Thursday, March 31, 2011

Indian last policy a form of clear discrimination against the employment of Indians

Media statement by M.Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Kuala Lumpur on 31st March 2011

Indian last policy a form of clear discrimination against the employment of Indians must be done away with.


During question time in Parliament today I posed the following question to the Human Resources Ministry :


a) why Government says we have full employment when many have difficulty getting jobs and any plans for unemployeds?


b) why ther is no unemployments benefits for those in need?

The Human Resources Minister in reply said that only 3% of Malaysians are unemployed namely about 420 thousand of them. He gave 4 reasons why graduates are unemployed;


1) the field of study possessed by the graduate is not much in demand

2) Many employers wants experience before employing

3) Lack of communication skill

4) Not proficient in the English language


Also he said in the cases of non graduates 4 factors are responsible:


1) too choosy to choose a place of work

2) hopping for a high salary

3) lack of information on job opportunities

4) offer of jobs is insufficient to meet costs of living


He further said that it is the priority of the Governments policy to employ locals rather then foreigners.


Its hardly believable that Malaysia has only 420 thousand people unemployed. Infact I said the reality is nearly a million or more could be unemployed and these can be seen if one is on the ground. Although the Ministry disputes the figures I gave there is no doubt at least among the orang asli and the Indians the unemployment is very high.

“Indian last policy”


Of late it is said “employ Indian last” policy is being practiced in the private sector. It is well known that in the private sector the reluctance to employ Indians and Orang Asli is well known. Although the minister refuted my view but the truth on the ground is that most lowly paid job in the private sector are held by Indians. Office boys, cleaners, drivers and the like are all most all Indians. Why?


Why there is a Indian last policy being practiced actively without any concern by the government?


Even in the Government sector its no different! Invariably the lowest paid jobs are occupied by the Indians. The Minister cannot just pretend this is not a factor to be looked into and a solution to be worked out the soonest possible.


The employing of Indians as the last choice should stop. Indian last policy a form of clear discrimination against the employment of Indians must be done away with.


Unemployment benefits


In almost all countries which professes to have full employment there is adequate protection to workers who can be gainfully employed but cannot find a job.


The rational for unemployment benefits, is to ensure that those workers who cannot be gainfully employed the state will provide a minimum sum until such time the worker finds a employable job.

A people concern Government will have such a policy.


The absence of such a policy in Malaysia is most unfortunate.

Thanks

UMNO Sexploitation: Eskay, Rahim And The RISDA Connection

MalaysianMirror.com

By : Chua Jui Meng

The truth is now rapidly emerging of the dirty finger prints all over the fabricated sex video that is seeking to implicate Anwar, the PKR and opposition leader. It is a sordid case of moral bankruptcy, political connivance at the highest level and money politics of which UMNO is the undisputed number one in ranking in the region, if not the world.

According to Syed Azidi, a blogger who writes under the name of Kickdefella, Eskay Shazryl, one of the infamous "‘Datuk T" trio that concocted this sex video, had met up with him, five other bloggers and an "alternative media" news editor to share details of Anwar’s sexual escapades with the select group.

During the meeting which clearly was intended to recruit the blogging community in smearing Anwar and destroying PKR and Pakatan ahead of the Sarawak and national elections, Eskay had said, "I am not interested in politics... I saw Anwar’s presence in Malaysian politics as good for "check and balance."

Eskay also said "I am not from Umno or any other party, but I like it when the opposition is strong so that people’s interests are prioritized".

What triggered Eskay – on his own – and without prompting from anyone in the group to make the claim that he was not from UMNO and that his interests were altruistic? Are these statements from him believable? Are these statements professing admiration for Anwar, and emphasizing that he was not interested in politics and merely wanted to strengthen the opposition the truth or in fact really the opposite?

To most Malaysians, these unprompted statements appear to be a clear indication of not only of a guilty conscience but also of someone desperately trying to prove his bona fides and his good intentions when he had in fact a different agenda.

Sex Video: A Gift and Sign from Allah

According to Eskay, the revelation of the sex video was a "gift and sign" from Allah. It is well known that there are likely to be many other ‘gifts’ that Eskay would have received for peddling the scurrilous and despicable sex video.

Don’t forget that Rahim Thamby Chik, a principal co-conspirator and an UMNO leader with a string of scandals ranging from sexual to politically tainted corrupt deals, is the current Chairman of RISDA, an agency which recently had a RM499 million budget for administrative development and with a very large and lucrative procurement for fertilizers and other agricultural supplies.

According to Mohamad Mahti Abdul Rahim, who was the late Megat Junid Megat Ayub’s bodyguard, and has known Eskay since the 1990’s, Eskay is a Si Kitol, referring to the character in Malay history who betrayed the Sultan of Malacca to the Portuguese for his own benefit.

Mohamad Mahti had been asked by Eskay to recruit the services of ex-special action unit (UTK) officers for the Carcosa screening of the sex video seeking to frame Anwar and had refused to go along. He has now gone on record to say: "I am available if the police or even the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission want to question me. If Eskay wants to sue me, go ahead. I have no worries."

Other Gifts For Eskay and Perkasa?

The benefits that Eskay can look forward to receiving from his political masters have also become clearer from Mohamad Mahti’s other revelations. According to him, Eskay operates five fertiliser factories in Thailand. This explains Eskay’s intimate relationship with Rahim Thamby Chik.

So how does Perkasa come into the picture one may ask? Shuib Lazim, the third member of the Datuk T trio is the Perkasa Treasurer-General. Shuib is also the father-in-law of Rural and Regional Development Minister Shafie Apdal. Shafie Apdal incidentally has a RM6 billion budget at his disposal just for this year alone, a fabulous sum that many in UMNO and Perkasa leadership are doubtless salivating to get their hands into.

This is the opening shot to a new barrage of dirty tricks before the elections. For those dirty political tricks wannabes, the sex video incident is a case study of how you can overreach and shoot yourself in the foot, despite all the resources available and careful attention to presentation and preparation.

The sex video has clearly backfired on UMNO and the Datuk T trio. Even UMNO and Perkasa grassroots supporters (and some leaders) are putting their hands up on their faces in shame at this UMNOwood production. It is a constant reminder not only of how desperate the UMNO leadership and cronies are in their attempt to fool the people and retain power but also of how money politics is at the heart of UMNO’s political struggle and actions.

CHUA JUI MENG is PKR Vice President

Human Resources Minister's written answer

Question 10, on why Govt says Malaysia have full employment when many of them having difficulties getting jobs & any plans 4 unemployeds?







Interlok: Cosmetic changes unacceptable - Malaysiakini.com

COMMENT Like a recurring malignancy, the Interlok issue just won't go away.

deputy prime minister muhyiddin yassin at sekolah menengah sains hulu selangor 020410 02
Last week Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin thought that he had succeeded in consigning it to a backburner by assuring that the novel would be purged of terms deemed offensive to Indian Malaysians and thereby retained as a text for study in schools.

By dint of cosmetic amendments, he felt he could muzzle BN's in-house critics - like the MIC - of the choice of the novel as a literary text for Form Five students.

This week he discovers that Chinese NGOs have banded together to demand the novel's retraction because of elements seen as scurrilous to Chinese Malaysians.

