sacked in 1993.”

His current ‘big’ talk is cheap, doing so only after he has been kicked out of UMNO. Please read Guess who've been singing that old tune "I'd have been sacked ..."?

Well, here’s something about the so-called intrepid ‘real freedom fighter’ that I blogged on nearly two years ago in Anwar Ibrahim - Pot Calling Kettle Black:

Anwar Ibrahim told Malaysiakini that the MCA, Gerakan and MIC ministers have no balls to dare speak up for Chinese or Indian interests in the cabinet.

[…]

He said: "My experience in the cabinet, the non-Malay leaders unfortunately don't take the issues up ... even if the issues are not very sensitive to the prime minister. They won't say: ‘We consider whether this brilliant Chinese academic could head this public university’. They wouldn't dare! But what will they ask for? (They ask) can we participate in the Klang Port privatization?”

But when Malaysiakini asked him what about decisions he had made when he was at the Treasury, he replied:

“Even at the Treasury, sometimes with the best of intentions, the Treasury gave strong advice but I was not able to do it, like the airport you said I was appointed chairman of the (Kuala Lumpur International) airport, but only because the prime minister appointed me”

Should we be surprised that he blamed someone, especially Dr Mahathir?

Reminded he was then in charge of the Bakun project, he explained: “And the Bakun dam project in Sarawak - I said that it would proceed after the evaluation by the EIA (environmental impact assessment) but Mahathir announced it before the evaluation was made.”

Again Mr Faultless didn’t have anything to do with that project. ‘Twas that evil Mahathir again.

Finally he said “Some said that I should have been more firm but I wasn’t. But if I had done that, I would have been sacked in 1993.”

"I would have been sacked in 1993"! Poor frightened little Anwar.

But well, here’s an admission of being afraid for his own position from someone who had just criticized MCA, Gerakan and MIC ministers for not having the balls to speak up.

What brazen double standard hypocrisy.

So, where’s his so-called ‘political will’, the one that shows he ‘dares to do what he dares say’.

Shame on those so-claimed non-anwaristas who have spun such a myth, one which is totally unfounded and patently nonsensical, just to help boost Anwar Ibrahim's image.

Why have you perpetrate such bull? What is your motive? If you are a covert anwarista, now's the time to come out and honestly declare your political hand.

To be continued ........

Jeff Ooi - koay karng spot for koay karng lang?

WHAT!

Looks like Jeff Ooi may not be standing in Bukit Bendera afterall.

Malaysiakini in its news article DAP: Penang economy slipping stated:

"Penang has become the laughing stock of the international industrial community under Koh," said Ooi, who intends to contest in a parliamentary seat in Seberang Perai."

“…Ooi, who intends to contest in a parliamentary seat in Seberang Perai.”

Did you get that?

Hmmm, on second thoughts maybe it might be better for Jeff. I believe Chia Kwang Chye, who has had several years to consolidate his position in that federal seat may be too strong for a new comer like Jeff.

It’s important for Jeff to win or his political career will come to an unpleasant period of stagnation if not a grinding halt. And what a depressing, demotivating and disastrous experience that would be for the DAP's prize recruit as well as the DAP.

Maybe it's better to allocate a 'koay karng' spot for a 'koay karng lang' ;-)

Challenge to Anwar Ibrahim

Here’s challenge for Anwar Ibrahim. Malaysiakini received a letter from Proarte who wrote:

********

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Anwar explains his stance to Christian leaders.

There was ostensibly, as claimed by an anonymous observer ‘no variance between his public pronouncements and his private assurances to his inquisitors’.

Unfortunately this glib remark is not borne out by Anwar Ibrahim's contradictory public utterances. The fact that is was a closed-door meeting and had people speaking to Malaysiakini on conditions of anonymity did very little to allay suspicions and distrust of Anwar's commitment to freedom of conscience and the 'Jeffersonian Focus'.

Anwar has been accused of being 'all things to all men' in his political and religious rhetoric; his recent pronouncements on the Lina Joy case seem to confirm this. Let us not forget that he praised the Federal Court on the ruling that Joy had to go to the Syariah Court to get her religious status clarified. In fact Anwar went one step further and exhorted us to have 'more confidence in the Syariah courts' .

However, when the Syariah courts declared that M Revathi who claimed to be a Hindu was a Muslim and could not change her faith despite undergoing a six-month detention and psychological torture (by being separated from her husband and baby and forced to eat beef) in an Islamic 'rehabilitation centre’, there was pin-drop silence from Anwar. The above is a clear example of his moral cowardice.

Freedom of worship as guaranteed by the constitution applies to every Muslim and non-Muslim alike. When a Muslim changes his or her faith, they immediately fall outside the ambit of Syariah law. As such, apostasy cannot be a crime as the Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over non- Muslims. Thus the detention and cruel incarceration of Revathi was unconstitutional despite what Anwar says about 'following procedures'.

Belief is a personal matter. No authority can impose a belief system on an individual if he or she rejects it. Truth and sincerity are important Islamic precepts. Therefore labelling someone a 'Muslim ' when they chose to reject the faith is encouraging 'munafik' behaviour which sadly the Syariah courts are guilty of.

Anwar's impression of duplicity can be dispelled by making clear pronouncements in all the mammoth ceramahs he is due to take part in the up-coming elections. He should categorically state that:

(1) Apostasy is not a crime.

