Lim Guan Eng Pleads Not Guilty

DAP’s Lim Guan Eng pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to two charges under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and Section 165 of the Penal Code at the Penang High Court.

Judicial Commissioner Azmi Ariffin sets bail at RM1millon with one surety and ordered Lim to notify the court and Attorney-General’s Chambers two days before he plans to travel outside the country.

Earlier, the prosecution team which was led by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, applied for the case to be transferred to the High Court.

 

A Real Life Ice Age On The Way?

A real life ice age?

Below is an article from the Yahoo News:

The Sun Has Just ‘Gone Blank’ – Could There Be An Ice Age On The Way? – By Rob Waugh

Don’t be alarmed, but our sun has just ‘gone blank’ – with a total lack of sunspots leaving the surface like a snooker ball.

It’s part of the sun’s cycles – a sign that the ‘solar minimum’ is approaching – and some experts have suggested a new ‘mini ice age’ might be on the way.

Meteorology expert Paul Dorian of Vencore Weather says, ‘For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank.

‘The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.

‘At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir.  The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020.’

Some experts predict that we could soon see a ‘Maunder minimum’ phase – a mini ice age similar to one which began in 1645.

During the ‘Maunder Minimum’, temperatures plunged so much that the Thames froze over.

Prof Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University  predicts that there will be a sharp decline in solar activity between 2020 and 2050.

Zharkova said, last year, ‘I am absolutely confident in our research. It has good mathematical background and reliable data, which has been handled correctly. In fact, our results can be repeated by any researchers with the similar data available in many solar observatories, so they can derive their own evidence of upcoming Maunder Minimum in solar magnetic field and activity.’

Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill

On June 1, 2016 the Malay Mail Online reported that:

“G25 criticised today PAS President, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s  Private Member’s Bill to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose, saying hudud law is inappropriate in secular Malaysia”.

~Malay Mail Online

In order to support its arguments, G25 made a contradictory and baseless statement:

“Although Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that Islam is the religion of the Federation, still, constitutionally, Malaysia is a secular state, as our forefathers and the framers of the Federal Constitution had intended. Further, our nation is multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural,” it added.

~Malay Mail Online

How could a country be constitutionally a secular state when its Federal Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land  has declared that Islam is the religion of the country and the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution?

Does G25 misunderstood the term secularism or is G25 trying to say that the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is unconstitutional?

If Malaysia is a secular state, the word “Islam” cannot even be mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

The creator of the term secularism, George Jacob Holyoake , in his book, “The Principles of Secularism”, defines secularism as separating government and religion, while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

So, Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim saying that Malaysia is a secular state; since secularism means separating government and religion which is the opposite case in Malaysia.

Please click here for my article on why Malaysia is not a secular state.

A good example of an important criteria of a secular state is the 25-year legal battle regarding the Mount Soledad Cross, a giant cross installed on Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in the United States of America.

After a group of people installed a giant cross on the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, the court ordered them to remove the cross, because as a secular state it is unconstitutional to put a symbol of religion on government land.

The controversy over the Mount Soledad Cross only ended after the US Department of Defense sold the government land on which the 29-foot cross stood.

So how could Malaysia be claimed as a secular state when the government not only built mosques on government lands but also finances Islamic religious authorities?

The Malay Mail Online also wrote:

They noted that by implication, the Bill allows Shariah courts to impose “any form of hudud punishment” other than the death penalty, for example 100 lashes of whipping for Muslims found guilty of adultery, or the amputation of one’s hand for theft.

~Malay Mail Online

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

Firstly, it is a lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill “to impose any form of hudud punishment other than the death penalty” and “to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose”, because the Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions.

Secondly, as the above statement gives the implication that Hudud punishment is harsh and negative it is a defamation to Islam.

Muslims members of G25 must learn to understand the concept of punishments in Islam and how they are carried out – please click here for a video that explains the differences between Syariah whippings and civil whippings. 

Thirdly, it is a false statement to say that the Bill will allow the Shariah Courts to impose the “amputation of one’s hand for theft” because, since theft is a criminal crime that is punished under the Penal Code, theft is under the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not the Syariah Courts.

The Syariah Courts have jurisdiction only over the matters as stated in the State List under Item 1 of the List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and not over other offences; and the Bill is not about giving the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the offences punished under the Penal Code.

The Malay Mail Online further wrote:

The group noted that the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Bill 2015 prescribes  hudud punishments for offences like adultery, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy, but it has yet to be enforced due to the limits in the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

“Therefore, there is the need for the state of Kelantan to seek Parliament to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1995. And, so, here comes Hadi’s Bill,” said G25. 

~Malay Mail Online

It is untrue that the Bill is about to enable the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Criminal Code II to be implemented because as I wrote above, the Bill will not gives the power to the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment Hudud nor the jurisdiction over offences punished under the Penal Code.

It is hard to understand why a Muslim opposes a Bill that not only helps to curb the social problems among the Muslims but also to empower the Syariah Courts.

The Article 37 states that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong must take his oath to protect the religion of Islam before exercising his functions; and this Bill is the right move towards protecting and upholding Islam which is the religion of our country. 

Related post on G25:

• Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School 2015/12/09
• Tan Sri Harussani Saran G25 Bertaubat 2015/12/08
• Reaksi Jurucakap G25 Terhadap Bersih 4 Menyedihkan 2015/09/01
• G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims? 2015/08/21
• G25: Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic law 2014/12/10
• Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam 2015/11/11
• Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished 2015/11/09
• Ambiga Mahu Kembalikan ISA? 2015/09/18
• BTN ‘Ultra Malay racist’? 2015/09/14

Rombakan Kabinet – 27/06/2016

Penyusunan semula jawatan Menteri dan Timbalan Menteri:

Menteri Perusahaan, Perladangan dan Komoditi – Datuk Seri Mah Siew Kiong

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri – Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan

Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan – Tan Sri Noh Omar

Menteri Kewangan Kedua – Datuk Johari Ghani

Timbalan Menteri Kewangan – Datuk Othman Aziz

Timbalan Menteri Perusahaan, Perladangan dan Komoditi – Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur

Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan – Datuk Henry Sum Agong

Timbalan Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri – Datuk Chua Tee Yong

Timbalan Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri – Datuk Seri K Devamany

Timbalan Menteri Kewangan – Datuk Lee Chee Leong

(Dipetik daripada Berita Harian)

UEFA EURO 2016: Prediction Chart

Winning Microsoft Studios’ May Wololo Wednesday

On the 15th of June, Microsoft Studios announced the winners for their monthly contest, Wololo Wednesday, and I was among the six winners for the month of May contest.

 

These contests are challenging because they are not only about being creative but the contestants must clearly understand the challenges given in order to win.

After winning a contest, the winners are not allowed to take part in the coming contests from the same term; which means the earliest contest that I can participate will be in the month of August. 

I feel so happy since this is the fourth time I win the contest, and I get to pick two prizes from the prize list.

Mistakes In Designs Of Vertical Flags Of Johor

The districts of Johor, Malaysia were given their own flags on the 3rd March of 2015, and since then the districts flags are proudly seen waving in their respective districts.

All of the ten district flags come in two versions, horizontal and vertical.

The horizontal flags are the ones that we usually see either hoisted from poles or hung against the walls, fences and others.

(Please click here to learn more about the horizontal flags of the districts if Johor)

The vertical flags are the flags that are usually hoisted from a crossbar, either on lamp posts or on walls.

Below are the vertical flags of the districts of Johor:

Batu Pahat

Tangkak

Segamat

Pontian

Muar

Mersing

Kulai

Kota Tinggi

Kluang

Johor Bahru

But it is very unfortunate that when it comes to the districts of Johor vertical flags, I saw mistakes in the designs of some of the flags hung around the districts that I had visited.

One of the common mistakes is converting the design of the horizontal flag into a vertical flag by just rotating the horizontal flag and “stretching its background”.

I first realised these mistakes during my visit to Felda Bukit Ramun, and since then, I like to observe vertical district flags whenever I travel around Johor; and I found that there are mistakes in designs of other vertical flags hung in other places too, including in Batu Pahat which I visited a few day ago.

