MCA President Chua Soi Lek playing destructive role of Utusan Malaysia seeking to frighten Chinese voters with lies and falsehoods in the same manner Utusan trying to scare Malay voters
The MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek is playing the destructive role of Utusan Malaysia seeking to frighten Chinese voters with lies and falsehoods in the same manner Utusan has been trying in the past three years to scare Malay voters with its daily staple of lies and falsehoods.
The role of Utusan Malaysia, the official organ of UMNO, is to violate all ethics of journalism to systematically and unconscionably concoct and dispense lies and falsehoods about the DAP and the Pakatan Rakyat to stampede the Malay voters to vote solidly for UMNO.Innocence of Muslims: How fiction creates realityWe live in a world where the cultural production of symbols shapes who we are, what we do in our lives,
But some researchers have blamed the Umno-led counter-procession that began at the residence of then Selangor mentri besar Datuk Harun Idris for the violence.A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general publi
“Bersih condemns any act of violence by any quarters. I would say the 250,000 people yesterday came in peace and did not come for violence.
“All purported acts of violence only took place after teargas was fired. Until then, we had full control of the situation before it all went awry,” she said.
Soiled Dick Licky give up your position in MCA (Must Come Again) lah and lick me. Remember the old times? This time we change hotels so it’s harder to take pictures of us. And don’t worry about hudud, my darling. The DAP has strong principles and an equal voice in Pakatan, unlike your spineless party, my darling. Always sucking up to Najis. The only thing you should be sucking is between my legs, darling.
For instance, Utusan Malaysia had been publishing downright lies and falsehoods about the DAP,The politics of telling the truth Why has the mainstream US media failed to get past the rhetoric of political ads during this presidential campaign? WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMY? DON’T READ Utusan’s journalists are supposed to be among the most educated and savvy about the economy. Many have either worked on Wall Street, or … Read more
spreading the completely baseless allegation that the DAP is anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers, that the DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia to replace Islam as the official religion, appoint a Christian Prime Minister, establish a Republic and abolish the system of Malay monarchy.A successful liberal democracy has three elements, says Francis Fukuyama in his sparkling new book, The Origins of Political Order. It has a strong authority to allow quick and decisive action; a transparent rule of law to ensure the action is legitimate; and it is accountable to the people. Combining these three elements is not …Read more DONALD LIM:‘MALAYSIA GROWS AT NIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SLEEPS THAT WHEN MCA PORNSTAR GO TO LOOK FOR YOUNG GIRLS
In the past months, it has become obvious that the MCA President is playing the irresponsible and divisive role of Utusan Malaysia by seeking to frighten the Chinese voters to stampede them to vote for MCA through what MCA strategists believe is the MCA trump card – the issue of Islamic state and hudud implementation.
DAP’s stand on Malaysia as a secular state has always been constant and consistent.
We hold firm to our fundamental principle that an Islamic state and hudud laws are inappropriate and unsuitable for Malaysia as a plural society.
We do not hide our fundamental principle and beliefs, whether from PAS or any other political party or the Malaysian people. We know PAS’ stand on Islamic State and hukum hudud, just as PAS knows our different stand on these two issues.
‘AG Abdul Gani Patail’s explanation is not necessary. The amendment is a travesty of justice. It is as simple as that.’ As simple as the AG transforming the PM, his coalition CABINET, PDRM, MACC, GOVT.MEDIA, and some JUDGES as incapable of doing what comes naturally in their line of duty!arpals stupid and idiotic comments on Islam are … Read more
So criticising Umno is insulting Islam Several NGOs have lodged police reports on allegedly inflammatory comments posted on the Malaysiakini website, threatening to hold protests in front of its office as well as that of the Home Ministry’s if no action is taken. Malays are polite and friendly but Muslims are belligerent , I got whacked left … Read more
Although DAP, PAS and PKR have our differences, the Pakatan Rakyat leadership has repeatedly reaffirmed our unswerving commitment to common policy agreements reached by the three component parties, whether before or after the 13th General Election, in the PR Common Policy Framework of December 19, 2009, Buku Jingga of 20th December 2010 or other Joint PR Leadership statements and documents.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that there must be consensus among the three PR component parties before there could be any change in any agreed PR policy.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly emphasized that the implementation of hudud is not part of the PR Common Policy Framework.
Islamic Revolution Before the time of the Prophet of Islam, the ancient civilizations such as Greek, Egyptian, Roman and Persian- all were polytheistic (shirk) in their beliefs. That is they worshipped natural phenomena such as the earth (Goddess Gaiga now in the west), rivers, mountains, sun, moon or stars. Only Islam was able to displace … Read more
This means that if Pakatan Rakyat wins the 13th General Election and forms the Federal Government in Putrajaya, for the next five years from 2012/2013 to 2017/8, the implementation of hudud will not be part of the Pakatan Rakyat Federal Government policy or programme unless all the three PR parties can reach a consensus on it.
This position is very clear, simple and straightforward but the MCA President is doing his utmost in his politics of desperation, fear and irresponsibility to try to cause panic and fear so as to stampede the Chinese voters to vote for MCA in the 13th General Election.