Tardily awakened to the presence of stuff considered offensive to them, the Chinese NGOs now view the novel within a larger context: the attempt by elements in the Education Ministry to rewrite Malaysian history and mythology such that the contributions of non-Malays are scanted.

It is said that history books, written under the imprimatur of the ministry, unduly credit Islamic currents and downplay the role of other factors in the evolution of Malaysian story.

Revisionist history is as old as history itself. The attempt emanating from the Education Ministry, which is occupied by the deputy prime minister, is being interpreted by critics as an effort to delegitimise the thrust for a new political order in Malaysia.

Interlok's naysayers

Thus the chorus of Interlok's naysayers, initially confined to Indian Malaysians, has now spread to include Chinese Malaysians.

Inevitably, this has drawn the attention of political parties vying for the allegiance of voters across ethnic lines.

NONE
It came as no surprise that PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub (left), MP for Kubang Kerian, decried the choice of the novel in Parliament earlier this week. He queried the wisdom of the choice of reading matter for the edification of young Malaysians.

At the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council meeting held earlier this week, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang bestirred himself to pronounce as not Islamic any denigration of a people's race or beliefs.

Suddenly, Interlok's defenders find themselves under attack from multiple corners. The assault from the Indian Malaysian quarter, taken singly, would have been easy to parry, though if one of the critics had been S Samy Vellu, in his previous, famously feisty, incarnation as MIC president, the protest would have been hard to pare down.

But MIC under new president G Palanivel is a pallid force and as a miscellany of critics gathers to pound Interlok, the party's acquiescence in the slightly purged version of the novel seems like ingratiation after the initial make-believe of formal protest.

Now, with critics of the novel drawn from more than one race, the MIC is left with more reason to reconsider its relevance to Malaysian politics.

Making it a cause celebre

It is expected that a gathering of Indian Malaysian leaders from Pakatan in Penang this weekend is almost certain to take up the Interlok issue with renewed intensity, especially after they know that PAS has taken the stance that denigration of a people's race and beliefs is unIslamic.

NONE
DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M Kulasegaran, is expected make the case at the meeting that the novel is an affront not just Indian Malaysians but other ethnic groups as well, and therefore the issue should be made a cause celebre.

"Retention of the novel is an issue that is akin to the destruction of the Hindu temple in Shah Alam in July 2007," said Kulasegaran in remarks to Malaysiakini earlier this week.

The videotape of the temple's destruction was circulated widely among Hindu Malaysians and is now credited with being the spark that ignited the community's withdrawal of support for the BN in the general election of March 2008.

An offending literary text is not nearly as potent a prod as the filmed sight of bulldozers demolishing a house of worship, especially when so few Malaysians are known to read at all.

Still, the latest swell in the fluctuating controversy over Interlok has the potential of being an unquenchable ember in the swarm of resentments assailing the BN.

Bid to move conversion case to Federal Court - Press Release

www.thestar.com.my

IPOH: Kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, who is seeking to quash her three children’s conversion to Islam, has applied for the case to be moved to the Federal Court or heard in full by the High Court.

Her lawyer M. Kulasegaran made the application before High Court assistant registrar Helmi Ghani in his chambers yesterday.

Kulasegaran told reporters that Justice Zainal Adzam Abdul Ghani would decide on May 6 if he would order a full hearing into the case or refer it to the apex court.

Indira Gandhi is seeking to nullify her children’s conversion to Islam by their father without her consent on April 3, 2009.

Despite an order made by a separate High Court here last May for her estranged husband Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah to return their youngest child, Prasana Diksa, mother and child have yet to be reunited.

The case, in which Indira Gandhi has been also granted custody of her two elder children – Tevi Darsiny, 13, and Karan Dinish, 12 – is pending appeal by Mohd Ridzuan, who has obtained interim custody of the children from the Syariah High Court here.

Met at the High Court, Indira Gandhi, 36, said she continued to live with the pain of not being able to see and hold Prasana.

The child turns three on April 8 and the last time the mother saw her daughter was just before the little girl’s second birthday.

“It’s a reminder of how much I have missed out on my baby’s life,” she said.



PUBLISHED IN MALAYSIAN NANBAN 31/03/2011


31/03/2011 - Sinar Harian

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Dirty Tricks in Malaysia

Published in WSJ.com - Review & Outlook column A sex tape appears just in time to hobble the opposition again.



The latest installment in a long saga of smears against Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is afoot, even as his second trial for alleged sodomy drags on. Three anonymous men calling themselves the "datuk trio," now exposed and under police investigation, showed a group of hand-picked journalists a video purporting to depict the former deputy prime minister having sex with a female prostitute a month earlier. The three said their motivation was to "show the truth." But as with past attacks on Mr. Anwar, the timing is politically significant: Snap elections are expected later this year.


The way in which the tape became public is also suspicious. Many of the invited journalists proceeded to impugn Mr. Anwar without revealing the identity and motivations of the tape's owners. Nor did they determine whether the tape was doctored, or other details of its provenance. Mr. Anwar's denials that he is the man on the tape, and his defense that he was busy posting on the Internet on the night in question, have been given short shrift by the country's mainstream media outlets, many of which are owned by the government and the parties in the ruling coalition.


Dirty-tricks campaigns like poison-pen letters are depressingly common in Malaysia. But public skepticism about the ever-lengthening list of allegations against Mr. Anwar suggests they may no longer have the power they once did to ruin political careers.


Alternative sources of information are developing, and as Malaysians become better informed they are more independent-minded. If Mr. Anwar can convince Malaysians that he is not the man on the tape, this latest attack will only make him stronger, since it will bolster the belief at home and abroad that he is the victim of politically motivated persecution.


That would spell bad news for the ruling United Malays National Organization, which says it has nothing to do with the sex tape. Its support has been slipping away in the Malay heartland, leaving the ruling coalition vulnerable. In the March 2008 general elections, the opposition substantially increased its seats and polled 46.8% of the popular vote.


Mr. Anwar then came close to toppling the government by enticing MPs to defect from the government benches. Prime Minister Najib Razak has since managed to rally government forces, but this could be a temporary reprieve. UMNO is vulnerable to complaints that corruption scandals such as that over the funding of Port Klang are occurring on its watch. The transfer of power might have happened much sooner but for Mr. Anwar's conviction for sodomy in 1998. He served six years in prison before the Supreme Court reversed a verdict that had become a stain on the country's body politic—the defendant was beaten in custody by the inspector general of police, evidence was inconsistent and witnesses were found to have been coerced.


So it's understandable that many Malaysians regarded the latest case with skepticism—especially given irregularities in the investigation, such as the lack of medical evidence and delay in collecting DNA evidence. Mr. Anwar has maintained his innocence, but the pressure has taken its toll. While even the Islamist PKS party dismissed the latest sodomy allegations and affirmed Mr. Anwar's leadership at first, the opposition coalition has been fracturing and losing by-elections in recent months. Many Malaysians have had enough of dirty tricks.


But Mr. Anwar still faces an uphill struggle to convince a majority that despite all the smears he is a worthy leader.

