Nightly Vigils For Anwar?

11 02 2015

Insider 15

In the above article, PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail who is also the wife of Anwar Ibrahim announced that PKR will be holding nightly solidarity vigils outside the Sungai Buloh prison in response to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction yesterday and “urged all Malaysians to join in the vigil every night beginning tomorrow for as long as possible.”

“We encourage the public to join solidarity gatherings, or vigils, outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day, starting tomorrow night.” – Wan Azizah, TMI (February 10, 2015)

I guess she wants to:

  1. Get the attention of the western powers such as the United States, United Kingdom, the United Nations and others so that they will force the Malaysian government to release Anwar from the prison.

  2. To attract more supporters who will then do crazy things like demonstrations against the government.

It is Wan Azizah’s rights to camp outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day until Anwar Ibrahim is freed but is it fair for her to make others do the same just to free Anwar from jail?

Wan Azizah is actually using PKR supporters to show the world that Anwar Ibrahim has lots of supporters and she does not care that she is wasting the people’s time and money for her own good.

I think it is very selfish because some of them might lose their jobs or having trouble with their studies because of getting carried away with all these useless activities.

By the way, I wonder if Wan Azizah will be camping outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day, starting tomorrow night for the next 5 years or will she and her family members be resting at home while their supporters do the dirty works?

It will be okay for Wan Azizah, Nurul Izzah and other opposition leaders to camp outside the prison because as MPs and assemblymen they do not have strict office hours like most people and their bosses won’t fire them for being late or not doing their jobs well.

So, let PKR, DAP and some PAS leaders camp outside the prison; it’s interesting to see how long Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah will be camping and who are the other leaders who’ll be camping for Anwar Ibrahim with them.

I only hope that there will be no candle light Virgil because it is against the teaching of Islam. 

Advertisements




The Pro-opposition Activists Are Pressing For Ismail Sabri’s Resignation

6 02 2015

Screenshot_4

The title of the above article by The Malaysian Insider (TMI) really attract my attention.

TMI started the article by writing that:

“Some 49 activist groups today demanded the resignation of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob who had gone on a racist rant against Chinese businesses, saying it was an irresponsible move on the part of the minister to play on racial sentiments.” – TMI

Which NGOs are the 49 activist groups that demanded the resignation of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob?

So I searched for the names of the NGOs and I found the full list in Malaysia Today.

Slide1

The list of the 49 NGOS that are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation. (Malaysia Today).

 

When I read the list, I found that many of the NGOs are very familiar; so I did more research …

First I put the list side by side with the full list of NGOs that part of Bersih :

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

So most of them are part of Bersih.

Then I also put the list side by side with the list of NGOs which are part of COMANGO and this is what I found:

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

So, that is why the names of the NGOs are very familiar to me and they are highlighted by TMI!

These same NGOs are the members of Bersih, COMANGO, NegaraKu and some of them like SUARAM and Sisters In Islam or its real name, SIS Forum are not legal NGOs because they are not registered under ROS.

It is very funny when some illegal NGOs are pressing for a legal minister’s resignation.

No wonder those NGOs want Ismail Sabri to resign, after all those NGOs are the opposition parties supporters and will only look for ways to oppose the government.

To be fair, TMI should change the title of the article to, “The pro-opposition activists are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation” or “Bersih and COMANGO activists are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation.”

They are not only pressing for Ismail Sabri to resign but they also want to change the government.

 





Reza Aslan, A Pluralist Who Calls Himself A Muslim

24 12 2014

Aslan

An Iranian-American professor, Reza Aslan in an phone interview with The Malaysian Insider (TMI) criticised Putrajaya for “… setting itself up as a “parent” rather than an elected government, in banning the use of the word Allah among non-Muslims and dictating how Malaysian Muslims should practise their faith.”

My question is, what right has Reza Aslan to criticise a policy of another country and of a religion that he does not believe in?

Reza Aslan is a liberal and pluralist but claiming himself as a Muslim and is telling the Muslims that his ideology is the true Islamic teaching.

In 2014, Aslan described Islam as: “a man-made institution. It’s a set of symbols and metaphors that provides a language for which to express what is inexpressible, and that is faith. It’s symbols and metaphors that I prefer, but it’s not more right or more wrong than any other symbols and metaphors. It’s a language, that’s all it is.”[30] – Wikipedia

Does he knows that being a liberal and pluralist is against the teaching of Islam?

If he does not understand Islam, how could he teaches an Islamic sovereign country about Islam?

It is weird when a person who does not even believe or follow the teaching of a religion thinks that he understands the religion better than the religious authorities of the religion itself.

Reza Aslan must learn to respect other religions and not to criticise others who do not share his belief in liberalism, pluralism and the Syiah teaching.

TMI also reported:

He (Reza Aslan) questioned as to why Malaysia should have a single official version of Islam for its citizens to follow, given that Islam is one of the most diverse religions in the world. – TMI

Reza Aslan is a liberal and pluralist, so he does not understand or believe in the true teaching of Islam.

In Malaysia, we are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by our Islamic authorities.

And since there is only four school of thoughts in Islam, I think Reza Aslan’s statement that, “Islam is one of the most diverse religions in the world,” is wrong.

There are lots of deviant teachings which claimed to be a part of Islam, for example, Syiah; but the rules of Syiah is against the rules of Islam.

Here’s another quote from TMI, that proves how narrow-minded Reza Aslan is:

“So I think the Malaysian people need to make a decision, do they want to be like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran?” – TMI.

  1. It is hard to imagine that we want to be like Iran because Iran is a Syiah country and Syiah is not a part of Islam when Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says that Islam is the religion of the Federation; so we’ll not follow Iran.

  2. Malaysia is a sovereign country and we have our own rules and constitution so we’ll be Malaysia, not Iran nor Sweden or Singapore.

  3. We are not a secular country the way Reza Aslan wants us to be.

As a liberal and pluralist, Reza Aslan does not like the idea of an Islamic country having religious authorities that help to take care of Islam and the Muslims in the country:

“Theologian Reza Aslan says centralised religious authorities should not exist in countries that profess to adhere to Islam.”- TMI.

If Reza Aslan is a good Muslim, he’ll not make neither the above statement nor will he make the below statement because we need to follow our madhhab or school of thought and not simply mixing things from any madhhab that we find easier or more convenient for us.

“Islam allows me to follow any mufti that I please. We don’t have a pope, we don’t have a bishop who tells us what we can do.” – TMI.

Reza Aslan must not make ridiculous comments about the Allah issue if he does not understand the real issue because his comments only sounds exactly the same as the voices of the Malaysian opposition leaders and supporters including TMI who interviewed him for the above article.

TMI publishes lots of confusing articles to promote the liberals and pluralists but claiming that they are better Muslims than the Muslims themselves.

  1. Don’t Want Liberalism, Tear Up The Constitution – Another Malicious Distortion Of The Truth From TMI

  2. TMI’s “On Religious Authorities” – A Malicious Distortion Of The Truth

So, Reza Aslan must stop dictating the Malaysian Muslims on how they should practise their faith.

Reza Aslan has no rights to run this country or to dictate Putrajaya and the Malaysian Islamic authorities on what to do.





Don’t Want Liberalism, Tear Up The Constitution – Another Malicious Distortion Of The Truth From TMI

11 12 2014

Insider 14

In the above article, The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa who is a South African, made a statement that “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”.

He made that statement in reply to a question from the audience regarding the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom’s statement, “the teachings of liberalism and pluralism are seen as among the most prevalent forms of insult to Islam”.

TMI wrote that:

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted, constitutionally or otherwise, the plurality of religious and ethnic communities… it is already on the way to liberalism. You are already on a certain kind of liberalism. It might not be an optimal one, but it is already there” – TMI.

I do not know whether Professor Ebrahim understands the word liberalism and pluralism that were mentioned by Datuk Seri Jamil Khir.

Malaysia does accept “the plurality of religious and ethnic communities” but that does not makes Malaysia ‘a pluralistic and liberal country’; furthermore, Malaysia does not accept pluralism of religion.

