Beranikah Tun M Menjawab 8 Soalan Ini?

22 09 2017

Hari ini Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Tun M) ialah pengerusi gabungan pembangkang yang memperjuangkan ideologi yang jelas bertentangan dengan dasar pemerintahannya dahulu dan diketuai oleh orang-orang yang pernah menjadi musuh-musuh ketatnya seperti Lim Kit Siang?

Oleh itu rakyat Malaysia berhak mendapat jawaban daripada Tun M tentang dasar yang akan di bawanya kelak kerana Tun M sekarang bukan lagi Tun yang dahulu.

  1. Masihkah Tun M berani menegakkan fakta bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam?
  2. Adakah Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM mahu meminda Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan?
  3. Tun M mengambil bahagian dalam Himpunan Wanita #BantahPolitikToksik yang jelas mempromosikan agenda liberal yang bertentangan dengan Islam; apakah itu dasar sebenar perjuangan Tun M?
  4. Dimana perginya prinsip dan jati diri Tun M, apabila Tun membuat perkara-perkara yang bertentangan dengan prinsip Tun sebelum ini?
  5. Apakah sebab sebenar Tun M memecat Anwar Ibrahim daripada jawatan Timbalan Perdana Menteri?
  6. Tun M mahu membentuk kerajaan bersama parti-parti sekular; apakah ini bermakna Tun M bersetuju dengan dasar negara sekular DAP dan PKR?
  7. Kenapakah Tun M mahu menjatuhkan sebuah kerajaan Islam yang berusaha memperkasakan dan medaultatkan Islam di bumi ini dan menyokong parti yang menentang dasar Islam?
  8. Apakah dasar perjuangan demi Melayu dan Islam yang pernah Tun bawa dahulu hanyalah bersifat pura-pura?

Related posts:

  1. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan
  2. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  3. Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator
  4. Tun Dr. Mahathir, “Kalau Marahkan Nyamuk Jangan Bakar Kelambu”
  5. Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)
  6. Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai
Advertisements




Terkini! Superman Hew Akui Tun M Hanyalah Alat Tajam DAP Untuk Menjatuhkan UMNO?

27 07 2017

Pagi semalam Hew Kuan Yau atau lebih dikenali sebagai Superman Hew membuat satu lagi kenyataan panas di dalam bahasa Cina di halaman Facebooknya berkenaan ‘kuda tua’ bersertakan gambar sebilah keris.

Apabila diterjemah ke dalam bahasa Melayu, inilah maksud tulisan Superman Hew:

(Gambar diambil daripada blog theflyingkick)

Apakah ini bermakna memang benar Tun Mahathir yang digelarnya kuda tua itu tidak lebih daripada ‘kuda tunggangan’ DAP untuk menjatuhkan UMNO?

Sebelum ini pun Superman Hew pernah membuat kenyataan sebegini seperti ini.

Jika perkara ini benar, hakikatnya Tun M hanyalah berangan-angan kerana menganggap dirinya sebagai orang penting yang mendominasi pakatan pembangkang atau apa yang disebut oleh Tun M sebagai ‘top-dog’ pembangkang; melainkan partinya boleh memenangi bilangan kerusi yang lebih besar daripada DAP di dalam PRU14 nanti.

Persoalan ini patut ditanya kepada Tun M pada program Nothing To Hide beliau supaya rakyat jelas akan kedudukan Tun M yang sebenarnya di dalam pakatan pembangkang dan tidak tertipu oleh mainan politik mereka.

Kalau betul begini, pada DAP, Tun M hanyalah setaraf dengan pemimpin DAP Sarawak, Aziz Isa yang menjadi alat DAP untuk ‘skrew’ orang Melayu.





“DAP Bukan Lagi Musuh Melayu”; Is Zam Okay?

6 07 2017

Bekas Menteri Penerangan, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin atau lebih dikenali sebagai Zam baru-baru ini menulis sebuah artikel di blognya, Zamkata, yang bertajuk “DAP BUKAN LAGI MUSUH MELAYU AKIBAT PEMESONGAN NASIONALISME UMNO”.

Artikel tersebut menunjukkan betapa setianya Tan Sri Zam kepada Tun Mahathir (Tun M) kerana demi mempertahankan pendirian Tun M, Zam sanggup menulis apa sahaja walaupun tulisan itu amat mengelirukan, tuduhan yang melulu tanpa fakta dan alasan yang amat dangkal dan tidak logik; semata-mata untuk memberi persepsi yang buruk kepada UMNO dan kerajaan.