(2) Lina Joy should be legally declared a Christian as the Syariah Courts have grossly erred in declaring that a Muslim cannot change faith according to conscience.

(3) Detention and incarceration and the torture which Revathi went through was illegal and can never be regarded as part of an Islamic ‘rehabilitative procedure’.

(4) PKR will institute reform of the Syariah law and procedures in Malaysia if it comes to power.

********

Aiyah Proarte, Anwar explains his stance to Christian leaders is just one of those tiresome anwaristas' letters.

But will Anwar Ibrahim accept Proarte's challenge to him. And if I may, I would also like to add one more issue, namely, for Anwar Ibrahim to declare he would purge the Constitution of Article 153, and in its place, institute an affirmative program on need-basis.

Mind you, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Jeff Ooi's chance in Bukit Bendera

I wonder why the press don’t say:

Lim Kit Siang, the DAP politician and blogger, or
Teresa Kok, the DAP politician and blogger, or
Tony Pua, the DAP politician, and blogger?

Yet when it comes to Jeff Ooi, Malaysiakini and other newspapers would refer to him as a blogger.

Sure he is, but … why not refer to him as a DAP politician? He is that now, and he could well be the next federal MP for Bukit Bendera!

In an earlier post DAP prospects in Penang - Makkal Sakti factor I mentioned the Hindraf has awoken the Indian voters, but I also queried whether the DAP can convince them to vote for its candidates.

Playing around with old 2004 election figure, and also working on very conservative expectations of Chinese voters swing to the DAP but focusing on what a seismic shift in Indian voting pattern can achieve, I said that it would be possible to take Bukit Bendera away from a fairly popular Chia Kwang Chye of Gerakan.

Alternatively, and less likely, if there is a major shift of Chinese voters over to the DAP, and it’s possible because DAP had held Bukit Bendera before, Jeff as the DAP rep could well be sitting in Parliament sometime middle of this year.

As bloggers we are of course interested in Jeff’s chances, so let’s examine some pros and cons for him as a candidate for BB.

Pros:

(1) DAP brand – in the last election even a Malay candidate under the DAP banner in this Chinese majority seat could secure 18000 of the 47000 votes. That’s nearly 40%, and the only reason why Zulkifli didn’t roam all the way home was that he was a johnny-come-lately rather than a non Chinese. The DAP had failed to prepare him for or introduce him to the voters well ahead.

(2) There is dissatisfaction with the UMNO-led BN.

(3) It’s a federal seat and Chinese Penangites are more likely prepared/ready to give it to a DAP bloke.

Cons:

(1) Chia Kwang Chye hasn't been exactly idling and taking things for granted. He will be a formidable opponent for Jeff.

(2) Jeff is not well known in BB. Though he’s from Sebarang Perai, he’s what the islanders would call ‘koay karng larng’ (bloke from across the river). Islanders tend to consider 'koay karng lang’ as semi foreigners ;-)

(3) The voters, especially those in the Ayer Itam village and Rifle Range locality, are those who are more likely to identify themselves with the Gerakan (hawkers’ patron) than with Jeff.

But it’s still do-able for Jeff, depending on he plays the game. And he has started off by blaming UMNO for the economic downturn in Penang - see Malaysiakini article The Umno factor in Penang politics.

Jeff lambasted the UMNO federal government's powerful Economic Planning Unit for filtering off foreign direct investment (FDI) into the state. He said: "Umno has not been very supportive of the Gerakan in terms of allowing more value-added and state of the art companies to come to Penang."

He needs to do more than that as the BB voters are fairly sophisticated and have their own impression of the government and how to fix the BN, that is, if they want to. Chia Kwang Chye no doubt will be campaigning to convince them otherwise.

More than that, they are practical - they want to know what he'll do for them. The blogging reputation may strike a chord only with those familiar with the Internet, but these aren’t exactly the majority.

I hope to see Jeff pull a few rabbits out of his ... er ... browser ;-)

It's always an accident

From Middle East Online:

BAGHDAD - The US military said Monday that its forces accidentally killed nine Iraqi civilians, including a child, during raids against Al-Qaeda fighters south of Baghdad.

The incident occurred on Saturday near the town of Iskandariyah, 50 kilometres (30 miles) south of the Iraqi capital, a military statement said.

Three more civilians including two children were wounded, it said.

Witnesses said 20 people, including 17 members of a single family, were killed in an air strike by US in the area.

"Shortly after the incident, coalition forces leaders met with a sheikh representing the citizens of the local area," the US statement said.

"The incident is under investigation. We offer our condolences to the families of those who were killed in this incident, and we mourn the loss of innocent civilian life."

The statement gave no further details.

Early last month, Iraqi security officials said three civilians were killed by US military fire in two incidents in the province of Diyala, one of the most dangerous regions in the country.

The military said at the time it was investigating the claims.

And in October last year, a US air strike north of Baghdad killed at least 15 women and children, one of the largest losses of civilian life in a single American operation since the war began, the military said.

Diyala province is the focus of a massive sweep against Al-Qaeda, known as Operation Iron Harvest and part of the Phantom Phoenix assault targeting insurgents across the country launched on January 8.

Also read Over one million Iraqis killed by war where research conducted by a leading British polling group shows that more than one million Iraqis have died as a result of war in their country.

