PKR Overkill?

First things first – before we leap straight into the post topic, perhaps a wee discussion on some English aphorisms like:

(a) reap what you sow,

(b) people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and

(c) tit for tat

may be in order.

The first, ‘reap what you sow’ was originally ‘as you sow, so shall you reap’ which in turn came from the biblical ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’ in Galatians 6:7 (KJV).

Okay, let’s discard it as it sounds too theologically heavy; besides, it invokes God’s name which I don’t like as it may jeopardize my chances, small as they already are, of entering the Pearly Gates, wakakaka.

The second, ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones’, is way too judgemental on and accusative of the thrower of stones. As the saying means ‘Do not criticize others if you have weaknesses yourself’, it would insinuate, perhaps indirectly but undoubtedly, that the one who throws stones (the accuser) is just as bad or even suffering from the same weakness.

A random example would be, harkening to an item in my last post, someone who's 'gatal sikit' shouldn't accuse or criticize another person of being 'gatal sikit', because his or her own 'glass house' would be shattered by the very stones he/she has thrown at someone else. 

So, being  too judgemental  or/and accusative of the thrower of stones is not on unless one has the evidence. Since this is only an amateur blog (see no advertisement, though I am still waiting for many cheques from UMNO, DAP, MCA, Gerakan, the Palestinians, etc for the last 8 years, wakakaka), I shall avoid being so as I don't have the resources to take pro-active  investigations …

… which brings us finally to ‘tit for tat’.

Tit for tat!

Years ago, as I recall, Anwar Ibrahim used to jeer at Najib and threatened to expose ‘what happened at Port Dickson’, when he made speeches at some ceramahs or some political events. Alas, Anwar’s jeering at Najib on the Port Dickson episode were all manmanlai where we didn't get to hear the full story. I wonder whether it was a ‘gatal sikit’ tale?

Apart from that, there were the regular accusations of Najib or his wife having a hand in the murder of Altantuyaa Shaariibuu. The accusation became virtually the central piece in the Gerakan Anti-Najib (G.A.N) campaign.

PKR mourners for Altantuyaa

I don't recall reading of Altantuyaa harassing Najib as she did Razak Baginda. Also, on the day Razak Baginda was cleared of the murder charges, Altantuyaa's father Setev Shaariibuu mentioned only Razak Baginda as the man her daughter came to KL to see. 

And that's the reason why I have been sceptical about Najib being directly involved in the murder, whereas I am prepared to believe he might have 'helped' his buddy.

But since G.A.N continued with that poo-flinging campaign, in typical Malaysian fashion the smear stuck on both Najib and his wife, Rosmah. Whether they like it or not, some Malaysians have found them guilty until proven otherwise.

Another example of our typical Malaysian fashion of poo sticking would be poor Tian Chua who we knew bit a policeman. Thus, many now believe he badmouthed the policemen in Lahad Datu.

Whether he did or didn't, the point is that he like the Najib pair is 'deemed' guilty until proven otherwise.

We Malaysians have a marvellous street-type legal process founded on the vigilante corps of the American Wild West, and f* evidence.

Anyway, back to Najib and wife - I opine Rosmah has been selected to be the fallback target for G.A.N in case their campaign against the primary target, Najib, does not gain traction. Additionally, she makes a better target because many in UMNO don't like her, wakakaka. The fundamental aim of course has been to prevent Najib from becoming PM, either by getting him or getting him through his wife.

On the other side of the rivalry, Anwar Ibrahim had the misfortune to be ejected from UMNO right on the eve of him becoming the political party’s president and by default the PM of Malaysia. I have posted many pieces on this so I won't repeat what I had mentioned previously. 

When he was expelled from UMNO (and jailed) he was already the UMNO deputy president and thus, the DPM, the second highest political post in the nation and actually on the threshold of becoming the No 1.

I suspected then he naturally wanted to reclaim his old position after he was released from prison following a court ruling that there were technical faults in his trial.

I am quite sure or at least I opine that he must have felt that the best way to his old position, and then onwards to the No 1 spot which no doubt he believed was 'stolen' away from him, would be back in UMNO.

Of course he denied this, but I noted he attempted to make his move back into UMNO or at least for a start, into UMNO's grace during the Scenic or Crooked Bridge affair in April 2006 as I posted in A Bridge Too Far - Anwar Ibrahim.

