Yes, in 2008 we determine to await Pakatan Rakyat. But a await came with sure conditions attached. You are, of course, giveaway to renegotiate these conditions as good as conditions if we wish to as good as revoke what has been agreed. In a democracy this is allowed. But then, in a democracy, we have been additionally giveaway to demeanour during these brand new conditions as good as conditions of a relationship as good as decide either we wish to accept them or not.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
"Dear RPK, we find your articles essentially getting more as good as more racist. What is this about?" asked a single reader by a name of 'Nanda K'.Well, assault begets violence, as a observant goes, as good as injustice begets racism. Racism requires two hands to clap as good as is a antithesis any obtuse extremist than, say, Perkasa?
Have a demeanour during this newspaper cutting:
Why must a Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim contend 'Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi kuat'? Is DAP a non-Melayu party, meaning a Chinese party? Is which since if Melayu stick upon DAP afterwards PR would turn stronger -- since a Malays would intermix a Chinese in DAP? What if a Malays do not stick upon DAP? Would DAP afterwards remain a Chinese celebration as good as as a result PR would turn weak?
The make a difference 'Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi kuat' is itself a extremist statement. It shows which even Pakatan Rakyat plays a secular governing body game usually like Barisan Nasional. Can't we all get this through your thick head?
So who is a extremist here? we or a Pakatan Rakyat leaders who speak about Malays, Chinese, Indians, ! etc? Whe n we speak about it which is okay. When we speak about it we am a racist. If we stop articulate about Malays, Chinese, Indians, natives, as good as so upon afterwards we can additionally stop articulate about it. But if we continue articulate afterwards we have each right to additionally keep talking.
That is called democracy.
Sure, my articles of late have been about Hudud. But we am essay about Hudud usually since a Pakatan Rakyat leaders have been arguing about Hudud. If they can argue about Hudud, if this is their approved right to determine to disagree, afterwards in what way have we mislaid my approved right to additionally speak about Hudud?
Isn't this what democracy is all about, to reply to what people say?
Look during theBernamanews object per Karpal Singh below. PAS pronounced which Karpal opposes Hudud since he is a non-believer. This appears to have dissapoint Karpal a bit as good as he stressed which he is a believer.
What is a non-believer? Is a maverick someone who does not hold in God? Then he would be called an Atheist, not a non-believer. An Atheist does believe. He believes which God does not exist. Hence he is a believer, a follower in a fallacy of a life of God.
Or is a maverick someone who subscribes to a opposite sacrament to yours? Such people do hold in God. They go to church or a church to pray. They hold which God exists. The usually thing is they follow a opposite trail to yours. But they have been a follower who does hold in a life of God. Hence should these people be marked down as non-believers?
In a run-up to a Mar 2008 General Election, we launchedThe People's Declaration,which was endorsed by 6 non-Barisan Nasional political parties, a 3 Pakatan Rakyat parties included. And this is what it pronounced per a devise toPromote National Unity:
We will initiate measures to set up as good as encourage togetherness among ! a assort ed racial as good as eremite groups, carrying as a target a evolution of a people with a usual finish of justice as good as equivalence for all. To which end, we will:
rught away dismantle any as good as all remaining practices of "divide as good as rule" in public administration department from a days of a BN administration;
cause to be established a Ministry in charge of Non-Islamic Religious Affairs;
put in place an affirmative movement programme during Federal as good as all State levels to exterminate poverty as good as marginalization from amongst a diseased as good as back groups irrespective of race, social background as good as religion;
compensate special attention to a Orang Asli in a Peninsula as good as all a indigenous groups in Sabah as good as Sarawak, as good as rectify assorted laws as good as regulations regarding to them so which justice is served, including substantiating a Commission to make firm Native Customary Rights (NCR) land as good as to resolve disputes relating to such lands whilst respecting their traditions as good as customs;
make firm inhabitant formation by restoring a rights as good as privileges which were betrothed to a people of Sabah as good as Sarawak;
establish an eccentric Ethnic Relations Council, stating directly to Parliament to help in office building a united Bangsa Malaysia;
establish a Commission for Shari'ah Law during a Federal level;
revoke a change of celebration governing body in a respective State Religious Councils, mosques as good as alternative eremite institutions;
allot land for graves as good as places of ceremony for all faiths but any discrimination;
enlarge inter-cultural as good as inter-religious dialogues to make firm mutual understanding among a people; and
encourage a develop! ment of a Malaysian culture formed upon usual moral values as good as ideals. This requires an open perspective towards a farrago of cultures of a assorted racial as good as sub-ethnic groups in a country, taking account of a country's history as good as evolution.