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted the plurality of religious and ethnic communities”, shows that our Rulers, the government and the Malays respect other religions and ethnic communities as how Islam teaches us.

But that does not make us liberal.

Professor Ebrahim also said:

“If you want to get away from liberalism, you need to tear up the Malaysian constitution”  Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa – TMI

Tear up the Malaysian Constitution if we do not want liberalism?

I do not know if Professor Ebrahim knows what is he talking about, if he thinks he does, he must be so confused or he must has read the constitution of another country!

And this is a malicious distortion of the truth because as an Islamic country, Malaysia does not accept liberalism because it is against the teaching of Islam.

And there is no such word as ‘liberalism’ in our Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says:

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may
be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

… and we have Article 11(4) to protect the religion of the Federation:

State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala
Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

Islam is the only religion mentioned in the Federal Constitution, and Islam is protected by the Federal Constitution and the state laws.

In fact as the religion of the Federation, Islam is above other religions in Malaysian; and that is against the idea of liberalism that rejects state religion.

Moreover, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court.

Now, if the professor does not understand what is liberalism and pluralism, he should ask somebody.

Liberalism is all about total freedom and pluralism is saying that one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

When TMI wrote that, the professor said that, “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”, I wonder if the word “was” is a typo or he used the word, “was” to indicate that Malaysia was once a pluralistic and liberal country but not anymore.

For the record, Malaysia is neither was nor is a pluralistic and liberal country.

History tells us that Malaysia is always an Islamic country even before our independence.

Actually the existing Islamic laws before Merdeka Day are still valid according to Article 162 of the Federal Constitution which says:

Subject to the following provisions of this Article and Article 
163*, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority
having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force
on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be
made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments
made by federal or State law.

The professor also told us to learn history:

“The first thing to be done, to the many spokespersons who are saying these things, is a quick lesson in Malaysian history… Malaysian history 101… to re-familiarise themselves” -TMI.

Actually the person who needs to learn history is him and most of those who supported the above TMI article!

And above all, since he is not a Malaysian and since he just came to Malaysia, he should not interfere in local issues that he knows nothing about.

He might want to say that as a scholar, he should know better about our Federal Constitution than others including our Federal Constitution experts like Dato’ Naser Disa and Professor Shamrahayu.

But, has he ever read the Federal Constitution and does he know that it takes a lawyer to interpret law and constitution?

I hope that the government can take stern actions on those who make such a malicious distortion of the truth regarding the Federal Constitution of Malaysia including foreigners because our Federal Constitution is the highest law and something like the pillar of our country.

Those ‘scholars’ are bringing bad influences as they being used by certain groups to influence the public into believing something fictitious in order to serve their hidden agendas and this could cause racial and religious disharmony among the people.

And these so called “Muslim scholars” are spreading the ideologies of liberalism and pluralism as the teaching of Islam when these ideologies are actually part of deviant teaching.





Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

24 11 2014

Insider 12

A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.

The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,

“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”

TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”

Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?

A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.

Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.

The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:

  1. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution: Special Rights For The Malays
  2. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution: Malay As The National Language
  3. Part III: of the Citizenship Rights
  4. Article 181 of the Federal Constitution: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Rulers

To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.

The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.

Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Article 159 (5) says:

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:

In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:

  1. The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
  2. The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
  3. The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
  4. If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.

So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.

I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.

They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.

Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?

But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.

Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?

If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.

I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.





TMI’s “On Religious Authorities” – A Malicious Distortion Of The Truth

21 11 2014

Insider 13

I find the above article from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) as unjustly written, full of lies and using wrong arguments and analogies to wrongly accuse the Islamic religious authorities and the Malaysian government.

It is a malicious distortion of the truth.

Below are my answers to the writer’s statements, TMI’s text is in blue and my answer will be in red.

It seems that whenever we question anything, either the government or those linked to it does, it is seen as a bad thing. And this comes during a period of a prime minister whose initial speech said “the era of government knows best is over”.

So, why is questioning a fatwa a big issue? It is truly not.

A: Official fatwas are Muslim’s guidelines. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish or the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same with other religions.