Now Chinese claim ‘Interlok’ racist

March 30, 2011

Muhyiddin appeared to have laid the matter to rest last week. — file pic
KUALA LUMPUR, March 30 — Fresh trouble is brewing over the use of “Interlok” in schools, with Chinese groups today condemning the novel’s depiction of Chinese characters as greedy, opium-smoking lechers keen to exploit Malays for profit.

Having weathered a storm of controversy from the Indian community over the novel’s use of the word “pariah”, the Education Ministry now faces Chinese calls to drop the “racist” book from the Form Five Bahasa Malaysia syllabus.

In a statement today, Chinese associations from across Malaysia said the book was not only offensive to Indians but Chinese as well, as it depicted the character Kim Lock as a “miserly opium addict and callous adulterer” and his son, Cing Huat, as “cunning, greedy, unscrupulous and someone who would happily sell his daughters”.

“‘Interlok’ in its totality propagates the ideology of ketuanan Melayu. In our considered opinion, this novel is not only unhealthy but an insidious poison,” the statement said.

“In fact, ‘Interlok’ is barely a step away from the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) brainwashing that promotes racism and disunity. ‘Interlok’ conveys the central message that Chinese, Indian and other minorities are second-class citizens in addition to perpetuating the divisive notion of a host community (the Malays) versus foreigners (‘bangsa asing’ Cina dan India).”

The groups also condemned the “major thread” in the book, which depicts the Chinese “cheating and oppressing” Malays or as “nasty and immoral” communist guerrillas.

The statement was signed by the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH), LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysian-China Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Chinese Associations Johor, the Penang Chinese Town Hall and 40 others, including the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) and several Indian organisations.

Some excerpts appended as evidence of the book’s alleged racism include:

* “We eat anything. Roots if we can get them. We beg. We steal. We don’t have a daughter. If we have a daughter, we can sell her.” (Kim Hock, pp 119-120)

* Kim Lock takes Mei Hwa to smoke opium and has sex with her every time they meet like that. (p 200)

* In a big and strange city like this, people cannot be kind, if they are kind they can’t be rich. Here money becomes the measure. In this world, money is the number two God. (pp 155-156)

* “Cina Panjang says all that land rightfully belongs to him. The cows we kept are also his. My father pawned it to him.” (p 88)

* Seman said he gave all the land to Cina Panjang, and the Chinese man then asked Seman to leave the kampung. (p 92)

The associations pointed out, however, that they did not wish for national laureate Datuk Abdullah Hussain’s book to be edited — as demanded by Indian groups unhappy with the word “pariah” — but also called for the book not be used in schools.

They urged the Education Ministry not to allow “slurs” that hurt the feelings of the various communities to be uttered with impunity and asked that it substitute the book with reading material more suited to the classroom.

“State-endorsed literature should rightly promote contemporary progressive values such as democracy, freedom, equality and human rights. Living in Malaysia of the 21st century, we ought to advocate ‘Ketuanan Rakyat’ instead of sponsoring a parochial and narrow ethnic hegemony,” the statement added.

“Interlok” was written by Abdullah in 1971 and chronicles the daily struggles of the Malays, Chinese and Indians in pre-independence Malaya.

Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said last week that the Cabinet had asked Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) to edit the novel in order to replace terms offensive to Indians but refused to drop the book completely.

Muhyiddin added that his ministry will also provide a glossary to explain the phrases and concepts to students to provide historical context.

Hindu mum wants conversion fight brought to apex court

March 30, 2011

Kulasegaran
IPOH, March 30 — The religious statuses of M. Indira Gandhi’s three children continue to hang in the balance despite her two-year-old attempt to nullify their conversions to Islam, as the High Court continued again today to dither on the matter.

As such, the kindergarten teacher’s lawyers are now demanding that the case be moved to the Federal Court to be disposed of instead, on grounds that it was a matter of public interest and would likely involve a landmark decision.

Indira, who celebrated a short-lived victory last year when she was granted leave for judicial review to quash the conversions, was initially due to attend the first day of the review hearing this morning.

But her counsel, M. Kulasegaran, later informed reporters later although the matter was due before High Court Judge Zainal Adzam Abdul Ghani, it was instead handled by assistant registrar Helmi Ghani.

“We are not sure why the judge ordered for the matter to be moved before the registrar or why there continues to be a delay in the matter.

“From what I understand, I think the judge wants all affidavits from both sides filed before the matter is called for hearing,” he said when contacted later.

He explained that Indira’s lawyers had submitted their reasons why the hearing should be moved to the Federal Court before the registrar in chambers.

Helmi later fixed May 6 for their application to be heard, this time before the judge.

“There are one of two outcomes from this application - for the judge to decide whether to move the matter to the Federal Court or to hear the case in full in the High Court,” said Kulasegaran.

In Indira’s original application for leave in 2009, she had named six defendants: conversion authority Perak Muallaf registrar, the Perak Islamic Religious Department (JAIP), the Perak government, the education minister, the Malaysian government, and her estranged husband, K. Pathmanathan (now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah).

Indira, who was granted custody of her three children — Prasana Diksa, two; Tevi Darsiny, 13; and Karan Dinish, 12 — by the court on March 11, 2010, is seeking to nullify her children’s conversion to Islam by their father without her consent on April 3, 2009.

She is arguing that the conversions had been made only in her husband’s presence and without her knowledge.

Mohd Ridzuan was previously granted a similar custody order but from the Syariah High Court and has since chosen to ignore the civil High Court’s decision, claiming that as a Muslim-convert, he was now bound by Syariah law.

Indira’s leave application was postponed numerous times last year but was finally allowed in July 28.

Kulasegaran continued to complain today of the government’s apparent lackadaisical attitude on the matter, pointing out that earlier proposals for amendments to the law on matters of conversion had been quickly swept under the carpet.

The Cabinet had decided in April 2009 that children should remain in the religion of the parents at the time of marriage, should one of them decide to convert to Islam. It also decided that outstanding issues in a marriage must be settled before conversion to avoid children from becoming the victims.

But a subsequent decision by the Conference of the Malay Rulers to seek the view of state authorities had delayed the government’s plan to table amendments to three laws — the Islamic Family (Federal Territories) Law 1984, Administration of Islamic (Federal Territories) Law 1993, and Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

So far, the government has given no indication of when the laws will be amended.

“There has been no necessary follow-ups taken, no initiatives in place since then,” Kulasegaran complained.

Meanwhile, Indira is still yet to meet with her youngest child Prasana, who turns three next month, despite last year’s custody order.

“It is her birthday and all I want to do is see her again,” she said.

On March 11 last year, High Court Justice Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim granted full custody of the couple’s three children to Indira and ordered Mohd Ridzuan to immediately surrender Prasana to her mother.

The couple’s other two children, Karan Dinish and Tevi Darsiny, have been residing with Indira.

Mohd Ridzuan, however, refused to abide by the order, claiming it had no authority over him for he had a similar custody order from the Syariah Court last year.

He refused to reveal the whereabouts of Prasana and had only admitted to The Malaysian Insider that the child was in the care of school authorities in Kelantan.

“We still do not know where he (Mohd Ridzuan) is keeping her,” Kulasegaran said.

AG where are the promised amendments to bring a finality to conversion cases?