Please click the photos for larger images:

The mistakes in the design of the vertical district flags of Muar, Batu Pahat, Kluang, Mersing and Kota Tinggi flags at Felda Bukit Ramun in Kota Tinggi, Johor.

The mistakes in the design of the vertical district flags of Kulai, Johor Bahru, Pontian, Segamat, and Tangkak flags at Felda Bukit Ramun in Kota Tinggi, Johor.

From my observation as I travel around Johor, below are the common mistakes in the designs of the vertical flags of the districts of Johor:

The mistake in the design of the flag of Kota Tinggi

The mistake in the design of the flag of Kluang

The mistake in the design of the flag of Johor Bahru

The mistake in the design of the flag of Batu Pahat

The mistake in the design of the flag of Tangkak

The mistake in the design of the flag of Segamat

The mistake in the design of the flag of Pontian

The mistake in the design of the flag of Muar

The mistake in the design of the flag of Mersing

The mistake in the design of the flag of Kulai

Maybe some people are not bothered by these mistakes; and may consider them as little mistakes but for me this is a serious problem because of the importance and the significance of the flags as part of our love, respect and loyalty to the state of Johor.

Apart from that, it also can ruin the meaning and significance in the designs of the district flags.

The best example is the flag of Tangkak, where the blue triangle represents the Mount Ledang; but when the design of the horizontal flag is just rotated to turn it into a vertical flag, the triangle which represents the Mount Ledang is also rotated thus, it doesn’t represent the shape of a mountain anymore.

And that is why in the actual design of the vertical flag of Tangkak, the triangle is cropped at the sides so that the triangle shall remains as a symbol of a mountain.

Please click the photos for larger images:

The integral aspects of the designs are the crescent and star, and the core colour which must be placed in the right positions of the flags.

The crescent and star in the district flags represent Islam as the religion of the state of Johor, hence they must be placed at the top of the flag or in the central part of the designs; and not at the lower part of the flags as in some of the “faulty” district flags of Kota Tinggi, Mersing and Muar that I came across.

Another mistake that people made when converting a horizontal district flag to a vertical flag is to place the center point of the orthogonally divided flag exactly in the middle of the flag, which what happens in the flags of Muar and Kulai.

And in the flag of Muar, they made the first and fourth quarters black, second quarter yellow with a red crescent and star, and the third quarter red with a white crescent and star.

The real flag has the first quarter red with a white crescent and star, the second and third quarters black, and the fourth yellow with a red crescent and star.

In the flag of Kulai they also made the first and fourth quarters blue, and the second and third quarters red instead of the first and fourth quarters red, and the second and third quarters blue.

Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties

What is the problem with some non-Muslims when the Muslims tries to strengthen the teaching of Islam in an Islamic country?

Why must non-Muslims oppose laws that only affect the Muslims?

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) opposes the private member’s bill regarding the Act 355 or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 tabled by PAS President, Datuk Seri Haji Hadi, reported Malay Mail Online on May 31, 2016.

According to Malay Mail Online, MCCBCHST claimed that, “…. the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.”

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) expressed today its opposition to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment)Bill 2016, and warned that the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.

~Malay Mail Online.

In the first place I wonder if the council leaders understand Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill and the Act 355 before making the statement.

As I wrote in, “Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks”,  the Private Member’s Bill  is not about proposing a new Act but it is about amending an existing Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, which is to increase the Syariah Courts punishments that are currently limited to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping not exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.

So how can the Bill, “risk weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom“?

Firstly, since Act 355 is an existing Act about criminal jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts which only affects persons professing the religion of Islam, how could the increase of the Syariah Courts current existing punishments weakens the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom when the Bill will empowers the teaching of Islam for the Muslims and has nothing to do with people professing other religions?

Instead, the Bill will strengthen the “constitutional liberties,  including religious freedom” of the Muslims because it will give more constitutional rights for the Muslims in professing the true teaching of Islam and to curb deviant teachings that claimed to be the true Islamic teaching.

So, will that pose problems to the council?

In fact, it is MCCBCHST that is “weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom” by interfering into the internal matter of the Muslims and denying the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage their own religion.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs;

So, in my opinion, since the council does not represent the Muslims and the Bill will not effect the people of religion groups represented by the council the council has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims and to tell the Muslims how to manage Islam. 

