Posted on by Kit

Baradan – Comment is free but facts are sacred

Just phoned Baradan Kuppusamy whose “Analysis” in the Star today made the mischievous claim that I had defended hudud and qisas laws as they apply only for Muslims.

He has also dragged DAP National Organising Secretary and MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok into the picture, alleging that she had taken the same stand.

When I spoke to Baradan, he said he had not read the Star.

I asked Baradan when I had ever made such a claim. He said he read it in a report but he was unable to recall which report.

As a veteran journalist, Baradan should know the important maxim for ethical and responsible journalism – Comment is free but facts are sacred.

I will like to know what is the news report which Baradan is claiming as his source and authority as neither Teresa nor I had ever made the claim he had alleged.

Is Baradan prepared to do the most decent thing and get a correction published prominently and immediately in the Star?

124 Replies to “Baradan – Comment is free but facts are sacred”

  1. Dear All,

    Star has recently roped in two new pairs of able hand with the view of “re-branding” the tabloid and such comments from their journalists are of no surprise. As I have said before, in Malaysian politics, what is unreal can be real and vice-versa. However, the challenge is on the affected individual or party to counter the claim(s). Million of Malaysians are reading the newspaper but then again I really wonder how many of these million readers actually complete the reading of the entire article.

    A friend once told me that Malaysians on average read only 3 fullpages of a book yearly. True?

  3. That’s highly irresponsible of a veteran journalist, Baradan Kuppusamy! Shame on you, how low can you go Baradan!!!

    Either he takes full responsiblity of the “Analysis” or paste a full page “apology” to you YB Kit and YB Teresa Kok in all mainstream media. The Star afterall has lost all basic journalistic credibility!

  7. Non-Muslims have been always assured that they will not be subject to any Islamic laws like the hudud and the qisas. Assurances are just words which after a period of time will be put aside and by then it will be too late with 3 consequences.

    1) Non-Muslims converting to Islam by force.
    2) Non-Muslims paying a humiliating tax (jizzia).
    3) Non-Muslims be put to death.
    4) Non-Muslims be forced to go to “hell or the garden”. Thanks and no thanks.

    http://sjsandteam.wordpress.com/2008/11/23islam-is-the-true-religion-other-religions-are-false.

  8. YB Kit, demand a correction and an apology. These BN propagandists should know better than to do such shameless things. Otherwise, take the legal recourse! We are all just as fed-up with the entire BN machinery!

  9. Everybody knows that the Star has changed its management.
    Therefore the paper will report more anti opposition news and lies.
    We should boycott the Star paper and read more online information
    news.

  12. Lapdog journalists have no sense of resposiblity for whatever they write, as long as they can please their masters. OTK has continued harping on the same tune…is’nt this obvious the beggars are at work?
    MCA scumbags, let me remind you that DAP has better moral standing and integrity than all you BN parties put together.
    As for this journalist Baradan, verifies your facts. Take the challenge up to YB LKS if you think you were correct in your posting or, apologise like a man if you have distorted the facts.

  14. This Baradan Kuppusamy appears in everywhere. His articles can be found in Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider.

    One of his article that attracted me is titled In Chennai, a new party for Indians in Malaysia, where he also implicated DAP as a Chinese party. But from the readers comments, almost all don’t buy his ‘logic’. You all can read here,

    http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/15344-in-chennai-a-new-party-for-indians-in-malaysia

    A comment by Honest view gained the most popularity votes of 26 out of 31 comments. I reproduce here for all to read,

    Malaysian Indian should give full support to DAP
    written by Honest view, January 06, 2009
    My honest view on Malaysian Indian marginalization which gave birth to Hindraf should be tackled not on racial point of view, which in this case Indian.

    DAP, one of the oldest multiracial party in Malaysia, are being perceived as a Chinese party simply because its memberships are Chinese majority. No thank to MSM to this wrong perception. If DAP is a racist Chinese party, by right we can’t see MPs like P.Patto, V David, Karpal Singh, Kulasegaran, just to name a few, being nominated to contest and win in general elections. Just compare to BN, how many Indian MP that they have as compared to the whole of Pakatan Rakyat or just at DAP level.

    Setting up of another Indian party would not help in solving the Malaysian Indian dilemma. One thing for sure, Hindraf should not have the mentality of only Indian can help Indian. They must discard such mentality. If not, you guys are back to square like BN mentality.

    _____________

    All these responses proved to Baradan that Malaysians are not blind and stupid. Their eyes are clear and not being blurred by these smokescreens that he created all over. He in fact, has lost his creditability as far as I am concerned.

  15. Many people like us do not read Star anyway.

    One of the reasons is the poor standard and the low quality of reporting and editing by the paper, such as what is now happening with this kind of journalists of the like of Baradan Kuppusamy, hanging around in the pffice of the Star.

    Not to worry, we give no credence to what are being written or reported in the Star. We have our minds and our cross reference sources.

    In any case Star belongs to MCA. So, what more can the public expect from the standard and quality of reporting and editing by the Star other than those skewed in favour of the owner (controlling stakeholder) of the paper, MCA and be its propaganda machine?

  17. YB Kit,

    Although Baradan may apologised, the damage is already done.
    His twisting and spinning of facts is a mastery and art done under the veil of journalism which had been prostituted to an extent beyond repair.

    The piece was wriiten and calculated to appear at the time of the KT by-election to ” scare ” the Chinese voters and to vote for BN.
    Fat hopes as the voters are now more informed and could not be fooled by such scum reporting.

    Putting words in politicians mouth has now become an art among BN’s sponsored spin journalists.

    Just imagine what you write in the paper, you did not view it as yet ! Rubbish reply and the article is not even fit for the wastepaper basket.

    Others like MCA’s Roger Tan who were given space in the Star and NST to spin stories.

    However, their piece cannot fool all the people all the time.Thats why the readership for the Star and NST is not going up as expected.

  18. Baradan Kuppusamy (“BK”) is supposedly a veteran journalist.

    I believe the statement written by him in The Star “Analysis” that LKS takes exception is “they (meaning LKS & Theresa Kok) defend their association with PAS by arguing that hudud and qisas laws are only for Muslims, an argument also advanced by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim while campaigning in Kuala Terengganu”.

    BK is right about Anwar though, who is attributed to have said that the party (meaning PKR) will not reject outright PAS’s plan to implement the Hudud, as it was solely for Muslims, a point immediately contradicted publicly by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh who said Anwar was wrong on this score, and went on to reiterate Malaysian Constitution/law was secular as confirmed by 1988 Supreme Court case [Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988)] presided by Tun Salleh Abas.

    I don’t know about whether Teresa Kok did agree or not agree with what Anwar said but as far as I know, LKS is simply too veteran a politician to have followed Anwar’s mistake.