Zam buat-buat tidak tahu bahawa parti DAP ialah sebuah parti yang menentang hak orang-orang Melayu dan Raja-Raja Melayu dan sentiasa mendesak supaya Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dihapuskan agar hilanglah hak istimewa orang Melayu di Tanah Melayu ini.

Di manakah logiknya bila Zam cuba menyamakan kesan hubungan “penanaman modal dari China atau kerjasama ekonomi Malaysia dengan Republik Rakyat China” dengan kesan kekuasaan politik parti DAP kepada orang Melayu?

Zam seterusnya menulis:

“Orang Melayu sekarang melihat UMNO sebagai menambah ancaman dan cabaran kepada mereka dibandingkan DAP yang semakin matang dalam melihat nilai-nilai politik yang diperlukan untuk kerjasama politik yang progresif, dinamik ,bersih dan cekap yang tidak lagi berasaskan politik perkauman dan sentimen keugamaan yang sempit.”

Nampaknya Zam menganggap penentangan keras DAP terhadap dasar-dasar Islam itu sebagai sikap “DAP yang semakin matang” dan “tidak lagi berasaskan politik perkauman dan sentimen keugamaan yang sempit”.

DAP bukan sahaja dengan biadapnya menentang pindaan Akta 355 yang dibuat untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah, malah Ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera mencadangkan supaya bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah yang diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu ditarik balik.

Walaupun bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya terpakai kepada orang Islam sahaja, namun DAPlah yang dengan lantang menentang dengan berbagai alasan yang tidak masuk akal termasuk, demi mempertahankan hak kebebasan umat Islam termasuk untuk murtad.

Di negeri yang mereka kuasai iaitu Pulau Pinang, mereka mahu seruan azan diperlahankan, seolah-olah Pulau Pinang kini  bukan lagi sebuah negeri Islam.

Pada mereka, hak asasi umat Islam hanyalah hak untuk bebas membuat dosa namun hak untuk hidup secara Islam yang sebenarnya dinafikan dan ditentang habis-habisan dengan berbagai alasan termasuk bersifat ekstrimis, rasis dan merbahayakan negara.

Malah telah ada pemimpin DAP yang berani berkata, “apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian City” walaupun kata-kata itu jelas mencabar kuasa Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua bagi Agama Islam bagi Pulau Pinang dan seluruh Malaysia.

Begitu juga dengan pendedahan Dr. Kamarul Zaman tentang adanya agenda Kristian di sebalik penglibatan Hannah Yeoh sebagai ahli politik di Malaysia yang mana bersalahan dengan undang-undang negara ini.

Bencinya DAP kepada Islam sehinggakan mereka dengan sengaja menyalah tafsirkan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan memfitnah bahawa Malaysia ini ialah sebuah negara sekular dengan Islam hanyalah sekadar agama rasmi sahaja.

Begitu juga dengan perlembagaan parti DAP yang dengan jelas bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Jadi, bagaimana mungkin Zam boleh berpendapat bahawa hubungan ekonomi dengan China lebih merbahaya berbanding dengan memberikan kuasa politik kepada DAP yang hakikatnya dimonopoli oleh orang Cina yang tidak memghargai pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu dan mahu menghapuskan kontrak sosial yang telah dibuat dahulu?

Peliknya bila Zam menuduh “UMNO yang mahu menChinakan Malaysia menerusi penjajahan ekonominya” namun menutup mata bila kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang cuba “menChinakan” Pulau Pinang dengan membawa masuk pelaburan dari China dan membangunkan berbagai projek hartanah mewah yang dijual kepada rakyat dari negara China.

Juga menghairankan saya adalah, bagaimana Zam boleh menyalahkan kerajaan mengenai penjualan saham Proton kepada Geely, sebuah syarikat pembuat kereta China sedangkan Tun M dan bukannya PM Najib yang berada di dalam kumpulan yang telah merancang perkara ini dan telah terlibat dalam rundingan awal di antara Proton dan Geely.

“Orang Melayu bimbang perkongsian Proton Holding Berhad dengan pembuat kereta China, China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group akan membuka peluang pekerjaan kepada orang Cina dari China  di Proton yang selama ini eksklusif kepada orang Melayu.”