we am really transparent upon what my bulletin is. And my bulletin is in writing. And we asked Pakatan Rakyat to validate this agenda, which they did.
More than two years later, in 2010, we launched a Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) as good as in a speak in London with Anwar Ibrahim, Tian Chua as good as Tunku Aziz Ibrahim, we raised a issue ofThe People's Declarationand emphasised which we were not happy with what we noticed as Pakatan Rakyat sidestepping this matter.
That public censure of Pakatan Rakyat was not good received as good as afterward MCLM was boycotted. It appears which what we due above, amongst many others, as good as which we thought had already been concluded upon before to a Mar 2008 General Election, was no longer a game plan.
That is fine with me. Malaysia is, after all, a approved nation as good as no a single can be forced to determine to something they do not hold in. Well, a democracy works both ways. Just as we have been underneath no obligation to determine to what we do not hold in, we as good am underneath no obligation to determine to what we do not hold in.
However, whilst we have been giveaway to accept or reject whatever we want, we do not appear to have which same leisure to do what we do. In a run-up to a Mar 2008 General Election, we done it really transparent which we will await Pakatan Rakyat theme to sure conditions. And a single of these many conditions enclosed an finish to secular governing body as good as a separation of governing body as good as religion.
Yes, in 2008 we determine to await Pakatan Rakyat. But a await came with sure conditions attached. You are, of course, giveaway to renegotia! te these conditions as good as conditions if we wish to as good as revoke what has been agreed. In a democracy this is allowed. But then, in a democracy, we have been additionally giveaway to demeanour during these brand new conditions as good as conditions of a relationship as good as decide either we wish to accept them or not.
As distant as we am concerned, we entered into a matrimony contract. And this matrimony stipulate was really specific. If we wish to cancel this matrimony stipulate afterwards we am during autocracy to reassess a matrimony as good as decide either to continue with a matrimony or finish it.
Which partial of this judgment do we not understand?
Today, Pakatan Rakyat is still allowing race as good as sacrament to interfere with a devise to remodel a nation after earnest back in 2008 which all this nonsense will end. In which case, since we have done a U-turn upon what we concluded upon, does which not additionally allow me a right to do a U-turn as well?
Agreements which were bilaterally concluded cannot be unilaterally changed. That is a long as good as short of it all. And if those of we reading this square have been as good foolish to assimilate this judgment afterwards we merit an additional 50 years of Umno-Barisan Nasional rule.
**********************************************
Karpal reminds PAS of gratification state goal
(Bernama) - Any attempt by PAS to espouse hudud law in a nation right away would reflect poorly of a decisions done during a final PAS Muktamar, DAP chairman Karpal Singh pronounced today.
He pronounced PAS boss Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang had, during a party's 57th Muktamar final June, publicly settled there was no discuss of Islamic state in a al-Quran but there was discuss of gratification state.
He pronounced this communicated which PAS had since up its target to set up an Islamic state as good as opted for a! gratifi cation state.
In a make a difference here today, he pronounced hudud was not enclosed in a Pakatan Rakyat's usual process framework Buku Jingga.
"Likewise, it will not be enclosed in a usual declaration of Pakatan Rakyat, it cannot be," added Karpal.
He was commenting upon a make a difference by PAS Youth arch Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi which Karpal was a maverick formed upon his (Karpal's) consistent mount in rejecting a hudud.
Karpal said: "No one, no party, no organization can claim to have corner of God. we must state, with all a force during my command, which we hold in God."
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment