Day: November 3, 2012

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should present a Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million donation scandal of Sabah timber trader Michael Chia as well as whether the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had violated conflict-of-interest principles when answering questions in Parliament on the issue.

Although the Prime Minister last month (Oct. 19) denied that there was any attempt to smuggle the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” into the country and claimed that the whole issue had “already been explained in Parliament”, the facts are the contrary.

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Nazri’s various explanations, both inside and outside Parliament, some of which contradicted each other, on the alleged RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO”, have only aroused greater suspicion and reinforced widespread belief that a major cover-up is afoot about the RM40 million scandal – which went as far back as more than four years ago on August 14, 2008 at the Hong Kong International Airport allegedly over currency trafficking and laundering with S$16 million cash in Singapore currency in Michael Chia’s luggage before boarding a flight to Kuala Lumpur.

Nazri’s claim that when answering in Parliament, he was only reading the answers whether given by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or the Attorney-General and that he was not responsible for these answers is completely unacceptable and makes a total mockery of the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. Continue reading “Najib should present Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” scandal of Michael Chia as well as whether Nazri violated conflict-of-interest principles”

by P. Ramakrishnan
The Malaysian Insider
November 03, 2012

NOV 3 — It is difficult to understand the so-called Muslim elites who constantly and consistently convey the erroneous message that Islam is under threat and that Muslims will be easily misled.

They always seem to suggest that Muslims must be sheltered and protected otherwise they can go astray and embarrass their religion.

The latest episode involves the screening of the movie “My name is Khan” by TV3 on the second day of Hari Raya Aidil Adha.

The Muslim youth movement Abim has strongly protested against this film, claiming that the Shah Rukh Khan film “confuses Muslims as it promotes liberal Islam and religious pluralism, and warned Malaysian broadcasters not to air the hit film”.

Abim vice-president Ahmad Saparudin Yusuf “gave examples of scenes in the film such as the Muslim hero marrying a Hindu heroine, saying that it is ‘clearly against Islam’s teachings’”.

He also pointed out “that the depiction in the film of acceptance and mixing of other religions’ worship methods with Islam’s as well as giving zakat or alms to non-Muslims were ‘confusing’.”

This film has been available in Malaysia since March 2010. It has been screened in cinemas and the film’s CD has been widely sold. In the 2½ years that it was around, thousands upon thousands of Muslims and other Malaysians have seen and enjoyed the film. Continue reading “Ordinary, average Muslims are not easily confused, their faith is strong!”

KJ John
Malaysiakini
Oct 30, 2012

Marina Mahathir wrote in a recent column that for any candidate seeking to be voted in this general election, the following are good and civil traits:

1. Be nice, be gracious, be polite – rudeness makes you look ugly.

2. If you disagree with someone, fine. But disagree courteously and intelligently, and do not just bad-mouth them.

3. If you do not think that someone is right, give your reasons why.

4. At least pretend that your audience is smart, and live up to them.

5. If you really think violence is the answer, we will find you a ticket to Syria, where you can indulge in all that you want to.

6. If you really think you are a defender of Islam, we will get you a ticket to trail the Republicans on their election campaign. We will even get you a spot on Rush Limbaugh’s show, where you can do your defending thing.

7. Do suddenly stop kissing babies and hugging old people. Seriously, we are not buying it.

8. Leave your expensive watch at home if you are going to sympathise with how people are coping with their monthly expenses. Unless you are going to donate the cost of the watch to some worthwhile cause.

9. Lower your volume. Shouting something stupid does not make it smarter.

10. Tell us what your principles in life are, and how you aim to stick to them.

My only addition is that no serving member of parliament should lie publicly. It is worse if one is a member of the cabinet. And because of such lies, I would argue that we need a ‘truth-o-meter’ which the CNN uses to validate claims by US presidential candidates.

I am boiling mad because Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, the so-called minister responsible for parliamentary and legal matters, was quoted by theSun as saying: “None of the nation’s past prime minister (have) ever declared Malaysia a secular state … the only sitting prime minister who (has) made a statement on the issue was … (Dr) Mahathir Mohamad, who declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state.”

Since we do not have the privilege of a truth-o-meter service in Malaysia, allow me to assume that role since my column is also called ‘Truth Matters’. Continue reading “Deceit on the ‘Islamic state’”

— Bridget Welsh
The Malaysian Insider
Nov 02, 2012

NOV 2 — In the last few years, both Malaysia and Singapore have been undergoing political liberalisation, evident from the increasing parliamentary representation of the opposition and more open political discussion. Yet, with this opening, the challenges the two neighbours face in liberalising are becoming clearer. One of the main obstacles involves dealing with the legacies of Lee Kuan Yew and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, as their imprint on politics continues to overshadow current transformations. How do the legacies of the two strongmen constrain contemporary political change?

Lee and Dr Mahathir were successful leaders, delivering economic progress and giving their countries international prominence. However, views of these leaders remain divided, with some lauding them as political strongmen who delivered development and stability and others highlighting their excesses. This debate will continue, and likely intensify over time. Still, few dispute the fact that the two leaders profoundly shaped the countries they led. In order to understand contemporary politics in both countries, we need to look beyond these leaders as individuals or their tenures and appreciate how the strongmen continue to shape the two societies. Continue reading “In the shadow of strongmen”