DAP set to win Batu Kawan on H-power?

The reverberation, repercussion and radiation of the Hindraf H-bomb continue.

In the deafening silence of an unnaturally quiet MIC leader, the PM and DPM have hastily initiated Ops Salvage, a damage control campaign to mollify the marginalized, traumatized and previously-despised Indians.

The fusion potential of their more than 10% votes in a number of crucial seats with the staunch opposition votes is staggeringly frightening.

Take for example the Batu Kawan seat. The Star Online suggested that the DAP will field political scientist Prof Dr P. Ramasamy in this federal constituency.

According to the 2004 election results that I obtained from a blog (maybe MT2Day?) – if incorrect please advise – it showed that in the last election, the Batu Kawan federal constituency had a turnout of 32559 (75.6% of 43055)

The Gerakan (BN) polled 17097 to win by a majority of 8998 (relative to the next highest vote count). There was a combined opposition total of 14,600 votes. With the agreement between the DAP and PKR to avoid 3-corner fights (hopefully no sabotage by stealth at last minute) the BN’s majority would be reduced from nearly 9,000 to a mere 2,500 votes.

The 9,818 Indian votes in Batu Kawan (43,055 registered voters) constitute a staggering 23% voting power. This powerful Indian bloc (provided it's won over by the DAP) coupled with the Chinese general dissatisfaction with the BN spell mucho trouble for the Gerakan candidate.

I had blogged in a previous post DAP prospects in Penang - Makkal Sakti factor based on a Malaysiakini news article MIC in seat swaps to regain support which averred:

Based on the 2004 electoral roll, Penang has 70,618 registered Indian votes, or 10.5 per cent of the 672,361 voters. Although the state does not have an Indian majority seat, nonetheless many federal and state seats have considerable presence of Indian voters, who can change the margin of losing and winning in tight contests.

I also suggested that it may well be the Hindraf H-force has synergised the DAP appeal to Indians.

So we may understand why AAB invoked a Star headline of Abdullah promises to consider needs of all Malaysians, an obvious reference to the grievances of the marginalised Indians.

In panic mode (at least for their BN subordinates, the MCA, Gerakan and MIC) Najib instructed the MIC to Re-engineer yourself to remain relevant, but like the AAB’s message, was directed more at Indian voters.

In caustic response to Najib’s advice to the MIC, Malaysiakini Vox Populi said Rebrand, my foot. Well done, Hindraf! where it read: How come no one was aware of the plight of the Indians for the last 50 years? Was the BN leadership deaf or the MIC dumb? Syabas to Hindraf. 100 percent of the credit goes to them.

Yes, 50 years of neglect and suddenly the Indian Malaysians are the most wooed voters in Peninsula Malaysia, thanks to Hindraf, and no bloody thanks to MIC.

Would it be a case of too little too late by the UMNO-led government?

AAB threatened Bersih for tearing EC chairman's photo

“One of the great attractions of patriotism it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.”

- Aldous Huxley

So, some Bersih leaders tore the photograph of the Election Commission chairman, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, in protest (or disgust) at what they perceived as his lack of even handedness, or in his failing to exhibit the required neutrality as the supposed ‘umpire’ in federal and state elections.

Neutrality? This was the bloke who had the unmitigated and brazen cheek (or plain stupidity) to say Only one 'regime' is capable of running the country, where he had shamelessly said:

“A lot of people are anxious to determine the type of regime that is going to handle Malaysia in the coming years. They are always talking about regimes. I never talk about regimes. There is only one regime in this country that is capable of running (the country).”

“People get angry with me whenever I say this (but) people don’t seem to understand the critical scenario in the country. What is it that can (take) over from the present one given the political scenario we are in?”

I had then blogged: 'That’s not your bloody business, Abdul Rashid! If you have any decency and are fearful of answering to God, you should resign from the EC and join your favourite regime as a party faithful instead of sitting in the publicly paid job as a supposedly neutral and independent Election Commissioner, when you're obviously not.'

'The EC should be immediately sacked by the King on the urging of Parliament for his officially declared political bias. But I guess in making this procedurally correct and justified (but bloody silly) call I am just pissing into the wind.'

'Then he showed his UMNO bias, not that we weren’t aware of that but his daring was staggeringly breath-taking, in speaking out aloud at a seminar on Malaysian political development organised by the political science department of the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) in Kuala Lumpur today.'

Can you blame people, let alone Bersih leaders, for viewing this man with utmost disrespect, disdain and disgust?

Abdul Rahman knows our feelings because he made his next stupid statement by asking for the power to sue critics who make allegations against the EC. Basically he wants to silence anyone who raises complaints against him and the several unexplained decisions and actions of the EC.

I gave him a piece of my mind in Chairman of EC should resign. I was disgusted by his nerve in making a political statement against his accusers who had complained of vote-rigging. He accused them as: “… traitors (for hurting the image of the country).”

I blogged: 'Whether those accusers are traitors or not is not for you, Abdul Rashid a public servant, to open your big mouth to say. You should immediately apologize for your reckless slandering of members of the Malaysian public.'

So Bersih tore his photo as a symbolic gesture of their dissatisfaction at what they see as his lack of neutrality and independence as the chairman of the EC, and what did our PM do?

Instead on falling back on his renowned ‘elegant silence’ he too had to blunder into the disgraceful episode by threatening to take action against Bersih for tearing up photos of Abdul Rashid.

Malaysiakini tells us in Tearing up Rashid's photo: PM mulls action that AAB said:

“We should take action if there are laws that provide for punishment for such an action. They’re rude and disrespectful. There are other ways to air their disapproval."

Since when has the photo of Abdul Rashid gained the hallowed sanctity of the iconic Jalur Gemilang?

When the PM of our nation threatens harmless acts of democratic expression with the law (whatever that is nowadays) it speaks ill of our nation’s state.

The village bully is back!

Marina Mahathir on 'The Art of Fear'

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd

- Betrand Russell

Sometimes it takes careful analysis plus the craft of a wordsmith to point out succinctly whether action or implementation has been consistent with official policy.

I give credit to Marina Mahathir for demonstrating these skills in her article The bogeyman’s to blame in the Star Online.

She started by writing: 'We see the constant blaming of foreign workers for all our ills, but none of it can really stand up to scrutiny.'

Marina reminded us that: ‘blaming the bogey man is a tried and true political strategy that when things aren’t quite rosy, one should distract the people by focusing on something else or coming up with a bogeyman. The former diverts attention from what is really on peoples’ minds, while the latter seeks someone or something else to blame. Sometimes politicians even attempt a combination of both.’

What she was referring to have been recent price increases and inflation, stuff that hit the ordinary bloke’s pocket and his/her three pinggan of nasi (plates of rice) or roti canai.

The Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research polled people on several issues of concerns and discovered that the MOST important have been these two issues, price increases and inflation.

That’s what the government wants to distract us from with ‘Look, there’s a bird, no an aeroplane, no no no, it’s a foreign worker!’

Our pissed concerns have been more justified when we see the profligate way in which the cabinet has squandered money on executive jets, luxury cruiser, multi-million dollar sports complex, a new Istana that we can ill afford, etc.

After the issues of prices and inflation, the poll said that the rakyat is concerned about ethnic inequalities, then crime and public safety. Marina said: ‘Everything else, including politics, corruption, drug abuse and illegal immigrants rank much further down the list.’

But the illegal immigrant gets kicked to the front as the bogey man to distract, divert and disturb the voters. Mind you, that doesn't mean that they aren't a real concern. It's just that they have been 'used' to cover up far more worrying issues.

And may I add that putting fear into voters as a means of marshalling them over to the government's banner is not unique to Malaysia, though our leaders do it with irresponsible reckless toying with inflammatory racist issues like ‘ketuanan Melayu’, ‘watch out for a May 13 recurring if you vote for us’, ‘don’t force Malays to take to the streets with machetes’, ‘Christians are right now converting Muslims at a Perak church’, and from the opposition side, ‘Melaka pigs have more protection than Terengganu Malays’, etc

Overseas, we see Australia’s former PM John Howard and his 'SS Tampa' sandiwara (over-dramatisation), the bullsh*t ‘children overboard’, a program of incremental Muslim bashing (like the 'SS Tampa', the scare campaign of the 'Turbaned Hordes are already at the gates') culminating in a shameful exposure of such an attempted scare campaign in the last general election.

In UK there was Tony Blair and his lie of ‘WMD is a mere 45 minutes from Baghdad to London’ and George Bush’s equally deceitful lie on the ‘links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda’ and the subsequent beat up on ‘Homeland security’.

Marina also reminded us of the Falkland War which was Margaret Thatcher’s more deadly example of our bogey man, the illegal immigrant.

Domestically, the government has been attempting to rejuvenate old stories as part of the distraction tactic. She said:

‘For instance, the old story that in an opposition-held state supermarket lines are gender-segregated came immediately after an uproar over similarly-segregated schools in government-held states.’

Above underlining are mine

This was where she blasted the government and earned my admiration for her succinct differentiation. She said: ‘At least, in the first instance (the PAS action), this was a policy that was announced by the government in power, but in the second (the same action in schools in BN states) it was happening in defiance of regulations.’

above words in parentheses are mine

I believe she had implied that the second, that of ‘Little Napoleon’ zealots acting beyond policy guidelines or even regulations, is the more dangerous. If she did, I agree full-heartedly with that implication.

Today, many of Malaysia’s social and institutional ills arising out of ethnic imbalance in appointments in all government organisations (the Public Service, Judiciary, Police and Armed Forces, etc) and government funded institutions (universities, etc) have been due to those Little Napoleons’ hands acting beyond official policies. Yes, the implementation went beyond the call of official, though not of covert, duty.

But unfortunately and predictably, the political leaders who were/are in the know and in authoritative positions to slap those zealots back into line have failed miserably to do so. Instead they even cover up or protect their ill disciplined Little Napoleons - remember the previous IGP who threatened UMNO MPs in a private briefing session that if they allowed the IPCMC to be established the Police could not guarantee their successful re-election?

And was he sacked for that impertinence, his Little Napoleon 'scare campaign'? Instead, when he retired, it was with full honours and the grateful thanks of the PM.

Worse than all these, in their 'independent' implementation of official policies the zealots have not only gone beyond guidelines or government intent, they had allowed incompetents to fill key appointments with the inevitably consequential adverse outcomes.

