PRK Bagan Pinang: Propaganda Hitam Terhadap Anwar Ibrahim

Oleh Ahmad Nizam Hamid

Seorang rakan (kerabat saya juga), pegawai tentera menghubungi saya petang tadi. Walaupun rakan ini bukan bertugas di Port Dickson tetapi isi perbualannya cukup menarik yang tentunya berhubungkait dengan PRK Bagan Pinang.

Rakan ini memberitahu antara dakyah yang digerakkan oleh UMNO ialah berkaitan kenyataan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim beberapa bulan lalu iaitu meminta Chin Peng dimaafkan dan dibenarkan kembali ke tanahair.

Dakyah ini khabarnya didendangkan kepada para perajurit kita (pengundi pos) untuk membawa imej buruk betapa Anwar (baca:Pakatan Rakyat) ‘menyokong komunis dan melupakan jasa dan pengorbanan perajurit yang terkorban’ dan jelas membuktikan Anwar tidak mengenang jasa serta pengorbanan perajurit yang terkorban angkara kekejaman komunis.

Lebih kurang begitulah bentuk propaganda hitam (black propaganda) yang dimainkan oleh UMNO menurut rakan saya itu. Nampaknya isu dimainkan sedemikian rupa untuk memberikan warna jelek kepada Anwar vis-a-vis PR yang bertujuan untuk mengolah persetujuan bahawa PR sesungguhnya tidak mengenang jasa dan pengorbanan perajurit menentang komunis. Malah saya percaya buat seketika ini propaganda sebegini hanya akan dimainkan di peringkat setempat tetapi menjelang minggu hadapan kesemua media perdana-RTM, TV3, Utusan, Berita Harian dan yang sealiran-akan memperbesarkannya (blown out of proportions) ke seantero dunia.

Kepada rakan pegawai tentera tadi saya maklumkan agar membaca semula kenyataan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim mengenai isu tersebut. Jika ingatan saya tidak tersasar Anwar sebenarnya membidas sikap ‘double-standard’ kerajaan yang memaafkan kerajaan China yang menyokong PKM tetapi tidak bersedia untuk memaafkan Chin Peng.

Malah Anwar dengan jelas menyebut bahawa beliau tidak bermaksud menyokong atau bersetuju dengan tindakan keganasan (militant) sewaktu darurat dan tegas menyatakan bahawa beliau sejak dari dulu menentang komunisme.

Ini antara intipati kenyataan Anwar mengenai isu Chin Peng (jika tidak salah ingatan saya) yang jika diamati dengan tertib tidak langsung membawa maksud menyokong PKM dan menafikan jasa serta pengorbanan para perajurit.

Malah saya memberitahu rakan saya selanjutnya bahawa bapa mertua Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Dato’ Dr.Wan Ismail (Pak Wan) antara tokoh yang banyak menyumbangkan jasa di era darurat dahulu. Beliau antara pakar perang saraf yang bertungkus-lumus ke segenap pelusuk negara dalam tugas beliau mengekang pengaruh komunis.

Jadi adalah tidak masuk akal untuk mengatakan Anwar menyokong Chin Peng dan tidak mengenang jasa para perajurit. Seperti biasa UMNO melalui medianya akan berperanan sebagai ’spin doctor’ untuk memutarbelitkan kenyataan dan kebenaran serta berterusan memfitnah. Propaganda hitam seperti ini akan terus dimainkan bagi mengelirukan rakyat.

Namun saya kira para pengundi dan tidak terkecuali perajurit kita di Bagan Pinang tidak semudah itu terpengaruh dengan dakyah dan propaganda sedemikian. Rakyat hari ini sudah bijak dan ditambah pula dengan kemajuan teknologi maklumat hari ini saya percaya para perajurit kita akan dapat menilai sendiri putarbelit UMNO dan para juak mereka.

BN sending message that it stands for corruption

OCT 2 — The whole time I was in Malaysia this year, I was constantly bombarded with propaganda — 1 Malaysia this, 1 Malaysia that. Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan — people first, performance now. But if this is the key plank of Barisan Nasional’s campaign to regain the hearts and minds of Malaysians, why do they so blatantly give lie to it by nominating Tan Sri Isa Samad to contest for them in Bagan Pinang?

To be fair to Barisan and Umno, Isa is a safe choice of sorts. He is popular with the Umno grassroots (who these days increasingly bear little relation to the Malaysian grassroots). The selection of a candidate unpopular with the local party members was another nail in Barisan’s coffin the last time it contested a by-election. Isa is a known quantity; he was the mentri besar of Negri Sembilan, so he has the political chops necessary to contest and lead a campaign.