    As far as I know LKS’s response (on 22nd December 08) to PAS Husam Musa’s statement that PAS would implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat took over the Federal Government was that “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy and it is for Husam to clarify what he actually said” – which is a stretch from what BK attributed to LKS (jointly with Theresa) to have taken position of.

    There is a world of difference in what Anwar has said (which he has not denied) and what LKS has said, whi ch is different, and to that extent BK has committed a error of fact.

    Unless BK could cite the exact report by which LKS has made such a claim attributed to him by BK, it would be appropriate for BK to retract and apologise to LKS.

  20. “However, non-Malays bottled their fears and accepted PAS on March 8 after it dropped its Islamic state dreams for a welfare state. They also believed Anwar would be able to bottle up the worst aspects of PAS.”

    All this is good for the local bottling industry.

  27. YB Kit,

    You & the DAP have so far tried to navigate and walk the thin line between (1) collaborating with PAS in an electoral coalition PR to fight the BN and (2) reject, at the same time, PAS’s reiteration of their commitment to form the theocratic Islamic state in deviation from PR’s common manifesto or objectives.

    Yours and DAP’s intentions are good. The “good” intentions are to join force with PKR & PAS in a united electoral front, to fight the BN at KT by election to bring the much overdue sky change in Malaysian political landscape by dislodging the moribund BN.

    We know the arguments. An electoral coalition like PR – as distinct from a governing coalition – does not, at this stage, require ideologically compatible partners. The main imperative is to win the next election, which neither of the 3 of its alone or even in combination of 2 could otherwise achieve without the combined force of 3.

    You are also cheered on by all alienated Malaysians. The prevailing sentiments of many are that the BN has 50 years of proven depredations as compared to ‘yet to be proven’ ‘horrors’ of PAS’s theocratic state, which in any case is not so easily achievable in view of present demographic realities (over 40% Non Muslims) not to count an unknown number of moderate Muslims, Civil Society & NGOs, PKR & DAP and whatever other parties that have joined by then PR, when it wins, as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition. So weighing proven evils against unproven one, subject in any case to the above caveats, many would back the continued collaboration of DAP with PAS within PR, as a lesser unpalatable choice in light of the existing constraints of the absence of viable alternative.

    Even then it is clear that yours and DAP actions must not be seen as helping and strengthening PAS to facilitate or accelerate its realisation of its agenda through the platform of collaboration within PR.

    This is because your good intentions by themselves alone are not enough or translatable to permissibility of actions. What ultimately matters is the expected probable consequences of the actions that flow from such intentions, and the fact intentions are good make no difference if they result in “bad” consequences of PAS’s agenda being facilitated or accelerated. (Just like providing large quantities of sleeping pills to a neighbour to help in his insomnia when one also knows that he has neurotic and suicidal tendencies does not justify the good intention of helping him sleep, when he actually takes all to go into a permanent sleep!)

  28. Jong is right that “Anwar should stop playing with words”.

    Here your position, as elder statesman of DAP is challenged as to why you continue electoral collaboration with PAS, helping its candidate to win KT by election, when even Anwar has made clear that the party (meaning PKR) will not reject outright PAS’s plan to implement the Hudud, as it was solely for Muslims.

    Yes Anwar was refering to PKR’s position – and not PR’s position but in a coalition consisting of only 3, 2 (PAS with PKR’s acquiescence) is majority and tantamount to the same thing that PR is ok (by majority) to ac quiescence if not endorsement of PAS’s objectives.

    Does that not imply your statement “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy” is now contradicted albeit indirectly by Anwar’s statement (uncontradicted by you) and has no basis to stand within the PR political firmament?

    Does this not mean that you & the DAP are ineffective to stop the establishment of PAS’s theocratic Islamic state when PR is provided the opportunity to make the transition from an electoral coalition to a governing coalition if PR wins the next election with DAP’s help?

    Does that not mean that you and DAP have, in spite of good intentions, facilitated or accelerated an undesirable result of helping PAS’s realisation of its agenda sooner than it otherwise could have done on its own?

    There may be good pragmatic reasons why you have not contradicted Anwar, like the way Karpal did but this is one of the thrusts of Baradan Kuppusamy’s accusations going far beyond and arguably of greater importance than his commission of error of fact of what you allegedly said (with Theresa).

    Whilst he was wrong about what you said, he wasn’t, regarding what you did not say.

    This will remain fodder for critics like Baradan Kuppusamy to continuously question and point contradictions of yours and the DAP’s moral position in continuing in this ideologically mismatched coalition for so long as DAP still maintains its stand for Secular Malaysia against PAS’s Islamic state.

  29. Jeffrey did you see Anwar in the BBC videos I referred to in another recent thread? He looks as though he could use a bit more practice at fielding questions from criticial journalists.

    In the video he says he won’t compromise on freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, and that includes the right to demand an Islamic state. He gets his message out in the end, I think. If I understand him correctly, he’s saying nothing that need upset DAP nor PAS.

  32. I guess with the change in management in STAR, the professionals there will have to sell their souls to continue working there. The rice bowl will have to take precedence of one’s professionalism.

    Sad time indeed.

  33. “He said he read it in a report but he was unable to recall which report.”

    And you call that veteran? That’s degrading the term “veteran”. The standard of journalism in Malaysia is indeed atrocious, or is it just the Star? And I wonder whether Baradan will be able to recall if he had wrongfully reported on UMNO leaders and standing in front of the police. (Well, in Malaysia, the ruling party and government is one and the same as far as the Malaysian police is concerned.)

  38. Godfather Says:

    Today at 23: 00.32 (42 minutes ago)
    Some people will just shamelessly continue to push for a divorce when both parties have agreed to reconcile.”

    If a partner is unwilling or/and unable to consummate the marriage, or have irreconcilable differences divorce would end the pain and suffering. Jeffrey QC feels the pain.

  39. Kit and ms Kok just make pr announcement like Karpal outright rejection under the constitution . According to the report from KT Hadi did said that Kit fully understood the Huddud law now.
    Makaal Sakthi..

  40. Who is the lawyer to dictate as to what the two mature parties should do ? I mean the advice has been given ad nauseam, and the advice has been rejected, and the two parties are still seen in public together. Yet the lawyer is still sniping at their heels.

    Kit should just say “beat it, dog” and try to kick it away. Now that could make the dog feel the pain.

  47. imranj78 Says:

    Today at 00: 32.05 (16 minutes ago)
    Baradan should clearly back up its claim to support his report and his credibility. Failing so, the least he could do is retract his statement.

    You gotta be kidding. According to our world-renowned lawyer, Baradan was right in what Kit did NOT say. Hence the question of retracting his statement does not arise.

  50. Anwar is in a dilemma.

    To lead the Pakatan Rakyat to political victory, he perceives he can’t afford to alienate any segment of the Muslim community including the conservative segment in sympathy with PAS’s ideology. And yet he needs to secure support of alienated non muslim Malaysians as well as moderate muslims against PAS’s hardline approach. So he tries to hone his stand – for he surely knows he will be pressed for it – by the press and BN’s political rivals. He aims at striking a delicate balance – to satisfy and allay concerns of all opposing sides on the Hudud/Islamic state issue, a slight misstep in nuance of which would alienate both sides and satisify no one!