Dari tulisannya juga, nampaknya seperti dasar parti DAP, Zam juga mahukan negara ini mengamalkan “dasar sekularisme dan liberalisme” yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam, Perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara:

“Disamping itu orang bukan Melayu melihat perubahan dasar sekularisme dan liberalisme UMNO sejak permuafakatan politik dengan Pas untuk bersama menguasai negara ini. Pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah atau Akta 355) menimbulkan prasangka buruk bukan Melayu terhadap matlamat UMNO…”

Terpengaruh dengan pendapat “Peguam-Peguam Islam yang terkemuka di negara ini” dari parti DAP seperti Zaid Ibrahim dan peguan liberal lain contohnya Siti Zabedah Kassim, Zam berpendapat bahawa, “Hukuman jenayah tidak seharusnya berbeza antara Melayu Islam dan bukan Islam”; seolah-olah Zam tidak tahu akan adanya sistem Mahkamah Syariah yang bidang kuasanya telah diperuntukkan melalui Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Peguam-Peguam Islam yang terkemuka di negara ini juga bimbang pindaan ini akan membawa kepada pencerobohan terhadap prinsip-prinsip asal perlembagaan negara yang mahu membina suatu bangsa atas nasionalisme Malaysia yang menolak dan perbezaan hukuman kaum di Malaysia termasuk orang Islam sendiri yang menyemai perasaan ketidakadilan dari segi perlembagaan.”

Nampaknya Zam yang kurang memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan merasakan PAS lebih merbahaya daripada DAP kepada orang Melayu.

“PAS yang belum pun berada dalam kerajaan telah berjaya mempergunakan UMNO untuk menggugat kesucian Perlembagaan Negara menerusi Parlimen dengan mengambil kesempatan di atas kelemahan UMNO dan pucuk pimpinannya.”

Lebih memeningkan lagi ialah, setelah menuduh, “UMNO yang mahu menChinakan Malaysia menerusi penjajahan ekonominya” Tan Sri Zam menulis:

“Orang Melayu tidak menolak penanaman modal dari China kerana kesesatan dari nasionalisme atau misguided nasionalism tetapi kerana kehilangan keyakinan mereka terhadap nasionalimse UMNO yang terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara .”

Saya tidak faham apakah Zam merasakan pelaburan modal dari China ini memberi kesan yang baik atau buruk kepada orang Melayu; adakah kesannya buruk bila modal China dibawa masuk oleh UMNO dan kesannya baik jika dibawa masuk oleh pihak lain contohnya DAP dan Tun M?

Dan apakah maksud “nasionalimse UMNO yang terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara”?

Jika Zam maksudkan pemerkasaan dasar Islam dan usaha UMNO untuk memperbetulkan penafsiran Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan dan bukannya hanya sekadar agama rasmi seperti yang di salah tafsirkah oleh DAP itulah sebagai ” terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara”, maka patutlah beliau merasakan “DAP bukan lagi musuh orang Melayu”, bak kata pepatah Inggeris, “Birds of a feather flock together”.

Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa DAP dan parti-parti sekutunya seperti PKR, PAN dan PPBM merupakan ancaman terhadap kedaulatan Islam di Malaysia dan itulah yang menjadikan DAP sebagai musuh yang amat nyata kepada orang Melayu, walaupun Zam menafikannya dengan sepenuh hati.

Related Posts:





Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

13 01 2017

Yesterday evening I was stunned when my father showed me a letter that was address to me from former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in replying to my blog article, Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

I want to thank Tun M for writing to me, I am very honoured to receive a letter from a former Prime Minister and to know that someone as important as him reading my blog article.

Below is Tun M’s letter that was addressed to me.

tun-m-letter

 

In my article, I commented that the opposition parties’ agreement, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM that was signed by DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM, had misquoted the Article 3(1) by adding the word ‘bebas‘. Please click here for my article.

In explaining about the added word, Tun M wrote:

It is true that the word “bebas” is not in the sentence referring to Islam as the official religion of the Federation.
But the word “bebas” is not meant for Islam the official religions but for “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity.

From what I understand, Tun M explains that the word, “bebas” in the agreement refers to the freedom to convert to other religion where Tun M further wrote that, “But the word “bebas” was not meant for Islam, but for the followers of “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity”.

I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions.

Let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.

or

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

I do not mean to be rude but it seems like Tun M is confused about what is written in the Article 3(1) and therefore Tun M’s explanation about the reason for adding the word “bebas” is totally out of context, because adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) means that the followers of other religions are given the freedom do anything they wish in the name of practising their religions even though if it disrupts the peace and harmony of the community.

Hence, I questioned the opposition parties’ intention of the adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) because the added word “bebas” distorts the interpretation of the Article 3(1) and undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I have to stress that the Article 3(1) that places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution and that is grouped under Part 1 of the Constitution, must not be confused with the Article regarding the “freedom of religion” which is the Article 11 that is grouped under Part II of the Constitution.