30/3/11
Attorney General and the Government should explain why the delay in presenting the necessary amendments to Parliament in conversion cases.

Indira Ghandhi married her husband Patmanathan in 1993 according to Hindu rites. They have 3 children.

The eldest child is now 14 years old the second, a boy, is 13 years old and the youngest is 2+ years old Indria and her husband started to have marital problems for sometime.

As a result on 11th March 2009, he converted to Islam and adopted his new name as Muhammad Riduan Bin Abdullah

On 2nd April 2009; three children of the family were also converted into Islam by their father Patmanathan at the Bahagian Dakwah, Jabatan Agama Islam, Ipoh, Perak.

The conversion was without the knowledge and or consent of the children's mother.

There after the family got separated and the husband took the youngest t child of the family and went missing. He is still hiding at an undisclosed location.

In the mean time Muhammad Riduan Bin Abdullah filed an application at the Syariah High Court in Ipoh and obtained an interim order of custody of the 3 children. Indira had no knowledge of this case.

Subsequently she filed an application and after numerous hearings, the Ipoh Civil High Court gave order of custody on May2010. The case is pending appeal to the Court of Appeal by the husband.

He has not adhered to the Court’s order in that the youngest child has not been handed over to Indira.

The husband has no permanent employment and has been willfully avoiding in handing over of the youngest child to the mother. The two elder children are schooling and living with the mother who works as a kindergarten teacher.

On 9th June 2009, Indira filed a motion at the High Court to quash the decision of the Syariah Court dated 8

th April2009 which Court had given custody and control of the 3 children to Muhammad Riduan Bin Abdullah. The case has been filed against 6 Defendants namely

1.PENGARAH JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM PERAK 2.PENDAFTAR MUALLAF 3) KERAJAAN NEGRI PERAK 4) KEMENTERIAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 5) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 6) PATMANATHAN A/L KRISHNAN

(known as Muhammad Riduan bin Abdullah)On 28

th July2010, the Ipoh Civil High Court gave leave to quash the decision of the Syariah Court to Indira notwithstanding to the strenuous objections from the Attorney General‘s office.

To day the High Court is to hear the application to quash the Syariah Court‘s decision.

The panel of Lawyers ( Mr. K.Shanmuga, En.FahriAzzat, N.Selvam, and M.Kula ) of Indira feels that Indira's case is very much similar to the famous case of Shamala Vs Dr Jayaganesh.

As serious, fundamental and public importance issues are involved the case ought to be transferred and heard in the Federal Court.

In April 2009, it was reported that the Cabinet has decided that children of parents where one of them opts to convert must be raised in the common religion at the time of marriage.

The news report dated 24 thApril, 2009 says: -



Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri said it was decided in the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that a spouse who has converted into Islam would also have to fulfil his or her marriage responsibilities according to civil marriage laws.

“Religion should not be used as a tool to escape marriage responsibilities. Conversion is not a ground for the automatic dissolution of a marriage,” he said at a press conference at Parliament building Thursday.

“The children should be brought up in the common religion. For the spouse who intends to convert into Islam, he or she would also have to come clean,” he said.

Nazri said religious conversion must come with the innocent party being protected from being victimised, as well as protection being affored to the new religion of the converted person.

“Civil marriages have to be resolved according to civil laws. The conversion takes effect on the day of conversion and is not retrospective. “The convert would have to fulfil his or her marriage responsibilities according to civil laws prior to the conversion,” he added.

Nazri also said the Cabinet has instructed the Attorney-General to look at all relevant laws which needed to be amended in line with what has been decided on civil marriage laws and others.

The Attorney General and the Government should explain why there has been such long delay in doing what is necessary?

ttp://twitter.com/mkula

MCCBCHST – Utter horror and sheer disgust over scandalous sex video


By Reverend Dr. Thomas Philips | MCCBCHST President

It is with great disgust and disbelief that we Malaysians were regaled over the last few days with the graphic narration of the existence and viewing of a 21-minute sex video to a select few masterminded and acknowledged by a trio under the pseudonym ‘Datuk T’.

The Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism wishes to register its utter horror and sheer disgust at the despicable methodology devised by the unscrupulous and disgruntled trio. Their aim in publicly humiliating our elected Opposition Leader of Parliament offends the sensitivities
of decent people no matter to what race or religion they belong to.

This sad sordid episode, once again, brings the nation to prominence for the wrong reasons. Over the last few decades we have been treated to and numbed by numerous financial scandals, social scandals and political scandals committed by those supposedly dedicated to leading our citizens through ‘leadership by example’. This latest blue video clip to slander a fellow Malaysian, albeit a Muslim MP, is viewed by our members with great concern and revulsion. This particular exposure at this juncture of our developing history, now, has the rare honour of achieving the coveted “Mother of all Moral Scandals” perpetrated by titled personalities and so-called leaders.

Since the involvement of the 3, code named ‘Datuk T’, has surfaced, the Malaysian public are once again feted with disgusting material that begs the question, “Where is all this leading to?” in spite of the many seasonal national slogans that challenge us to greater heights of achievement and harmony.

It does not inspire the younger generation to trust in the political process nor to observe cultural, religious, social and moral norms. The violation of basic decency and privacy is abhorrent and despicable not only to the mature adult but more importantly to the vulnerable and impressionable young in our midst and communities.

Our Consultative Council that represents non-Muslims is disheartened and uncomfortable with the whole episode. It does not bode well for the future political and cultural landscape of this multi-cultural and multi-religious nation. The longer this issue drags on, the greater the damage to Malaysia’s image internationally. It does no good to the
oft heard and repeated phrase ‘Malaysia is a moderate Islamic Country’ in international discourses, corridors and cafeterias. No one is fooled anymore. Malaysia’s image is further tarnished by irresponsible and selfish leaders like those who acknowledged their shameless involvement.

We call on the Government to take swift and firm action against all those behind this scandal and begin determinedly to usher in a new era of self-respect, pride, trust and hope for the general well-being of all citizens of this rich land of beautiful people and plentiful resources.

We further urge the government to distance itself from all forms of deceit and cunning and bring the perpetrators of this latest mischief to face the full extent of the law.

Further, the Government should employ every means to quell the rising anger, disquiet and dismay over this uncalled for sordid and despicable attempt, by an unscrupulous few, to achieve their own personal disgusting agenda.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Ex-cop says Rahim likely to escape blame for sex video

UPDATED @ 07:11:49 AM 29-03-2011
March 28, 2011
Zain predicts Gani will give Rahim another free pass. — file pic
KUALA LUMPUR, March 28 — A former senior police investigating officer said today that he did not expect Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik to be prosecuted over the sex video scandal because of the ultimate involvement of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail as Attorney-General.

Former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim also accused Abdul Gani of hijacking an investigation against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1999 in order to conceal his role in “indemnifying” the former Malacca chief minister from being prosecuted for corruption.

The investigation, he explained, had been wrested from him and given instead to former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who was then an investigating officer.

Mat Zain added that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had already issued a recommendation for Abdul Rahim to be prosecuted for four counts of corruption — three under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance and one for making a false Statutory Declaration, punishable under Section 193 of the Penal Code.