But still, is Barisan out of its mind? In this case, they have blatantly put the interests of the party ahead of the people, and put political performance ahead of statesmanship. Is this what 1 Malaysia means?

Barisan touts itself as a wiser party, one willing to change and heed the people. Isa is a vote-buyer and carries a history of corruption — corruption so blatant that even Umno could not ignore it, and suspended him from the party. If there’s one thing Malaysians are tired of, it’s corruption — it’s why we voted so strongly in Pak Lah’s favour in 2004, and why we voted so strongly in Pakatan Rakyat’s favour in 2008.

To be precise, we’re tired of the government dragging its heels when it needs to act on corruption. That’s why we so furiously gave Barisan the boot in 2008 — we’ve given up hope on sweet-talking liars who promise one thing and give us another. And in Isa’s case, this is no mere foot-dragging.

Barisan is compromising its entire platform of reform by nominating Isa, in the hope it can win this one by-election. It is nominating a known money politician to represent itself to the people of Bagan Pinang and the people of Malaysia. It is basically telling us that Barisan stands for corruption.

In his defence, Isa says that he has served his suspension, and that other top leaders have been found guilty of similar crimes in the past. But that’s not the point. It is said that in naval tradition, a captain whose ship sinks while under his command will never be given command of another ship again.

That is an extreme not worth going to, but here is the point: we need to draw a line in the sand. Corruption is a plague upon our country, which has cost us billions of ringgit; Khairy Jamaluddin, one of Isa’s defenders, himself has admitted in the past that as much as RM1 out of every RM10 the government spends is wasted on euphemistic “leakages”. We cannot tolerate corruption among those who hold offices of public trust, and we have every right to expect our leaders to take corruption very seriously.

Barisan wants to win the battle of Bagan Pinang, and maybe it will. But it fails to see that by nominating Isa to represent it there, it has conceded a bigger war. Come next election, the people will remember all these times Barisan has had a chance to take a stand against corruption and injustice, and opted instead to take the side of the corrupt and the unjust.

Inkues Teoh: Pemilik DNA sudah meninggal dunia

Inkues kematian Teoh Beng Hock diberitahu hari ini bahawa DNA yang dikesan pada blazer dan talipinggang Teoh adalah milik Gopala Muniam.
DNA tersebut dikenalpasti oleh ahli kimia, Dr Dr Seah Lay Hong milik Gopala yang telah meninggal dunia dalam kemalangan jalan raya.
Dr Seah yang dipanggil semula memberi keterangan dalam inkues tersebut berkata pemindahan DNA itu mungkin berlaku ketika bedahsiasat ke atas Teoh dilakukan di Hospital Klang dalam keadaan yang sesak.

Gopala mati dalam satu kemalangan jalan raya dan DNAnya ditemui pada blazer Teoh.
Bagaimanapun, terdapat satu lagi kesan DNA yang ditemui pada talipinggang Teolh tetapi belum dapat dikenalpasti.
Dr Seah memberitahu mahkamah bahawa beliau diminta menjalankan bedahsiasat ke atas dua mayat, sebelum mayat Teoh, pada hari tersebut di hospital berkenaan.
Seorang lagi adalah L Jeganathan, yang juga mati akibat cedera parah di bahagian kepala akibat kemalangan jalan raya.
Tetapi Dr Seah berkata, ujian menunjukan DNAnya tidak sama dengan DNA yang ditemui pada bahagian talipinggang Teoh yang terkoyak.
Menurutnya, mungkin berlaku pencemaran kerana meja autopsi tidak dinyahkuman dengan sempurna.
DNA Gopala dikenalpasti selepas Dr Seah melakukan siasatan kali ketiga kerana dua siasatan sebelum itu, gagal mengenal pasti pemilik DNA berkenaan pada talipinggang dan blazer tersebut.

Dalam siasatannya itu, Dr Seah menganalisa profail DNA 157 individu sebagai perbandingan, dan mereka terdiri daripada 14 pegawai dari Jabatan Patologi Forensik di Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Klang, Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya dan Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

Turut diuji ialah 49 pegawai polis, 81 pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), dua pekerja pencuci, lapan kakitangan penyelenggaran dan seorang anggota keselamatan, serta tiga saksi.