The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia wrote that:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

And I also wrote that as the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason, therefore adding just a word can change the interpretation of the Article and can disrupt other related Articles.

Another important matter that I have to highlight is, it is incorrect to say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation as written by Tun M in his letter because Islam is not merely the official religion, but it is the religion of the Federation as what was said by Tun M himself during his years as the Prime Minister, that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam” .

I made the video below to help people understand that Islam is actually the religion of the Federation because a lot of us are still confused about this important fact.

It seems like Tun M’s principals has changed, for, during Tun M’s reign, in order to maintain peace and harmony among the people in Malaysia, Tun did not give the freedom to the people; but now as a leader of an opposition party, Tun M went against his own principle and is fighting for total freedom.





Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator

2 12 2016

three

Above are three images of ‘the new Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’ after he left UMNO, the party that once made him the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The first image was taken at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on September 5, 2016, when he made a surprise court visit in support of Anwar Ibrahim, during Anwar’s NSC suit.

It was Dr Mahathir who sacked Anwar Ibrahim from the Deputy Prime Minister post before Anwar was sent to jail.

The second image was taken on November 19, 2016, during the illegal Bersih 5 demonstration in Kuala Lumpur.

Taking part in Bersih for the second time, Dr Mathathir seems to have mastered the art of street demonstration.

In the photo, Mahathir, wearing a Bersih 5 t-shirt was seen shouting like a mad demonstrator, when during his days as the Prime Minister, he was against demonstrations and looked down at demonstrators.

The third image shows Dr Mahathir proudly wears a ‘Free Anwar Now’ badge, another odd situation after what he did and said about Anwar when he was still in power.

What is happening to Dr Mahathir?

Dr Mahathir was once a statesman and condemned Bersih demonstrators as wanting to topple a legally elected government.

But now he eagerly took part in the illegal Bersih demonstration which was led by the party that he once hates. 

Like Bersih leaders, he too wants and trying hard to bring down the legally elected government; an action which he used to condemn.

He had changed from a statesman to a street demonstrator, taking part in an illegal demonstration to topple a legal government.

Dr Maharhir had changed from a great and smart leader to a person easily used by his enemy turns ally, as claimed by “DAP’s Superman” Hew Kuan Yau.

According to Hew Kuan Yau, DAP is only using Mahathir to bring down Najib.

Dr Mahathir used to say that,” Melayu mudah lupa” but now it is clear that it is actually Mahathir who mudah lupa.

Now Dr Mahathir sudah lupa who voted him to power, his stance about street demonstrations, who DAP really is, the agendas behind Bersih and he even forgets what is Act 355 which was amended twice during his tenure as the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Related Post:





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

18 06 2016

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.





Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai

6 03 2016
(Photo credit to Dr MIM)

(Photo credit to Dr MIM)

 

It is clear that Tun Dr. Mahathir and his supporters including Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who are demanding for the Prime Minister Najib to step down, are willing to do anything to achieve their goals.

In his desperate attempt, Tun Dr. Mahathir brought his troop including Tan Sri Muhyiddin who is still an UMNO man to team up with Lim Kit Siang, Ambiga and Maria Chin whose dreams are only to kill UMNO.

(Photo credit to Dr MIM)

(Photo credit to Dr MIM)

 

What logical justification can Tun Dr. Mahathir gives about his latest move?

Mahathir was seen at Bersih’s illegal rally claiming that they are fighting for democracy; but is it democratic to force a legally elected leader to step down just because Tun wants him to step down?

This is actually an anarchy and not democracy!

What is the use of having general elections if people like Tun Dr. Mahathir and friends can just force the Prime Minister of Malaysia to step down by making some declaration?

As senior politicians Tun Dr. Mahathir and his troop can clearly see that what is happening in Egypt and Libya after the Arab Spring can also happen to us if they revolt against the legally elected government.

Indeed, they are forcing the government to spend the country’s resources to solve problems created by them when the resources should be spent on building our nation.

Please look at what is happening in Beirut, Lebanon, when the government is financially and politically weak; they cannot even solve the trash problems which has now turned into a river of trash in the middle of the city.

Do they want that to happen to us in Malaysia too?

Do they care about us?

It is hard to see that they actually care about what will happen to the people whom they claim that they are fighting for, but instead they are using the people for their own agendas.

Anarchist politics will only destroy our country because the same action will happen again and again and there will be no strong government to lead and take care of us.








%d bloggers like this: