The Plot thickens in PKR sans Anwar Ibrahim


May 31, 2016

The Plot thickens in PKR sans Anwar Ibrahim

by Raja Petra Kamaruddin

Mahathir’s plans are wider than just ousting Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and making his son, Mukhriz, the Prime Minister. It also includes helping Azmin Ali to take over as the PKR President, helping Lim Guan Eng escape jail, plus making sure that his man takes over as the new Kelantan Menteri Besar

AAA or triple stands for the ‘Attack Azmin Ali’ campaign. After ousting previous Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, it is now time to bring down the current Selangor Menteri Besar Dato Seri Azmin Ali.

When Malaysia Today first revealed Azmin’s February 22, 2015 meeting with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in London, not many batted an eyelid. That was because Anwar Ibrahim and those in his inner circle — such as his team of political strategists (see the photograph below) — already knew about the meeting. In fact, it was Anwar who had asked Azmin to fly to London to meet Mahathir.

PKR Strategists

But Azmin was supposed to meet Mahathir to talk about a deal of mutual benefit. Basically it was supposed to be a win-win deal. Pakatan would support Mahathir’s ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) while Mahathir, in turn, would support Anwar’s FAC (Free Anwar Campaign).

However, Azmin never once raised the issue of Anwar. They just discussed how the opposition can support Mahathir’s bid to oust Najib with no discussion at all on Mahathir also supporting the bid to appeal for a pardon for Anwar so that he not only can be freed from jail but would also qualify to re-enter politics without first having to go through a five-year ban.

In short, the deal was to make it possible for Anwar to be able to contest the 2018 general election in two years’ time instead of having to wait till 2028 when he would be 81 years old before legally being allowed to contest the general election. Azmin was supposed to discuss with Mahathir how they could ‘buy’ Anwar the ten years he needed so that he could re-enter politics when he is still 71 instead of having to wait till he is 81.

Azmin, however, did not do this. He discussed everything and all sorts of things with Mahathir except for that one very important thing that Anwar wanted them to discuss. And that one very important thing was Anwar’s freedom so that he could came back as the de facto Opposition Leader and also contest the next general election in 2018, both which are now pies in the sky.

But then this was what Malaysia Today wrote more than a year ago. And Malaysia Today always lies. It never tells the truth. So no one, either Anwar or those four ‘political strategists’ in the photograph above, took any notice of what Malaysia Today wrote.

And then, as time went on, they started to realise that Malaysia Today was not ‘talking kok’ as they first thought after all. Malaysia Today was implying (or maybe even alleging) that Azmin had sold out Anwar and was attempting to replace Anwar with Mahathir as the new de facto Opposition Leader. But that would never happen because Azmin would bend over backwards for Anwar if need be (figure of speech of course and not literally) — or so they thought.

Today, that assumption has changed. And it changed not because Malaysia Today revealed 15 months ago about what Azmin discussed with Mahathir in London. It changed because Azmin himself has proven that Mahathir and not Anwar is his boss.

But then Azmin cannot help himself. That was the promise Azmin made to be able to become the Selangor Menteri Besar — that he would dump Anwar and not serve Anwar any longer. But whom did Azmin make this promise to? To who did Azmin promise that if he were appointed the Selangor Menteri Besar he would no longer serve Anwar or pledge loyalty to Anwar but would dump Anwar?

Yes, a most interesting question, don’t you think so? And I am sure some of you already suspect who that person is. Nevertheless, I am not going to mention his name just yet although I cannot promise you that some time in the future I will reveal who that person is. Suffice to say that Azmin got the job as Selangor Menteri Besar on the agreement that he must turn his back on Anwar.

And Azmin delivered his promise, although only 18 months later, by ousting Anwar as the de facto Opposition Leader and by not getting Mahathir to agree to a pardon for Anwar and by supporting Mahathir as the new de facto Opposition Leader to replace Anwar.

Anwar plus his four political strategists in the photograph above now know that Azmin has sold them out. At first they also excitedly supported Mahathir’s ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign and the Citizens’ Declaration. But when they realised that the ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign was really about making Mukhriz Mahathir the next Prime Minister and that it did not include allowing Anwar to walk out of the Sungai Buloh Prison, they launched the AAA or ‘Attack Azmin Ali’ campaign.

Azmin has his own ambition. And his ambition is to no longer walk in Anwar’s shadow and to continue to be called ‘Anwar’s boy’. Azmin wants to be the new PKR party president. But to win the party presidency he needs to abandon Anwar and his family. He needs to show he is his own man and not ‘Anwar’s boy’.

The alarm bells were first triggered when Azmin started talking about his ‘relationship’ with Mahathir and how blood is thicker than water and how the past is the past and we should let bygones be bygones and forgive and forget, and so on. This was a far cry to the Mahathir is penghianat negara and the most corrupt Prime Minister in history, and should be hounded until lubang cacing, and so on, during the Reformasi days.

So now the AAA campaign is on. First Anwar wrote that very damaging letter from prison which appeared to be attacking Mahathir but was actually attacking Azmin. And then Rafizi leaked the allegation of corruption, that involved ‘supplying women’ as well, committed by a certain unnamed person in the Selangor government.

Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail has asked Rafizi to go lodge a report with the MACC, which he is going to do next week. We can only assume that Rafizi has enough evidence or else he would not have made that expose and would not be going to meet the MACC next week.

By the way, Rafizi and the other three in the photograph above were the same ‘political strategists’ who were behind the earlier Kajang Move to bring down Khalid Ibrahim. And they are also the same four behind the AAA campaign to bring down Azmin Ali. Just when I thought 2015 was the most interesting year in a long time, 2016 may yet prove to be more exciting.

Oh, and this is not all. While all this is going on, the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, is also making his deal with Mahathir, just like Azmin is. Guan Eng knows he cannot escape the corruption charge involving his house so he is getting Mahathir to help get the MACC to back off.

Mahathir is able to tell the MACC what to do so Guan Eng needs Mahathir’s help to escape jail. That is why DAP is 100% behind Mahathir’s ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign and Mahathir’s Citizens’ Declaration — plus also supports the move to make Mukhriz the next Prime Minister if they can first of all oust Najib somehow.

And what about Kelantan? Yes, of course Mahathir has his fingers in the Kelantan pie as well. Mahathir is behind a certain PAS leader who might soon join Amanah and then become Mahathir’s candidate for the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. So Amanah had better get used to the idea that if Amanah or Pakatan Harapan manages to grab Kelantan from PAS, the man who is going to become the Kelantan Menteri Besar will be the man whom Mahathir says shall be Menteri Besar and not the man who Amanah wants as Menteri Besar.

Malaysia: For Citizens’ Declaration and Why


May 28, 2016

Malaysia: For Citizens’ Declaration and Why

by P Gunasegaram

http://www.malaysiakini.com

“All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field”–Albert Einstein.

QUESTION TIME | The Citizens’ Declaration is a document that was drawn up by citizens concerned over Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s role as leader of the country. It originates more from Bersih and other civil groups than former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The key question is whether Najib should continue to be Prime minister given the current situation, especially with respect to rogue strategic development company 1Malaysia Development Bhd or 1MDB and RM4.2 billion in donations that went into Najib’s bank accounts.

When I first read the Citizens’ Declaration, which basically urges the removal of the current Prime Minister through legal means, I found that I did not agree with everything it said, especially with respect to the imposition of the Goods and Services Tax or GST. But how could a document, which was drafted by a few, can acquire universal acceptance?

There were two things that mattered to be me more. Was I in basic agreement with the tone, tenor and key points of the declarations? I was.

Second, as a journalist and writer, does signing it compromise my independence? Perhaps but not much if I take extra care about being fair and balanced nevertheless. We are citizens too and we should exercise our rights, like voting and signing the declaration if we substantially agree with it.

The declaration neither legitimises Mahathir nor does it mean that he becomes the leader of the movement. But if Mahathir wants to support that document and if former finance minister and close Mahathir associate Daim Zainuddin wants to, let them. They have their rights as citizens.

Jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s characterisation of the document as Mahathir’s and his warnings to fellow opposition leaders to be careful about working with Mahathir and Daim in a letter over this is terribly unfortunate. It undermines the efforts of concerned citizens to try and remove what they consider to be an unsuitable Prime Minister from his position. Many will now not sign because of Anwar’s position.

Says Anwar: “Essentially it remains Tun M’s document, defective and incoherent when viewed in the context of reform. Its only focus is the removal of Najib as PM due to the 1MDB fiasco. This is obviously a departure from the raison d’etre of our struggle: for freedom and justice, rule of law, combating abuse of power and corruption, and distributive justice!”

Institutional reforms

The irony is that the declaration covers some similar ground. What is it that the Citizens’ Declaration says? One may or may not agree with all parts of the preamble, have issues with how accurate and correct they are and whether there is room for disagreement over some of the issues such as GST.