Dua siasatan pertama gagal mengesan pemilik DNA dan dia ditanda sebagai 'Lelaki 1'.

Speaker fail semakan kehakiman keputusan kekal ADUN Kota Siputeh

Speaker Dewan Negeri Kedah Datuk Dr Abdul Isa Ismail hari ini memfailkan permohonan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) yang mengekalkan Datuk Abu Hasan Sarif sebagai Anggota Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) kawasan Kota Siputeh.

Permohonan itu yang disertakan bersama afidavit sokongan Abdul Isa difailkan di pejabat pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas) di Kompleks Mahkamah Jalan Duta di Kuala Lumpur melalui firma guaman Tetuan Chooi & Company.

Beliau menamakan Abu Hasan dan SPR sebagai responden, lapor Bernama.

Abdul Isa mahu mahkamah mengeluarkan perintah untuk mengistiharkan Abu Hasan dari BN bukan lagi ADUN kawasan berkenaan berikutan kegagalan beliau menghadiri dua sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) itu.

Berikutan itu, Abdul Isa, 61, memohon mahkamah mengisytiharkan kerusi DUN bagi kawasan Kota Siputeh adalah kosong dan seterusnya mahu SPR mengadakan pilihan raya kecil.

Speaker itu juga mahu satu perintah injunksi dikeluarkan oleh mahkamah untuk menghalang Abu Hasan atau ejen-ejennya daripada menjalankan tugas sebagai ADUN kawasan itu.

Selain itu, Abdul Isa juga menuntut ganti rugi, kos dan relif lain yang difikirkan sesuai oleh mahkamah.

Dalam pilihan raya umum Mac 2008, PAS telah memenangi 16 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri di Kedah, DAP satu kerusi, Parti KeAdilan Rakyat (PKR) empat kerusi, BN sebanyak 14 kerusi dan calon bebas menang satu kerusi.

Dalam permohonannya, Abdul Isa mendakwa keputusan SPR untuk mengekalkan Abu Hasan sebagai ADUN Kota Siputeh serta tindakan Abu Hasan yang tidak hadir pada sidang dewan akan mengganggu tugas dan kewajipan Abdul Isa sebagai Seaker DUN Kedah untuk memastikan pentadbiran dijalankan dengan lancar.

"Keputusan SPR dan tindakan Abu Hasan telah membawa kehinaan kepada DUN Kedah, dan mungkin akan mengakibatkan kekecohan kepada prosiding-prosidingnya, apabila ADUN yang telahpun hilang kelayakan sebagai ADUN masih dapat kononnya menonjolkan diri mereka sebagai seorang ADUN," katanya.

SPR pada 1 September lalu memutuskan bahawa tiada kekosongan pada kerusi DUN Kota Siputeh dan kerusi itu masih disandang oleh Abu Hassan yang memenanginya dalam pilihan raya umum ke-12 tahun lalu.

Keputusan itu dibuat berikutan pemakluman yang diterima SPR pada 17 Ogos lalu dari Abdul Isa berhubung kekosongan luar jangka yang dikatakan berlaku bagi kerusi DUN Kota Siputeh.

SPR dalam membuat keputusan itu mendapati Abu Hassan tidak menghadiri dua mesyuarat berturut-turut di dalam dua penggal yang berbeza, bukan dua mesyuarat di dalam satu penggal yang sama.

Sementara surat cuti sakit Abu Hasan sebagai penjelasan kepada ketidak hadirannya pada sidang DUN negeri Kedah yang diadakan pada 9 Ogos lalu, dan mendapati kelewatannya untuk menghantar surat cuti sakit itu kepada Abd Isa selewat-lewatnya pada 9 Ogos lalu tidak menjadikan surat cuti sakit itu terbatal.

Malaysiakini.com : Wang 16 juta: AMK buat laporan di Hong Kong

Angkatan Muda (AMK) PKR akan membuat laporan kepada Suruhanjaya Bebas Anti Rasuah (ICAC) Hong Kong esok berhubung penangkapan seorang ahli perniagaan Malaysia tahun lalu, yang dikatakan kenalan rapat Ketua Menteri Sabah, Datuk Musa Aman.

Menurut ketua penerangan AMK, Lee Khai Loom, laporan tersebut akan dibuat di pejabat ICAC oleh ketua AMK, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin.