Notwithstanding her clarity of perception and even-handed analysis, Marina of course condone neither PAS nor BN gender-segregation policies. She lambasted both cases as 'band-aid policies' where the real solution, addressing male bad behaviour had been ignored or even accepted as normal, while the poor females are, in her citrous caustic criticism, 'inconvenienced, rather than (shock, horror) empowered to deal with it'.

I think she had been too kind to term those gender-segregation as 'band aid policies'. I would call them 'intrinsic misogynistic obsession to disempower female citizens'.

DAP prospects in Penang - Makkal Sakti factor

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

- old nursery rhyme

Malaysiakini tells us that MIC is running scared, with boogey man Hindraf right behind its … er … its … er … well … behind ;-)

Its news article MIC in seat swaps to regain support said that MIC has been exchanging seats with MCA, and probably UMNO as well to protect its troubled backside.

Meanwhile in Penang, the DAP is exploiting the Indian dissatisfaction with MIC, thanks to the Hindraf tsunami H-force. Perhaps for the first time since 1969, the Indian Malaysians are finally waking up from their Humpty-Dumpty induced stupor.

I doubt that PKR would be able to benefit from Indian dissatisfaction after the latter had witnessed Nallakarapan not being presented as PKR’s candidate in Ijok when ironically the BN had the guts to stand an Indian candidate there. Makes you wonder who's the multi-ethnic party, doesn't it?

To add insult to Nalla’s injury from being stood aside for Khalid Ibrahim in Ijok, Anwar Ibrahim told him not to stand for the VP position in the PKR’s last party election – see my post PKR's Sepoy Mutiny?

If Indian Penangites do vote for PKR, well, they must be yearning to be kicked as they have been for years by the MIC. Both (MIC or PKR) have done diddly squat for Indians, with PKR actually being the worse of the two.

Anyway, let’s look at two Penang federal seats, Batu Kawan and my favourite Bukit Bendera. I heard that DAP will be contesting in both, though I wonder whether the PKR had demanded the latter, or just one of the state seats within it, Kebun Bunga.

Batu Kawan is where my family (on Mum’s side) originated from – damn hardy farmers from China who cleared Malayan jungle into arable land with their bare hands in the very early 90’s. Like most early Chinese settlers they made the mistake of not having legal titles – the brave new world with its clever legal-speak saw them lose all they had invested with their backs and sweat.

According to Malaysiakini DAP all out to capture the Penang Indian voters the DAP intends to seize on the Hindraf momentum which awoke many Indians.

The DAP has always championed Indian interests and demonstrated its credential in this involvement with a number of Indian representatives at both Federal Parliament and State assemblies over the years. All its Indian members have stood in Chinese majority seats which shows the power of the DAP brand.

The Hindraf H-force has synergised the DAP appeal to Indians. Malaysiakini said:

Based on the 2004 electoral roll, Penang has 70,618 registered Indian votes, or 10.5 per cent of the 672,361 voters. Although the state does not have an Indian majority seat, nonetheless many federal and state seats have considerable presence of Indian voters, who can change the margin of losing and winning in tight contests.

May the H-force be with you for Batu Kawan has the most Indian votes - 9,818 Indian votes or 23% of its 43,055 registered voters. Man, that’s pretty significant but can the DAP convince them? Or, will the Indians still be loyal to MIC?

Then we come to my favourite federal constituency Bukit Bendera where 11.15% of the voters are the mamaks, aunties, anehs and kakas, plus some tambees and tangachees.

In DAP & PKR - blood brothers? I blogged:

The DAP may have partial claim to their avowed multi-ethnic credentials – for example, they have put up Indian (eg. Karpal Singh, Kulasegaran) and even Malay candidates (eg. Che Rose in Perak in earlier years, and Zulkifli Mohd Noor in 2004), where many of the former have been successfully elected to both federal parliament and state assemblies though unfortunately none of the latter had.

But mind you, Zulkilfi standing in Bukit Bendera (Penang), a Chinese majority federal seat (Malay:13.82% Chinese:73.97% India:11.07% Others:1.14%) won nearly 18000 of the 47000 votes, and that’s no mean feat if we look at the ethnic breakdown.

Even if all 14% Malays in that constituency had turned up to cast their ballots for Zulkifli, he wouldn’t get more than 5000 votes.

Let’s try and project some of that 2004 statistics into possible voting outcome for a DAP candidate standing in Bukit Bendera in the coming general election against the incumbent, Gerakan Chia who by the way is no sloth – he has been quietly investing for his continuing dominance in the constituency.

11% Indians of approximately 47,000 voters translate into roughly 5000 votes. If the DAP can get 80% of this or roughly 4000 that will make Zulkifli’s old total of 18,000 raised up to 22,000, which is almost 50% of the total voters. We may expect a slight Chinese swing because as I said, much as the Chinese despise the BN, Gerakan’s Chia hasn’t been resting on his laurels in the last few years, especially last year when UMNO went feral openly.

But if there is only a slight swing of the Chinese over to DAP, it could see the leading opposition party get over the 24,000 votes line into possession of a new Parliamentary seat.

I am of course just playing around with old 2004 figures, and also working on very conservative expectations of Chinese voters swing to the DAP but focusing on what a seismic shift in Indian voting pattern can achieve.

What was it that Lim Kt Siang has been sprouting recently?

