The Future of Pakatan Harapan Post GE-14–Dr. M and Politics of Betrayal


August 20, 2017

The Future of Pakatan Harapan Post GE-14–Dr. M and Politics of Betrayal

by S. Thayaparan

http://www.malaysiakini.com

“A crazy country, choking air, polluted hearts, treachery. Treachery and treason.”

– Naguib Mahfouz

COMMENT | Amanah Communications Director Khalid Samad is mistaken. If Dr Mahathir Mohamad returns to the UMNO-BN fold for whatever reason after the next general election, it would not be a betrayal to Pakatan Harapan.

Image result for Mahathir and Anwar in Pakatan Rakyat
A Coalition of Political Convenience is not likely to survive after GE-14, if UMNO-BN wins the contest. Whether Tun Dr. Mahathir returns to the party he created (UNMO Baru) or not depends whether Najib Razak and his associates are prepared to bury the hatchet and welcome him. It is hard to see how this can happen at this point of time. PKR and DAP should, therefore, concentrate on retaining Penang and Selangor. Jangan jadi Mat Jenen.–Din Merican

 

The only betrayal would be that which Harapan commits to the opposition voting public. However, there would be neither any sting nor moral condemnation to that betrayal because most Harapan supporters welcome the alliance with the former UMNO President and Prime Minister. While I have argued that this is a Hobson’s choice of the opposition’s making, any attempt to minimise such betrayal is unwarranted and honestly self-aggrandising.

 

Mind you, this is not a jab at Khalid whom I think is an honourable politician – a trait lacking in the current political leadership – but rather a rejoinder that “betrayal” of any kind in the current political climate is meaningless.

So what if Bersatu, Mahathir or any other politician betrays Harapan? This is a single-issue election – the wrong issue in my opinion – which means the current UMNO grand poohbah is vanquished or he is not. The best-case scenario if the opposition fails in that endeavour is that it retains Selangor and Penang.

Image result for Mahathir and Anwar in Pakatan Rakyat

While I have no doubt that opposition political strategists are working that angle (retaining Selangor and Penang at all cost), the real issue is whether Mahathir and Bersatu can deliver. If he cannot, and if the opposition loses support from their base, then the real question is, will Harapan cling on to the former Prime Minister?

But you ask, why are the stakes so low? Well, the stakes are low because even if Najib wins and this kleptocrat prevails, it would not be as if the sky will come tumbling down. We have endured a corrupt kleptocracy for decades and many would argue that we as a people, despite the overt systemic discrimination, have thrived.

I have argued numerous times of the futility of this strategy – “And right here is the problem for the opposition because this is really is what most voters who vote Barisan National think. Through the decades, despite all the corruption scandals, the sustained attacks against independent institutions, the slow process of dismantling our individual rights, Malaysia, in the words of Josh Hong, ‘for all its flaws, Malaysia remains a prosperous, relatively efficient and economically vibrant country.’”

Besides, the history of Harapan is littered with betrayals that most opposition supporters have accepted. Harapan has always managed to find allies – maybe except PSM – that they managed to do business with, who eventually betrayed the opposition alliance.

I would argue that the opposition is extremely comfortable with betrayals. How many political operatives, political entities and the rest of the flotsam and jetsam of establishment politics have betrayed the opposition? Honestly, I have lost count.

And let us be honest. The opposition was not fooled because they were naive. The reality is that the opposition has never met a political outfit or personality that was anti-Najib that they did not have use for, until ultimately, they were betrayed because they were outplayed.

No cohesive platform

I am not making the argument that disparate interests should not attempt to come together but rather, the opposition has never really made an attempt to work together in an honest way. There was never any attempt to form a cohesive ideology or a platform that honestly addressed the agendas that opposing interests brought to the table. There were always these piecemeal efforts to bury the political and/or ideological differences and shoe horn everything into the “save Malaysia” narrative.

Moreover, many opposition supporters were comfortable with this. I would argue that these “betrayal” narratives sustained the opposition when things fell apart because of their own ineptness. “We were betrayed” when it should be “we should never have been in this position in the first place”.

Meanwhile, the UMNO regime has its own cries of betrayal. The urban demographic has betrayed them. Former members have betrayed them. With UMNO, it goes further. Betrayals are not just against the political party. Betrayals are against race and religion. This is why I suppose Bersatu is attempting the same strategy.