Pada 14 Ogos lalu, ahli perniagaan tersebut, yang dikenali sebagai Michael Chia, ditahan di lapangan terbang antarabangsa Hong Kong kerana disyaki melakukan pengubahan matawang Singapura bernilai RM16 juta sebelum menaiki penerbangan ke Kuala Lumpur.

"ICAC Hong Kong telah menyiasat kes tersebut," katanya, sambil menambah AMK akan meminta badan itu supaya meneruskan siasatan lanjut terhadap kes tersebut.

"Dokumen-dokumen yang (didakwa) menunjukkan berlaku aktiviti haram, iaitu aktiviti pembalakan haram yang mungkin menyumbang kepada pengubahan wang itu, juga akan diserahkan," katanya.

Ekoran penahanan Chia, sejurus sebelum pilihanraya kecil Parlimen Permatang Pauh pada 26 Ogos tahun lalu, yang dimenangi ketua umum PKR, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, para pemimpin DAP telah membuat aduan polis terhadap ketua menteri Sabah itu.

Musa kemudiannya menafikan sebarang pembabitan dalam kes tersebut.

Because it takes seven to form a coalition you idiot

By Vijay Kumar Murugavell

EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar quoted "Why they (Pakatan) are still not registered puzzles me".

First read this report by Bernama, my rant begins where the report ends

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/news_lite.php?id=443327

2009-09-30 16:28

PORT DICKSON, Sept 30 (Bernama) -- The Election Commission (EC) will set up three enforcement teams comprising officers from the EC, police and local authorities as well as individuals representing the candidates to monitor the campaign for the Bagan Pinang by-election.
EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said the teams would be answerable to the returning officer and would be deployed in polling districts throughout the constituency.
"They will be provided with work procedure guideline," he told reporters after a briefing session with 277 EC officers involved in the by-election, here today.
He reminded political parties that only contesting parties were allowed to put up campaign paraphernalia.
"I am calling for cooperation from parties, which are not contesting, not to complicate things by going against the law. If these parties are not contesting, they are not paying any election deposit; why then should they put up their campaign materials?" he asked.
Wan Ahmad said that in the case of Barisan Nasional (BN), it was a registered party comprising 14 component members.
As far as the EC was concerned, he said, Pakatan Rakyat was non-existent.

Saying that the EC only recognised registered parties, he said, it would be up to the media if they wanted to use the term "Pakatan Rakyat".

He stressed, however, that the pact was not a registered entity.

"Why they are still not registered puzzles me," he said.

Meanwhile, Wan Ahmad said, the EC would ensure the postal voting was carried out in accordance with the law.
He said that the Bagan Pinang by-election would involve 4,604 postal voters.
"The polling process at army camps is the same; it's only that they cast their votes much earlier, probably by Oct 8 or 9. It's up to the camp management," he said.
He also said that the EC would strive to address all doubts over the postal voting process.
"It is the rights of armed forces personnel to vote in elections and the law under which they can exercise these rights is through postal voting," he said.
Wan Ahmad also said that the EC would fully enforce the campaign prohibition during polling day on Oct 11.
The Bagan Pinang by-election is called following the death of its incumbent assemblyman Azman Mohammad Noor of BN on Sept 4. The nomination is on Saturday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar  quoted

 "Why they (Pakatan)  are still not registered puzzles me".

I am PUZZLED that an EC deputy chairman does not know that the rules by ROS (Registrar of Societies) say that you need at least 7 components to register a coalition. In short, to register as a political coalition, Pakatan needs to have at least seven parties in its fold. And if Wan Ahmad does not know this, what is he doing in the Election Commission and as a deputy chairman no less?

It would be excusable if a taxi driver or pizza delivery boy (no disrespect to these professions) did not know this regulation, but it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for a deputy chairman of a body that oversees the electoral process.

If the deputy chairman is aware of this requirement and made such a pronouncement, it is even worse as it would mean that he is glaringly partisan.

Incredibly, after making such pronouncements Wan Ahmad expects us to have confidence that "EC would strive to address all doubts over the postal voting process."

While he tries to imply campaign restrictions on PAS partners DAP and PKR, he is deafeningly silent on MSP (Makkal Sakhti Party). Leaders of the new MSP party have already pledged to campaign for BN in the upcoming Bagan Pinang by-election.

PM Najib was the VIP guest at the partys launch (Oct 10)  which received recognition from the Registrar of Societies in a “matter of weeks” on 11th May,2009. This is nothing new as in the Permatang Pauh by-election Nallakaruppan's MIUP (Malaysian Indian United Party) also received a speedy approval and was happily campaigning for BN.