Malaysiakini said:

At the recent DAP in Penang, the party supremo Lim Kit Siang cried out for Makkal Sakti (people’s power) to emulate the 1990 general election in which BN was denied a 2/3 majority in the state legislative assembly.

The 5,000-strong Makkal Sakti crowd responded with a resounding approval.

And if the DAP achieves victory in Bukit Bendera, the BN should lament that, alas, but for a horsenail nail called the marginalised Indian they lose big in 2008 .....

Judaism-isation

According to the mass-selling Maariv daily, there is a ferocious Judaism-isation going on in the Israeli army. The military exerts pressure on new recruits who are not Jewish to convert.

I read that there has been a large influx of migrants into Israel but made up of non-Jewish Eastern Europeans or those who are only distantly related to Jews, with Russians in the majority.

Israel is keen to pat up its population with more non-Arabs, and if it can’t persuade Jews to migrate to that troubled spot, it is quite happy to receive non-Jewish Europeans.

In the 1990s there were one million immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Nearly one third are believed to be non-Jewish. The newspaper reported that most of the non-Jewish soldiers serving in the army are from this Russian influx.

These non-Jewish soldiers are sent to courses on Judaism after which they are ‘persuaded’ (pressured would be the better word) to convert. Israel’s chief rabbinate follows strict Orthodox conversion rules which means ..… you guess.

photo from middle east online

Today, unlike their predecessors, many soldiers in the Israeli Army unfortunately hold very extreme Jewish beliefs. Needless to say, religious fanaticism is at its peak in Israel, especially with a Kadima-Likud government.

If the Israeli Army still has any more vacancies, I would like to send a few Malaysians to them as potential dedicated soldiers of Eretz Israel. No, they aren't circumcised yet ;-)

Hartal sweetie caring or catty?

Helen Ang, columnist at Malaysiakini is once again off on her hobby-horse of boycotting the mainstream media (MSM).

But she has a point in that the MSM has been bullsh*tting big time. She also lashed out acerbically at local reporters for not challenging the government’s fairytales. Aiyoh, cari makan mah.

I see her frustration in people not supporting her current campaign because they reckoned her call to boycott the MSM as impractical and a wee too drastic and dramatic.

Glory be folks, for Helen, there’s no shade of grey on tolerance for overly creative MSM news reporting; she demands a rather severe black & white approach – like, boycott those bastards if they can’t spell T-R-U-T-H.

She wrote pungently of her detractors against her hartal call:

When we first started our ‘Boycott the Newspapers!’ campaign at The People’s Parliament, the effort drew both supporters and sceptics. Detractors say although MSM has admittedly bad and ugly pages but nonetheless it’s a daily dose that goes with their morning teh tarik, plus newspapers remain a convenient package and featuring apolitical sections like sports and entertainment, etc. which remain readable.

They claim discerning readers will be able to distinguish MSM’s politically-motivated lies from the truth, so caveat emptor but no need for boycott. I will ask those people this: If they can discern the falsehoods, does it not bother them at all that such dangerous distortions of reality are being freely disseminated by MSM?

Hmmm, “…If they can discern the falsehoods, does it not bother them at all that such dangerous distortions of reality are being freely disseminated by MSM?"

I think I better keep my mouth shut, because my primary school teacher, Mrs. Khoo, once told me while she had me by my tender ears when I was just a tad ... er ... 'indiscrete' in her class: “kaytee, discretion is the better part of virtue.” ;-)

Yes, I am actually quite intimidated by her (both Helen and Mrs. Khoo's) passionate intensity.

But I have to be bold and criticize Helen for spoiling her article with a nasty catty introductory paragraph, as follows:

Bolehland is replete with superlatives, such as the world’s (once) tallest towers, biggest ketupat, sleepiest premier, prettiest ‘space flight participant’ and busiest bodysnatchers.

Can you spot it? If you do, you are ‘it’, man, not me! Don't bloody get me involved! Yes, I may be bold enough to criticise her but I am not that stupid as to dwell on the issue for too long.

Chairman of EC should resign

This post is based on a Star report obtained from Malaysiakini corner for Berita Malaysia.

***

This is the civil servant that a BN or rather UNMO-dominated Parliament changed the sacred Constitution in order to allow him an extra year or two to serve - the chairman of the Election Commission, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman.

Now, he has the damn cheek to want the power to sue critics who make allegations against the EC. Basically he wants to silence anyone who raises complaints against him and the several unexplained decisions and actions of the EC.

He winched: “There are those who take to the streets (telling lies) and getting the publicity, and we (the Election Commission) suffer.

“If we have the power to sue, we can take action against those who spread lies without evidence.”

For all the trouble Parliament was dragged through to extend his service above the mandatory retirement age, he still hasn’t a clue about the duty of the public service.

The public service is the servant of the public. Any citizen or even a foreigner served badly or otherwise (meaning even if the service provided is fair) by the public service has the right to criticise and even make accusations against a serving public servant, provided the accusations are related to the official duties of the public servant.

The public servant has the right of reply, producing where necessary evidence to refute the accusations, allegations or even lies as this so-called Tan Sri had the nerve to whinge about.

The onus shall always be on the public servant to demonstrate that the accuser has been incorrect, and not for the accuser to defend his or her accusations.

That is the convention of public services in democracies.

The fact that Abdul Rashid has asked for the power to sue, indicates that the public service has not been provided the power to sue anyone, for a damn good reason - that is not within its rights or terms of reference as a public service. More importantly it is to deny such public service the powers to intimidate the public into silence.