Even if we look at the most conservative nations practising Islam, there are landmark changes globally. Iran allows sex reassignment surgeries for their transgender community. However warped their mindset may be, it is clearly different than Malaysians who recently heckled the courts for upholding the constitution.

A: Iran is one of an example of “the most conservative nations practising Islam”? He must be kidding because Iran is not an Islamic country but it is a Syiah country. There are big differences in important matters like akidah between us, the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah Muslims and Syiah followers. The rules of Syiah is against our akidah.

In Saudi Arabia, the authorities are now mulling over giving women the right to drive cars, a fatwa which is decades’ old and has only been vocally challenged in the last five years.
We have seen Muslim-majority countries that are moving forward in issuing religious edicts or limiting the viability of such rules and regulations to allow moving ahead together as a nation.

A: Driving has nothing to do with akidah, unlike LGBT. Malaysia never ban women from driving. Women are free to drive buses, lorries or even to become commercial pilots. 

And yet in Malaysia, we continue to limit the general public and civil stakeholders from venturing an opinion without being heckled, or in the case of Sisters in Islam, having a fatwa quietly gazetted banning them.

A: Sisters in Islam (SIS) leaders are liberal activists. Liberalism is against Islam. They tell people that they understand Islam better than our Muslim scholars and Muftis but they do not follow even the basic rules like to cover their aurat. They do not respect Islamic rules and want liberal rules to be accepted as Islamic rules.

It is truly nonsensical that in this day and age when other nations are talking about matters which are truly important such as poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport – we are stuck discussing, and even going so far as to file police reports, a tourist attraction dedicated to a Hindu deity placed on a bottle of water next to a “Halal” logo.

A: Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, so in Malaysia everybody must respect Islam. The halal logo was placed at a lower part of the mineral water bottle than the Batu Caves picture. In our custom, that shows disrespect to the religion of the Federation. I guess in Vatican City, they also have rules to respect Christianity more than other religions suitable to their customs that people over there must respect.

The Malaysian government has done much more than solving the problems of “poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport”. But there are people who are never thankful and only look for ways to complain and cause troubles to the country to put down the government.

Even worse: we have Malaysian Muslims who think cross-dressers are a threat to society by promoting a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT, if you still don’t know what that is) lifestyle.

A: LGBT is against Islam and so are cross-dressers. Malaysia does not sign the SOGI Rights.

Permit me to point out that a guy in a dress has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, especially when Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear a burqa to escape their hunters.

Would you accuse them of being sodomites, too?

A: Will a man who is not LGBT supporter wants to look like a woman and wear a dress in public without any purpose?

re: “Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear burqa to escape their hunters”.

There is a huge difference between men wearing women’s clothes to escape from danger or to save their lives or for other important reasons like investigating a certain case compared to men who always wear them including in public because they like and proud of wearing them, saying that they have the rights to do so.

Fatwas should be up for question because while the religion stays true, its followers evolve. There was once a limited source of knowledge specific to Islam from muftis and imams, and perhaps PAS for the more politically inclined.

A: We cannot change a religion, changing means liberalising and that is against Islam. To question a fatwa, a person must be at least as knowledgeable as the members of the fatwa council on Islamic matters. PAS is not an Islamic party because like SIS they only use the word Islam for their own agendas. 

However, with the advent of the Internet, anything and everything about Islam and other religions can be found online. Intellectual debates can be seen on YouTube as raging, trolling debates rage on news portals and social media aplenty.

A: We can find lots of things from the internet including lies like this article from TMI. How can a person who does not understand a subject take part in intellectual debates on the subject or be a judge on problems regarding the subject?

Malaysian Muslims can not only listen to the lectures of Azhar Idrus, but can also go as far the BBC to see debates of Islam versus Science.

A: Yes, I agree that we must not listen to Azhar Idrus and his ‘fatwas’. I wrote about one of them: Ustaz Azhar Idrus: “Islam Dan Kristian Bertuhankan Allah?”

The internet sparked a revolution of information being streamed, “torrented” and read online without control, allowing Malaysian Muslims to seek counsel outside the boundaries, and this is what has made our religious authorities very nervous to the point of stupidity.