I want to ask Wan Farid if he knows that MSP is not a party formally registered under the BN coalition, or is he going to plead ignorance to that as well ?

Actions speak louder than words. EC can walk the talk or forever stop boring us with declarations that the EC is neutral and non-partisan.

Which brings us to the existing regulation :

What is the rationale of needing 7 parties to form a coalition? Isn't it time this law is reviewed? Obviously this ROS regulation is stifling. One can ask why not 6? Or for that matter why not 8, or were the drafters of that regulation inspired by the 7 colors of the rainbow?

In my opinion it should be changed to accommodate 2 because obviously you cannot have a coalition of 1 unless you are Hishamuddin Rais who declares that he is a Non-Governmental Individual. Luckily ROS did not demand that he register.

Back to my suggestion of allowing 2 parties to register as a coalition, the rationale besides the obvious 2 being the lowest denominator is that it will also conform in spirit to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution on freedom of association. There are already too many laws, ordinances and acts that run counter to the spirit of the constitution but that is another story for another day.

Between farce and faith

If ‘religionists’ can understand this then the world would be a much better place. Malaysia would be a much better place. And those hundreds of millions who were slaughtered over the last 3,500 years in the name of the ‘true religion’ need not have died needlessly.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

If I were to say that a certain very senior military officer told me that………..many -- in particular those from the legal fraternity -- would say that this is hearsay. If I relate something that someone else told me then that is not admissible as ‘evidence’.

In court, if I relate what I have been told, this is not strong enough. The person who told me that story has to be subpoenaed to appear in court. He or she would have to personally relate whatever it is he or she told me. My ‘second-hand’ version is not acceptable. And he or she has to be a witness to the event. It has to be what he or she saw, and not what he or she was told by yet another party. If not, this would, again, be hearsay.

The same goes for documents. If I adduce a document in court and say this is what was given to me, this too can’t be accepted as evidence. The maker of the document must be subpoenaed to court to testify that he or she is indeed the maker of the document and that it is his or her signature on the document. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had to go to court to testify in a Bank Negara forgery case back in the early 1980s when he first became Prime Minister. Without Dr Mahathir’s testimony that he did not sign that letter and that the letter is, in fact, a forgery, the prosecution would not be able to prove its case and obtain a conviction.

Such is the law of evidence. What someone told you does not count. Even if you can support your statement with a document, that too does not count. The source of the information must personally appear in court and take the witness stand and testify that he or she did in fact say that, or prepared that document, or signed that letter, or whatever.

That is why in my various criminal cases the government chose to charge me under sections of the law where the burden of proof or evidence is not required. Or they chose to detain me without trial where the issue of evidence need not be argued in court. For example, the government says I lied. Yet they won’t charge me for lying -- like for signing a false declaration. Instead, they charge me for sedition and criminal defamation where the truth of the matter is not material to the charge. Even if I told the truth I am still guilty and can be sent to jail.

The government realises that I may have witnesses who are prepared to come to court to testify that they did indeed say what I wrote and that means I did not lie. So, when my lawyers argue about the falsity or truth of what I wrote, the prosecution jumps to its feet and reminds the judge that the court must ignore this argument and just focus on whether I did or did not write what I am alleged to have written (which means I am guilty of a crime) and not whether what I wrote is true or false (because even if it is true I am still guilty).

In court, we dabble at great length on the laws or evidence and about what constitutes hearsay and what is admissible and what is not. And you can get sent to jail just because you related what you were told but fail to bring the teller of the story to court to testify that he or she did indeed relate this story to you. If you say something that is a repeat of what someone else told you, and you can’t drag that person to court to back up your story, then you are in deep shit. You will get sent to jail.

Now, superimpose that onto religion. You tell me that someone told you what someone else told him or her that yet someone else told him or her about what happened 3,500 years ago -- and this story has been transmitted through 14,000 generations over 3,500 years before they even had pen and paper to record all this -- and I am expected to believe it.

That is 14,000 generations over 3,500 years. All of them are of course now long dead and gone. So we have no way of confirming this story from eyewitness accounts. And we call it the gospel. Yet when I relate what someone witnessed three years ago and who is still alive and one week ago he told me what he witnesses, that is a lie and I get arrested and charged for this ‘lie’.