Also said in the same article by Malay Mail Online:

“It has the potential to undermine religious freedom and fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. The Non-Muslim’s position too would be in jeopardy under Hudud and they would not have equal rights if implemented,” the group said in a statement.

~Malay Mail Online

I do not understand why the leaders of the council group are so opposed to the Bill that not only will give so much advantages for to the Muslims but also very positive impacts to the society because a Muslims who observes the true teaching of Islam will be a very good citizen and will obey the law of our country.  

So I wonder why that will pose a problem to others.

Stating that:

“Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had warned the PAS government of Kelantan in 1994 against introducing Hudud Law in the State because ‘Hudud Law punishes victims while actual criminals were often left off with minimum punishment,” it said. 

~ Malay Mail Online.

If Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made that statement regarding the Bill, then he clearly does not understand it.

So, the council must stop listening to Tun regarding the matter and please ask for clarifications from the official authorities.

That is why Dato’ Sri Najib Razak must not listen to Tun and oppose the Private Member’s Bill just because Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad disagreed with the amendment.

Pindaan Akta 355 – Memberi Autonomi Lebih Kepada Negeri-negeri

Credit to Karim’s Blog

(Sumber: Karim’s Blog)

PINDAAN AKTA 355: MENINGKATKAN AUTONOMI NEGERI UNTUK MEMBENDUNG GEJALA MAKSIAT DAN SALAHLAKU SYARIAH

Mahkamah Syariah ialah warisan unggul Kesultanan Melayu/Islam yang telah berdaulat sejak permulaan kedaulatan Islam di alam Melayu sebagaimana yang tercatat pada batu bersurat Terengganu iaitu 1303(M). Kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah kemudiannya diiktiraf oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan (PP) sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Butiran 1, Senarai Negeri, Jadual Kesembilan (B1SNJ9PP) berdasarkan Kuasa Negeri sebagaimana yang diberikan menurut Perkara 74(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Walaupun Perlembagaan Persekutan mewujudkan sistem Kehakiman Negara berteraskan Peruntukan Bahagian IX PP, namun bagi memastikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah tidak tersentuh oleh Mahkamah Sivil, maka pada tahun 1988, diperkenalkan pula Perkara 121(1A) pada Bahagian IX tersebut. Peruntukan 121(1A) ini tidak dengan sendirinya menyenaraikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah, tetapi ia memantapkan kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah dari diganggu-gugat oleh Mahkamah Sivil.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebagaimana yang termaktub di dalam B1SNJ9PP yang antara lain menggariskan prinsip utama bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah seperti berikut – “the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah Courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons profesing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law;”

Secara telitinya prinsip-prinsip yang termaktub dalam butiran 1 tersebut di atas adalah seperti berikut:

1. Terhad kepada umat Islam

Bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah terhad hanya kepada orang yang menganut agama Islam. Oleh itu orang bukan Islam tidak perlu bimbang dengan agenda politik yang cuba menakut-nakutkan masyarakat bukan Islam.

2. Terhad kepada perkara-perkara dalam Butiran 1

Tidak termasuk perkara-perkara dalam senarai Persekutuan dan perkara-perkara lain dalam Senarai Negeri Butiran 1 juga menetapkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya kepada perkara-perkara yang terkandung dalam Butiran 1 sahaja yang meliputi perkara-perkara berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan sebagainya. Manakala dalam hal kesalahan (jenayah Syariah) pula bidangkuasanya terbatas kepada offences by persons profesing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except inregard to matters included in the Federal List: Justeru Perlembagaan sendiri yang menghalang mahkamah Syariah membicarakan atau menghukum kesalahan-kesalahan yang terkandung dalam Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code) serta undang-undang lain di bawah senarai Persekutuan. Justeru kesalahan-kesalahan seperti mencuri, merogol, rasuah, pecah amanah, merompak, ragut tidak termasuk di bawah Mahkamah Syariah.