But the key part and what it urges are contained in clauses 36 and 37. Clause 36 reads:

For all these reasons, we, the undersigned citizens of Malaysia agree and support:

a) The removal of Najib as PM of Malaysia through non-violent and legally permissible means.

b) The removal of all those who have acted in concert with him.

c) A repeal of all recent laws and agreements that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and undermine policy choices.

d) A restoration of the integrity of the institutions that have been undermined, such as the Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Bank Negara and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Clause 37 reads: We call upon all Malaysians, irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation, creed or parties, young and old to join us in saving Malaysia from the government headed by Najib, to pave the way for much-needed democratic and institutional reforms, and to restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary which will ensure the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of our national institutions.

It is because of these two clauses and that I agree with them that I signed the declaration. I honestly believe that they are legitimate demands. Although I don’t believe that they of themselves will directly result in the Prime Minister stepping down, over one million people stepping up to put their names for the document is a telling message that cannot be totally ignored.

To not support, withdraw support or become less associated with it because Mahathir is involved or appears to be taking credit for it or is closely associated with it is wrong. If you believe what the declaration calls for, sign it. Nothing else is of real consequence.

This is not the first time that citizen’s efforts are being politicised. It happened during the Bersih-driven demonstrations for electoral reforms when opposition figures pushed themselves to the forefront ahead of the key organisers. In this latest case, those with their own political axes to grind – Mahathir, Anwar, the ruling party and the opposition – have their own take on things. They are entitled to them.

But what does PKR and Pakatan Harapan hope to gain by distancing themselves from a citizen’s initiative that is calling for the legal removal of the prime minister, the same thing that PKR and Harapan partners have been calling for? Is it not rather short-sighted and strategically inconsistent to not sign the declaration or support it or distance yourself from it just because Mahathir and Daim Zainuddin support it?

Removing a Corrupt Prime Minister

While Mahathir may have his own political motives for supporting the declaration, he does not allude to them in public or make his strategic thoughts publicly known. All he wants – or seems to want – is to remove a corrupt Prime Minister.

Yes, if he had not removed the checks and balances on the executive and introduced draconian measures to consolidate his own power and showed how it can be done, all this would not have happened now. Indeed he was responsible too for the current state we are in.

When UMNO was declared illegal in 1987, Mahathir formed a new party, UMNO Baru, and kept all his opponents out. He emasculated the judiciary and made it impotent as a check and balance against executive abuse. He repeatedly used the two-thirds majority in the legislature to make many constitutional changes, removing safeguards for abuses. The legislature did not balance the executive but instead served as a rubber stamp for Mahathir’s measures.

He cultivated patronage and corruption and privatised large chunks of profitable government businesses, in some cases under iron-clad guarantees and purchase agreements, to cronies. He allowed corruption to grow and flourish and did little about it because it suited his own purposes. He was an example to Najib, of what Najib could get away with if he had the levers of power and exercised them accordingly.

Yes, Mahathir has ulterior motives in wanting Najib out. With Najib in power, the opposition has better chances of victory. And if the opposition comes to power, there are lots that will come into the open, and Mahathir has a lot to hide. It is in Mahathir’s interest to knock Najib off the Umno president’s post – before the next general elections.

But all that is beside the point – it’s not as if Malaysians don’t know. They do but they recognise that Mahathir’s voice, for better or worse, is a strong one which still resonates with many Malaysians.

Mahathir was a bad prime minister because of all this and much more but Najib is worse. Getting as much as RM4.2 billion into his bank accounts must be a “no!” for any leader anywhere. It has not even been established that it is a donation as Najib claims. And there are links between that donation and 1MDB, the most mismanaged Malaysian government company of all time.

Why would any opposition party want to distance itself from a primarily citizen’s initiative calling for the legal ouster of the prime minister under whose watch all these happened just because Mahathir supports it? What kind of a strategy is that?

This must rank, together with Anwar’s infamous announcement post the 2008 elections that the opposition will gain power through crossovers from BN, as one of the low points in Anwar’s announced strategies. It’s also why the public has trouble trusting politicians because power is the ultimate aim no matter the lip service towards justice, goodness and truth.

Perhaps it is just as well – such a move by the opposition to distance itself from the Citizens’ Declaration may paradoxically give it more credibility, Mahathir notwithstanding given that he is a political opportunist par excellence who has taken his chances far better than Anwar has.

 

Malaysia’s Travel Ban


May 27, 2016

Malaysia’s Travel Ban: Administrative Stupidity or Political Insecurity?

by Azmi Sharom

http://www.thestar.com.my

BOY, was I worried last week. This paper reported that the Immigration Department was going to bar those who disparaged or ridiculed the Government from traveling abroad.

And those who did so overseas would be barred from traveling upon their return home. For up to three years!

Crikey. This was most concerning. In my job I speak about laws and government policies all the time; at home and abroad.We, lecturers, go to seminars and conferences and we discuss ideas.

So, even if I take special care to say only the sweetest things about the Government, I could still be faced with questions like “Why is your government-owned strategic development company facing so much trouble?”.

What a conundrum. Do I spout some inanity (“err … that is a good question, Malaysia is truly Asia. Thank you.”) or give my opinion and risk being unable to eat authentic Nasi Gudeg for three years?

I suppose I could say something brilliant like “Look, is that an ostrich in the aisle?”, and then make my escape. And furthermore, The Star reported that these disparaging comments can be done in any manner. Good lord, does that include private conversations?

What if I am in a café in Madrid and my Spanish host asks me, “Señor Azmi, why does your Government prevent people from going overseas to get human rights awards?”

What do I say then? “Manuel, I am Malaysian, I cannot answer your question. Please pass the paella.”

Then fortunately, the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs comes swooping in and says that there will be no ban on travelling for critics of the Government.

Phew, that’s a relief then. I guess those guys in the Immigration Department just got together and decided amongst themselves to make up this policy.

I did not realise that government agencies had so much autonomy that they could make far-reaching unconstitutional, anti-human rights-type decisions without the OK from the minister or his faithful deputy.

Just shows what I know.

But then the Deputy Minister goes on to say that the ban only applies to those who are a threat to national security and who have violated the Constitution.So I guess Maria Chin is a national security threat and habitual violator of the Constitution then.

It is as though the Constitution is a high-born Roman lady in danger of being attacked by a ravaging Visigoth.How can a private citizen violate the Constitution?

Hey, we are not the ones who make laws that blatantly go against the Fundamental Liberties listed in Part 2 of the Constitution. We are not the ones who say that this is an Islamic state when the Constitution says no such thing.

We are not the ones who obtusely say that there is no separation of powers because the Constitution does not use the term “separation of powers” (even though the executive, legislature and judiciary are each given separate chapters and have clearly defined powers).

It is virtually impossible for a private citizen to violate the Constitution.Short of perhaps companies that treat their workers like slaves or practise gender bias.

So the idea that citizens who violate the Constitution can have their passports taken away is laughable.It’s as though by throwing big words into the mix, this ludicrous and unlawful attack on our freedom of movement is all hunky dory.

Really, all this business about keeping us stuck at home is ridiculous.Do we need to go overseas to belittle the Government when their actions can be spread far and wide via existing technology? Why worry about citizens belittling or disparaging them abroad when they do it so well by themselves?

Pro UMNO Lawyer Shafee– Time to learn to eat the humble pie


May 27, 2016

Pro UMNO Lawyer Shafee: Time to learn to eat the humble pie– Who is “We”?

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah expressed his disappointment with today’s Kuala Lumpur High Court decision which dismissed his suit against lawyer Tommy Thomas, former Court of Appeal judge V.C George, the Malaysian Bar and former President Christopher Leong, claiming it was “erroneous”.

“Naturally, we are disappointed with the decision on the matter. However we take the position and certainly believe that the judgment is erroneous.In light of this, we will be filing an appeal together with a certificate of urgency and hope for the matter to be heard expeditiously by the Court of Appeal. We are taking steps to compile a record of appeal immediately,” he said.

Tommy Thomas

Shafee was the senior lawyer who was granted a fiat by then Attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to prosecute former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

However, upon gaining a conviction at the Federal Court against Anwar, he held a public talk at Kelana Jaya for UMNO Youth about the case.

Subsequently, the UMNO-linked lawyer also held talks elsewhere.

This led to Tommy filing a motion, which was seconded by George, at the Malaysian Bar AGM last year complaining about Shafee’s conduct in having the public talks.

Christopher Leong

Shafee then filed a suit to stop Tommy and George from tabling the motion against him and obtained an ex-parte injunction a day before the AGM.

Today, Justice Hanipah Farikullah dismissed the defamation suit and accepted the defendants defence of fair comment, justification and qualified privilege. The court found it was improper for Shafee to discuss ‘in camera’ evidence at a forum.

V.C. George

“For this court, evidence involving in camera evidence is not proper for an advocate and solicitor to divulge it to the public. To my mind, there is some substantive truth for the first defendant (Tommy) and the second defendant (George) in the defence of justification,” Justice Hanipah said, among others, before dismissing the suit.

Malaysia: Light and Political Change will come but Quando’


May 24, 2016

Malaysia: Light and Political Change  will come but Quando’

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

Once upon a time, not long ago, many Malaysians – the majority,  in fact- believed that change was possible through politics. That was our age of innocence and naivete.

No longer now it seems, given the current plague of scandals and chicanery, and the burgeoning tools of repression and authoritarianism exercised by a government desperate to prevent the fallout from the twin crisis of IMDB and donation to the Prime Minister’s account from spiralling out of control and toppling Najib from his position.

The fish rots from the head

The fish rots from the head. The rot has also set well into the rest of the body politic. No political figure or body either from or associated with the Barisan Nasional coalition has been immune from the sense of disillusionment, betrayal and alienation that is pervasive among members of the public as a result of what is taking place in the country. This can be discerned from the feedback; some expressed angrily, others sorrowfully, seen on a daily basis in the readers’ columns of the social media.

Today even this last outlet where Malaysia’s rakyat can find voice to express their innermost feelings and concerns on matters of the state and the political shenanigans of the day is at risk.This is because the Government through its minions in the civil service can punish by preventing us from traveling outside the country for “disrespecting or insulting the country’s leaders” according to the Immigration Department  Director-General, Dato’ Sakib Kusmi.

“The Malaysian international passport is a travel document issued by the Government under the aegis of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. So, the government has the discretion to either issue, defer or revoke the travel document,” he was quoted in an email to a local daily.

His superior, the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, clarified. “Only for people who commit offence (sic) against the Constitution, for example sedition, religion, race, and threat to national peace and harmony and national security.”

In less convoluted terms, what Nur Jazlan Mohamed, son of Dato Mohamed Rahmat, the notorious Minister and former Malaysian Ambassador to Indonesia during the Mahathir Administration, who not so long ago seen as a relatively sensible leader with liberal pretensions until his promotion to higher office, is stating is that should the government deem you or what you say/write as a threat to the government – no matter how unfounded or incorrect the view of the authority – it has the right to take away your passport and prompto you cannot travel.

But according to the government – you should not complain. After all you still have your other freedoms and rights intact.

Hence, you can always fight this decision by challenging the government in our – above board and above reproach – independent court at your own time and expense. And while it is fought in the court of law, the ban remains. Meanwhile the Immigration Department and Home Affairs will conveniently pass on the defence of its position to the salivating posse of lawyers, eagerly waiting their call to national service for a suitable fee paid out from the taxpayers’ pocket.

Genesis of ‘Political Apathy’

Some analysts, after surveys on political attitudes and behavior, have noted how most young Malaysians appear to be apathetic about the country’s politics. In explaining this finding, they have blamed it on the history of ‘political apathy’ as well as on the country’s relative prosperity, Asian respect for authority, and the campus politics ban imposed in the 1970s to squelch radicalism.

In fact, the main culprit for what appears a tidak apa attitude towards politics and political change is the Barisan Government itself which has held the reins of power since 1957.

Clearly measures such as the travel ban imposed on Maria Chin Abdullah, Bersih chief, who was prevented from travel to Seoul to receive a human rights award, are not only to deter her and other NGO leaders.

They are part of the arsenal of anti-dissent weaponry used by the authorities to send a message to the larger population who may not be apathetic to what is taking place and who may be thinking of opposing the government. They are intended precisely to breed the apathy which is part of the mental conditioning required to ensure the sustained silencing of voices and shackling of minds that want a vibrant democracy.

The ‘apathy’ has little or nothing to do with cultural values and respect for our leaders and even less to do with the level of affluence of our society. But it has everything to do with making sure that the Barisan stays in power indefinitely and kills off dissent aimed at toppling a rogue or unjust government.

And increasingly this is being done by bludgeoning, hijacking or co-opting all the other levers and instruments of authority that are entrusted to facilitate access to our basic freedoms of expression, information, thought, assembly and movement supposedly enshrined in the Constitution.

Gone a long time ago is the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary in Malaysia. Gone too are the checks and balances preventing the monopoly and abuse of power by the executive branch.

But as seen from the example of authoritarian regimes elsewhere around the world, ‘apathy’ can turn to outrage and action when it is least expected.The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.”

Light and political change will come to Malaysia. The question is quando (when).

Here is a short clip from CNN’s Fareed Zakaria about a country whose Late King purportedly donated USD681 million to Prime Minister Najib Razak. I am trying to obtain the entire presentation. –Din Merican

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us-zakaria/#

 

Mayor Sadiq Khan: A Londoner First


May 23, 2016

Mayor Sadiq Khan:  A Londoner First

by Farouk A. Peru

http://www.malaymailonline. com

Last week, Malaysia sank to an even lower level of political discourse than usual with two Penang Barisan Nasional reps vying for the top prize of most unintelligent comment.

One is the Penang Opposition leader herself, Jahara Hamid, who got jittery when she realised there was a Taoist shrine in a park. According to her, this shrine will confuse the Muslims. They would probably see this shrine, then inexplicably fall prostrate before it.

Another candidate for most unintelligent comment is Bertam assemblyman Shariful Azhar Othman. He needs eateries to have either “halal” or “non-halal” signs. Signs like “pork free” would confuse him ostensibly because he thinks pork would be freely distributed, perhaps?

While Malaysia languishes at the bottom of the political pit, history has been made. London has just elected her first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan.

Not many Malaysians have heard of him before this but his is a success story. The son of humble Pakistani immigrants, one of eight children, his story is a climb to the heady heights of fame and fortune. He was already a financial success before involving himself in politics.

He was part of Gordon Brown’s exiting Labour Cabinet holding two ministerial posts before and now finds himself the mayor of London. You can read his entire life story all over the Internet.

Despite the worldwide positive reaction, Sadiq Khan’s victory is not so easily formulated. Muslims, especially among all other groups, were obviously quick to laud Khan’s victory as a new era for Islam. Personally I think they are being overly optimistic. It is not as simple as: “The world has now changed. Look, a Muslim is now the mayor of London.” This is what it looks like from the outside but the truth is far more complex.

For a start, let’s take note of the fact that Khan did not win by a landslide. He achieved 44 per cent of the vote while his nearest competitor, the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, achieved 35 per cent. This is a not big margin at all.

It shows that Goldsmith had more than a third of voter support. Considering Goldsmith’s previous performance, this is a record when compared to Khan’s and the only reason Goldsmith would even get that many votes is that Khan belongs to a minority group.

What is perhaps even worse is that Goldsmith achieved this by using underhanded tactics in his campaign. He was actually chided by senior Conservatives for his tactics. One of his more blatantly racist claims actually suggested that allowing Khan victory would be surrendering London to terrorists!

London has not come a long way at all. It has made progress but not by far.That brings us to another important point which Malaysian Islamo fascists realised a few days after Khan’s victory. Sadiq Khan is a Pakistani Muslim but he is far from the conservative version of an Islamist.

He did not win the elections in order to turn London into a Muslim city! Rather, he is very friendly to all faiths. There is even a picture of him dressed in Hindu garb which, to my amusement, was circulated with much regret around the Malay-Muslim social media.

What took the biscuit, however, was the revelation that Khan supported same sex marriages some years back. This information completely removed him from being any semblance of a Muslim media darling!

We should really ask ourselves, why were we so elated in the first place when a Muslim was elected as the mayor of London? Would it make any difference who gets elected as long as the person was capable of doing his job?

 

Beneath Malaysia’s façade, lies a dangerous, widespread, and fundamental rot (photo from malaysia-chronicle.com). Read: http://www.christopherteh.com/blog/2015/03/closing-of-the-malaysian-mind/

Malay-Muslims should also ask themselves, would they find it acceptable if a member of the rakyat who was not a Malay was appointed the mayor of KL? It would not even be a Chinese or Indian if we were to look for a Sadiq Khan equivalent. Rather it would be a specific type of a minority. Perhaps a Sikh. Would it be acceptable if a Sikh was appointed the mayor of KL? If not, then we have no business applauding Khan’s victory

We should also ask ourselves why there was little news last year when another Muslim mayor albeit of only a borough, Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman was sacked from office. Rahman was mayor for five years until it was found that he was guilty of election fraud in 2015. That did not make the headlines of Muslim news, I’m sure.

In order to make a better world, we need to beyond tribal kinship and focus on performance. Only then can the right people be chosen for the job and benefit us all.