As a public service, the burden is on the institute and its officers to demonstrate to the public that it is not incompetent, corrupt or has deviated from official government policies. It must always be transparent, accountable and responsive to public concerns, queries or complaints.

If Abdul Rashid is so thin skin, then I recommend that he should retire, resign or just get out of the Election Commission and indeed, out of our face.

As if that was not enough, the bloke even has the nerve to make a political statement by criticising his accusers who complained of vote-rigging: “These people are traitors (for hurting the image of the country).”

Whether those accusers are traitors or not is not for you, Abdul Rashid a public servant, to open your big mouth to say. You should immediately apologise for your reckless slandering of members of the Malaysian public.

And ominously he spoke of his own organisation’s 'incompetency', by advising that 17,000 people who registered during the last quarter of last year may not be able to vote if investigations could not be completed before the elections. How difficult is it to confirm a mere 17,000 people?

Bloody Balfour Betrayal

Stuart Littlewood is a businessman-turned-writer from Norfolk, England. He recently published a book entitled Radio Free Palestine about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation - see details on http://www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk/. This article appeared in Redress Information & Analysis.

He comments on the cowardice of those who fear and obey supporters of Israeli human rights abuse. He argues that these Israel lobbyists have grown so arrogant that they ‘are lecturing us about what we should and should not say’.

********

A few evenings ago the BBC World Service broadcast a discussion featuring three people from Gaza and three from the town of Sderot on the Israeli side of the border.

If the programme hoped to bring about a meeting of minds, it fell a long way short. To start with, the BBC failed to set the scene or put the discussion into proper context. The Israeli team argued that the Gazans were given the chance to build their economy after Israel had “withdrawn”, and if the Qassam rockets would stop, they could all live in peace. What might have been an interesting exchange of views degenerated into a boring confrontation. I was left wondering how a calm, constructive conversation would ever be possible.

One of the Gaza team remarked afterwards that their Israeli neighbours showed no empathy, didn't want to hear the truth and had claimed "God gave us this land". To an outsider like me, it seemed that the two sides were as far apart at the finish as when the broadcast began, and on different planets entirely.

Listeners were invited to phone, text or email. I sent two messages:

(1) Why are 3,000 Gaza fishermen not allowed to put to sea and earn their living?
(2) The siege has nothing to do with Qassam rockets. Palestinians in the West Bank don't fire Qassams but the Israelis are still in occupation after 40 years and still stealing the land and water.

Of course, they were consigned to the wastepaper basket. I say "of course" because these days I am deeply suspicious of the BBC's integrity and willingness to handle uncomfortable issues concerning Israel.

The first point, about fishing, needs to be raised more often. The second was mentioned by the Gaza team later in the programme but was quickly lost in the hubbub.

Qassams are a “gift” to Israeli propaganda. There is no getting away from the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons and instruments of terror. Westerners will always condemn their use against civilian targets. My own family lived under the onslaught of “Doodlebugs” launched by the Germans against London in World War II. You could hear them coming, and when the motor cut out it was truly terrifying. The unrestrained use of Qassams loses Gazans their moral high ground and it’s time they realized it.

The plight of the Gazans is blamed on Hamas. "All they have to do is stop firing the rockets towards Sderot and other places in Israel, and immediately there will be no problem with the border crossing," says an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman.

Oh really? Let’s test the truth of that. Islamic Jihad, or whoever deploys the Qassams, would be smart to cease rocketing communities like Sderot for at least two months to test the claim that the siege of Gaza is simply in response to the "rain" of rockets. Then let's see if the borders are allowed to operate as any other nation's borders.

Here in the UK a church newspaper has published a chilling report from Fr Manuel Musallam about the cruel conditions in Gaza under siege: “Gaza priest decries Israeli blockade”. Fr Manuel pulls no punches and the editor has received emails, calls and letters from the Jewish lobby objecting to the story and saying how deluded he was to print it. You can send messages of support to the editor by email.

This country’s leadership is now so spineless that supporters of Israeli human rights abuse are lecturing us about what we should and should not say. The sad thing is that they are feared and obeyed by our politicians.

One can perhaps understand how Zionism seemed attractive to the likes of Balfour and others in the corridors of power in London a hundred years ago. The big question today is the sanity of Western leaders who perpetuate Lord Balfour’s catastrophic betrayal of the Arabs and who are bent on pushing the biggest political cock-up of all time to its bitter end. These mad dogs are now snarling and yapping at Egypt for showing a spark of humanity and opening their border to the beleaguered Gazans for respite.

Balfour, would you believe, studied Moral Sciences at Cambridge. Explaining his infamous Declaration of 1917 he said:

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.

The House of Lords was unhappy with his lunatic scheme. Lord Sydenham warned:

The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.

above underlining are mine

Well, it extends all the way to 2008 and goes to the very heart of world peace. And it's an angry, septic sore with little prospect of healing while mad dogs tear at it.

Anwar Ibrahim complained Royal Commission controlled by unseen hands

Once again we are blessed by the wisdom of Anwar Ibrahim. Malaysiakini reported Anwar telling us of 'Unseen hand' manipulating inquiry. He was referring to the Royal Commission on judicial issues relating to the Lingam videotape.

In Malaysia, what Anwar has revealed does not constitute a shocking revelation at all, so excuse me while I yawnnnnnnnn.

But anyway, why was he grumbling about something that’s not newsworthy, and which no doubt would have sent everyone into stifling a yawn too?

OK, so he complained that the Lingam tape inquiry’s decision not to include him as a witness was the manipulation of an ‘unseen hand’.

In fact, in a previous post I had asked How may Anwar Ibrahim shed light on Lingam tape affair?

I stated: But other than Anwar being the person ‘used’ by the informer to reveal the existence of the various segments of the videotape, what would be his role in the affair of alleged dodgy judicial appointments and alleged corruption of judges?

How may he contribute, or as he had claimed, ‘shed some light’ on the alleged scandal. Surely the videotape is self evident?

Thus I read rather greedily at what Anwar might reveal when he restated that he can provide evidence of judicial corruption if called as a witness.

He said: “I am certain that the evidence that I can give will be a significant assistance to the Haidar Commission to get the truth behind this dark patch in Malaysian judicial history.”

“Instead ... the commissioners (in particular Haidar) have chosen to fetter themselves with procedural legalities and restrictive interpretations as to what they can do and what they cannot do.”

I see! Aiyoh, those judges are terrible for following the legalities of procedures instead of taking the word of the World’s Greatest in Everything. Tsk tsk tsk, how dare they!

Reading on excitedly, I discovered the Great Man saying his ‘evidence’ was a integral part of the video as several prominent court cases, including his own, was mentioned by Lingam.

;-) well, that’s Anwar, isn’t he! (no question mark here as it’s a rhetorical question).

As for ‘unseen hands’ manipulating whatever, it’s a bit rich for him to raise such an issue when he … (to know more, read my following posts):

(1) PKR's Sepoy Mutiny?
(2) The Rise & Fall & Fall of ........
(3) PKR meltdown - the Anwar Ibrahim factor?

PKR pre-emptive strike against DAP in Perak

A couple of days ago Malaysiakini reported that Anwar Ibrahim declared Opposition will do well in Sarawak.

I then blogged on that in Anwar Ibrahim re DAP - cakap ta'serupa bikin? where I questioned the sincerity of Anwar Ibrahim and PKR in his party’s demand to contest in the federal seat of Ipoh Timur, which is currently held by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang.

Lim is already severely confronted by the Election Commission’s redrawing of the electoral constituency’s boundaries which will favour the BN. Additionally there is the unexplained but significantly increased in the number of postal votes, in a place where there is no nearby army or police camp. As I had described – a powerful phantom army awaits to deal Lim Kit Siang a terrifying blow to his chances of being re-elected.

So the PKR’s demand for Ipoh Timur reeks of equine poo, the Trojan type, a gross betrayal to Lim Kit Siang.

Now, I read in the Star Online that PKR introduces state candidates in Perak. However, to be fair I note also in the Star a modicum of back-pedalling by PKR's Dr Lee regarding the Ipoh Timur seat. He would be wise to do so as the Perak Chinese are already disgusted by his disrespect for Lim Kit Siang.

The Star continued:

The DAP-Parti Keadilan Rakyat seat talks in Perak have yet to be concluded but PKR has started introducing potential candidates for the general election.

Making their rounds at the Kampung Simee market here yesterday, Ipoh Timur PKR division chief Vincent Chun was introduced as candidate for the Canning state seat while his vice-chief Lee Sing Long was named the potential contestant for the Tebing Tinggi state constituency.

[…]

Dr Lee said PKR had asked to fight in three of the nine state seats under the Ipoh Timur, Ipoh Barat and Batu Gajah parliamentary constituencies.

On whether his party was preparing for three-way fights, Dr Lee said they were hoping for the best but were preparing for the worst.

It’s the typically despicable PKR style of negotiating with DAP, through the press before the party-to-party negotiations have even been settled, and probably without informing the DAP as well. I don’t think PKR is a party which knows the meaning of confidential party-to-party negotiations.

And let's not forget that the party's self declared de facto head is none other Mr Silver Tongue who has been strangely tongue-tied on his party's Perak preemptive pronoucements, other then to claim a glib but meaningless Opposition will do well in Sarawak.

That the federal seats of Ipoh Timur, Ipoh Barat and Batu Gajah are currently held by three DAP MPs, Lim Kit Siang, M Kulasegaran and Fong Po Kuan, doesn't seem to elicit some respect from a so-called DAP ally, where surely the state seats within those parliamentary seats should by logic go to the DAP, unless of course if it's a Malay-majority seat which, as agreed between the DAP and Anwar, would be contested by PKR.

If the PKR has so pompously claimed it is a multiracial party, why then should Dr Lee fight with the DAP over Chinese-majority seats. The party nominees for elections should contest in those Malay-majority seats like Ijok - if you ask Nallakarapan, he would still agree.

And afterall, hasn't the DAP been accused of being just a Chinese-based party, even by some sneering PKR members - don't believe me that the DAP is considered as just a Chinese-based party? - please ask Karpal Singh, Kulasegaraqn and various previous DAP federal and state representatives whose names didn't start with Tan, Lim, Lee etc.

Or is the PKR is just like the BN with its 'UMNO' (very 'yes' here), 'MCA' (hahaha) and a depleted 'MIC'?