    So he came out with this brain wave : there was no blanket answer on hudud ; he would not emulate what TDM did, ie oppose and reject hudud law out right. If Muslims wanted it, he asked why not. He went on further to say that opposition parties understood Islam and that its legislative aspects should NOT just be confined to Syariah family or civil law. Of course he did not say that if he led the PR government, he would definitely accept Hudud implementation. He added the caveat that PKR was not willing to commit itself until all parameters of the implementation of hudud were clearly defined and deliberated with its Pakatan Rakyat partners (including presumably DAP).

    The salient points are that in saying that its legislative aspects should not just be confined to Syariah family or civil law, he was opening the door ajar for a passage way for demands of PAS to slip through including Hudud, justified on basis that if Muslim wanted it, why not. He also admitted that this divisive issue of Hudud issue had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition.

    This places the DAP in a very difficult position because when it came together with PKR and PAS to form the electoral coalition PR, it was on basis of common agreed principles to oppose bad governance on BN’s part and not pave the way for Hudud/Islamic state. In admitting that this divisive issue of Hudud issue had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition, it means that it is not part of the common understanding forming the common electoral pact. This further means that one can construe what he says as constituting a paradigm shift of at least his and PKR’ s position.

    His caveat that all within PR would be consulted will not assuage Non Muslims and moderate M uslims’ concerns because PR is made up of 3 partners, and such a paradigm shift by 2 out of 3 will put Kit and DAP in a tight corner and mocks at the validity of DAP’s claim ie that “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy”. How is that tenable any more? [Which in part explains why DAP Karpal Singh broke his silence and said Anwar was wrong, citing 1988 Supreme Court case of Che Omar].

    Anwar may need to do what he thinks he needs to do to defeat BN based on pragmatic realpolitik but whether what he does/says is really “pragmatic” to help PR’ s cause is open to question.

    Although many people want change from BN’s 50 years hegemony, they are not unconcerned as to what or where this change is leading to. They want to know that they can trust a leader who is not a chameleon speaking situationally different tones/nuances to different audiences depending on race, religion and culture based on pragmatic considerations of how to garner maximum votes regardless of principles.

    In trying to hone his message to please all sides of the Hudud debate, he may end up pleasing no one, and certainly embarrasing his coalition partner DAP in a quandary as to how to maintain the claim “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy”. His ambivalence will infect like a virus the DAP’s leaders who, except for outspoken Karpal, are disinclined to openly contradict the defacto head and show schisms in the coalition. However this will not shield them from being continuously made fodder by the likes of people like MCA OKT who contradicted what Kit said and Baradan Kuppusamy, for what Kit did not say….

    It is difficult to see how by such of Anwar’s actions/words, that basi cally undermies the DAP’s position, he is being “pragmatic” in service of the PR’s cause. It is likely to backfire and alienate the DAP from its traditional supporters in disservice to the P R’s Cause.

    This is the point I want to make in my earlier postings, lest they are being misunderstood.

  51. Sorry “undermines” not “undermies” . In saying that PKR is not, in principle, opposed to Hudud as applied to Muslims (for now) if they want it, and in admitting that this divisive issue of Hudud had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition, Anwar is admitting to a paradigm shift in position tilting towards PAS (since its candidate is cotesting KT by election) that was never agreed in the common manifesto/understanding of PR forged in early 2008 with the DAP to contest the last election.

    If Anwar does so now – as he is apparently doing – it constitutes changing horses in midstream based on expedience than what is right in principle.

    It goes to the root of credibility. People will wonder whether it serves any good to replace an unprincipled coalition with another equally unprincipled one.

  52. This is ridiculous. How could PAS on its own implement anything? What does it mean when they talk about implementing the Islamic Criminal Code – to the Muslims and to non-Muslims? Are they going to cut little bits of your anatomy off? If not what then?

    Talk of anything that smacks of Islamic rule and Islamic law or the possibility of Islamic law displacing civil law based on the English common law is anathema to this old ‘lion of the opposition’ – a title which he earned for himself over the years. The fact that it is enough to set off Karpal Singh into an intellectual frenzy should not come as a surprise. PAS leaders over the years have so insulted the ‘lion of the opposition’ that what is surprising today is not seeing this wounded lion at the throat of these politicians. To Karpal Singh there can be no compromise – and he is right. How could there ever be a compromise over what is an ideological issue.

    Karpal is like the old soldier in the old American barrack ballad made famous by General MacArthur i.e. “Old soldiers don’t die, they just fade away. Maybe he should just fade away now so as to give PR a shot at what could turn out to be a viable alternative to the national coalition now in tatters.

  53. “If Anwar does so now – as he is apparently doing – it constitutes changing horses in midstream based on expedience than what is right in principle.” Jeffery

    Anwar has been riding horses with Mahathir. Let him ride this one out.

  54. Someone who criticises PR or some of its component parties on the issue of Islamic state may do so on ideological considerations. But it does not follow that he does so MERELY on ideological considerations.

    Someone has been arguing that BOTH ideological and pragmatic issues are at stake. Someone who keeps harping that the critics of PR would gain a different perspective if they took into pragmatism into considerations has to re-examine his repeated assertion or assumption that pragmatism favours DAP’s staying on in PR in its current form. He has to argue that it is more pragmatically favourable to do this than to form PD.

    The question of the pragmatic viability of PR becomes especially acute in Jeffrey’s description of the current turn of event, where Anwar was talking about a Hudud law for Muslims, and in the light of PR’s commitment to ‘equal partnership’ and all such a partnership entails when 2 out of 3 go for something.

  56. Fundamental ideological incompatibility may not be a problem for an ‘election coalition’ aiming just to win a few more seats. It is a serious problem for an election coalition that is currently governing several states and is aming to replace the federal government.

    How is such a coalition going to rule effectively?

    (By the way, this is a pragmatic question, and one that voters will ask when they assess the aspiration of a coalition to replace the federal government)

  57. Oh, oh, here comes the president of PD. Mr President, can you please give us a lesson in probability theory and utility values ? There are new readers here, so I am sure they would like a refresher course.

  58. “By the way, this is a pragmatic question, and one that voters will ask when they assess the aspiration of a coalition to replace the federal government.”

    Prof Lee, how do you know that ? Have you voted before ? Have you gone to the trenches to talk to voters ?

  59. He who claims he is the master of logical thinking (and others do not even understand the word ‘logical’) may understand the dictionary meaning of the word ‘pragmatism’ but that does not mean he understands the politics of pragmatism. How could he when he is a young upstart from a university whose only real experience in life so far has been to put ink to paper??