Religion, for all intents and purposes, is based on hearsay. And it is hearsay because none of those people who lived 3,500 years ago is still alive today. And they never wrote down what they are alleged to have witnessed. It has all been related by word of mouth and passed down through word of mouth over 14,000 generations. Have the events and stories the witnesses related 14,000 generations ago been kept intact these 3,500 years or has over time the stories been corrupted?

They did an experiment once. They asked ten people to sit in a row and the lecturer whispered a story to the first person. The first person then whispered to the second person, who then whispered to the third person, and so on till the last person. It took only minutes for the story to get transmitted down the line from the first to the tenth person.

The tenth person was then asked to relate the story back to the first person and the story the tenth person related was a far departure from what the first person had related. So there you have it. In a mere few minutes, a story told by one person has changed so much by the time it reaches the tenth person sitting in the same room a few feet away. Imagine a story related by 14,000 generations over 3,500 years halfway around the world. How much of the story remains uncorrupted?

So religion can never be about facts. Facts would be when the witness himself told you what he saw. After 14,000 ‘mouths’ over 3,500 years, facts no longer exist. And by saying ‘facts’ I am using the standards of the law of evidence applicable in a court of law. Anything other than eyewitness accounts is no longer fact but hearsay. So religion, having happened 3,500 years ago, is therefore hearsay and not facts.

So we need faith when it comes to religion. We can’t apply facts because facts do not exist. How can facts exist when the storyteller has long since died and his story has been passed down by word of mouth over 14,000 generations? If you lack faith you will reject all these stories. If you insist on applying the proper laws of evidence you will never believe what they tell you about events that happened 3,500 years ago where no witnesses to the events remain alive today.

But we live in a democratic society and if you wish to believe that the moon is made of cheese and that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around earth then that is your choice. You are free to believe what you want to believe. And if you wish to believe that something that is said to have happened 3,500 years ago is true in spite of there not being any witnesses alive today who can confirm these stories then that is also your choice. That is what democracy is all about.

However, we have certain people who believe in what happened 3,500 years ago, in spite of the fact they can’t prove it, and then they expect us to also believe this. If we refuse to believe this they will get very upset. They will arrest us. They will kill us. They force us to believe what they believe and will punish us if we do not.

And this is why the world is facing a lot of problems today. The 6 billion or so inhabitants of the world hold dear stories about what happened 5,000 years or 3,500 years or 2,000 years or 1,500 years ago. And they label themselves with whatever religion they subscribe to. Many have since been killed off. The majority exterminates the minority so those who follow minority religions have long since become extinct.

The majority rules; the minorities got sent to their graves many generations ago. So the religions we follow today are the religions of the victors in the game of wipe out all those who do not believe what we also believe. And we now believe the religion of the victors, not the religions of the vanquished. And this is accepted as the correct and true religions because only these religions still exist while all others have been wiped off the face of this earth.

What is truth and what is farce? We don’t know and we don’t really care because we base our beliefs on faith and not on evidence. And our faith is mostly based on what our parents and their parents before them believed in.

I have met a Muslim ulama who took me for lunch in McDonalds in Washington. He ordered a beef burger and I had fish. He laughed and said he understands that I am from Malaysia so I am just doing the ‘Malay thing’ by eating fish and not any non-halal meat. But beef, even though not slaughtered by a Muslim, is halal, said this ulama of Arab descent who is very senior in the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

I have met a Muslim ulama who drinks wine. Wine is okay, said the ulama, but not beer, whisky or brandy. And he quoted a verse of the Quran to convince me.

I have met Muslims from Morocco who smoke during the fasting month of Ramadhan but will not eat or drink till the sun goes down.

I have met Muslims who only accept the Quran but not the Hadith. And I have met Muslims who only accept 500 of the Hadith but not the 7,000 that other Muslims accept. And I have met Muslims who take the Quran from its allegorical meaning and not from its literal meaning. And I have met Muslims who translate the Quran from Aramaic and not Arabic, which they say is the correct language of the Quran.

So, even amongst Muslims there are many opinions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Some even say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not exist because all three are actually the same religion and that Abraham’s teachings and not the teachings of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad is the correct religion to follow.

Who is right and who is wrong? That is for you to decide. And since it is all based on faith with no evidence -- in the context of the law of evidence acceptable in the justice system that we follow -- then you decide the right and the wrong.

But don’t force others to also believe what you believe. Most religions impose their beliefs on others. Since, due to lack of evidence, you can’t prove what is right and what is wrong, you have no business forcing others to also believe what you believe which is all based on faith.