One of Chua’s favourite gambits is to cite the PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu claiming that Mohamad Sabu had announced that PAS will amend the Federal Constitution to implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat comes into power – totally ignoring Mohamad Sabu’s denial of ever having made such a statement and the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council’s policy pronouncement that the implementation of hudud is not part of Pakatan Rakyat policies, a policy position which binds all Pakatan Rakyat parties for the next four to five years until the 14th General Elections.
Another favourite Chua gambit is to shout from the rooftops that hudud implementation is a certainty if Pakatan Rakyat wins in the 13th general election, claiming that “judging from the 222 MPs, of whom most were Muslims, PAS could easily obtain the two-thirds majority to implement its version of hudud”.
Chua had gone on public record in saying: “So, this is a political reality that all non-Muslims must face. This is not a threat. It is something that all of us most think about carefully.”
This is a downright lie and utter rubbish. It shows that in his politics of desperation, Chua Soi Lek has utter contempt for figures, facts and the truth.
Firstly, the number of Muslim MPs, as it stands, still falls short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution.
After the 2008 GE, for Peninsular Malaysia, there were 107 Muslim MPs, i.e. 65 MPs from BN and 42 MPs – a far cry from the two-thirds majority of 148 MPs required to amend the constitution.
Even when Sabah and Sarawak are included (and Sabah and Sarawak must be considered separately, as Malaysia’s position as a secular state is specifically underlined in Sabah’s 20-Point Agreement and Sarawak’s 18-Point Agreement in the formation of Malaysia in 1963), the total number of Muslim MPs still fall short of two-thirds majority.
Including Sabah and Sarawak, the 2008 GE elected 130 Muslim MPs out of 222 or 59%, 18 MPs short of a two-thirds majority – with 88 Muslim MPs from BN and 42 Muslim MPs are from PR. (Table 1 below)
Table 1: Muslim and Non-Muslim MPs by BN / PR and by Region / State post GE2008
|Region / State||BN||PR|
It would be simplistic to assume that the Muslim MPs from BN in East Malaysia would blindly support a motion to declare Malaysia as an Islamic state especially since some of these MPs, such as those from PBB in Sarawak, are from parties with non-Muslim members and representatives among their midst.
If we consider only the Muslim MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, they only constitute 107 MPs, less than 50% of the total number of MPs in Malaysia, far short of the two-thirds of 66.7% required for any constitutional amendment.
Table 2: Muslim and Non-Muslim Majority seats by Region / State
|Region / State||Muslim Majority||Non-Muslim Majority||Total|
Even if we take the number of Muslim majority versus Non-Muslim majority seats, there are only 136 Muslim majority seats in the whole country (61%), still 12 short of a two thirds majority of 148.
Again, the rationale of Sabah and Sarawak Muslim MPs not necessarily supporting such a motion still holds.
From Table 1 and 2, even in the most extreme circumstances where ALL of the MPs in Muslim majority seats vote to support an Islamic state motion, it would still not be sufficient to reach a two-thirds majority.
These two tables debunk the lie that the MCA President is spreading all over the country, that it is virtually a certainty that there would be two-thirds parliamentary majority of Muslim MPs to support a constitutional amendment to implement hudud when Pakatan Rakyat comes into power in Putrajaya in the 13th General Election.
I would advise the MCA President to cease and desist and halt all his politics of fear, desperation and irresponsibility. Let him act responsibly for a change and show greater respect for figures, facts and the truth.
The recent wave of protests spreading throughout the Muslim world questions many assumptions we commonly make about national and global politics. We all want to know why and how it started; what groups and organisations are behind the riots and attacks against American targets and most importantly, how do we deal with such a rapid and unpredictable escalation of symbolic and physical violence? However, these may be the wrong questions.
The alleged anti-Islam film is nothing more than a 14 minutes long video widely circulated on the internet. We know very little about the producers. Conspiracy theories will keep on multiplying around the identity of the production team, the director and cast.
Either way, this search for the people behind the movie misses the point. When content goes viral on Facebook, we don’t usually ask who sent it or why. If it provokes our thoughts and feelings, we engage with it. We might like it or dislike it, comment on it, perhaps share the content further.
Something similar happened with the trailer of the “Innocence of Muslims”, except that action well exceeded the boundaries of the virtual world. What is it that makes us react to media content over the internet? Why are so many people worldwide reacting so vigorously against this video?
I think that it shows the crucial role played in everyday politics by people’s deep-seated attachment to powerful images, symbols, messages and ideas. The latter are often glossed over as mere emotional hang-ups, the inevitable side-effects of human politics that can be corrected and harnessed through the development of sound democratic institutions.
The dominant western assumption is that – despite the complexity of today’s world – individuals, groups and institutions have clearly defined identities and consciously pursue specific interests and act upon them. For many politicians and analysts, these are the dimensions that are most important to a deeper understanding of political events.
This point of view overlooks an important social fact: in the “real” reality out there, messages, ideas, emotions and reactions spread virally, just as they do in our “Facebook” worlds. Contemporary identities are multiple and fragmented. There are undoubtedly numerous groups and institutions that do try to direct collective action and mobilise military, economic and social resources in pursuit of their interests.
There are also billions of people that, not unlike Facebook users, move in and out of groups, social movements, actions and protests. Sometimes endorsing a cause and then supporting the opposite cause, without a clear linear rationale. Today’s social world is not rational, certainly not in the way we assume it to be.
Focusing attention solely on terrorist groups and Islamic fundamentalist preachers inciting people for their own undemocratic goals does not bring us closer to a deeper understanding. It serves the purpose of providing a sensible explanation for what is happening to citizens of Western “liberal democratic” states.
We are told that if we catch the leaders of the protest, and make sure that these countries adopt the same democratic institutions that we have at home, it will all be fine.
These messages reveal at best a delusional understanding of contemporary reality, and at worst are a lie distracting our attention from the worrying realisation that Western leaders in fact have little or no control over such events.
We are seeing people storming the streets with anti-American messages in the same countries where mass rebellions against dictators and authoritarian regimes were hailed by the West as the “Arab spring” only some months ago.
We cannot separate these events, they are part of the same reality. We cannot easily distinguish the “democratic” desires of the people rising against their tyrants from the “fundamentalist” delusions of crowds blinded by inflammatory rhetoric and bad leaders.
Alternative means of violence
It is just as hard as trying to categorise our own Facebook activity in some linear model that would clearly and neatly explain who we are and who we will vote for in the next elections. We will most likely fail. Sometimes we engage in contradictory thoughts, and that’s just the way it is – we don’t think about it, we just do it. Nor is the US response on the whole any more “rational”.
Obama and his entourage went to great lengths to explain that the US and its representatives have nothing to do with the movie, which they condemned as “disgusting and reprehensible“. At the same time, the president also tried to reassure Americans that security is being stepped up by sending warships to Libya in the wake of the embassy attacks.
The truth is that this is not a struggle between US interests and its military establishment on one side, and the anti-US Islamist “insurgents” and fundamentalists fighting for their own interests, using alternative means of violence and political consensus, on the other. At least not in the sense in which we usually mean it. We often tend to think of these interests as the primary “stuff” of which social reality is made.
The imagery attached to these struggles, circulating in the form of videos, books and other media, is seen as a derivate of the real material struggles for power and resources on the ground and indeed it may well have been this way in the past. Today however we live in a different world where the production of images and symbols shapes who we are, what we do in our lives and how we act as political beings.
To put it more crudely, Facebook is the “real” reality, and the “physical” reality out there has just become an extension of our Facebook worlds. From this perspective, the reactions of the protesters make more sense: their anger and concerns originated in this “virtual” world and then they took to the streets.
This is not to say that material factors don’t count. It is clear that poverty, corruption, exploitation, military repression and colonialism are all realities that have shaped and negatively affected the lives of protesters. And yet the eruption of these repressed feelings were spurred and driven by a visceral reaction to a video. It is the production of images that drive the material reality and not the other way around.
The US reaction follows a similar pattern. The protests exploded on September 11, the anniversary of the tragic attack on the Twin Towers. American officials are responding to this symbolic assault beyond the material implications of the shocking killing of an ambassador and the physical threat posed to its diplomatic staff throughout Muslim countries.
Warships and marines are being sent to the region making it clear that the attack will not succeed, that the sentiments and ideas behind the “American nation” will not be stopped by unacceptable verbal and physical violence.
Symbols and images do not follow the logics of rationalist enlightenment upon which the ideals of liberal democracy have been grounded. Meanings carried with imaginary narratives are never straightforward, they mix in strange and unpredictable ways, leaving us with a sense of mystery and puzzlement.
There are no linear boundaries in the imagination of protesters that make absolute distinctions between US embassies and those from other Western nations.
There are no clear geographies that confine the protests to the “Arab world”. The Taliban attacked a British base in Afghanistan as a reaction to the movie, just as thousands of peaceful protesters gathered in London responding to the same imagery. There is no orchestrated conspiracy, and therefore also no easily identifiable source of these attacks.
Military deployment is not a rational strategy to use in combating an invisible enemy – and Obama knows that. It is used as a show of force, a symbol, part of the same struggle, the same emotional politics that feeds the protesters’ fury. He needs to assure his fellow citizens of his unequivocally American qualities in the lead up to presidential elections.
These trends are not just happening “out there”, outside the comfortable borders of Western democracies, nor are they confined to one region and to the ideological conflict between the Christian West and Islam. They are at the very heart of our global society.
Interesting parallels can be drawn with the unplanned, spontaneous way in which tens of thousands of youth subverted the social order for five days with widespread looting and rioting across major English cities in August 2011. Or with the dramatic build-up of the May 2008 xenophobic attacks against foreign Africans living in South Africa which spread very rapidly and violently.
These are different contexts, different symbols and different struggles. Yet, in all these cases the eruption of collective discontent lacks clearly defined political actors. They all bring together different – and sometimes conflicting – interests, intentions and motivations that cannot be arranged into a single coherent narrative.
Before we can understand and deal with such events “rationally”, we need to explore new and better ways of looking at these dynamics and how they are shaping our everyday lives.