  63. Let’s look at some facts and not the at some ‘possibility’.

    – PAS only holds 23 parliament seats.
    – Many of PKR seats held non-muslims.
    – DAP with 28 seats is opposed to hudud.
    – PR does not even have control of the government let alone the 2/3rd’s majority needed to implement hudud laws at the federal level.

    We can argue left, right and centre about hudud law but in the end, it is a rhetorical argument as it is still clearly too early for hudud law to be able to be successfully passed.

    UMNO however is now in control of the government. They call the chinese ‘pendatang’s’ who do not deserve equal rights. UMNO is trying to stop PR state governments from giving free hold land titles to chinese. Meanwhile, millions of the country’s money is still disappearing into the hands of various UMNO cronies (Example: RM500 million a year for the NS programme)

    Therefore, the intelligent and pragmatic thing to do currently is: Vote for PAS!
    Reasons:
    – Hudud cannot be implemented even with this one seat.
    – A victory for PAS, will continue to exert pressure on BN to reform.
    – If BN wins, be rest assured that BN will feel that, the reforms called for by people during Mar 8 is no longer required as they have ‘won back’ the people’s support.
    – If BN wins they will consider Mar 8 as merely an anomaly and revert back to their usual racial politics of waving around hudud issue to scare chinese voters into line.

    Don’t be stupid. Don’t let the rhetorical arguments on the implementation of Hudud scare you. Vote PAS!

    If you don’t want Hudud law, you have the next election still to vote against PAS. That’s why we have regular elections.

  64. to Anwar or any PKR’s Hudud-is-irrelevant-to-non-muslim leaders, non-muslim, or at least me doesn’t endorse hudud law because it is unconstitutional, it is “inhuman”, it clashes totally with the human rights, and I’m not interested to see news report saying how Malaysian Muslims are killed by stones…

    and it is for that reason I don’t support hudud laws… not because I’m fear of being killed in hudud way…

  65. “How is such a coalition going to rule effectively?”
    How does the current one not? It appears to be perfectly ideologically matched: a coalition of in-breeding parties united by unrestrained self-enrichment. If ‘ideological match’ was what determined good government, why aren’t the people of the world demanding their governments be more like Malaysia’s?

    Lee Wang Yen describes the scene where DAP assists PAS into government, PAS demand a Hudud Bill, PKR chameleonically say “yes” (pretending they had never heard the phrases ‘freedom of expression’, ‘freedom of conscience’, ‘secular country’) and DAP get to pull sour faces while the Bill is read. The BN Opposition, seeing a chance to add chilli sauce to the egg on LKS’ face, vote for the Bill. It could happen. It’s what drives Lee Wang Yen to strap his best arguments to his body and seek martyrdom at LKS’ feet.

    So what if it did? Malaysia has made significant strides toward Arabisation, or whatever you’d like to call it, under BN. Would the pace be faster or slower under PAS and fooled-into-subservience parties? Would it be a jolly, progressive, egalitarian Malaysian-style Islam? Or the kind we’re getting now, where the poor are political pawns in a game in which the egregiously rich admire Saudi Arabian princes flying in their personal jets and remind all Malaysians to ‘follow the teachings of the profit’? Lee Wang Yen thinks he lives in a secular country now, where the rule of law prevails, women are treated as equals, speech is free, the poor are protected from exploitation and all citizens have the same access to public service. Wake up – you’re fantasising about the wrong bogeyman!

    The real threat to Malaysia is not from one optimistic ideology over another, it’s from people taking advantage of the argument to increase their haul of Malaysia’s booty while voters are distracted by the noise. I’m sure if there’s an example of a ‘jolly, progressive, egalitarian Islam’ somewhere in the world, Lee Wang Yen is better read on the topic than I and would be able to dispel my own doubts that such a thing could happen in Malaysia. But they’re only doubts. Who knows what Malaysian Muslims could achieve if they were not harnessed to the yoke of vote-extorting nationalism? I am in no doubt that Malaysia must have change. While there’s an opportunity to vote in Malaysia, Malaysians must use their votes to remove under-performing governments, over and over again, until they get one that even an independent media could be proud of.

  66. Every journalist worth his salt will know Kit’s stand on Hudud and Islamic State. For Baradan to say that he had ‘not read the Star’ is an irresponsible answer. He should have come clean and say that he did or did not write those words.
    To say that “he read it in a report but he was unable to recall which report” is being evasive and dishonest.
    As a political commentator Baradan should know what each political leader stand is on major issues.
    Perhaps he should learn from Seah Chiang Nee. This man puts facts before emotions or political masters and newspaper owners wishes.
    Even though The Star will not be able to make a dent on Kit’s reputation, an apology is in order.

  67. Yes, we are all talking about postulates and we can never be sure what sort of policy directions PR will pursue when it comes into power. But as citizens we need to know the policy thrust of political parties seeking political power.

    It is not right to say that BN is all governed by greed and corruption and hence the party is ineffective in governing this country. BN policy thrust is racism and mediocrity. This is the mother of all the inefficiency and problems besetting this country today.

    What is PR’s policy thrust? Would it be based on open liberalism and equal opportunity, or will it be based “holier than thou” bigotry. Please don’t say we don’t know because we have not experienced it. That is not pragmatism. If in everything we have to wait for experience, then there is not use of education and history. Gandhi once said business without ethics and politics without principles are two of the seven sins. Does PR has principle? If it has, may I know what is it?

  69. Can a coalition be said to have a principle? Aren’t coalitions devices of convenience? I suppose if they were, PR’s principle would be the same as any other political coalition: ‘win the majority of votes’. If PR had a single principle, what would be the point of having separate parties? If BN has a single principle, then the point of the separate parties could be that they appeal to in-breeding voters, I suppose…

    Am I missing something?

  70. Am I missing something? OrangRojak

    I don’t know whether you have missed anything. What I am trying to say is that does PR has a policy thrust. Each party may have its own aspiration. But when they come together, each must sacrifice something in exchange for wider acceptability and hopefully more inclusivity.

    For Malaysia, the policy thrust of any coalition must strike to be acceptable to most Malaysians (including the minorities). We are against BN because its thrust is racism. What is the policy thrust of PR? We can all disagree but right now I think religious bigotry is being pursued. As I said earlier, I don’t have to “experience it” to know it is happening or not happening.

  71. “Anwar has been riding horses with Mahathir. Let him ride this one out.” Undergrad2.

    Anyway I remember reading in Times, Anwar was riding with Mahathir when Mahathir said half in jest that if he were to ride too fast and far ahead of his boss, he would fall.

    Anwar did fall from horse in 1993, injuring himself. In 1998 Anwar fell from grace after he was sacked from all government positions, arrested and went on trial … [In one of those days in court, he was wearing a neck brace / cervial spondylosis of the neck which many attributed to his falling after his horse riding accident in 1993.]