If ‘religionists’ can understand this then the world would be a much better place. Malaysia would be a much better place. And those hundreds of millions who were slaughtered over the last 3,500 years in the name of the ‘true religion’ need not have died needlessly.

This, the religionists, can’t seem to understand. And this is because they have this high and mighty and righteous attitude where only they are right and all others are wrong. It never occurred to them that maybe they are wrong and the other chap could in fact be right. Or that maybe everyone is wrong because at the end of the day religion is all about unproven stories told 14,000 generations ago and passed down by word of mouth over 3,500 years with no evidence to support the stories or evidence to prove that the stories had not changed or become corrupted over time.

Malaysiakini.com : DAP, PKR tetap kibar bendera, foto pemimpin

Dua parti yang bergabung dalam Pakatan Rakyat - DAP dan PKR - tetap akan meneruskan berkempen dengan mengibarkan bendera, logo dan gambar pemimpin mereka masing-masing sepanjang kempen pilihan raya kecil DUN Bagan Pinang bermula 3 Oktober ini.

Kedua-dua parti tersebut juga mencabar Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia (SPR) untuk menunjukkan peruntukan undang-undang yang melarang mana-mana pemimpin atau parti politik berkempen bagi seseorang calon di sesuatu pilihanraya kecil.

Pengerusi DAP Negeri Sembilan, Anthony Loke ketika dihubungi Malaysiakini berkata, arahan terbaru itu tidak masuk akal dan melampaui tugas SPR yang sebenarnya.

"Mungkin SPR fobia dengan pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat dan logo DAP dan PKR. Mereka melampaui tugas. Mereka sepatutnya mengendalikan proses penamaan calon, proses pengundiaan dan pengiraan undi.

"Soal kempen, serah kepada kepada parti-parti politik yang bertanding... Masa Tan Sri Abdul Rashid (Abdul Rahman) tidak ada peraturan macam ini," katanya.

Anthony yang juga ketua Pemuda DAP diminta mengulas berhubung arahan terbaru SPR yang melarang parti politik yang tidak bertanding dalam pilihan raya kecil Bagan Pinang mengibarkan bendera, logo dan gambar pemimpin mereka sepanjang kempen.

Timbalan Pengerusi SPR, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar semalam dilaporkan berkata kebenaran hanya diberikan kepada parti yang bertanding memasang bahan kempen seperti gambar calon, logo parti dan pemimpin mereka.

'Tidak faham demokrasi'

Pilihanraya kecil DUN itu pada 11 Oktober ini bakal menyaksikan pertembungan sengit antara Tan Sri Isa Samad yang juga bekas naib presiden Umno dan Pesuruhjaya PAS Negeri Sembilan, Zulkefly Mohamad Omar.

Kerusi DUN Bagan Pinang kosong ekoran kematian penyandangnya, Azman Mohamad Noor dari BN yang menang dengan majoriti 2,333 dalam pilihanraya umum Mac tahun lalu.

Azman yang juga naib ketua bahagian Teluk Kemang, menewaskan Ramli Ismail dari PAS yang mendapat 4,097 undi.

Mengulas lanjut, Anthony Loke yang juga ahli Parlimen Rasah tidak akan mengendahkan arahan terbaru SPR itu malah akan terus berkempen dengan meletakan bendera parti dan gambar pemimpin mereka.

"Memang kita sudah buat dan letakkan gambar pemimpin DAP dan PKR.

"Sebagai contoh, kalau gambar Lim Kit Siang dan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim tidak dibenarkan, mungkin gambar pada banner 1Malaysia yang menggunakan beratus-ratus (wajah) orang lain, patut ditanggalkan," katanya.

Sementara itu, Ketua Angkatan Muda PKR (AMK), Shamsul Iskandar Md Akin menyifatkan arahan terbaru SPR itu akan menyebabkan berlakunya "defisit dalam sistem demokrasi di Malaysia".

'Bawa ke mahkamah'

"SPR tidak faham demokrasi dalam pilihan raya di Malaysia. Ia sepatutnya digalakkan kepada sesiapapun untuk terlibat, turut sama berkempen.

"Ini kerana, pilihan raya adalah satu-satunya ruang untuk memilih pemimpin dalam negara," katanya ketika dihubungi Malaysiakini.

Sehubungan itu, Shamsul Iskandar berkata pihaknya akan terus meletakkan bendera, logo dan gambar pemimpin mereka sepanjang kempen pilihanraya kecil DUN tersebut.

Mengulas lanjut, beliau yang juga seorang peguam tidak akan teragak-agak untuk membuat semakan kehakiman sekiranya SPR arahan tersebut mempunyai alasan undang-undang.

"Arahan terbaru, sekiranya ada asas, kita akan ke mahkamah untuk membuat semakan kehakiman.

"Semakan kehakiman berlaku, sekiranya kita tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan kerajaan. SPR kata kononnya ada alasan undang-undang, kita akan cabar, kalau mereka sungguh-sungguh laksanakan," katanya.

Tsu Koon sambut cabaran berdebat dengan Guan Eng

Presiden Gerakan, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon menyambut cabaran untuk berdebat dengan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng melalui siaran langsung di televisyen, mengenai sama ada Lim dan beberapa pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat telah mengelirukan rakyat negeri itu berhubung beberapa isu, termasuk kes tanah Kampung Buah Pala (KBP).

Bagaimanapun, bagi memastikan ianya satu debat yang adil, Dr Koh berkata, dua syarat perlu dipenuhi terlebih dahulu, iaitu Lim mendedahkan semua dokumen yang berkaitan dan menjawab sepenuhnya dan dengan jujur tiga soalan mudah mengenai kes KBP. Tiga persoalan tersebut ialah:

Pertama, adakah pemimpin Pakatan, terutama DAP, berjanji kepada penduduk KBP, sebelum, sewaktu pilihanraya umum 2008, bahawa mereka boleh memiliki dan tinggal di tanah tersebut yang tidak akan dibenar dimajukan, jika DAP dan rakan-rakannya menang.

Kedua, apakah status perundangan sebenarnya tanah tempat KPB terletak? Iaitu sebelum meluluskannya kepada Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang, adakah tanah tersebut sebenarnya milik kerajaan negeri atau penduduk?

Ketiga, Lim perlu menjawab mengapa beliau membenarkan pemindahan hak milik tanah KBP, untuk berkuatkuasa pada 27 Mac 2008, hampir tiga minggu selepas menang pilihanraya umum pada 8 Mac dan selepas penduduk KBP menemuinya (Lim) pada 12 Mac 2008.

“Hanya jika beliau bersetuju untuk mendedahkan sepenuhnya semua dokumen yang berkaitan, dan dengan jujur menjawab tiga soalan mudah tersebut, barulah bermakna untuk saya menyertai debat tersebut,” kata Dr Koh dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Teresa buat laporan polis berhubung 'ugutan bunuh'

Lebih setahun selepas kejadian rumah keluarganya di baling bom petrol, ahli Parlimen Seputeh, Teresa Kok mendakwa beliau menerima satu lagi 'ugutan bunuh' semalam.

Bercakap kepada pemberita selepas membuat laporan polis mengenai ugutan tersebut di balai Pandan Indah hari ini, Teresa berkata, ugutan tersebut dimuatkan ke dalam blognya 'Sassy MP'.

Menurutnya, ugutan tersebut dimuatkan pada jam 10.37 pagi semalam di bawah nama 'Hanturaya'. Meseg itu berbunyi: "Teresa, kau ni patut diajar dengan darah. Terima kasih".

Komen itu, tambahnya, dimuatkan di bawah laporan "A Second DAP members' branch", yang merujuk kepada penubuhan cawangan DAP sewaktu sambutan Hari Raya baru-baru ini.

"Saya juga difahamkan bahawa komen itu dimuatkan melalui alamat IP 120.141.120.96," kata Teresa yang juga exco kerajaan Selangor dan ADUN Kinrara.

Katanya, beliau perlu membuat laporan polis itu "untuk melindungi diri saya dan keluarga daripada apa juga bentuk ancaman".

"Saya bimbangkan keselamatan kami kerana kami pernah diserang dengan bom petrol oleh pihak-pihak tertentu yang tidak senang dengan saya.

"Saya harap pihak polis dan Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (SKMM) akan menyiasat segera perkara itu," katanya.

Pada 27 September tahun lalu, rumah keluarganya di Jalan Ipoh di Kuala Lumpur dibaling dengan dua bom petrol pada awal pagi berkenaan.

Teresa, 45, telah dilaporkan berkata ketika itu bahawa ia mungkin ada kaitan dengan penahanannya di bawah ISA pada 12 September kerana didakwa membangkitkan isu-isu mengenai Islam. Dia dibebaskan seminggu kemudiannya.