After blaming the whole crooked bridge fiasco on Mahathir for sending Daim Zainudin to negotiate with former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew over the terms of the project, he openly pontificated: “I would grant the criticism of many that negotiations with Singapore are not always easy. The solution therefore is to send competent people to negotiate. If you send semi-literates to negotiate, we will lose out in the negotiations.”

From that statement, one couldn't be blamed for believing he deemed Daim Zainuddin as a semi-literate wakakaka who shouldn't be sent to negotiate with a tough intellectual like Lee Kuan Yew. Hmmm, I wonder who was the ‘intellectual’ Anwar had in mind then, wakakaka again. He was more or less directing his comments for the benefit of the Sultan of Somnabulence.

After gently chiding AAB for not doing his homework on the matter of the crooked bridge, Anwar poured on luscious honey for AAB by expressing full support for the latter’s decision to abandon the project as a commendable decision, crooning: “It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ... after weeks of massive campaigns against Singapore ... (for Abdullah) to suddenly say that the decision (to build the bridge) was faulty and that we have to scrap the project...it’s commendable.”

Wow, commendable, courage, wisdom.

He continued: “I support the decision taken by Abdullah because any responsible leader cannot proceed with a project affecting another country without that sort of arrangement being made.”

“Even if it’s not related to relations between Malaysia and Singapore, you cannot imagine in this modern time any country wanting to undertake a major project - a bridge, highway, whatever - affecting another country, unilaterally. We have condemned the United States for its unilateral decision to invade Iraq, so we can’t seriously proceed in such manner (ourselves).”

I was very much ‘taken’ by Anwar’s opinion that building the scenic or crooked bridge, already agreed to by the former Singapore's PM Goh Chok Tong in a letter, would be equivalent to the US invasion of Iraq?

I then thought: ‘Gee, we are so fortunate to have him advise us of the parallel situations. We wouldn't have thought of that’.

Anyway, he continued: “I would not discount any possible meeting with Abdullah [AAB] if he were to ask my views on the issues ... like the negotiations with Singapore on the bridge and even information on the negotiations with Indonesia on border issues.”

Wow, 'I would not discount any possible meeting with Abdullah [AAB] if he were to ask my views on the issues' - very manmanlai, and his offer was not only for Singapore but Indonesia as well.

Mind you, Anwar assured us his offer did not imply a wish to rejoin UMNO - of course not! Everyone knew and knows the UMNO-led government always get outsiders to negotiate with foreign governments on its behalf.

And he explained his motive for offering himself to AAB: “I will not be serving the government. But I am a Malaysian and very loyal to the country and will do my best to serve.”

What a great guy.

08 March 2008 - I believe he was himself stunned by the success of the political tsunami and could have exclaim: 'Aiyah, sikit lagi kowtim liao lah', when by then he showed his true impatient colours in his deformasi 916.

But 916 failed because so-called non-intellectual AAB could count easily that 140 seats easily stumped 82.

Then in 2009, I believe on the 10^th of March, he ‘coincidentally’ wakakaka met AAB in Hulu Langat at a religious school there in conjunction with the Maulid Rasul (Prophet Muhammad's birthday) celebrations. They then had lunch with the Ustaz.

This was around the time AAB was about to hand over the PM-ship to Najib.

AAB denied it was a planned meeting, stating that he was invited by well-known Ustaz Sheikh Mahmud Al-Mazjub to celebrate Malulidur Rasul. He said: "I was having my lunch with the Sheikh when Anwar came (later). We were listening to Sheikh Mahmud during lunch."

Wakakaka, another coincidence!

Be that as it was, the laughable thing about Anwar coincidentally meeting AAB in Hulu Langat was observed on the following day. He wanted so much for the press to know about it, so at a press conference in Parliament, he (as reported by Malaysiakini) prodded reporters into asking him about this controversial lunch date.

"So what is the latest news today?" he casually asked reporters towards the end of the press conference when no question were popped on the matter.

"Isn't anybody going to ask me about my meeting yesterday?" he quipped. "Since nobody is asking, it is a closed matter then."

Wakakakak, of course with such ajak-ing, the reporters had to oblige him whereupon he narrated all but denied that it was a 'secret meeting' between the two, stating that it was a mere coincidence (wakakaka) that he met AAB where they only discussed family and health issues.

But obviously, the fact that he prodded the reporters into asking, indicated he wanted badly for the news to flow to (perhaps) UMNO MPs.

That's probably where his heart was, at least in those days. I don't know where his heart is now but mind you, I can speculate, wakakaka.