But according to a complaint by Anwar, then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah and Abdul Gani, who was then a senior deputy public prosecutor, had “indemnified” Abdul Rahim from prosecution in exchange for his resignation from all government and political posts.

Rahim has confessed to being party to the sex tape. — file pic
Mat Zaid wrote in an open letter to Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar today that he expected the police to handle the ongoing investigations on the sex video case in a professional manner, but expressed concern that Abdul Gani’s participation would eventually see Abdul Rahim walking away a free man again.

“I am fully confident that the police are able to carry out their responsibilities in a professional and impartial manner and will not be influenced by outside pressures.

“However, this investigation will later be handled by Abdul Gani as the Attorney-General. It is at this stage where it is expected that manipulation, fraud and forgery will occur, particularly when one is aware of how Abdul Gani and Musa handled the other cases involving Anwar and Abdul Rahim,” he told the IGP in his letter.

Mat Zain said the matter had first reached his hands when Anwar had sent him a copy of the ACA report against Abdul Rahim along with a police report on August 20, 1999.

The report, he explained, was classified as “official secrets” and explained that the agency had compiled enough evidence to prove a “prima facie” case against Abdul Rahim.

“The ACA report was validated by the prosecution division of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and signed by Abdul Gani who classified the document as ‘secret’.

“The documents were said to have been given to Anwar by the Attorney-General and/or Abdul Gani while Anwar was still the deputy prime minister,” he said.

Mat Zain explained that the AG’s Chambers had wanted to classify the case under the Official Secrets Act 1972 while the police had suggested that the case be investigated under Section 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance on abuse of powers.

He added that an investigation against Abdul Rahim under the Emergency Ordinance would involve the recording of statements from Dr Mahathir, the late Mohtar, Gani and other prominent leaders.

“But on August 28, I received a letter from the AG’s Chambers addressed personally to me, specifically stating that the report Anwar lodged against Abdul Rahim would be investigated by Musa as Abdul Gani had supposedly lodged a report against Anwar for committing an offence under the Official Secrets Act,” said Mat Zain, referring to Anwar’s exposure of the ACA report.

“To be clearer, I can say that the report involving Abdul Rahim was hijacked by Musa Hassan from the hands of the CID,” he added.

Mat Zain, however, stressed that he had never seen the report purportedly lodged by Abdul Gani.

“And never before has the AG’s Chambers ever chosen its own investigating officer to investigate a police report,” he said.

Zain accused Musa of hijacking the graft probe on Rahim.
Mat Zain also attached a copy of the AG’s Chamber’s notice to him in his letter to Ismail.

“The comparison that can be drawn from here is that when it comes to handling an investigation against Anwar, Abdul Gani and Musa are willing to do whatever it takes, including forcing a government servant to prepare false reports, fabricate DNA evidence, cheat and do anything that is against the law and against all logic in order to convict Anwar,” he charged.

Mat Zain, who was the investigating officer in the infamous 1998 “black-eye” case involving Anwar, has repeatedly accused Abdul Gani of being corrupt and having committed numerous offences to protect his position.

Among others, he has claimed that Abdul Gani had falsified evidence in the probe against Anwar for his first sodomy trial, including the DNA evidence.

“Now, although Musa has retired, but Abdul Gani is still the AG. So when this sex video investigation reaches him, it can be expect what his stand will be, especially since this video is yet another clash between Abdul Rahim and Anwar,” he said.

Mat Zain stressed that he had no personal vendetta against Abdul Rahim but was concerned that the sex video case would see the former chief minister getting off scot-free, despite his admission to his involvement in the caper.

Abdul Rahim, along with businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay, had last week admitted to being behind the sex video allegedly featuring Anwar having sex with a foreign prostitute.

Anwar has since denied being the man in the tape and has gone on a nationwide campaign to convince voters of his innocence.

Open Letter by Mat Zain to IGP – on Anwar, Gani Patail and Rahim


Open Letter by Mat Zain to IGP:

Mat Zain bin Ibrahim,
SAC II G/5776(Retired),

Kepada,

YDH Tan Sri Haji Ismail bin Haji Omar,IGP,
Ketua Polis Negara,
Polis Di-Raja Malaysia,
Bukit Aman,
50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Email:iho@rmp.gov.com

28hb.March 2010

YDH Tan Sri,

PENYIASATAN KES VIDEO LUCAH DAN KESUDAHANNYA :-
MAKLUMAT HUBUNGAN LAMPAU DIANTARA TIGA TAN SRI IAITU, GHANI PATAIL , MUSA HASSAN DAN RAHIM THAMBI CHIK.

Semoga Tan Sri tenang dan tabah menangani cabaran mendatang.

2. Saya percaya Tan Sri sedar video lucah mana yang saya maksudkan.Saya yakin sepenuhnya bahawa PDRM mampu menjalankan tanggung jawabnya menjalankan siasatan tersebut secara professional dan berkecuali dan tidak terpengaruh dengan tekanan mana-mana pihak sekalipun, lebih-lebih lagi dibawah pimpinan Tan Sri ketika ini.

2.1. Namun begitu kertas siasatan ini kelak akan diteliti dan diputuskan olih Gani Patail,Peguam Negara.Diperingkat inilah dijangka akan berlaku,putar belit,manipulasi,penipuan dan pemalsuan apabila sedar akan caramana Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan menangani penyiasatan kes-kes jenayah apabila melibatkan Anwar Ibrahim(Anwar) dan Rahim Thambi Chik (Rahim) dimasa lampau.

2.2. Tidak syak lagi isu video ini adalah satu lagi “pertembungan” diantara Anwar dan Rahim.Adalah dipercayai juga motif pendedahannya,tidak kira samada video tersebut adalah tulen atau direkacipta,adalah terbit daripada dendam lama Rahim terhadap Anwar atas isu peribadi atau politik diantara mereka berdua.

LAPORAN POLIS ANWAR YANG MEMBABITKAN RAHIM.

3. Diantara 9 July 1999 hingga 20 Ogos 1999,Anwar telah membuat sejumlah empat(4) laporan Polis, mendedahkan perbuatan rasuah pemimpin-pemimpin Politik dan Kerajaan.Dalam laporan-laporan berkenaan Anwar turut mendakwa dan menamakan mantan Perdana Menteri Tun Mahathir,Peguam Negara Allahyarham Mohtar Abdullah dan Gani Patail,ketika itu DPP Kanan,sebagai orang-orang yang telah menyalahgunakan kuasa dan menutup kes-kes rasuah tersebut.

3.1. Pertembungan lampau antara Rahim dan Anwar adalah apabila salah satu diantara laporan tersebut iaitu Tun H.S.Lee report 22517/99 bertarikh 20.8.1999 yang dibuat olih Anwar melibatkan Rahim.Dalam laporan ini Anwar juga mendakwa Tun Mahathir,Allahyarham Mohtar dan Gani Patail sebagai telah menyalahgunakan kuasa mereka melindungi perbuatan rasuah Rahim serta menutup siasatan dan tidak mengenakan sebarang pendakwaan terhadap beliau.

3.2. Bersekali dengan report tersebut, Anwar telah menyertakan satu set salinan laporan siasatan Badan Pencegah Rasuah(BPR)terhadap Rahim yang disahkan oleh Bahagian Pendakwaan,Jabatan Peguam Negara dan ditanda tangani oleh Gani Patail yang mengkelaskan dokumen tersebut sebagai RAHSIA.Dokumen-dokumen ini dikatakan diberi kepada Anwar oleh Peguam Negara dan/atau Gani Patail ketika Anwar masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

4. Untuk makluman Tan Sri,secara kebetulan, saya yang menangani keempat-empat laporan yang Anwar buat itu termasuk laporan melibatkan Rahim atas sifat saya sebagai Ketua Jabatan Sisasatan Jenayah(KJSJ) Kuala Lumpur ketika itu.Saya perhatikan juga amaun rasuah melibatkan Rahim adalah antara yang paling sedikit jika dibandingkan dengan laporan-laporan lain.Jumlah terlibat lebih kurang RM40 juta(Empat puloh juta Ringgit sahaja) atau angka yang lebih tepat ialah RM 39,782,772.60 sen. Amaun ini dikatakan diperolehi olih Rahim menerusi salahguna kuasa dan kegiatan rasuah setakat yang dapat dikesan menerusi siasatan terperinci BPR dan disahkan olih Gani Patail.

4.1. Sebagai rekod Tan Sri,amaun terbesar yang disebutkan dalam salah satu laporan Anwar itu, melibatkan seorang pemimpin yang dikatakan telah memperolehi harta berjumlah dalam lingkungan RM 370 juta.(tiga ratus tujoh puloh juta Ringgit) dalam bentuk RM 220 juta tunai dan RM150 juta dalam bentuk saham,menerusi jalan rasuah.

5. Wajar saya jelaskan disini bahawa terdapat perbezaan pendapat antara KJSJ Kuala Lumpur dengan Jabatan Peguam Negara mengenai cara pendekatan menangani laporan-laporan Anwar tersebut.Jabatan Peguam Negara menasihatkan supaya laporan-laporan tersebut diklasifikasikan di-bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972 sahaja.Manakala KJSJ berpendapat klasifikasi ini tidak sepadan dengan laporan dan keterangan yang pengadu kemukakan serta mencadangkan kesemua laporan berkenaan diklasifikasikan dibawah Seksyen 2(1)Emergency(Essential Powers)Ordinance 2,1970 berkaitan kesalahan salahguna kuasa. Cadangan bertulis KJSJ terdapat dalam fail rujukkan (PR)35/26 bertarikh 25.8.1999.Siasatan dibawah Seksyen ini dijangka akan membabitkan rakaman keterangan daripada Tun Mahathir,Allahyarham Mohtar dan Gani Patail sendiri serta lain-lain kenamaan.

5.1. Bagaimanapun pada 28.8.1999 saya telah menerima satu surat daripada Jabatan Peguam Negara Rujukan PRM(WP)5/99 SULIT(5) yang dialamatkan kepada saya persendirian,memaklumkan secara spesifik bahawa laporan yang Anwar buat melibatkan Rahim, akan disiasat oleh Musa Hassan setelah kononya Gani Patail membuat laporan terhadap Anwar pula kerana kesalahan di-bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi.

5.1.2. Apa yang berlaku ialah, Gani Patail dengan kemudahan yang diberi oleh Musa Hassan telah menterbalikkan kedudukkan laporan Anwar yang melibatkan Rahim untuk menyebabkan Anwar pula disiasat dibawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi.Lebih mudah untuk saya menyatakan laporan melibatkan Rahim itu telah di”hijacked” oleh Musa Hassan daripada tangan KJSJ Kuala Lumpur.

5.1.3. Saya tidak pernah melihat laporan Polis yang kononya dibuat oleh Gani Patail itu ataupun kertas siasatan yang kononnya dibuat oleh Musa Hassan.Belum pernah juga berlaku Jabatan Peguam Negara pula yang memilih Pagawai Penyiasat yang mereka berkenan menyiasat sesuatu laporan polis.

5.2. Bagi mengelakkan sebarang keraguan berkaitan peristiwa diatas,saya sertakan buat pertama kalinya salinan surat Jabatan Peguam Negara bertarikh 28.8.1999 yang saya maksudkan.Walaupun ringkas, surat ini dengan jelas menunjukkan posisi Gani Patail,Musa Hassan dan saya berkaitan siasatan laporan Anwar yang melibatkan Rahim.

5.3. Secara kebetulan saya telah melaporkan perkara ini ketika Tan Sri masih Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara lagi, menerusi surat saya bertarikh 6.5.2010 dengan salinannya kepada YB Menteri Dalam Negeri.

6. Perbandingan yang boleh dibuat disini ialah apabila menangani siasatan terhadap Anwar, Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan sanggup melakukan apa sahaja antaranya memaksa pakar Kerajaan membuat beberapa laporan palsu, mengujudkan keterangan DNA palsu,menipu dan melakukan tindakan-tindakan melampaui batasan undang-undang dan lojik untuk mensabitkan kesalahan terhadap Anwar.

6.1. Sebaliknya apabila menangani siasatan berkaitan Rahim pula, Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan, sanggup melakukan apa sahaja antaranya, menterbalikkan fakta dan memutarbelitkan keterangan untuk membersihkan Rahim daripada sebarang salah laku jenayah sambil meletakkan kesalahan terhadap pengadunya pula.

6.2. Walaupun Musa Hassan telah bersara namun Gani Patail masih berkuasa sebagai Peguam Negara.Apabila siasatan mengenai video lucah ini sampai ketangan Jabatan Peguam Negara kelak,kita boleh menjangka pendirian Gani Patail, lebih-lebih lagi apabila mengambil kira isu video lucah ini juga adalah pertembungan antara Rahim dan Anwar.

6.3. Sekadar makluman Tan Sri juga,Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof,Pakar Forensic HKL,yang telah digunakan oleh Gani Patail untuk menyediakan 3 laporan palsu dalam siasatan kes Mata-Lebam, adalah juga Pakar Forensic yang sama terlibat dalam membuat pemeriksaan fisikal Rahim, dalam kes seksual dengan gadis bawah umor berkaitan.Kebetulan juga saya pernah menjadi KJSJ Melaka sebelum Kuala Lumpur dan tidak munasabah jika saya tidak meneliti kertas siasatan kes Rahim itu, walaupun saya bukan Pegawai Penyiasatnya.Mungkin ini semua adalah “the long arm of coincidences” sahaja.

7. Mengenai kes rasuah terhadap Rahim pula,BPR dan Jabatan Peguam Negara mengesahkan dalam laporan mereka bahawa terdapat keterangan yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan kes “prima facie” terhadap beliau.Malahan Jabatan Peguam Negara telah menyediakan empat (4)pertuduhan kesemuanya. Iaitu;3(tiga) pertuduhan dibawah Emergency(Essential Powers)Ordinance No:22 of 1970 dan satu pertuduhan kerana membuat Statutory Declaration (SD) palsu dibawah Sek.199 yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 193 Kanun Keseksaan.

7.1. Bagaimanapun Rahim tidak dituduh langsung,setelah Peguam Negara “indemnify” segala kesalahan jenayahnya setelah Rahim dipercayai bersetuju untuk melepaskan jawatan dalam Kerajaan,Badan-Badan Berkanun dan Parti Politik.Ini adalah apa yang terdapat didalam laporan yang disediakan oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara sendiri.

7.2. Tidak ada sebutan mengenai cara pelupusan harta berjumlah hampir RM40 juta yang Rahim perolehi secara rasuah itu..Tiada maklumat mengenai persetujuan yang dicapai oleh Rahim dan Peguam Negara berkaitan harta yang diperolehi sedemikian itu dalam bentuk:RM 5,439,796.40 sen dalam kawalan peribadi Rahim sendiri,RM14,487,420.50 sen simpanan tunai dalam beberapa buah bank dan RM19,855,555.70 sen harta Syarikat-Syarikat.

7.3. Persoalan yang tidak kurang pentingnya ialah adakah Peguam Negara mempunyai kuasa untuk “indemnify” kesalahan jenayah mana-mana orang berdasarkan pertimbangan Politik?. Adakah Peguam Negara berhak melepaskan wang Rakyat RM 40 juta sebegitu mudah untuk Rahim menikmatinya tanpa sebarang tindakan.Adakah ini sesuatu yang adil kepada Rakyat sedangkan Peguam Negara yang telah mengesahkan bahawa Rahim memperolehi harta sedemikian banyak menerusi salahguna kuasa dan rasuah.Apa yang jelas dalam kes Rahim ini,,Peguam Negara juga telah menyalahgunakan kuasanya.

8. Saya ingin Tan Sri maklum,bahawa secara peribadi saya tidak mempunyai sebarang isu dengan Rahim.Malahan saya tidak pernah mengenali beliau,sekalipun untuk berjabat salam dengannya seumor hidup.Saya sendiri tidak sangka yang beliau akan muncul sebagai salah seorang dibelakang tayangan video lucah berkenaan.Keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam laporan ini adalah berdasarkan pengalaman,pengetahuan peribadi serta dokumen-dokumen berkaitan, ketika saya menangani kes membabitkan beliau.

8.1. Isu yang sering saya bawa sehingga keperingkat YAB Perdana Menteri secara persendirian, ialah bekenaan dengan salahlaku jenayah Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan yang bukan sahaja telah menjejaskan maruah PDRM dan saya secara peribadi malahan mereka mengkucar-kacirkan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah kita.Saya tidak ralat mendedahkannya memandangkan saya telah menasihatkan mereka berdua tahun 1998 bahawa sebarang pemalsuan dan penganiayaan akan terbongkar suatu hari nanti.Salahlaku jenayah mereka bukan setakat dalam siasatan kes mata-lebam sahaja.Saya yakin Tan Sri dan Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara maklum akan pendirian saya berkaitan perkara ini.

9. Walaubagaimanapun isu video lucah ini sedang dalam siasatan dan masih terlalu awal untuk membuat kesimpulan mengenainya.Diharap maklumat yang saya sampaikan ini berfaedah untuk membantu Tan Sri memberikan pendengaran yang adil kepada semua pihak terlibat.Apapun saya berharap Tan Sri tidak akan merelakan PDRM diperlakukan sesuka hati Peguam Negara seperti yang berlaku selama beberapa tahun sebelum Tan Sri.

Selamat sejahtera dan selamat maju jaya.

Yang ikhlas,

Mat Zain Ibrahim
28 March 2011

Monday, March 28, 2011

Bible desecration shows puerile insensitivity


by NH Chan
The Malaysian Insider
(loyarburok.com)
March 27, 2011

MARCH 27 — In the Sun on Monday, March 21, 2011 I read with dismay about how insensitive the Barisan Nasional government is of the religion of other people. It reads:

Stamping desecrates Bible, say Christian federation

By Karen Arukesamy

PETALING JAYA: As far as the Christian community is concerned, they will not accept the 35,100 Bahasa Malaysia Bibles after the government imposed new conditions for their release from Port Klang and Kuching port.

Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) chairman Bishop Ng Moon Hing said in a statement that the new requirement that the Malay language Bibles are stamped means they have been desecrated [meaning ‘to treat something sacred with violent disrespect’].

He said Christians could not accept the released Bibles which have now been stamped with a serial number, official seal and the words ‘… for the use of Christians only, by order of the Home Ministry’.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander is a well known proverb. So how would the minister feel if someone were to desecrate the Quran? The desecration of the Bible clearly shows that our government does not respect the religions of others in multi-racial Malaysia.

Are the rest of us — who are not born a Muslim because we are not Malays — second class citizens? It certainly looks that way to us who are the rest of the people of this nation.

This should be a warning to all of us that the Barisan Nasional government has been in power for much too long, so much so that they think they are not answerable to the people of this country. For sure this is definitely not a government for the people.

They have shown by their deed in desecrating the Bible that they are a government for themselves only. It is so because of self-interest and it is also blatantly clear that they do not respect the feelings of others who are not of their ilk.

In the next election, the people will know what to do. For the sake of the country, so that we do not sink further into the abyss of a dictatorship, we must all do our duty — indeed it is our patriotic duty — to vote the Barisan National out of office thus removing the people’s mandate from such selfish despots to govern this nation, and to replace them with a government for the people.

I am sure the opposition will gladly accede to the people’s request.

However, if the opposition can’t deliver, we will exercise the power of the people’s vote again at every election until there comes a time when we can all live in a truly democratic Malaysia.

We do not want totalitarianism being forced down our throat by a dictatorship because we are smart enough to know that any government, even a democratic one, would inexorably metamorphose into a dictatorship if allowed to overstay its hold on power.

I am not a Christian but I have read the Bible for my enlightenment. I also find it to be great literature. In order to allay some misconceptions about the Bible, I give below my insight on it which I hope may help those who are not Christians to understand and appreciate Christianity’s point of view.

Landmarks in the Law

Lord Denning in his book Landmarks in the Law, on page 313, tells us how the Old Testament in the King James Bible was translated into English:

The Old Testament was originally in Hebrew. It was translated into Greek. The Greek was translated into English by William Tyndale. It takes up three-quarters of the Authorised Version of the Bible.

I wonder why Denning said that. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of manuscripts in Hebrew and Aramaic found in caves near the Dead Sea (between 1946 and 1956) and believed to have been written between about 100 BC and 68 AD, provide biblical evidence that the scriptures the Old Testament and the New Testament were originally written in Hebrew.

I suppose Denning must have known that the New Testament were already translated by the Protestants who belong to the Churches of Western Christendom that are separated from the Roman Catholic Church and who adhere to principles established by Luther, Calvin, etc. in the Reformation. The British Protestants must have the English translation, albeit in Old English, of the New Testament.

At page 314, Lord Denning went on to say:

The New Testament is not accepted by the Jews. It is rejected by them. It has had even greater influence than the Old Testament. It contains the life and teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ who was a Jew and of all the 12 apostles who were Jews and the Letters of Paul who was a Jew.

The Authorised Version, an English translation of the Bible published in 1611 under James I who was king of England and Ireland (1603-25) in succession to Elizabeth I of England. He was also James VI, king of Scotland (1567-1625) in succession to his mother, Mary Queen of Scots.

This version is also called King James Version, King James Bible. This is the version commonly used by English speaking Christians. But there are other translations of the Bible in modern English and other languages as well.

The Authorised Version of King James is printed in old English which most Malaysians cannot understand. This explains why the Bahasa Malaysia Bible is popular because of the educational system of this country where most of our people can read and understand the National Language but not the English language especially when it is in the English of the time of James I in the seventeenth century.

But what really riles me is for the Home Minister to say that the Bible is “for the use of Christians only”. What business is it of him to fear for my conversion to Christianity?

In a democracy I should have the right to choose the faith I want to believe in or not at all — I have freedom of choice and I will not stand for any pipsqueak bully, for that is what a dictator really is, to tell me what faith to believe in. What business is it of him to tell me what Bible I can read or cannot read?

Reading is knowledge and it also gives me a great understanding of the religious beliefs of others. That is the trouble with the puerile mentality of the composite Barisan National party. They cannot even tell the difference between what is right and wrong; they even relish in their own wrongdoings as in the Perak takeover of a legitimately elected state government.

It is because of the BN that we even have an animal farm system of government — all animals are equal but the pigs under Napoleon the head pig are more equal than others.

But I am digressing. The Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had the gall to add insult to injury when he said:

The practice of stamping was standard protocol and not done to “deface” the Bibles. He said the need for serial numbers was to identify the specific Bibles which were held back.

After he mentioned that the act of stamping and serialisation was standard protocol, he said; see The Star, Wednesday March 23, 2011:

For example, Qurans imported into the country are also checked to ensure they are authorised, and are stamped with serial numbers before they are released.

And now (in the Star, March 23, 2011) they say:

The BM Bibles currently impounded in Kuching and Port Klang will be released with the words ‘For Christianity’ stamped clearly in Ariel font, size 16, in bold. No other words or serial numbers will be stamped on the Bibles.

Whether it is stamped “For the use of Christians only” or “For Christianity”, it is still desecration of a Holy Book. The dictionary meaning of a Christian is “a person who follows the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ” and Christianity means “the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”. Therefore, this is a false argument and the dictionary word for “a false argument” is sophism.

The home minister is not even a Christian and he wants to ensure that the Bibles we read are the authorised ones. Did he think he is King James I of England but does he know that James I was a bad king who alienated Parliament by his assertion of the divine right of kings? But Christians the world over have never had their Bibles censored by Big Brother. There are myriad translations of the Bible acceptable by Christian society.

Anyway, the word “authorise” means “to allow someone to do something with official sanction’. When James I came to the throne of England there was no English translation of the “Old Testament”. The Bible of the Church of Rome i.e. the Roman Catholic Church during the Roman Empire was in Latin.

The Pope spoke in Latin and the language of the Church then was Latin. Nowadays the Bible of the Catholic Church can be in any language, although at the Vatican, I think they still use Latin.

The desecration of the Bible is insensitivity of the highest order. It should be enough to bring down the Barisan Nasional government in the next General Election. He forgets that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

It is not that, I think, Christians would return the desecration of their Holy Book in kind. I know they would not do that. They would not demean themselves. Modern Christianity is a religion of love and forgiveness.

Not since the Crusades in the Middle Ages (between 1000 and 1450) have Christian nations waged holy wars. Not even Napoleon or Hitler who were described the Antichrist by Nostradamus nor those who fought against their evil or the warring factions in the First World War had ever called their conflict a holy war.

To cap it all, the Home Minister showed his true colours when he reveals the true reason for the desecration of the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia. He refers to:

… the use of “Allah” in non-Muslim publications …

Can anyone claim proprietorship to the use of the English word “Allah” where English is a foreign language in Malaysia?

I have said this before. The word “Allah” is an English word since the 16th century. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, Edited by C.T. Onions, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1979 reprint, says this:

Allah the deity among the Mohammedans. XVI – Arab. Allah, for al-ilah, i.e. al AL, ilah god = Aram. elah, Heb.eloah (Early forms in Eng. Writers are Alla, Allah, Ala, allough, Alha.)

“XVI” stands for “the sixteenth century”. So that this tells us that the etymology of the word “Allah” in English had been used in the English language since the sixteenth century. In Arabic it is “al-ilah” meaning “The God”. In Aramaic, it is “elah”. In Hebrew, it is “eloah”.

In the Collins English Dictionary for the word Allah, it gives the etymology of the Arabic word for God:

[C16: from Arabic, from al the + Ilah god; compare Hebrew eloah]

“C16” means “the sixteenth century”. The word “Allah” in the dictionary is from the Arabic al the + ilah god, so that in Arabic al ilah means “The god”. In Hebrew “God” is “eloah”.

If you do not already know, Arabic is the language of the Arabs who is one of a branch of the Semitic race. Aramaic pertains to the northern Semitic languages, the biblical name for ancient Syria. And Hebrew is a person belonging to the Semitic race descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Jewish is their language. Source: The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.

Also in the same Dictionary of English Etymology you will find:

Semite Hebrew, Arab, Assyrian or Aramaean, regarded as a descendent of Shem (Gen. X): see The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.

So that we now know that neither Arabs nor Jews would pronounce the word for their God as “Allah”. The Arabs would pronounce the name for their God as “al-ilah”. The Jews would pronounce the name for their God as “eloah”.

The word “Allah” is an English word (as seen in any English dictionary) and is a mispronunciation of both the Arabic and the Hebrew word for God. The pronunciation and spelling of this word “Allah” is distinctly English because it is a word accidentally invented by the British people because they have mispronounced a Semitic word.

Before Bahasa Malaya, now Malaysia, there was no national language. The Malay language is the language of the Malay race. They could have used the Arabic word for God with the correct Arabic pronunciation and make this a word in the National Language for the God of Islam. Instead they plagiarized the English Word “Allah” into the National Language.

Now they say we cannot use the English word “Allah” because the National Language has now claimed proprietorship of the English word “Allah” and, therefore, it is now the Nation’s word for the God of Islam which only Muslims can use.

But why must they insist that they must use an English word for the Islamic God when there is always available an Arabic word for the Islamic God as understood by all Muslims?

Give land back to squatters, says Kula

News source : thestaronline.com

IPOH: A piece of land at Gunung Cheroh here that was sold to a private developer by the state government should be allocated to the 27 squatter families who have been asked to vacate the area, Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran said.

He said the state government should help the affected families who had been living there for more than 50 years.

“The government can either compensate the developer or allocate another piece of land to the squatters.

“This can work out as a win-win situation for both parties,” he said in a statement.

Kulasegaran said the families had been issued four eviction notices by the developer and the matter had been brought to court.

On Wednesday, the families got a reprieve from being evicted after the High Court here fixed a new hearing date to allow the families to appoint a lawyer.

Kulasegaran said the lack of political will had resulted in over 15,000 squatters still occupying government and private land, adding that the majority of them lived within the Kinta Valley.

“In 1993, a total of 224 squatters were asked to move from Kampung Chekkedi with promises that houses would be given to them.

“It, however, did not materialise,” he said.

Kulasegaran also pointed out that the government had earlier announced that Perak would be squatter-free this year.

“The plan was subsequently deferred to 2012,” he said.