I mean take a look at what Bersatu Youth chief Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman says while describing the current UMNO grand poohbah as the “Malay race’s number one enemy” – “Pawning the interests of the Malays by giving mega contracts to communist China while we have to shoulder the debts amounting to billions of ringgit.”

I made my stand on this issue of the PRC deals clear here – that pro-opposition rhetoric consists of furthering the narrative that China is taking advantage of the natives and the country is being sold piece by piece to a foreign power to settle Najib’s debts. While my disdain for Najib administration is well-documented (by me, mostly), making the argument that these China deals have no credibility merely because they come from the Najib regime is disingenuous.”

So, sit back and enjoy the show. Nobody is going to betray the opposition because nobody was loyal to the opposition in the first place. PAS will eventually engage in three-concerned fights with its former allies because they have a new sugar daddy. I am sure there will be defections on both sides in the upcoming general elections.

Betrayals will be rife and teeth gnashed, but ultimately the losers will not be the urban demographic but the “lower classes” that many politicians and analysts are banking on to save the opposition.

The only gun pointed at anyone is the one pointed at the marginalised communities here in Malaysia, and they know that that gun will be passed to anyone who claims the throne of Putrajaya.


S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.

Trump’s White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, shown the door


August 19, 2017

Trump’s White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, shown the door

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40980994#

Image result for Steve Bannon fired

White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is the latest top aide of President Donald Trump to leave his post. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that Friday was his last day.

His exit follows a review of his position by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Mr Bannon, a right-wing nationalist and former head of Breitbart.com, helped shape the “America First” message of Mr Trump’s election campaign. But critics had accused the 63-year-old of harbouring anti-Semitic and white supremacist views.

Mr Bannon is known to have competed for influence in the West Wing against more moderate factions, including members of the Trump family.

Mr Trump raised eyebrows earlier this year when he elevated Mr Bannon to the National Security Council, the main group advising the President on national security and foreign affairs.

But he was subsequently removed from the council in a move that was seen as a sign of National Security Adviser HR McMaster’s growing influence over the President.

Mr Bannon has reportedly feuded with Mr McMaster as well as Gary Cohn, the director of the President’s National Economic Council and a former Goldman Sachs chief viewed as a globalist.

Mr Cohn, along with President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter, Ivanka Trump, were viewed as threats to Mr Bannon’s White House agenda.


Taking credit did him in

By Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

Steve Bannon may be out as a senior White House adviser, but Bannonism – if that’s what it can properly be called – is still firmly entrenched in the White House.

Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted that the success of his presidential campaign should properly be attributed to him, not Mr Bannon. And, in the end, Mr Bannon’s desire to take credit for that win may have been what did him in.

It certainly wasn’t because of any sharp ideological divides between the President and the former head of Breitbart News.

Border security, aggressive trade protectionism, immigration reform and a certain kind of cultural nostalgia – all were themes that Mr Trump ran on from the start, which Mr Bannon only sharpened and focused. They’re also issues Mr Trump has pushed in recent weeks, even as Mr Bannon has been increasingly marginalised.

Mr Bannon’s firing will be seen as a win for Chief of Staff John Kelly, whose attempts to instil discipline in the White House will get a boost without the free-wheeling Mr Bannon roaming the hallways.

Trump was Trump before Mr Bannon came on the scene, however. And as the rollercoaster ride that was politics this week indicates, the President isn’t changing anytime soon.


Mr Trump fuelled speculation when asked last week about Mr Bannon’s future as he replied: “We’ll see.”

Mr Bannon’s interview this week with the American Prospect, a liberal magazine, reportedly infuriated the president.

The White House aide was quoted as dismissing the idea of a military solution in North Korea, undercutting Mr Trump. He told the magazine the US was “at economic war with China” and that he aimed to push out moderates whom he believed were soft on China.

Mr Bannon told associates he thought it was an off-the-record chat and did not realise he would be quoted.

He has pushed for imposing additional tariffs on China and other trade partners to reduce deficits with those countries. He also advocated for a travel ban on citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries.

Ms Huckabee Sanders’ statement said: “White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day. “We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.”