    So in another way he couldn’t afford to ‘fall’ again this time around from the PR’s horse. Don’t forget there is a pending sodomy case still against him from Saiful’s controversial report – which requires him to lead PR to victory, sure footed and fast.

    However even Anwar’s latest statement has generated controversy which the so – called ‘lion of the opposition’ (Karpal Singh).

    This is link to today’s report by Mainstream Media (MSM ) NST (quoting Bernama) on the matter (which we have to exercise some skepticism when we read the reportage for obvious reasons) – http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/2449620/Article/index_html

    Of interest is this quote/passage attributed to Anwar :-

    “In Kuching, Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said non-Muslims need not be unduly worried about the hudud laws being propagated by Pas.

    “I have discussed with Pas leaders who gave the assurance that hudud laws would only be applicable to Muslims,” he said at a gathering organised by “Friends of PKR” here on Friday.

    “Therefore, there is nothing for (DAP chairman) Karpal Singh to be worried.”

    “If the Muslims want to have their own Islamic laws, there is no need for the Christians to be unhappy.

    “The same goes for the Muslims, they should not get angry if the Christians want to do things their way,” said Anwar, who is also the Sarawak PKR liasion chief”.

    YB, is there a misquote/twisting by MSM of what Anwar said?

    If not, I wonder at him. He misses the whole point. Civil society/DAP/PKR (until Anwar’s latest statement) and, even those in BN opposing Hudud, do so on the basis that it ought not to be implemented in respect of both Muslims and non Muslims alike. Nobody but him says selective application of Hudud is OK or feasible.

    If one were to follow Anwar’s statements :

    · “If the Muslims want to have their own Islamic laws, there is no need for the Christians to be unhappy;
    · “The same goes for the Muslims, they should not get angry if the Christians want; to do things their way,”

    we will have in Malaysia two criminal law systems, Muslims based on Hudud, and existing Penal Code for non muslims…..This is ridiculous.

    Is it practicable for example, that a muslim thief gets his hands chopped off, a non muslim, let off with a month jail; or two married persons committing adultery together, where the Muslim adulteress has her pretty head decapitated and non Muslim adulterer let off because its not an offence under Penal Code? What about where the two streams overlap as when a Muslim man is alleged to have raped a non-muslim woman, will the former be let off (even i f the rape victim has his DNA) because in his case there are no 4 male witnesses of the rape?

    Is Anwar for real, can we take him seriously, talking like that? You tell me!

    If he is not careful, he will fall from the Pakatan Rakyat this time around, with DAP, the collateral damage.

  72. All Beware !

    These are the paid spinmasters by MCA and BN :

    Undergrad2
    Jefferey
    Jong
    ChenHo
    Lee Wang Yen
    and others to be named later

    They are now taking over the space of YB Kit’s blog to spin the BN’s and discredit PR’s leaders.

    Very subtle and under very thin veil.

  73. You see, most political parties in Malaysia (both BN and PR) are always trying to anticipate what the people want. Most parties must have assumed that the people in general are racists and/or religious bigots. That is why there is this endless appeal to racism and religious bigotry. There is not one single party who are honest and man enough to come up with policies that are inclusive for the long term good of the country. Instead, each will continue to adhere to the well-trodden path of racism, parochialism and bigotry, thinking that these are the best winning formulae.

    Can we Malaysians not just kick out all racist parties but also political parties who talk about religions and religious laws endlessly?

  74. Just to make it clearer

    DAP’s Malaysians Malaysia or Malaysians First is inclusive because this is the very essence of nationhood. Anybody challenging it must base on one of these: racism, parochialism or extremism.

    PAS’ hudud (in whatever ways you choose to implement it) is exclusive because non Muslims would not want to live in it, and many Muslims may not want it too. Challenging hudud is not being racist or against nationhood.

  76. “Can we Malaysians not just kick out all racist parties but also political parties who talk about religions and religious laws endlessly?”

    In a democracy, everyone has a choice. If all political parties are racist, and you are against all of them, you don’t have to vote for anybody. However, when a party is selected to be in power, then you have to live with it, or ship out of Kg Attap.

  77. limkamput – I have yet to have a conversation with a Malaysian where race or religion wasn’t brought up. It may not even be because people are interested in those topics, but your country is now organised along very well demarcated racial and religious lines. To suggest that nobody should ever talk about the topics again is to fall into the ‘secular’ trap: people will assume you want to take their race and religion away from them. In the recent BBC video, Anwar is saying “everyone can talk”, but “freedom of conscience” means some are not going to get what they want.

    Jeffrey, what is the current status of race/religious courts in Malaysia? I know the UK has at least one Jewish court, but they’re subject to UK law, and only operate when all parties volunteer to be subject to them. Is it different in Malaysia? The ISA complicates matters enough – it’s ridiculous to have more than one law competing for the same circumstance. As long as federal courts and constitutional law remained superior, I don’t see why devout Muslims should not practice Hudud on a voluntary basis.

    All that would be needed is a ruling to permit devout Muslims to license the Hudud courts to maim or kill them if they are convicted of a crime. To avoid the problem of convicts ‘opting out’ at the last minute, or convicts being wrongly accused of opting in, their hudud status could be recorded on their MyKads and held in a public register. Those registered could pay a small annual fee to cover the costs of overseeing the application of hudud in Malaysia and the costs of surgery performed on convicts. It would do Malaysia no international favours if the nation were seen to be condoning cruelty, so amputations performed in a public place might have to be prohibited.

    Hudud law would only be applied when all involved (perpetrator, victim, courts) agreed to it. This would cover your suggestion of the rape victim (she might choose a federal court), but also the victim of theft that wishes no life-long penalty to be exacted on the culprit.

    This would be in line with the principle of “freedom of conscience” and also give those Muslims who claim to be prohibited from practising their religion the facility to do so. My imagination tells me that a person who feels they are as Muslim as anybody else may not wish to take part in some aspects of Hudud, so for the sake of “freedom of conscience”, it would have to be a register separate from the current race / religion assignments.

    Having parallel systems would only make the current divides greater.

  78. Godfather, you just said, in a democracy everyone has a choice. Right now is my choice is to speak up and at the same time I want to continue staying in Kampung Attap. Do you have the problem with that. If political parties practising racism or resorting to endless religiosity can’t stand my view, they should ship out because these are the people who have done more harm than me (I sincerely believe so).

    Look at the fundamentals, not the periphery. Achilles heel of BN is racist supremacist. The Waterloo of PR is PAS religious bigotry, trust me. Both will eventually give rise to the same inept and incompetent government that we suffered the last 50 years.

  79. In a democracy, everyone has a choice.
    One choice every 5 years might be confusingly similar to ‘no choice’ for a lot of people. In a liberal democracy, everyone has a voice. In between making choices, they can make a noise like angry babies. I think it helps release a lot of frustration.

