MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Wednesday, September 20, 2017


Islamism, referring to a political ideology that valorizes the erection of an Islamic state as the ultimate goal of the Islamic struggle, emerged in Malaysia since the 1960s.
The onset of Islamic resurgence in the 1970s injected vigor into Islamist initiatives, which by the 1980s had been adopted by the Malaysian state.
Since the adoption of Islamization as an official policy during the Mahathir administration, Islamists of variegated persuasions have participated in the country’s political process in numerous ways, whether in government, in opposition or in civil society.
Despite persistent attempts by the state at homogenizing Islam in both faith and practice, the Islamist spectrum in Malaysia continues to exhibit great diversity, each segment trying in various ways to influence the state.
For the majority of Malaysians, there is a lot of confusion about what these groups believe and what their ideologies are.
In this video, Prof Ahmad Fauzi explains in detail the various Islamists found in Malaysia and what they stand for. He sounds the alarm that some of these groups hold intolerant views and views that come in conflict with a mutli-racial and multi-religious Malaysia.
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid is Professor of Political Science at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia. In 2008-09 and 2015-16, he held Visiting Fellowships with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, respectively. Trained as a political scientist and political economist at the universities of Oxford, Leeds and Newcastle, UK. In May 2017, Ahmad Fauzi represented Malaysia at the Russia – Islamic World Strategic Meeting held in Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian Federation.

Kedai Rakyat 1 Malaysia Shuts Down Despite Super Strong Malaysian Economy ?? What Is Going On?

This is from Malaysiakini:


The Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia (KR1M), which was set up to provide basic necessities at affordable prices, will no longer be open to the public, albeit "temporarily".

A check by Malaysiakini at multiple KR1Ms in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and Kelantan, found that all were shuttered down, with notices informing of the closure, attached.

"This store will be temporarily closed, until further notice. Sorry for any inconvenience caused," it read...

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/395792#l2BdClE8Ec6AD9R2.99

My comments : One by one they are shutting down.  The morons do not understand - the GST is killing the economy.

What the GST has done is it has chopped off at least 15% of the Malay / bumiputra purchasing power.  And the non Malays as well.  

Through the multiple price increases (after subsidies were cut and then 6% GST was imposed) the  actual cash buying power of the Malays / bumiputras has been reduced by at least 15%.

If a person was taking home RM1000 per month, their actual purchasing power is RM850 only.  Because 15% has been sucked up by GST induced price increases.

And their salaries are NOT increasing.

So they are dipping into their savings, assets reserves to make ends meet.

Sales at retail stores are dropping like bricks.

So the Kedai Rakyat 1 Malaysia has now shut down.

Temporarily?  Ok lets see how temporary is temporary.

RM5.7 Billion Lost Gambling So Where Is RM25.8 Billion More?

The only way Mahathir and sons can convince Malaysians they are not crooks and that they did not steal their wealth and that their money did not come from Bank Negara is for them to open their books for all and sundry to see where their money came from. Mahathir and sons must show the source of their money and prove that the source is not illegal. Until then Malaysians have to assume that Mahathir and sons stole their wealth and that much of their money came from Bank Negara.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Bank Negara forex losses of 1988-1992 finally concluded yesterday. Lim Kit Siang, however, is not too happy about the matter and feels that the RCI hearing was not thorough enough.
In 1994, Kit Siang wrote a 38-page book titled “The Bank Negara RM30 Billion Forex Losses Scandal”. To be able to write so much (and Kit Siang claims he has written and spoken 10 million words is his political career) that means he knows a lot regarding what happened. However, he testified at the RCI for only 30 minutes. Why only 30 minutes? How come suddenly Kit Siang has very little to say after talking so much for more than 20 years?

Mahathir and his three sons became billionaires in just ten years so they need to explain where their money came from

In 1993, it was Kit Siang who brought this matter to the attention of the world. And, because of his persistency, Anwar Ibrahim, the then Finance Minister, had to finally reluctantly admit in 1994 that Bank Negara had, indeed, lost money gambling on the forex market. But the loss was small and only paper losses, said Anwar.
But Anwar told the Cabinet something else. Anwar told the Cabinet that the loss was actually RM5.7 billion but it was only ‘deferred expenditure’ and ‘unrealised losses’. So Anwar lied to both Parliament and to the Cabinet. And Kit Siang knew this. That was why he came out with his 38-page book titled “The Bank Negara RM30 Billion Forex Losses Scandal”.
The truth is Bank Negara lost RM30 billion and not RM5.7 billion plus it was realised losses, not ‘deferred expenditure’, ‘paper losses’ or ‘unrealised losses’, as Anwar claimed. And Kit Siang knew this. That was why he was like a dog with a bone: which would bite down hard on the bone and never let go while growling away non-stop.
Then, in 2012, Anwar finally relented and told the truth. Bank Negara lost US$10 billion, said Anwar, and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Daim Zainuddin were behind it.
Kit Siang already knew that, of course. He just wanted Anwar to admit it. But even then Kit Siang knew Anwar was not telling the whole truth. It was not just Mahathir and Daim who were guilty. Anwar was also guilty. So it was the MAD Trio (Mahathir-Anwar-Daim) who should be taken to task.
Kit Siang knew that the disaster actually started in 1988. By 1991 the problem was out of control so Mahathir and Daim appointed Anwar the new Finance Minister. Anwar’s job was to cover Mahathir’s and Daim’s backs if this matter explodes. And in 1993 it did explode. And the person who detonated this explosion was Kit Siang.
Anwar nevertheless insisted that Bank Negara’s losses gambling on the forex market was RM5.7 billion and not RM30 billion or US$10 billion. Kit Siang, on the other hand, insisted it was RM30 billion. While Anwar agreed that Bank Negara lost RM30 billion (and now the RCI says it was RM31.5 billion), until today he still insists that the losses gambling on the forex market was only RM5.7 billion.
What game is Anwar playing? In 1994 he said it was RM5.7 billion. In 2012 he said it was US$10 billion. And today he says it was RM5.7 billion.
Actually, what many do not realise is, Anwar is sending Malaysians a cryptic message. Bank Negara may have lost RM31.5 billon but only RM5.7 billion was lost gambling on the forex market. In other words, what Anwar is saying is, Bank Negara lost RM31.5 billion, RM5.7 billion lost on the forex market, and another RM25.8 billion lost in ‘other ways’.
So, if Bank Negara lost RM31.5 billion but only RM5.7 billion was lost gambling on the forex market, what happened to the balance RM25.8 billion? That is what Anwar is telling us to ask. What happened to the balance RM25.8 billion of Bank Negara’s money that disappeared into thin air if, according to Anwar, only RM5.7 billion was lost gambling on the forex market?
Mahathir himself said that only RM5.7 billion was lost gambling on the forex market. He also said none of the money was stolen. But then Bank Negara lost RM31.5 billion. So how could Bank Negara lose a total of RM31.5 billion but lose only RM5.7 billion playing the forex market and yet none of the money, said Mahathir, was stolen? Mahathir will have to prove that none of the money was stolen if he insists none of the money was stolen and yet RM31.5 billion was lost.
This is what the RCI will need to look into. Mahathir plus his three sons (Mukhriz, Mirzan and Mokhzani) will need to show where their wealth came from. Mahathir and his three sons are billionaires. How did they become billionaires? Where did their money come from? How much of Bank Negara’s RM25.8 billion ended up in the pockets of Mahathir, Mukhriz, Mirzan and Mokhzani?
The fact that Bank Negara lost roughly RM31.5 billion has been proven. The fact that Bank Negara lost RM5.7 billion gambling on the forex market also seems to be what Anwar says happened. What Anwar has not said yet is what, therefore, happened to the balance RM25.8 billion? And Mahathir, Mukhriz, Mirzan and Mokhzani need to prove that the RM25.8 billion did not end up in their pockets. So Mahathir and sons need to show where their wealth came from if their wealth was not stolen from Bank Negara.
It is impossible for the Mahathir family to become billionaires in such a short time of just ten years if the money was earned legally. Even the Genting family, the Hong Leong family, the YTL family, the Berjaya Group family, the Boon Siew family, the Tan Chong family, the Soon Seng family, the Low Yat family, and many more, needed 60 years or more to be where they are today. Mahathir and sons needed only ten years to beat all the Chinamen in Malaysia.
This does not make sense at all. Any Chinese will tell you that Malays are not as smart as Chinese and Malays cannot make it unless they are crooked or are given ‘crutches’. Speak to any Chinese and they will confirm this.
The only way Mahathir and sons can convince Malaysians they are not crooks and that they did not steal their wealth and that their money did not come from Bank Negara is for them to open their books for all and sundry to see where their money came from. Mahathir and sons must show the source of their money and prove that the source is not illegal. Until then Malaysians have to assume that Mahathir and sons stole their wealth and that much of their money came from Bank Negara.

Mahathir’s children and grandchildren live the life of a Saudi Arabian Royal Family

Sabah opposition leader risks losing seat over bankruptcy

Sabah opposition leader Lajim Ukin risks losing his Klias state seat over a bankruptcy notice linked to an outstanding debt amount of RM160,951.81 with a local bank, according to a local Sabah daily.
The Daily Express reported that another local daily had published an Insolvency Department notice attributed to Sabah director Monica Linsua yesterday, raising questions over Lajim's eligibility to retain his seat.
The notice reportedly said that any payments owed by the Parti Harapan Rakyat Sabah president to CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd should first be paid to the department, following a Sept 14 court order on his bankruptcy status.
The court order was issued in line with a High Court judgment on Oct 26 last year.
On Jan 15, the Daily Express carried the first bankruptcy notice against Lajim, who was at the time given one week to settle the outstanding amount.

State assembly unaware of Lajim’s status
Sabah state assembly deputy speaker Johnny Mositun, meanwhile, was quoted by The Star today as saying that he has yet to be formally notified that Lajim has been declared a bankrupt.
“We will wait and see what happens,” Mositun reportedly said.
When contacted by The Star, Lajim said: "This is a personal matter, so why should I comment?”
Lajim, 61, was also previously an Umno deputy minister, a PKR assemblyperson for Klias, and served as the state chairperson for federal opposition pact Pakatan Harapan.- Mkini

Report: MAS will not finance or own 16 new Boeing jets

Malaysia Airlines Bhd (MAS) will not finance and own 16 new Boeing aircraft bought from the US aviation company, according to a report.
The Malaysian Reserve today quoted MAS CEO Peter Bellew who said large global leasing firms and lenders will instead purchase the aircraft and then lease the planes to MAS on an operating sale and leaseback agreement.
“These aircraft will not be owned by Malaysia Airlines, but are planned to be on operating leases, which is a norm in modern airlines,” Bellew reportedly said in an internal memo dated Sept 15 sighted by The Malaysian Reserve.
In what was described as a lengthy and detailed memo to the airline’s 14,000 staff, Bellew reportedly said the recent purchase also coincided with the end of the other lease agreements for MAS' current 48 737-800 fleet, from early 2019.
According to the report, MAS had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) last week to purchase 16 aircraft from Boeing.
The deal includes eight 787-9 Dreamliners by converting a previous order of eight Boeing 737 MAX and eight 737 MAX 8s.
"In all of this, I would like to reiterate that as of now, we have a firm order for 25 Boeing 737 aircraft with everything else being optional,” Bellew said.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, had during his recent US trip told President Donald Trump that MAS would buy 25 Boeing 737 jets and eight 787 Dreamliners, with a further 25 737s in the near future, in a deal reportedly worth more than US$10 billion over five years.
According to The Malaysian Reserve, the first delivery of the eight wide-body Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, with a list price of US$2.5 billion (RM10.5 billion) is expected in the third quarter of 2019.
Bellew, meanwhile, further said the decision to have the purchase option and other arrangements will give MAS the flexibility in deciding the aircraft that suits its operational environment.
"Having said this, the management will continue carefully evaluating all options available to us to ensure our purchases make both business and operational sense.
"This is necessary and in line with ongoing prudent fleet management and cost containment efforts across the group,” he said.

MAS had on Sept 12 signed a non-binding MoU with Boeing to facilitate negotiation to change eight of the firm 737 orders to eight Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft.
In addition, the airline also placed purchase rights for an additional eight 737 MAX 8, all while maintaining the total firm order at 25.
While Najib had received brickbats from domestic critics over his remarks on helping to strengthen the US economy, Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz had come out to support the purchase of the airplanes, claiming that it is necessary for the country’s tourism industry.- Mkini

Fuel prices down for the first time in three months

Fuel prices have gone down for the first time, after three months without a decrease.
RON95 and RON97 petrol will see a decrease of two and three sen respectively, bringing the new prices to RM2.19 and RM2.49 per litre.
Diesel price will go down by four sen to RM2.10 per litre.
Prior to this week's decrease, petrol prices had climbed steadily since July 27, with the exception for the week of Aug 17 to 24, where prices remained unchanged.
The weekly fuel price system was implemented on March 30.
It is determined by global oil price based on the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) and the ringgit's strength against the US dollar.
1.81.922. Mar6 Apr13 Apr20 Apr27 Apr4 May11 May18 May25 May1 Jun8 Jun15 Jun22 Jun29 Jun6 Jul13 Jul20 Jul27 Jul3 Aug10 Aug17 Aug24 Aug31 Aug7 Sept14 Sept20 SeptRM/litre
RON 95
RON 97

Apex court allows EC to pose three questions in voters' suit

The challenge mounted by three Hulu Selangor voters on the Election Commission’s (EC) recent redelineation exercise will take longer than expected, as the Federal Court allowed the commission to pose three questions of law.
The three voters – P Maradeveran, Zahar Rusuli, and Yong Chan Hee – found themselves part of the Kuala Kubu Bharu state constituency after the EC’s redelineation exercise, having previously been registered in Batang Kali.
They filed suit in October last year, claiming that the EC had exceeded its powers under Section 7(2) of the Elections Act 1958 by shifting voters across state constituency boundaries without their knowledge.
A three-member bench, led by Justice Ahmad Ma'arop, said it unanimously allowed leave to the EC and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for the questions be posed, including one on an ouster clause regarding Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958.
“We are unanimous in our decision, we feel there are question of law needed for further argument regarding the general principle,” Ahmad said.
The same bench had earlier dismissed former Bersih 2.0 chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan’s challenge of an ouster clause in the Immigration Act 1959/63, after she was not granted leave to challenge her Sabah travel ban.
In the Hulu Selangor voters' case, the three questions allowed to be posed by the EC and AGC, led by senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh, were:
1. Whether the decision of the EC reflected in the Federal Gazette PU (B) 197 dated April 29, 2016, and incorporated in the current electoral roll dated May 13, 2016, is rendered non-justiciable by virtue of Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958,
2. Whether the time runs from the date of publication in the Federal Gazette of a certified electoral roll as provided for under the Elections Act 1958, for the purpose of making an application under Order 53 rule 3(5) Rules of Court 2012, and
3. Whether the publication of a gazette constitutes sufficient communication of the decision of a public authority to the affected person under Order 53 Rules of Court 2012.
Section 9A of the Elections Act states that once an electoral roll has been certified, and notice of the certification has been published in the gazette, it shall be not be questioned, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or set aside by any court.
In January, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Maradeveran, Zahar, and Yong against the EC, which was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals.

The Appeals Court ruled that the voters were not out of time in filing the judicial review application, as it is based on the date the letter the EC sent on Aug 3, 2016, informing them of the move to Kuala Kubu Bharu, and not the earlier gazette dated April 29.
Gobind Singh Deo, appearing for the voters, said that since there is an ouster clause in Section 9A, and that the court had earlier dismissed Ambiga’s challenge to an ouster clause, the hearing should proceed to the High Court.
With this, the apex court will decide whether the judicial review can be made based on the April 29 gazette or the Aug 3 letter, as voters are allowed three months to challenge the electoral roll. - Mkini

Wan Azizah: Anwar in stable condition

Pakatan Harapan de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim is in stable condition, said his wife, Harapan president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
Anwar was admitted to Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) yesterday due to unstable blood pressure.
Wan Azizah confirmed that Anwar would be brought to the hospital from time to time for a few days for scheduled health checks.
“On behalf of Anwar and the family, I want to say thank you to the doctors and everyone who had prayed for Anwar’s health.
“Just like what he mentioned yesterday, change is imminent, so we need to pray and do our best to ensure that the rakyat win in the 14th General Election, insyaAllah.”

HKL hospital director Dr Zaininah Mohd Zain in a statement had said that Anwar will be kept in the hospital for a few days and will be attended to by a team of specialists.
After his hospital admission, Anwar had urged the people to continue striving for change, saying a change was “imminent.”
Anwar is presently serving a five-year jail sentence at Sungai Buloh prison for sodomy, a charge he maintains is politically motivated. - Mkini

Ambiga fails in her bid to challenge Sabah travel ban

The Federal Court today denied National Human Rights Association (Hakam) president Ambiga Sreenevasan's leave application to challenge her Sabah travel ban.  
A three-member bench comprising Justices Ahmad Ma'arop, Abu Samah Nordin and Azahar Mohamed, ruled that the 2002 decision in Sugumar Balakrishnan's case – in which the revocation of the plaintiff’s Sabah entry permit was deemed constitutional – was still a good law.
The apex court further ruled that Ambiga's case did not pass the Section 96 Courts of Judicature Act threshold for the full merits of the case to be heard. 
Gurdial Singh Nijar, representing Ambiga, told reporters the decision meant that the Sabah Immigration Department has absolute discretion not to allow anyone from Peninsular Malaysia into the state.
“They do not even need to give reasons as to why they decide to ban a person from going there,” he said.
In 2015, the Kota Kinabalu High Court had dismissed Ambiga's application.  
Earlier, Gurdial said that the apex court's decision in the Sugumar case should be revisited in light of the landmark Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd case, where it was ruled that ouster clauses such as Section 59 and 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 should not be in force.
He said that as a legal practitioner, the case creates anxiety as it grants the Immigration Department discretion to bar someone without the need to provide any valid reasons to do so.
This, he added, violates the principles of natural justice as well as Article 9(2) of the Federal Constitution, which states that every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the federation and to reside thereof.
Gurdial, a former law professor, said that Ambiga had written a letter to the Sabah immigration prior to her travels, only to be informed that she would not be allowed in. No reasons were given for this refusal.
He noted that Ambiga was scheduled to give a talk on behalf of NGO coalition Negara-ku, which she was a patron of at the time.
She was to have appeared alongside other speakers, such as former state secretary Simon Sipaun and opposition politician Jeffrey Kitingan, to discuss the issue of national integration.
Gurdial pointed to Section 67 of the Immigration Act, which states, among others, that Malaysian citizens cannot be barred from entering Sabah or Sarawak for the sole purpose of engaging in legitimate political activity.
“If Negara-ku is not a political activity, then what is?” he asked.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan said, however, that Ambiga's letter to Sabah immigration did not state that she was participating in a political activity.
“There was no mention of the Negara-ku activity at the time of the application. It was only made known, via affidavit, when the judicial review was filed, and by that time the event finished.”
Following this, Gurdial posed three questions of law to be decided on by the court if leave was granted.

However, Shamsul told the bench that these questions did not pass the criteria under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act, as there were no novel issues not discussed in the Sugumar case.
“It is not for the courts to decide with regards to the powers of the Immigration Department,” he said.
Sabah legal officer Mohd Hanafiah Kassim appeared for the Sabah Immigration Department and its director.- Mkini