PASIR PUTEH: PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has expressed support for the proposed high-tech pig farm in Selangor provided it does not contaminate the environment.
He said there was no reason to raise objections against the proposal if the company managing the farm was able to follow the guidelines set by the Department of Environment.
“We support so long as the farm does not contaminate the environment, and non-Muslims have the right to breed pigs,” Nik Aziz said here Monday.
He was asked to comment on a decision by the Pakatan Rakyat government in Selangor to allow a company to open a RM100mil modern pig farm in Tumbuk Estate, Sepang.
As for Kelantan, Nik Aziz, who is Mentri Besar, said the state would not allow the setting up of pig farms on a commercial scale.
“The backyard breeding of pigs by non-Muslims is adequate,” he said. – Bernama
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
PAS: Islamic state agenda is still on
From the Star
PETALING JAYA: Although PAS is focusing on Pakatan Rakyat’s agenda of establishing a welfare state and reinstating democracy and good governance, it is not discarding its agenda to set up an Islamic state.
PAS MP for Kuala Selangor Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad said the party did not want to harp on the issue of Islamic state because it was not part of the Pakatan Rakyat agenda.
“We are not pulling it (setting up of an Islamic state) back. It is still an issue that matters to us but we are allowing more time for the electorate to understand us better.
“The more important agenda now is reinstating democracy and good governance,” said the PAS reserach centre director after taking part in an intellectual discourse on a book entitled Who Needs an Islamic State? written by Dr Abdelwahab El-Effendi.
The discussion on the book was organised by the Muslim Professionals Forum here yesterday.
Dr Dzulkifly said PAS was a lot more politically savvy and during the last general election, had reinvented itself by coming up with a manifesto embodying the principle of a trustworthy, just and clean government.
Human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said people should recognise that the question “Who Needs an Islamic state?” reflected the aspiration of some quarters which wanted a greater role for Islam in public life.
“It’s also a cause of discomfort. We don’t have a homogenous society. We have a multiracial and multi-religious society,” he said.
He added that the constitutional debate on the social contract about the position of the Malays together with the debate on Islamic state made the concept “explosive.”
“We have to take a step back and see what it is we want to achieve when we suggest that we want an Islamic state. If we say that this country is an Islamic state, we are in some way saying that we have a national status.
“To non-Muslims we are in fact saying they have a lesser place. Are we saying that non-Muslims are less significant and of lesser standing in the country? I don’t want to be part of that or be associated with that.”
Dr Abelwahab pointed out that an Islamic state was a system of meting out justice.
“In Islam, the general principle to follow is how to conduct yourself to please God. Islamic state assumes that rules should be rules but you should also use your conscience.”
PETALING JAYA: Although PAS is focusing on Pakatan Rakyat’s agenda of establishing a welfare state and reinstating democracy and good governance, it is not discarding its agenda to set up an Islamic state.
PAS MP for Kuala Selangor Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad said the party did not want to harp on the issue of Islamic state because it was not part of the Pakatan Rakyat agenda.
“We are not pulling it (setting up of an Islamic state) back. It is still an issue that matters to us but we are allowing more time for the electorate to understand us better.
“The more important agenda now is reinstating democracy and good governance,” said the PAS reserach centre director after taking part in an intellectual discourse on a book entitled Who Needs an Islamic State? written by Dr Abdelwahab El-Effendi.
The discussion on the book was organised by the Muslim Professionals Forum here yesterday.
Dr Dzulkifly said PAS was a lot more politically savvy and during the last general election, had reinvented itself by coming up with a manifesto embodying the principle of a trustworthy, just and clean government.
Human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said people should recognise that the question “Who Needs an Islamic state?” reflected the aspiration of some quarters which wanted a greater role for Islam in public life.
“It’s also a cause of discomfort. We don’t have a homogenous society. We have a multiracial and multi-religious society,” he said.
He added that the constitutional debate on the social contract about the position of the Malays together with the debate on Islamic state made the concept “explosive.”
“We have to take a step back and see what it is we want to achieve when we suggest that we want an Islamic state. If we say that this country is an Islamic state, we are in some way saying that we have a national status.
“To non-Muslims we are in fact saying they have a lesser place. Are we saying that non-Muslims are less significant and of lesser standing in the country? I don’t want to be part of that or be associated with that.”
Dr Abelwahab pointed out that an Islamic state was a system of meting out justice.
“In Islam, the general principle to follow is how to conduct yourself to please God. Islamic state assumes that rules should be rules but you should also use your conscience.”
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Our One Buntung Idiot
(Buntong, Perak)
What a lot of bullshit! You jumped the gun. You created the problem so don't wiggle out of it. Isn't it your duty to ask before you start shitting all over the place. Had you asked and be more matured your mentor at DAP would have gladly point you to the loo, a proper palce to shit.!
I expect they will be more like this kind if thing to come in future but we need to rise above all this. We have an election to win in 2013 lah and make BN the opposition.
I hope DAP kicks him hard in the butt and then forgive him. If he does it again, show him the door
Monday, March 17, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Karpal: Man in clip is Lingam
Wednesday, 20 February 2008 07:40am
©The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: The man in the video clip brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone is Datuk V. K. Lingam, submitted lawyer Karpal Singh.
In his written submission delivered by hand to inquiry secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Abdul Hamid yesterday, Karpal Singh argued that there was the evidence of businessman Loh Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne.
He argued that the evidence of both men was admissible under Section 60(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 which states:
“Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it.”
He argued that the evidence of Lingam’s former driver D. Ramachandran, who testified that he was familiar with Lingam’s movements and voice, also identified him.
Apart from that, he said, there was also the evidence of Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu that the body language and the way the man said “Correct! Correct! Correct!” clearly showed it was Lingam.
Besides, Karpal Singh added, “even his own (Lingam’s) evidence does not amount to a denial that the person in the video clip was in fact him”.
Karpal Singh submitted that the inquiry has the further evidence of Mohamed Zabri, who testified that scientific analysis of the audio and video of the clip showed that it had not been tampered with. He argued that the video clip was authentic.
(Karpal Singh acted for Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the inquiry’s Feb 5 proceedings, when he sought the removal of Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, saying that he (Haidar) was related by marriage to a key witness, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
(Haidar dismissed the application on the grounds that the relationship had ceased about 30 years ago after the death of Ahmad Fairuz’s brother who had married Haidar's sister.)
Yesterday, Karpal Singh said five copies of the submissions were enclosed for onward transmission to the members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Karpal Singh further said that the content of the conversation in the context of this submission was true.
He submitted that Lingam was guilty of sedition under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and for of professional misconduct under Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
The inquiry into the video clip showing a man brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone ended on Feb 15, after sitting for 17 days of sitting.
Lawyers for each of the witnesses have until Feb 25 to file written submissions.
The commission is to hand in its report to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by March 11.
©The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: The man in the video clip brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone is Datuk V. K. Lingam, submitted lawyer Karpal Singh.
In his written submission delivered by hand to inquiry secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Abdul Hamid yesterday, Karpal Singh argued that there was the evidence of businessman Loh Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne.
He argued that the evidence of both men was admissible under Section 60(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 which states:
“Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it.”
He argued that the evidence of Lingam’s former driver D. Ramachandran, who testified that he was familiar with Lingam’s movements and voice, also identified him.
Apart from that, he said, there was also the evidence of Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu that the body language and the way the man said “Correct! Correct! Correct!” clearly showed it was Lingam.
Besides, Karpal Singh added, “even his own (Lingam’s) evidence does not amount to a denial that the person in the video clip was in fact him”.
Karpal Singh submitted that the inquiry has the further evidence of Mohamed Zabri, who testified that scientific analysis of the audio and video of the clip showed that it had not been tampered with. He argued that the video clip was authentic.
(Karpal Singh acted for Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the inquiry’s Feb 5 proceedings, when he sought the removal of Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, saying that he (Haidar) was related by marriage to a key witness, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
(Haidar dismissed the application on the grounds that the relationship had ceased about 30 years ago after the death of Ahmad Fairuz’s brother who had married Haidar's sister.)
Yesterday, Karpal Singh said five copies of the submissions were enclosed for onward transmission to the members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Karpal Singh further said that the content of the conversation in the context of this submission was true.
He submitted that Lingam was guilty of sedition under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and for of professional misconduct under Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
The inquiry into the video clip showing a man brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone ended on Feb 15, after sitting for 17 days of sitting.
Lawyers for each of the witnesses have until Feb 25 to file written submissions.
The commission is to hand in its report to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by March 11.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Time to bring down Umno’s lapdogs
From Politics 101 Malaysia blog
This is the first Valentine’s Day in living memory that the mullahs in PAS didn’t issue a fatwa against the celebration of it.
For that alone, if you are a non-Muslim voting in a straight fight between Umno and PAS, just give PAS a chance to help reduce the BN’s majority.
For good governance and democracy to bloom, UMNO must be severely crippled and its hypocrite brand of Islam Badawi must be confined to Abdullah’s bedroom.
In 1999, the Chinese hesitated and did not roll along with the reformasi spirit. If they had, the BN’s 2/3 majority would have disappeared.
Now, the non Malays are given a second chance to make amends for their mistake in 1999. If we muck up our second chance and again let the racist, Islamist Umno off the hook, we deserve Umno doing ‘big business’ on us and our future.
To cripple Umno, we have to first destroy the political lapdogs who prop up Umno, starting with Umno’s senior running dogs MCA, Gerakan and MIC.
Like in K1 kickboxing, you got to take out the legs of a bigger opponent before you can take down the guy.
Umno must pay for all its failures and threats against non Bumis.
MCA, Gerakan and MIC must pay dearly for abetting in Corporate Umno’s crimes against ordinary Malaysians of all races.
2008 must mark the start of the fall of UMNO
This is the first Valentine’s Day in living memory that the mullahs in PAS didn’t issue a fatwa against the celebration of it.
For that alone, if you are a non-Muslim voting in a straight fight between Umno and PAS, just give PAS a chance to help reduce the BN’s majority.
For good governance and democracy to bloom, UMNO must be severely crippled and its hypocrite brand of Islam Badawi must be confined to Abdullah’s bedroom.
In 1999, the Chinese hesitated and did not roll along with the reformasi spirit. If they had, the BN’s 2/3 majority would have disappeared.
Now, the non Malays are given a second chance to make amends for their mistake in 1999. If we muck up our second chance and again let the racist, Islamist Umno off the hook, we deserve Umno doing ‘big business’ on us and our future.
To cripple Umno, we have to first destroy the political lapdogs who prop up Umno, starting with Umno’s senior running dogs MCA, Gerakan and MIC.
Like in K1 kickboxing, you got to take out the legs of a bigger opponent before you can take down the guy.
Umno must pay for all its failures and threats against non Bumis.
MCA, Gerakan and MIC must pay dearly for abetting in Corporate Umno’s crimes against ordinary Malaysians of all races.
2008 must mark the start of the fall of UMNO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