    There’s a comment of mine in moderation that Godfather might construe as ‘harping on about the dangers’, but I hope you can see the liberal view in it. Those practices you call ‘excessive’ are not viewed the same way by their practitioners. I wonder what you mean by ‘outdated’ – if you mean anachronistic, I’m right there with you. If you mean there’s more modern punishments in Hudud, I expect you will upgrade my ignorance sometime soon. I’m not convinced I have any superior right to stop Muslims practising Hudud, so long as all individuals involved have given a very strictly and constitutionally defined consent. That’s the subject of my comment.

  81. “If political parties practising racism or resorting to endless religiosity can’t stand my view, they should ship out because these are the people who have done more harm than me (I sincerely believe so)” Limkamput

    If the political parties are democratically elected, why should they ship out because of one person ? In a one-man-one-vote system, you have to live with whoever is elected by the majority, however distasteful to you that might be. If you can’t stand the majority, thinking that you are the only sane person around, then you have to ship out of Kg Attap. Then you can say that the rest are living in a mental asylum.

  82. godfather, it was not me who said you are not capable of engaging in meaningful dialogue. Anyway, if i do not further debate with you for the next few days it is because i have to earn a living.

  83. I am expressing my view here, godfather. whether or not i am minority or majority is yet to be seen. Which political party is democratically elected by the majority of this country, you caveman?

  84. Sigh!!! Why are we analyzing non existent laws and regulations?

    People, why are you wasting your energies coming out with wonderful ‘what if’ theories and various analysis of how terrible it would be if Hudud law was implemented?

    Look in the short term, it still makes the most sense to vote PAS. After all your choices are racist bigots in power and religious bigots who are NOT in power. By voting PAS, you are exerting pressure on those racist bigots. PAS has got nothing to lose. Voting against PAS is not going to make a difference. They have lost nothing. But the impact to BN would be far more serious.

    Who know’s, another ‘what if’ scenario is BN is forced finally to give up it’s racist policies whereby at that time we can then give the middle finger to the religious bigots.

    And for those arguing for DAP to leave PAS, why urge confrontation now before even attempting negotiations? PR needs to work this Hudud issue before the next elections. If DAP/PKR/PAS fails to work this out before the next elections then you can punish them.

    But KT by election is not the time for it as you will only be rewarding UMNO. It would signal that we are happy to overlook issues such as the ‘pendatang’ statements and liberal use of ISA as long as Hudud is waved in front of our eyes.

  85. OrangRojak asks, what is the current status of race/religious courts in Malaysia? today, 16: 34.00 (1 hour ago) and why hudud cannot apply to willing muslims, acording to freedom of choice/conscience, while others submit to common law simultaneously.

    In Malaysia family law & succession laws of Muslims are based on Sharia/Islamic law as provided by constitution. “One standard” is easier to apply here because non muslims are required to convert when they marry a muslims, hence when Islamic family law & succession laws are applied, they are considered applied to muslims, including converts deemed to have embraced it.

    As for the rest, civil laws pertaining to contracts, civil wrongs etc as well as criminal laws under the Penal Code, they are based on common law applicable to all communities.

    The prevailing wisdom is that criminal laws (especially) and administration of criminal justice have to be structured around one system (either common law exclusively or hudud exclusively for all) in a society. By “ administration of criminal justice” I mean the concept of c rime, prevention of crime, adjudication by courts of when it is committed, and after commission and adjudication of it, the appropriate punishment of it.

    Your question why both systems cannot co-exist simultaneously within one society is a difficult as well as interesting one. (I have not really thought about it until now)

    My best guess as to why administration of criminal justice should be based on one common standard and not two or more is based on the following thoughts :

    1. unlike Islamic family law & succession laws as are applied to all muslims, the crime phenomenon, as it occurs in a society, is an interaction between all kinds of people (offenders and victims) in one geographical area within multi-racial/religious/cultural society. (Two systems one country in Hong Kong is facilitated by geographical demarcation and separate cultural developments of Hong Kongers from their counterparts of same race in People Republic of China). Here imagine an offender is subject to one set of ru les, and the victim aniother set). We can’t have a non muslim offender doing something he considers not wicked or serious whilst the muslim victim thinks it is or vice versa; we can ‘t have a rape victim thinking that a heinous crime has been committed to her person, for which she has proof of the offenders semen/DNA whilst the muslim offender thinks that he could exculpate himself because under the other system to which he is subject, the absence of 4 reliable male witnesses would exonerate him o r that his offence may be recompensed by an apropriate sum of money. That is concerning offender/victim : what about the judge who is supposed to administer justice? He will be confused as to how to balance justice to victim and offender when they are respectively subject to different laws/norms.

    2. Because administration of criminal justice involves punishment, a taking away of a person’s civil liberties due to his misapplication of his freedoms, it evokes strong emotions on the part of both offender/victim as well as t he community at large by extension. Therefore the apportionment of guilt /blame, feeling that the punishment is deserved must be unequivocal, clear and not contentious, tearing at the very fragile fabric of various races, religions, cultures subsisting within a society. The conventional wisdom is that administration of criminal justice is best proceeded upo n without confusion based on a bedrock of shared norms and one standard as to what innocence, guilt and appropriate punishment should be.

    The Caveat : please take what I say as mere thoughts as they occur to me off the cuff – without benefit of further study/contemplation which your provocative question probably deserves more.

  86. “I am expressing my view here, godfather. whether or not i am minority or majority is yet to be seen.” Limkamput

    This is an oxymoron since you say that you are right, and everyone else is wrong – so you can’t possibly be in the majority. There is only one Mr Know It All.

  87. “Hudud law would only be applied when all involved (perpetrator, victim, courts) agreed to it. This would cover your suggestion of the rape victim (she might choose a federal court)” – OrangRojak

    It wouldn’t work that way. When a crime is being committed, offender will want the law (between the two) that gives him best chance to escape scot free or with minimum punishment, whilst the victim will want the opposite. The judge/ court is supposed to mete justice balancing between offender’s and victim’s rights, which under a dual system, each is entitled to request for that most favourable to him/her.

    So how could there be, in practical terms, an agreement, when a commission of crime comes to light, in which perpetrator, victim, courts could agree on ? I don’t think so.
    ri

  88. “All Beware !These are the paid spinmasters by MCA and BN …” -FY Lim Today at 16: 01.46 (3 hours ago)

    I am not surprised at the simplicity with which you equated all those who questioned Anwar or Kit’s stand in this thread “as paid spinmasters by MCA and BN” by which standard you would surely also have to include the National Chairman of DAP, Saudara Karpal Singh who contradicted Anwar on the Hudud issue….

    What really surprises me is that even by the simplicity of your yardstick of who is a paid spinmaster by MCA and BN, you have included Undergrad2… :)

  89. Sorry Jeffrey, I haven’t been clear, obviously. I was imagining one law for everybody: constitutional law. If Muslims wanted hudud courts, they could have them if all parties to a case agreed. I think you’d have to have supervision from the federal courts both before and after cases – so that an appeal could be made to the federal court if any party thought justice was not being served by the Hudud court.

    Before a case went to Hudud court, every interested party would have to agree to submit to its ruling (because of the beyond-Constitutional sentences for some crimes). After sentence, there would be an opportunity for appeal to a federal court, but not on the grounds that the sentence commonly imposed for a particular standard of crime was too harsh – that would be known in advance by those involved. If the appeal was on the grounds of insufficient evidence, or miscarriage of justice, then that would be reasonable. So too, would an appeal by those offended against on the basis that a person had escaped justice or been offered an easy sentence. The idea is to permit Malaysian Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud law the opportunity to do so, without diminishing the role of federal courts.

    It’s admittedly a voluntary scheme, but without a complete replacement of Malaysia’s law, I can”t imagine another scheme working. I wonder if it would appease those who wish to submit to Hudud as a matter of adherence to faith.

  91. ‘Off the cuff’ to me means in relation to what I think or say, something thought or said out by me imprompu with little or no advance preparation, study, research or forethought on my part on the issue raised rather than the other side’s suggestion is not welcome.

  92. We agree on ‘off the cuff’ – I’m just saying I’ve got no investment in the idea. If it’s interesting enough to respond to, it’s a bonus. I’m glad you gave the idea a few moments’ attention. If somebody’s annoyed that it’s not entirely on-topic, I don’t mind waiting for a more relevant thread. I feel as though I’ve made too many posts recently, for the amount of traffic there has been on this blog. I was half expecting someone to point that out.

  93. OrangRojak,

    In response to two of your statements in your latest posting – assuming there are in existence two systems of criminal law side by side, ie Hudud and secular based on common law –

    1. “The idea is to permit Malaysian Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud law the opportunity to do so” – problem is, in multi racial/religious society, it is just as likely to happen in any crime situation for the offender and the victim to be of different race/religion. So what happens if the offender wants to submit to Hudud law and the victim to secular common law? Whose wish should prevail, it being impossible to apply Hudud to the offender and secular law to the victim at the same time for the same crime?

    2. However even assuming both offender and victim are Muslims – your statement “Before a case went to Hudud court, every interested party would have to agree to submit to its ruling (because of the beyond-Constitutional sentences for some crimes). The idea is to permit Malaysian Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud law the opportunity to do so, without diminishing the role of federal courts”.

    The question here is : would there be a case where both Muslims would submit to Hudud law (given the opportunity) in the first place?

    For people to submit voluntarily to same standard each must believe the same standard or law (and not another set of standard/law) will give him or her equal opportunity/access to the justice he believes he deserves or is entitled.

    When a society has a system like Hudud, so different from common law on crimes, existing side by side, it is bound to happen that offender will want one system favouring him whilst the victim will prefer the other, against. (The interests of offender/victim are conflicting, so there is serious doubt whether in practical terms there will be sufficient reciprocal community of interest for both Muslim to agree to submit to a common standard of law of Hudud, where Hudud will favour one side, and secular law the other).

  95. According to The MalaysiaInsider just published report 11th Jan: –

    · DAP national chairman Karpal Singh said that DAP “was prepared to cooperate with PAS and Pakatan Rakyat on condition that both PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) do not insist on the introduction of hudud laws.”

    · “Yesterday, PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said if the Muslims wanted to have their own Islamic laws, there was no need for the Christians to be unhappy while PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said hudud laws would be for Muslims while non-Muslims could opt to be tried by the hudud or civil law.”

    · Karpal said: “This argument is illogical. What would happen if there are two co-accused, a Muslim and a non-Muslim with the Muslim opting for hudud law and the non-Muslim for civil law? How would the courts get out of this dilemma?”
    [This is third argument given by Karpal as to why we cannot have a dual criminal system besides the other two I gave to OrangRojak]

    · “The call by both PAS and PKR to have hudud laws applicable to Muslims with an option given to non-Muslims to choose between hudud law and civil law would, and must, mean the introduction of an Islamic state which would mean destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.

    YB Kit,

    You are aware that article 121A of our Federal Constitution allows for separation between the Civil and Syariah courts, which has been construed (or miscontrued) as meaning whenever Shariah conflicts or overlaps with secular law, Sharia prevails.

    Can you therefore pose the question to Anwar, in my hypothetical case of the offender of a rape case being a muslim wanting to proceed by Shariah and the non muslim victim wanting the rigours of secular Penal Code to apply, wouldn’t existing article 121A of our Federal Constitution imply that the non muslim victim have to submit, in a case of conflict, to the dominance/application of Sharia favouring the offender?

    We have a spate of controversial body snatching cases to amply show that the existence of dual system prejudice the non Malay party.

    So by what logic is the Pakatan Rakyat leader/opposition head talking when he said in Sarawak “if the Muslims wanted to have their own Islamic laws, there was no need for the Christians to be unhappy” as if Christians or any other non Muslims will not be prejudiced?

    Doesn’t he know about the “conversion cases” and the mess created by interpretation of article 121A – or he just chooses to do double talk and triple speak here to get both PAS’s supporters’ as well as non Muslim votes’ in KT by elections without caring a hoot about the implications logic or integrity of what he, as PR’s leader, says?

  96. if the offender wants to submit to Hudud law and the victim to secular common law
    the idea was sparked by the phrase ‘Hudud for Muslims only’ that I see repeated so many times, but have yet to see (or read) a PKR leader say. If I understand correctly what you’re saying, Malaysia already has some parallel systems for personal civil matters for Muslims and non-Muslims. For criminal cases things can be more complex and it’s arguably more important that the ‘right’ thing is done. I was trying to propose a system where in the special case that all parties to a case desire Hudud law, then the case could be treated in a Hudud court. In any other situation, and in cases of appeal, a secular court. I’m imagining a system where secular law is superior, and Hudud is available to Muslims who want it, as long as a basic guarantee is met: that everybody involved in the case wants Hudud.

    I expect you’re right to point out that this would be very few cases. One of the problems with the quarrel ‘Muslims want Hudud’ / ‘Absolutely no Hudud’ is that it’s difficult to know exactly how many people would submit to Hudud (a minimum criterion, I would say, to satisfy liberally-minded people who might want to permit someone to submit to something they would rather nobody took part in), so it’s hard to know how many people are offended by being told blankly ‘no’.

    A liberal view on the matter might be “ok, Hudud, as long as nobody gets hurt”, where ‘hurt’ means harmed without their consent. Obtaining consent in advance from Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud would be reasonably straightforward, in my view. Allowing Hudud cases to proceed on the condition that every individual party agrees would be a reasonable response to the complaint that secular law prevents Muslims from exercising their faith. It is then the prerogative of the parties involved to deny the application of Hudud.