3. Tertakluk kepada had hukuman maksimum yang ditentukan Akta Persekutuan – Akta 355

Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidangkuasa Jenayah) 1965 (Akta 355) adalah keperluan Undang-undang berdasarkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan iaitu; bidang kuasa hukuman Mahkamah Syariah hendaklah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang Persekutuan. Justeru pindaan A355 tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai “unconstitutional” kerana ia adalah keperluan Perlembagaan. Akta 355 ini hanya menetapkan had hukuman maksima yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah sama seperti dalam isu kesalahan berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan kesalahan berkaitan „offences against precept of Islam‟ sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Enekmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah sekarang. Ia hanya mengandungi 3 seksyen sahaja. Seksyen 2 adalah yang terpenting iaitu menetapkan hukuman maksima penjara 3 tahun, denda RM5,000.00, dan 6 sebatan (356) dan telah berkuatkuasa selama 32 tahun sejak tahun 1984, sedangkan kebanyakan hukuman lain di Mahkamah Sivil di bawah Kanun Keseksaan dalam kesalahan jenayah, telah ditingkatkan berulang kali.

Autonomi Lebih Luas Kepada Negeri Untuk Mencegah Maksiat dan Salahlaku Syariah

Jika pindaan Akta 355 diluluskan di Parlimen, ia tidak meningkatkan kadar hukuman secara automatik sebaliknya Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) perlu meluluskan tahap hukuman bagi setiap kesalahan dalam Enakmen-enakmen Syariah yang sedang berkuatkuasa di negeri tersebut terlebih dahulu. Peluang untuk berbahas mengenai kadar hukuman yang munasabah masih terbuka di peringkat DUN. Selain daripada kesalahan-kesalahan di dalam Enakmen Jenayah Syariah, kesalahankesalahan lain yang berkaitan kekeluargaan seperti kahwin lari, poligami tanpa kebenaran, tidak bayar nafkah, melarikan anak dara dari jagaan dsbnya masih tidak berubah. Rujuk: 1. Contoh-contoh Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah 2. Pindaan Akta 355 Tidak Membabitkan Kesalahan Kekeluargaan (W.P.) Akta 303.

Akta 355 ini tidak memperuntukkan sebarang undang-undang hudud “capital punishment”. Pilihan untuk menaikkan kadar hukuman kepada kadar yang lebih tinggi adalah terpulang kepada negeri-negeri untuk memastikan keberkesanan penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Akta 355 tidak menyentuh bidang kuasa mahkamah sivil untuk membicarakan kes-kes jenayah di bawah Kanun Keseksaan.

pindaanAkta355-usahamurniPindaan Akta 355 adalah bertujuan meningkatkan hukuman bagi memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah dalam pengawalan moral yang sekarang ini berhadapan dengan gejala sosial yang amat serius. Jika hukuman terhadap kesalahan persetubuhan luar tabii dengan haiwan di bawah Seksyen 377 Kanun Keseksaan boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan denda atau sebatan maka hukuman “3,5,6” untuk kesalahan terhadap manusia adalah terlalu ringan. Adakah kita ingin biarkan undang-undang sedia ada melindungi kehormatan binatang lebih daripada kehormatan manusia? Haruskah hukuman menyetubuhi haiwan adalah lebih tinggi dan menggerunkan berbanding meliwat manusia?!

Berkenaan dengan isu kesamarataan, tidak timbul isu kesamarataan seperti yang disebutkan dalam Perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana kesamaratan tersebut hanya merujuk kepada “genre” yang sama, sebagai contoh, Islam dan bukan Islam adalah bukan kategori atau genre yang sama tetapi kategori yang sama ialah hukuman yang berlainan kepada dua kumpulan orang Islam.

Pindaan Akta 355 ini telahpun dicadangkan oleh JAKIM sejak hampir 10 tahun yang lalu, namun, oleh kerana kekangan birokrasi menjadi faktor kelambatan, ia lebih mudah dibentangkan secara persendirian.

Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)

Undi PAN Untuk Kuatkan DAP?

(Photo credit to MyMassa)

I saw this interesting photo of PAN’s billboard for the Sungai Besar by-election on MyMassa.

If that billboard is real, it looks like PAN is not only powered by DAP but also a puppet of DAP to get the votes from the Malays.

Is this another “wayang terbaik” directed by DAP so that PAN’s Malay candidate can “skrew” puak Melayu sendiri”.