Okay, back to the Anwar-Najib bitter rivalry for UMNO’s top post, and given the G.A.N constant barrage against Najib and wife, it wasn't long before Isaac Newton’s 3^rd Law manifested in Sodomy II.

So ding dong, wa hentam lu, lu hentam wa, tit for tat, and as things developed, we get to witness the PKR's new G-Ds of 'truth' in Perumal Balasubramnaiam and Deepak Jaikishan. Around them we also have several others wakakaka mentioned in The missing man in the Altantuyaa story. 

And then, as if there weren't enough G-Ds to see the devotees through to Shambhala Putrajaya, we just have had the father of Saiful Bukhari Azlan in a press conference making a 'repentant confession' about Sodomy II and (morally-politically) exonerating Anwar, a confession which Saiful immediately repudiated. The dad also made an apology to Anwar, all of which I posted in Son and father. 

I wonder whether the end target of all this would be for the benefit of PAS members? More of this later.

As was for the case for Balasubramaniam in his 1st SD, a PKR official organized the press conference for Saiful's dad who also joined PKR as a member.

CT Ali, a Pakatan supporter and regular contributor to Free Malaysian Today's column, was infuriated with PKR organizing the Azlan confession which he expressed succinctly in a FMT article titled Mistake to rekindle Saiful affair. He stated (extracts):

Already you question the credibility of what this father of Saiful has to say. He mentions Najib’s special officer, Khairil Annas Jusoh, and yet has never met him.

So he tells us that he had stood by his son to provide moral support. So what has changed? Saiful’s morality or his?

He says his son is a good person, so what has changed with Saiful to make him change his mind – or again is it himself that has changed?

And why the change – a sudden rush of religious morality or financial inducements? Do not bring race or religion into this. What has being Malay got to do with it all?

If you talk about religion, then what is more kosher – Saiful taking an oath in the name of Allah that he has been sodomised by DSAI or his father using religion as an excuse of supposedly coming clean.

So his previous statement had been scripted by his son’s lawyer Zamri Idrus? Who is now scripting his statement?

And why the presence of Johari – that in itself smacks of politics being behind it all, not morality, not religion, not race.

He tells us that the government did not meet with him or even ask his opinion on the case. Why should the government meet with him and discuss the case?

Was it not his son that was sodomised and not he?

And again invoking the name of Allah, he wants to ask for forgiveness from Anwar’s family and from Anwar himself.

Do not use the name of Allah in vain; use it so often and in all circumstances that it no longer has any credibility in announcing your guilt or innocence to any of us – what more to Allah?

And what does Saiful do in the face of all this? He releases a text message and holds a press conference to affirm his previous stand. No drama.

Subsequently when Azlan (Saiful's dad) was asked by reporters whether he was willing to take an oath on his confession. this was what FMT reported in Saiful’s dad joins PKR:

During the question and answer session, Azlan dodged many queries posed to him, including on why he revealed on Anwar’s innocence only five years later. [...]

He also dodged questions on why he did not stop his son from taking a religious oath on the sodomy case in 2009 if he had known Anwar was not guilty.

On allegations that he received financial remuneration for being alligned to PKR, Azlan said, “I can’t stop people from slandering me. Let them speak. Besides, I joined a political party and it has nothing to do with the sodomy trial.”

Whether he would take a religious oath on the matter, Azlan said that he would not do it as people are making a mockery out of the sacred vow.

Pressed on the matter, Saifuddin interjected by saying, “If everyone takes a religious vow, then we won’t need courts".

Presumably that was why Anwar didn't want to take the oath in Sodomy II (Saiful did), and even imported former Indonesian President Bapak Abdurrahman Wahid (more popularly known as Gus Dur) to back up his reluctance to do so.

Okay, RPK has now emerged with a new post titled The Deepak-Bala marriage: in Deepak's own words which informs us that, based on what Deepak told the MACC, Bala's 1st SD was made for RM700,000.

You can decide for yourself whether it's true - after all Deepak is also one of the new G-Ds of 'truth', wakakaka.

But Bala, Deepak and Azlan - aren't these a bit of an overkill to bugger Najib, as CT Ali pointed out?

No, apparently not!

A few days ago, FMT’s Anwar: PAS can pursue Islamic laws for Muslims reported:

PETALING JAYA: Critics have always accused Anwar Ibrahim of being inconsistent with his stand on Islamic issues, especially pertaining to PAS’ aspirations.

While the opposition leader gives the impression to some that he is committed to Malaysia being a secular state, he however told the Sydney Morning Herald otherwise.