Source familiar with the decision said Mr Bannon had been given the chance to leave on his own terms.


Who else left Trump’s White House team?

Anthony Scaramucci, Communications Director – 31 July

Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff – 28 July

Sean Spicer, Press Secretary – 21 July

Mike Dubke, Communications Director, 30 May

Michael Flynn, National Security Adviser – 14 February

This photo sums up White House turmoil


Mr Bannon took over as Chief of Trump’s presidential campaign in August 2016.

He was formerly a US Navy officer, Goldman Sachs investment banker, Hollywood movie producer and head of Breitbart News. He has reportedly told friends he could go back to the right-wing outlet that has boisterously supported Mr Trump.

In a potentially worrying sign for the White House, Breitbart’s senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak tweeted: “#WAR”.

 

No Reason to celebrate 60th Merdeka Day


August 18, 2017

No Reason to celebrate 60th Merdeka Day

by Stephen Ng@www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for UMNO Flags

COMMENT | As we approach Merdeka Day, one thing is too obvious not to be noticed.

This observation that I make will answer the question I pose: “How can BN gain back people’s confidence after 2008?”

Sixty years have passed and BN has ruled the nation. This year is crucial as it may be the coming general election that will decide whether Malaysia will return to BN or see a change of government at the federal level.

Image result for Jalur Gemilang at half mast

On August 31, 2017–In stead of rejoicing, we Malaysians  mourn the state of our country. After 60 years of Merdeka, we are being colonised by corrupt and racist UMNO kleptocrats and their partners in MCA, MIC, Gerakan.–Din Merican

My observation is based on the mood of the people as we approach Merdeka Day. It is obvious that the flags are not flying. By now, most shops would be carrying the Malaysian flag and cars would be adorned with the Jalur Gemilang.

But, unless some arm-twisting tactics are used, by now the flags would be all over the place. Patriotism is not something that can be forced. It has to come from the people’s own sentiments.

Although patriotism has nothing to do with giving support to the government of the day, its absence can indicate the people’s sentiments and confidence towards those in the powers of corridor.

This year is the 60th anniversary since Malaysia achieved its independence from the British colonial government in 1957, yet Malaysians are generally lukewarm about the celebration this year.

Why are Malaysians not showing their patriotism?

It does not cost more than RM10 to purchase a Malaysian flag, but could it be that Malaysians are unwilling to fork out even that amount of money, not forgetting the additional 60 sen for the Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

After three years, by now, most Malaysians would have felt the burden of the GST on their rising cost of living.

Only a total reversal of the GST, which unfortunately Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said is impossible to implement, is the only way BN can gain the people’s confidence.

Pakatan Harapan said the moment they win the general election, they would remove the GST. So, why is BN saying it cannot be abolished?

Is it because the country has reached such a financial state that despite the oil money, the government would not be able to meet financial obligations without the income from GST collection?

All the “positive” reports aside, one needs to only read Tricia Yeoh’s open letter to Najib to realise how much of Najib’s speech at Invest Malaysia last month can be swallowed.

The truth is most people have a very negative economic outlook, with most saying that the country appears to be going nowhere. Malaysians are beginning to see the doom ahead of them with the latest report that in 2016, the country’s debt has hit RM908.7 billion or 74 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

This is one of the highest since the country achieved independence. To say it is no problem is something hard for even ordinary Malaysians to believe. Imagine you are earning RM10,000, but you have to service your loan for the RM7,000 that you have borrowed.

You may be living a lifestyle of someone earning RM17,000 a month, but how many people even earn RM5,000 a month? This is called “over gearing”.

If people smell that something is not right, they will panic to think that the country’s total foreign debts may show that we are in real danger of bankruptcy.

One explanation after another has been given. For example, everyone knows that it is the weaker ringgit that is contributing to the higher cost of foreign debts, but what is the BN government doing about controlling external debts?

What we are hearing about are the mega projects being carried out using borrowed funds. The East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) for example is to be built using money from a soft loan provided by China’s Exim Bank at 3 percent over a period of 20 years.

Anyone borrowing from the bank for a housing loan for that period of time will realise that it is not that rosy after all. The moment someone defaults on a loan, there will be penalties. The bank may even force the property to be auctioned off.

Would the RM55 billion soft loan place Malaysia under the control of a Chinese bank, hence, indirectly the Chinese government? No banks would loan any amount of money if it does not have the assurance that it is able to get back the money.

Besides, we all know that Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) is not making any profit despite running the North-South corridor. What makes us think that the ECRL would be able to pay back the loan?

Political violence

Image result for UMNO Red Shirts

UMNO-Malay Unity, not National Unity

It is not only the financial aspect that people are worried about. No thanks to its past record, and people like Jamal Mohd Yunos and his Red Shirts, people seem to have the impression that UMNO is given the right to use violence.

Peace-loving Malaysians are no longer easily intimidated. The silent majority may not do much, but the sentiments are definitely not with UMNO when more political violence unfolds, whether linked to the party, its members, or otherwise.

They may not be outspoken, but they are waiting for the right moment to strike with another tsunami. This is my observation especially after Mahathir and his men abandoned UMNO.

Image result for UMNO Red Shirts

Jamal Ikan Bakar Yunos and his Red Shirts on a rampage?

The answer to my question, “How BN can gain back people’s confidence?” therefore requires more soul-searching on the part of BN leaders, including those from Sabah and Sarawak.

If flying of the Jalur Gemilang is any indication of the people’s sentiments, it is time for some serious discussions at the higher level.

STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008.

Malaysia: Indian Votes Matter in GE-14, says a local think tank


August 18, 2017

Malaysia: Indian Votes Matter in GE-14, says a local think tank

 by  Ooi Heng, Elijah Khor and Yasmin
Image result for hindraf malaysia

It is easy for Najib Razak to win Indian Votes –Grant Blue ICs and Bumiputra status to the marginalised Indians together with those desperate mamaks who populate Pulau Pinang, and some duit raya courtesy 1MDB. UMNO’s racism will be forgotten and Hindraf’s struggle for Justice will be pushed aside. Money wins GE-14, not ideals . That’s pork barrel politics, isn’t it? -Din Merican

Talking about the general election results in the past, we would usually treat BN as a whole. As UMNO is facing a significant political split, it is necessary to take UMNO’s parliamentary election results out of BN for further assessment.

Whenever UMNO faced a political split, that had more meaningful impact, their Malay votes would drop, and their parliamentary seats would be subsequently reduced as well.

Before the 1990 General Elections, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah parted ways with Dr Mahathir Mohamad and splintered off from UMNO to form a new party, Semangat 46. As a result, the parliamentary seats won by UMNO dropped by 12 seats, from 83 seats in 1986 to 71 seats in 1990.

Image result for gua tolong lu, lu tolong gua

UMNO-BN Manifesto for GE-14–Gua Tolong Lu, Lu Tolong Gua–Najib Razak

Before the 1999 general elections, Anwar Ibrahim was brutally prosecuted, leading to the Reformasi political movement, thus party leaders and followers, as well as civil society activists, joined hands to form a new party, Parti Keadilan Nasional. As for the electoral result, the parliamentary seats won by UMNO dropped by 17 seats, from 89 seats in 1995 to 72 seats in 1999.

Later, on 3 August 2003, Parti Keadilan Nasional officially merged with Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) as Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

During both of the political splits mentioned above, Mahathir was the President of UMNO and also the Prime Minister. This time, Mahathir split with Najib Abdul Razak, who is the current UMNO President and also the current Prime Minister, to form a new party, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu).

In this coming election, how many parliamentary seats UMNO will lose is crucial to determine the election result.

There are two scenarios.

The first scenario 

This time UMNO’s seat will lose 15 to 20 seats, out of 88 seats in the GE13.  Therefore, in this election UMNO will be left with 68 to 73 seats.

This scenario assumes that every “meaningful split” being faced by UMNO would result in a more severe split than before, and translates into a kind of electoral result. This would mean that UMNO’s performance in 1999 as compared with 1995 was worse than their 1990 result as compared with 1986.

Based on this, their result in GE-14 as compared with the GE-13, will be relatively worse than the GE-10 (1999) as compared with the GE-9 (1995), or comes close to that.

The second scenario

This time UMNO will not only perform worse than before, but also demonstrate the worst fall in history, reducing their number of parliamentary seats by 25 to 30 seats. If this is the case, in GE-14, UMNO will be left with 58 to 63 seats.