    In your example of offender wanting Hudud, victim wanting secular, it would be a secular court. The victim would deny the offender his Hudud trial. If the shoe was on the other foot, and the victim wanted Hudud, and the offender wanted secular, it would be a secular court. The offender would deny the victim their Hudud judgement. In all cases, a pre-condition would be that all individuals are Muslims. In the examples where a Hudud judgement is denied by an interested party, it would be the interested party who denies the application of Hudud law – a Muslim, not the secular state.

    In a case where all concerned were devout Muslims wishing to be subject to Hudud, the case could go ahead. I think it would be necessary for the secular state to double-check the outcome, particularly before a non-reversible sentence is applied. There is always the chance that some individual is not fit to give consent, or some other issue has affected the quality of consent.

    You’re right to point out that in an adversarial system, both sides will try to get the best result for themselves. In the case of law ‘before God’, I can see that might not be the case (I’m ignorant, but can imagine), and that convicts may willingly accept a penalty you or I would consider more severe, as better justice. I think this is the case Muslims would make for Hudud – that their preferred judgements are the correct ones. The difficulty in accommodating their request lies in whether they are preferring those judgements for themselves, or for others. An opt-in scheme would reveal the difference, I think.

    Ah, I’m glad I refreshed the page before posting. What you’ve posted is almost the opposite of what I’m suggesting – parallel systems, but non-Muslims can opt for Hudud? In a country where Islam is assigned to citizens by the state? I hope Anwar has been misquoted. I have no further questions Jeffrey. I don’t know whether I’m looking forward to a response to that article or not. If that’s accurate, then perhaps if ‘freedom of conscience’ isn’t just a catch-phrase and all Malaysians really are permitted to change religion…

  97. I want you to know that it is not our criticisms here that is undermining the Pakatan Rakyat’s cause to unseat the BN.

    It is Anwar’s chameleon statements and certain lack of principled approach in what he said that is undermining the Pakatan Rakyat’s cause.

    Not only his statements cannot stand rigorous scrutiny and challenge of Mainstream BN bias media reporters, they also cannot stand the test of reason and fairness that will be put up by the Bar Council, Civil Society and the NGO(s) that have so far supported Pakatan Rakyat meaning that by the way he is going , he, dragging the DAP down as collateral damage, if you go along with him, will alienate support of moderate Muslims and non Muslims in this country to the detriment of the PR cause, with every possibility of unwittingly benefit Barisan Nasional, who would exploit his garbled talk, the other way instead.

  98. OrangRojak,

    I refer to your basic premise that “I’m imagining a system where secular law is superior, and Hudud is available to Muslims who want it… In your example of offender wanting Hudud, victim wanting secular, it would be a secular court…”

    We should all know that in a conflict/contest between Hudud and secular, the former will always prevail from the standpoint of those who advocate Hudud. Hudud is supposed to be divine and ordained by Almighty. So how could Hudud/Shariah be less superior than temporal secular laws man made in Parliament? :)

  100. FY Lim Says:

    Today at 16: 01.46 (7 hours ago)
    All Beware !

    These are the paid spinmasters by MCA and BN :

    Undergrad2
    Jefferey
    Jong
    ChenHo
    Lee Wang Yen
    and others to be named later

    They are now taking over the space of YB Kit’s blog to spin …”

    You must be limkamput in disguise since his name is not here.

  102. If you search for “beth din bbc” on google – the top 2 results are quite interesting. All about alternative (religious / cultural) courts in the UK. The UK’s secular law provides for civil cases to be settled before any ‘agreed 3rd party’, apparently, and is binding – that’s a surprise. There’s one example of a criminal case, but it sounds more like the cultural (Somali) court acted as arbiters.

    Thanks for entertaining the idea. I’m new here, aren’t I?

  104. limkamput Says:
    Today at 18: 48.47 (4 hours ago)
    “Anyway, if i do not further debate with you (Godfather) for the next few days it is because i have to earn a living.”

    Yes I too have to earn a living. Lining up to cash my welfare checks is a hard enough job.

  107. “OrangRojak Says:

    Today at 00: 02.55 (29 minutes ago)
    undergrad2 – does the welfare know you’re receiving payments from BN? I suspect FY Lim will be earning his $500 ‘whistleblower’ reward as we type.”

    The only instrument he’ll not be blowing is the whistle.

  110. ” PAS is not in power. PAS can never be in power. PAS has only 23 seats in Parliament. Even if it wins the Kuala Terengganu by-election it will still only be 24 seats. PAS can never win more than 30 seats in Parliament. Even in the best of times, like in 1999, it won only 27 Parliament seats. PAS can never go beyond 30 seats. Anyway, every general election, PAS contests only 60 seats. So how can it win more than that?” RPK

    Now what has the toothy, bespectacled young upstart from Cambridge, whose only experience in politics is putting ink to paper and coming out with fancy equations and useless theories on logical thinking has to say??

    Let’s see how he convinces the rest of us that logical thinking would be the solution and logical thinking to him means that DAP should never partner a party like PAS, and should leave the political coalition it now finds itself in and form a third coalition?? Haven’t we suffered enough under BN rule whilst he’s earning his paper qualifications within the four walls of one the world’s oldest institution of learning in the western hemisphere?? The rest of us poor semi-educated and semi-literate suffering mortals do not have the luxury of time, as he does, to want to wait to perfect the union that he sees only in his dreams.

  111. What the president of PD would say are the following:

    1. Past performance does not guarantee future performance e.g. PAS historically has contested no more than 60 seats, but it could contest 180 seats in the future;

    2. Suffering under BN rule is preferable to suffering under PAS rule;

    3. The country will go to the dogs under PAS as no Islamic state has ever made it to the first world;

    4. PAS will kill the democratic systems as we know it as Islamic principles will conflict with constitutional rights.

    President Lee will also say that his third force PD is the best and most logical option for the semi-literate in Bolehland.

  112. Sdr. Lim certaintly is justified to attack Baradan Kupusamy. But what do you do if you are an Indian journalist trying to make it? The truth is while all Indian professionals aspire to be like Tony Fernandes, most of them realistically follow the likes of Samy Vellu. Look at Hindraf and how they still cling to the hope of working with BN although its not workable given where they already are.

    The only other option really for Baradan given his personal goal is to leave this country which most likely the choice is pretty mediocre for him given his track record, a track record largely forced by circumstances and lack of strong personal character.

  115. Yes I too have to earn a living. Lining up to cash my welfare checks is a hard enough job. undergrad2

    Yes, you are exactly right, you leverage on the US system and the US leverage on the world’s poorest countries.

    You must be limkamput in disguise since his name is not here. undergrad2

    Please give some credit to FY Lim. There is only one Limkamput. Unlike you, other than Undergrad2, what about diaperhead, bodo, bernatte, and others? When are you going to use it. Sorry i really have to go, mine is more than cashing the welfare check.

Leave a Reply