In an interview with the Australian newspaper’s Southeast Asia correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, Anwar said that under Pakatan Rakyat’s rule, PAS would be allowed to pursue the Syariah system for Muslims, which was a sensitive issue in Malaysia.

On the same note, he also said that a government helmed by him would allow freedom of expression and religion.

The move, he said, would allow Muslims to enforce the Syariah-based legal system.

”I have very strong Islamic traditions. I think we should carefully consider and promote these positive values,” said Anwar.

So Mr Manmanlai has changed again, from promising a secular Malaysia to now, a 50-50 Malaysian legal system. But you can bet, mateys, it won’t be an equal 50-50 at all.

Anyway, how will a PAS-PKR's 50-50 legal system work?

No doubt many of his supporters-defenders would jump in to declare that’s exactly what we have today under UMNO.

But do we? Currently the Islamic legal laws only apply to Muslims on such issues as family laws and cases of not fasting or drinking haram stuff or preaching without approval, etc. There's no hudud involved.

It was only in very recent years that some corrupt city officials presented the government with a fait accompli of their intrusion into non Muslim affairs, as had happened when they attempted to extract money from a young Chinese couple for holding hands and when the young Chinese couple refused to play ball, masked their corrupt demands by accusing the victims of indecency. 

I have no doubt it was exploitation and misuse of Islamic values to disguise their base corruption and to vindictively punish the victims.

But we have witnessed how PAS syariah laws or values, call it whatever you like, couldn't help but intrude into non Muslim affairs, as happened in PAS controlled Kelantan and Kedah, and less legally on occasions when western or Indonesian entertainers came here to perform.

PAS Youth’s perennial campaign against a non-Muslim event, Valentine Day, has been clear indication on the intent of PAS to intrude and syariah-rize even non-Muslims.

Today of course PAS needing Chinese votes would back off after the Chinese complained, as in the cases of unisex hair dressing salons in KB, two adult males in a car at the KB airport, and dress codes for Chinese New Year celebrative events in Kedah.

But imagine when PAS is in the ruling party together with Anwar's PKR, and they no longer need non-Muslim votes, do you think they will back off? We may not even enjoy the possibility of rejecting them after 5 years because I fear a PAS in government will kill off the Westminster style of democracy we currently enjoy, warts and all.

And dear Anwar has just announced that PAS will be permitted to implement (and enforce, you can be sure of this) when Pakatan takes over Putrajaya. Thank you very much, dear Leader.

This is despite that (as reported by FMT) Last year, Anwar courted backlash from many quarters, including his ally DAP, for saying he supported the implementation of Hudud laws in principle.

Later, Pakatan leaders unanimously agreed that the Islamic penal code would not be implemented if the opposition pact wins the general election as it is not part of their Common Policy Framework.

He has now given two-fingers to the so-called Common Policy Framework.

And once PAS implements syariah, which incidentally embraces/includes hudud, there is no way non-Muslims can avoid being affected by the new Islamic legal system. We know that, we have witnessed and experienced PAS intrusions into our affairs, and we will not be able to do anything about that, …

… because if DAP were to object, PAS would just move across the street to join up with a waiting and eager UMNO, and you can bet Anwar’s inner core in PKR will be stampeding across in 'unity'.

See also my post PAS - from Progressive to Pythonic.

Of course Anwar can promise “no one would be compelled to pursue any religion and no one would be stopped from expressing their views or religious convictions” but such promises, as he and PAS will eventually claim, have to subordinated to the higher imperatives of Islam’s syariah laws, and thus may be dismissed and ignored without dishonour.

That’s one of the reasons I have been against Anwar Ibrahim, remembering him as the fiery and ferocious ABIM leader and the UMNO man who escalated the Islamization of Malaysia under the then benign gaze of his mentor and godfather Dr Mahathir, where non-Muslim school children had to perform doa.

Anwar has made that announcement of okaying PAS to implement syariah laws for Muslims in an interview with The Australian newspaper because (I suspect) he wants to shore up his prime ministerial prospects within the PAS camp, which has demonstrated its members’ lukewarm receptivity to his candidature as the Pakatan PM.

That’s the problem with and the tragedy of Anwar Ibrahim. 

He suffers from an unhealthy obsession to be PM, which saw the so-called reformasi man dabbling in a blasphemous frogology in 916, an in-erasable black mark on his already dubious claims to reformasi.

Thus he would do anything to get a.s.a.p to the prime ministerial position, so it's not hard to suspect or speculate or read that he would do just that, anything,  to fulfil his obsession.