This scenario is considering the fact that out of the former UMNO leaders who have led the opposition coalition in the past to challenge UMNO, the highest-ranking one was a former Deputy Prime Minister.

This round, Mahathir is a former Prime Minister who was in office for 22 years, and the two elections before this – GE-12 (2008) and GE-13 (2013) – have successfully changed the political landscape, and also shaken up the one-party dominant system which used to be invincible.

Based on this scenario, other than UMNO showing a definite loss of parliamentary seats, the overall result of BN in GE-14 will not be a repeat of the situation in GE-10 (1999) where “the Malay voters opposed but the non-Malay voters did not oppose”, or a result where “BN saved UMNO”.

In the 1990 and the 1999 elections, even though UMNO was split, the one-party dominant system remained intact.

Today, however, after experiencing the change in political landscape through the 2008 and 2013 elections, the one-party dominant system has loosened. Based on this, this time there shall not be an outcome where “BN saved UMNO”.

The votes of marginalised groups

Let us take a look at the ethnic Chinese votes. BN’s Chinese votes in 2008 dropped by about 30 percent, and this did not stop falling in 2013 where it dropped further by 22 percent. Basically, the BN Chinese votes had dropped to its lowest. In GE-14, we assume an increase in Chinese votes for BN.

If BN gains Chinese votes by 5 percent to 10 percent, it will not be sufficient to result in “BN saving UMNO”. While Pakatan Harapan is fighting aggressively for Malay votes, they also need to manage their loss of Chinese votes, and also the percentage of votes regained by BN.

Image result for lu tolong gua, gua tolong lu

Awesome Najib Razak with a huge War Chest

What Pakatan Harapan cannot underestimate the most is the ethnic Indian voters. After BN lost Indian votes in 2008 by about 49 percent, the coalition regained 10 percent in 2013.

According to the electoral map in 2013, there were altogether 60 parliamentary seats in which Indians comprised 10 percent of voters. In 52 seats, Indians comprised 10 percent to 20 percent of voters, while in the remaining 8 seats, Indians made up 21 to 30 percent of the voting population.

Even though upon the 2013 election results Pakatan Rakyat had only 10 Indian MPs, these 60 constituencies with more than 10 percent Indian voters would also affect the chance of winning for the non-Indians in these constituencies.

Out of the 60 seats, other than the 10 seats with Indian MPs, Pakatan Rakyat had also 28 seats with non-Indian MPs, who were also affected by the Indian voters. In order to prevent the situation of “BN saving UMNO” from happening in the GE14, Pakatan Harapan should work more on addressing the Indian community’s needs and their issues of concern, and propose an effective policy for it.

The Indian community has a high proportion of lower middle class and lower-class families, and they are also experiencing the pressure of expensive goods and a high cost of living in this goods and services tax (GST) era. Other than this, many of them are having a hard time getting a low salary and having insufficient unemployment protection.

If we only focus on the 30 seats with more than 50 percent of Chinese voters, and being in delusion of controlling the back low of the Chinese votes, thinking that these would be sufficient to make use of the splinter in UMNO to obtain a good result, we are afraid that BN will be able to obtain a greater proportion of Indian votes in the GE-14.

Just as BN was greatly hit by Hindraf in the 2008 election, in this coming election, Pakatan Harapan will probably be quietly hit by the Indian community. Can the political elites feel the movements within the marginalized groups?

Ooi Heng is Executive Director of the think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU). Elijah Khor and Yasmin are research officers at KPRU.

Trump and Racism: A Moral Failure that shames America


August 16, 2017

Trump and Racism: A Moral Failure that shames America

Editorial

The Guardian view on Donald Trump and racism: a moral failure that shames America

No previous US President of modern times would have failed to condemn his country’s white nationalists. This one did.

As George W Bush’s speechwriter put it this weekend, it is one of the “difficult but primary duties” of a political leader to speak for a nation in traumatic times. A space shuttle explodes, a school student goes on a shooting spree, a terrorist flies a plane into a building, a hurricane floods a city. When such things happen, Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post, “It falls to the president to express something of the nation’s soul.” Yet if Donald Trump’s words about the violent white extremist mobilisation in Virginia on Saturday – which an under-pressure White House was desperately trying to clarify on Sunday – are an expression of its soul, America may be on the road to perdition.

The original United States of America was built on white supremacy. The US constitution of 1787 treated black slaves as equivalent to three-fifths of a free white and gave no rights at all to Native Americans, who were regarded as belonging to their own nations. After the civil war, Jim Crow laws enforced segregation across the defeated south and comprehensively disfranchised African Americans for nearly a century. Writing Mein Kampf in the 1920s, Adolf Hitler praised America’s institutional racism as a model from which Nazi Germany could learn. Only in the postwar period, and then slowly and incompletely, was meaningful racial equality pursued by the land of the free.

Image result for White Supremacy in America

America Gone Crazy

Yet, while American racism has extremely deep and tenacious historical roots, without which the events in Virginia on Saturday cannot be properly understood, some large things have changed for the better over the past 60 or so years. Equal rights have been enforced. Equality has been embraced. America has elected a black president. It would be difficult to imagine any US president of this more recent period, of whatever party, who would not have responded to the neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville with anything except explicit condemnation and disgust. Any president, that is, until this one.

Image result for David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the fanatical white supremacists who rallied in the Virginia city on Saturday and the equality defenders who demonstrated peacefully against them, one of whom was rammed and killed by a speeding car allegedly driven by a man who had attended the neo-Nazi rally. The supremacists hate black people and Jews, and regard white people as superior. They talk portentously about blood, soil and the right to bear arms. They admire Hitler and give Nazi salutes. They fly the flags of the pro-slavery Confederacy – the ostensible cause of their rallies this summer is Charlottesville’s decision, more than 150 years after the south’s surrender, to remove a statue of Robert E Lee from a park. And one of them committed the sort of act that was rightly called terrorism when it occurred in Nice, Berlin and London.

Yet, in his first response on Saturday, Mr Trump utterly failed in his primary duty to uphold equality and speak the truth about the racist violence that had taken place. Instead of placing the blame where it belonged, on the supremacists and Klansmen who triggered these events, and rather than stand up for the indivisibility of equality and tolerance before the law, Mr Trump’s words were by turns slippery, banal and morally compromised. It was not true that the violence in Charlottesville came from “many sides”, as Mr Trump evasively said, before repeating his evasion. It is the head of state’s duty to stand up, explicitly and unequivocally, against racists and those who promote racial violence. Mr Trump was found wanting.

That would not have happened under Mr Bush, for all his faults. Nor is it true of top Republicans like Cory Gardner, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Orrin Hatch, none of them social liberals, who were all quick to call the supremacists out. Even the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who is few people’s idea of an ideological exemplar, condemned the racists. But Mr Trump did not.

Image result for David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan

It is hard to believe that the omission was an oversight and hard to treat it merely as a reminder of Mr Trump’s inadequacy for the presidency. The concern is that Mr Trump’s blathering was wholly deliberate until the White House got worried by the reaction. The worry is that he recognises that his election has empowered angry white people, including those who describe themselves as “alt-right” but who should be called what they are – white supremacists. The hope is that this dishonest and morally shaming moment will define Mr Trump for sufficient decent Americans that he will not be trusted again. Sadly, the evidence of modern America gives too few grounds for optimism.

Malusia: Take On Hypocrites


August 16, 2017

Malusia: Take On Hypocrites and those who betrayed this nation and our children

by Azly Rahman@www.malaysiankini.com

Image result for dr azly rahman

In honour of the thinking and rational man

Atheist Club? Atheist Republic? Is that a band from California, after Linkin Park and Nirvana? Or a new name for a brand of Chinese-made jeans? I know One Republic is a brand of clothing and True Religion is a pair of cool jeans. Only true believers wear them.

And for the atheist, there is always the question when they die:

All dressed up and nowhere to go?

And what does it mean to believe in Nothing? When we live in a world in which we cannot escape from Somethingness?

Seriously folks, this is a serious matter in Malaysia, today and yesterday, at least. Another distraction from the issue of 1MDB and who allegedly stole the money, and who killed Altantuya and who masterminded the tragedy.

Even if one is an atheist, you’d say: Oh my God. Why was so much money allegedly stolen? Why use C4 explosives on the pregnant woman?

That is what we will say and what we have been saying about what the hell is happening in this heaven called Malaysia.

Malay-Muslims denouncing their religion. Why? Loss of meaning. No spiritual compass. Perhaps? The elders have betrayed them and robbed them of their future.

What is the meaning of Islam in Malaysia today? What has the Islamicisation agenda brought us?

Not what Prophet Muhammad taught: Opposing gluttony, combating greed. Look at the kind of lives the leaders and the sultans of the world are living. Look at the poor. Remember what the Arab Spring was about? Herein lies the rise of those who are disillusioned by Islam.

What we are reading about in the Islamic world is about Muslims killing each other, and the richer amongst the Islamic countries are building and buying weapons from the enemies of Islam, to annihilate each other.

Image result for UMNO religious hypocrites

A Malay Muslim of the UMNO variety will freak out at the sight of pork or bacon or ham but find it quite moral to squander or songlap state funds to quote Azly Rahman. MACC, what are you doing about these hypocrites? Billions of ringgits have been songlaped by the UMNO state, while you take on small fries.Occasionally you arrest the likes of Isa Samad for show.–Din Merican

At home in Malaysia, we have these streams of reports about massive and even billion-ringgit corruption cases allegedly involving those who profess the religion of Islam. As the popular saying goes, a Muslim will freak out at the sight of pork or bacon or ham but find it quite moral to squander or songlap millions.

Words they merely are. A prison-house of language we live in. Atheism. Agnosticism. Platonism. Theism. Pantheism. Secularism. Islamism. Anachronism. These are mere words.

The last one is not a belief system though. It sounded like an anaconda with a chronic illness. And if it is “anachronistic”, it should be an anaconda with a lipstick.

Who to hunt

Hunt down not the atheist to destroy them. Hunt those who are killing the nation and the coming generations. Those in power who cause untold damage, pretending to believe in God yet godless in the way they treat the world and its inhabitants.

I hope those planning to do the goodwill hunting of the atheists will be ready with the best weapons: philosophy of religion and rationalistic thought.

The self-proclaimed atheists are very smart people and have all the good arguments (though many might be faulty) to argue why they have left religion, in general.

Image result for The Greek PhilosophersFarewell to Socrates

 

Dialogue is good, hunting is not, let alone calling for the death of atheists. I doubt the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would agree to that. I doubt Islam is about that brand of paranoia.

 When I read about the issue, I recall what I wrote about believing. Here it goes.

“Prayer of a Believer”
by Azly Rahman

Believe in anything you wish to
in anything
in something
in nothing
anything that teaches you the beauty within
and shows you the kingdom you are to govern wisely 
shown by you … yourself 
as Time evolves itself within you
begin believing in anything
privately 
privately 
privately
moving into intimacy with yourself
so that when you worship
you become the worshipper – and the worshipped
like the dancer and the danced
the waves in the water
the self in your self
and when you have become good in believing what is 
good in you
the human in your humanity
the love in your beloved — you become lovers
you evolved 
you and yourself
none should tell you how
none should know
no signs 
no symbols
no house of worship should shroud your soul 
from infinitesimal glows
you evolve 
and evolve 
and walk proudly
publicly
publicly
publicly
even like the sage Siddhartha
with a begging bowl
with Rumi and reason whirling as rhymes in you
like a sadhu
a wanderer in the wilderness
a prophet on Wall Street
a soul meditating on a mountain of light
away from the madness of civilization’s plight
believe in anything you wish to 
you are truth
evolving
creating meaning
in a world
where nothing can become everything
and believing makes you a being
every minute 
every breath 
evolving
a cycle
never ending
a circle 
expanding
illuminating

No. Let us not hunt atheists but focus our energy and resources hunting down hypocrites and those who betrayed this nation and our children: leaders that are godless but wearing the mask of religiosity.

That should be our goal. As for Muslims, we do it with Bismillah hirRahman nirRahim. In the name of the Universal God, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate.


DR AZLY RAHMAN is an educator, academic, international columnist, and author of seven books. He grew up in Johor Baru and holds a Columbia University doctorate in International Education Development and Masters degrees in five areas: Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies Communication, and Creative Writing. Follow him on FacebookTwitter and his blog.