A: It is the main duty for our religious authorities to protect the akidah of the Muslims in Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitutions gives the rights for the states in Malaysia to have state laws to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Prevention is better than cure.

What was once a monopoly of information by the religious authorities is now apparently threatened by Malay-language Bibles and Irshad Manji books. Not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, whose books are widely available and for everyone to read and buy either online or at a local bookshop.

A: The religious authorities are not threatened by the Malay bibles or Irshad Manji books. They are only doing their duty because any bible that calls the Christian god as Allah is against most of the states’ laws in Malaysia. Irshad Manji books are about deviant teaching but she claims them as the true teaching of Islam. Promoting deviant teachings to Muslim is against the law of Malaysia. All countries have laws to protect their constitutions and people.

They have lost control over the access to information; so clinging to this moral authority has resulted in stupidity beyond measure. Instead of opening issues for debate, our government-led religious authorities have instead decided it is better to outlaw those who talk back.

A: Religious authorities have lots of other more important things to do to benefit the Muslims. 

Never since the schism of the Christians by Martin Luther, creating the Catholics and Lutheran churches and subsequently the Protestant denomination, has any religious authority done something so despicable.

Questions lead to enlightenment. The ability to debate and discuss everything – even faith – is a must. While this is definitely encouraged, what matters is also how such affairs are debated.

A: A rule is not made to be broken even if one does not like it. In Islam not everything can be debated and denying Allah’s rules affect our akidah and cause a person to be a murtad or an apostate.

It is one thing to say our religious authorities are out of sync with the rest of the world, but it is totally another for us to blame it on the religion itself.

Tact, respect and even the ability to access information are a necessity in order to discuss these issues intellectually and with a level head. Personally, Islam should not be limited for discussion among Muslims because it has now become a national issue.

A: Muslim authorities in Malaysia do not interfere with people of other religions unless people of other religions slander, humiliate, interfere in Islamic matters or other similar things in order to protect Islam and the Muslims.

When you steal the bodies of the deceased, kidnap kids from parents, stop people from getting married on their wedding day, confiscate Bibles or even raid bookstores and take managers to court, I am pretty sure you are affecting the lives of non-Muslims as well.

A: These are lies and the writer spins the facts of the cases to unjustly accuse the Muslim authorities. 

So, religious authorities have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity and harmony that will not be resolved easily. – November 18, 2014.

A: People like the writer who write and spread lies are the ones that “have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity”.





TMI Suruh Khalid Derhaka Kepada Sultan?

19 08 2014

Insider 6

Above is an article by The Malaysian Insider (TMI):

It wrote:

“All signs point to the fact that Khalid has lost his job. That he should go. He should inform the state ruler of that immediately and not wait to seek an audience. Why should Selangor suffer a week or two more with a menteri besar in name but without any support?” – TMI

So, is TMI pushing Tan Sri Khalid to quit immediately without a royal audience?

Apart from that, TMI also wrote:

“But why wait for the sultan to decide his fate? Why hide with palace protocol?” – TMI

Is TMI trying to accused Tan Sri Khalid as being power crazy and forcing Tan Sri Khalid to go against the Sultan’s orders?

Selangor MB, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had tried to seek an audience with the Sultan who is overseas at the moment to inform the Sultan about what is happening and to seek for the Sultan’s advice.

But the Sultan of Selangor told Khalid to wait until he comes back, and that is why Tan Sri Khalid is still the MB of Selangor; because the Sultan says so.

What ever Tan Sri Khalid wants to do next, he must first seek an audience with the Sultan.

He obeys the Sultan’s orders and is not trying to force the Sultan like what Anwar Ibrahim, his gang and some of TMI’s commentators are doing – forcing the Sultan of Selangor to accept Wan Azizah only because Anwar wants his wife to be the MB.

Remember that Tan Sri Khalid gave his pledge on 10 Aku Janji or undertakings and he is keeping his words.

After all these jokes started by Anwar’s Kajang Move, I now admire and respect Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

BvTnrf5CEAAs_y2








%d bloggers like this: