The Prime Minister must be a Muslim. So, Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, please shut up and let Malaysians live in peace. Stop all the demonstrations, rhetoric and propaganda. We love our Rulers and we believe in the Constitution and the sovereignty of our Rulers. There is absolutely no question that there are others who want it otherwise.
Just stop fanning more racial sentiments and religious sensitivities. There are better things to do than to start arguing about such miniscule matters. Anyone, who tries to be smart, and install a Christian Prime Minister must be ISA’ed. Immediately.
Najib can continue to be Prime Minister as long as he wants provided BN wins the election. Should BN lose, the ruling coalition can still have the option to appoint him as Prime Minister for the next 22 years, so there is no argument here. Please pack your banners and megaphones, go home and let Malaysians enjoy their peace.
Najib forever or Dr M should return to rule Malaysia?
We still think Najib is the best of the batch, compared to the rest in UMNO. Dr M shouldn’t have resigned. After his resignation, Malaysia has never been the same again. UMNO should consider fielding him again, just like Lee Kuan Yew or make him ‘seniole’ minister since he can’t keep his mouth shut.
Muhyiddin can wait another 22 years or until Najib decides to retire. Mukhriz can fight with Hishamuddin on who should be PM after Muhyiddin’s turn. Just stop all this nonsense about who should become PM immediately and leave the Rakyat alone.
It doesn’t matter if the Prime Minister is Chinese, Indian or Iban, Kadazan as long as he is a Muslim. Any wannabes in the government who intend to become Prime Minister better make the conversion now. The Prime Minister, however, must be a true Muslim who can uphold the sanctity of Islam without compromising. He must be fair to all and act swiftly to diffuse silly controversies facing the Rakyat today.
Malaysians are not bothered about who becomes Prime Minister as long as the Prime Minister knows how to lead wisely and provide equal opportunities to the Rakyat.
The present batch of PM-wannabes is a gross disappointment. They sit around and do nothing, and play with the sentiments of the people. Not too long ago, the Sleepy One went after the wrong person - a lady who reported a seditious act was put in the ISA for her own safety, while the perpetrator got off scot free.
Strong undercurrents in Umno
Please do not blame BigDog the blogger. Whether he is a big dog or a small dog doesn’t hide the fact that he is prominent blogger. As a blogger he can write what he wants, and he can lie or tell the truth about his writings. It will not be seditious if others do not publish it nationwide.
Utusan, in their search for the Scoop of the Century, finally found it in BigDog’s blog after many years of Fruitless search. Now, Utusan is very happy that they have finally found the biggest news of the century, and they know they can’t be charged for sedition as they only reported the news. The reporter who broke the news should be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. As long as their paper sells, they will report anything under the sun so long as it pleases their Boss.
Rumours that he enjoys close ties with Mahathir and Mukhriz, should not be seen as an attempt by this duo to destabilize this nation. MM is actually a harmless kitten trying to meow like a Tiger. And if Mukhriz wants to have friends like BigDog or small dog, who can protest?
And the rumour going around that MM may be involved in this controversy to destabilize Najib, so that Mukhiz can ascend the Prime Ministership is absolutely ridiculous. Muhyiddin definitely won’t allow such a thing to happen.
Neither would Hishamuddin seen by many as a potential candidate for Prime Minister. Poor Najib, nearly censured the last time due to the Altantuya controversy, is again been challenged. We really hope he gets to be Prime Minister for ever.
So the question, of whether Malaysia will have a Muslim or a non-Muslim Prime Minister does not arise, even though Sabah minister Bernard Dompok, has spelt out clearly that the law allows for a non-Malay Prime Minister.
Gateway APCO
More plausible is the fact that Christianity through APCO is slowly infiltrating the country. Israel sees Malaysia as one of the easiest countries to colonize. And Malaysia sits strategically in South East Asia, that’s why Malacca became so famous before. Rahim Thamby Chik used to be the Chief Minister until his downfall, for which Lim Guan Eng went to jail for.
The meeting held at the Catholic Church in Penang was actually a social gathering. The Catholic Church is loyal to Rome and the Vatican, which Israel does not support. It is like Shiitism and Sunniism, which are two diverse beliefs and totally apart even though both believe in the same God. We hope any investigation conducted should include the Israeli link as well. It was also alleged that the past computerization of the PDRM was done by companies allied to Israel. That is also why MM is so angry with Soros and Israel. I would not put my money in any Israeli Bank for that matter
Our government should be cautious not to deal with any companies with ties to Israel or give them any of our money. Israel is so dangerous that our international passports forbid us to go to this one particular country. It is also the only country in the world chopped 'forbidden' prominently in our passports. Israel. So beware of Israel, but leave the Catholic Church alone.
So now that the matter has subsided without any bloodshed, or ill feelings, Utusan has called on everyone to not fan the fires of religious sensitivities and learn to respect each other’s religion. The Catholic Church has made an official statement, denying that they want to take over the country, so let’s just get back to our work and wait for the next controversy to appear. Hopefully, it wouldn’t be another sex scandal.
One of the global architects of terror responsible for inspiring the 9-11 tragedy was finally killed this week. Osama bin Laden, who violently hijacked the faith of 1.5 billion to rationalize his perverse criminal actions, is permanently seared into our collective consciousness as the 21st century boogeyman. Sadly, in the eyes of many Americans, bin Laden has also become one of the most visible icons of "Islam" alongside Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X. Furthermore, 10 years after the 9-11 tragedy, nearly 60% of Americans say they don't know a Muslim, and the favorability rating of Islam is at its lowest ebb. Muslim Americans, like much of the world, still cannot escape the overbearing shadow of the fallen towers. There is a permanent fork in the timeline of the Muslim American narrative: Pre-911 and Post 9-11.
Pre 9-11, I was another awkward, well intentioned, multi-hyphenated Muslim American with exotic dietary habits who prayed 5 times a day and drank chai instead of alcohol during college. Post 9-11, I received a special screening in front of my fellow passengers who boarded the plane to North Carolina while observing my Muslim security clearance zoo exhibit. I felt like smoking a cigarette and spouting a witty barb after my intimate encounter with the TSA. Thoroughly cleared and cleansed of any potential terrorist-y vibes, I was the last to board the packed plane. I headed down the aisle to find my inconceivably small, economy seat located near the end of the plane. For the first time in my life, my fellow airline passengers all looked at me with utter fear; eyes widened and mouths agape. My brown face, 5 o'clock shadow and inconvenient TSA screening immediately profiled and lumped me as one of "them" who attacked "us" on 9-11. My attempts to placate them with friendly smiles and nods only intensified their palpable anxiety, and their discomfort turned to horrified stares. I pulled an audible and decided to simply bow my head, make no loud, sudden noises, and move as quickly as possible to my masochistic seat. As a shy, awkward, overweight kid whose first language was Urdu, I had experienced mockery, ridicule and even alienation in my childhood. But, before that day, I had never been made to feel like Boo Radley or Darth Vader. I had never terrified anyone by merely "being" me. It was a jarring and disturbing experience.
But, this memorable experience, along with others like it, presented me a tremendous opportunity to bridge these seemingly impenetrable divides caused by ignorance, misunderstanding and fear.
What else could explain the graffiti on a Portland mosque that included "Go Home" and "Osama Today Islam tomorrow(sic)" mere hours after Osama bin Laden was reported as killed?
The rich and complex identity and narrative of Muslim American communities, who are the most diverse U.S. religious group in terms of ethnic diversity, socio-economic status, education levels and political affiliation, is now personified by a tall, lanky, bearded terrorist leader who suffered from narcissism, hypocritical delusions of religious authority and a compulsive need to release YouTube videos.
For example, a Muslim American student was asked by her 9th grade Algebra teacher if she was grieving over the death of her "uncle," in reference to Osama bin Laden. The teacher was subsequently disciplined for his disrespectful and ignorant remark
The lumping of nearly 250 years of Muslim American history with the icon of terror and wholesale categorization of 2 million American citizens as potential suspects explains why nearly 28% oppose Muslims sitting on the Supreme Court and a third oppose us running for president.
A new report found the Department of Homeland Security continues to push Muslims into detention and deportation "even without explicit racial and religious targeting built into Special Registration."
"We're seeing a trend where Muslims are being deported, detained and denied entry into the United States for no good reason except tenuous affiliations or unsubstantiated claims," said Sameer Ahmed, an attorney at Asian American Legal Defense Fund (AALDEF).
Republican candidates have successfully played the "fear card" using Muslims as their Ace. They gain significant political mileage with some of their constituents by mainstreaming the manufactured myth of "creeping sharia" taking over the U.S. For 2016, the right wing is creating "anti-bigfoot" and "anti-unicorn" legislation -- fear not, the war on terror never ends.
Muslim Americans also share blame due to hermitically sealing themselves in an isolated, cultural cocoon and not proactively engaging civic society in wider numbers. One cannot expect change by sitting in the stands as an ineffectual spectator, content with being an irate cultural consumer instead of a productive cultural producer and participant.
The only way to experience reconciliation and healing is to engage in honest self reflection and face the tragedy of that day -- with its subsequent collateral damage -- head on.
Without an honest dialogue, we're simply shadow boxing. So, here we are, nearly 10 years later, with that ubiquitous symbolic icon of "terror" now vanquished. However, we have yet to bury and forget the bigotry, stereotypes, hate, and unfounded fears that were born and nurtured as a reaction to a few men's perverse deeds. Americans are enjoying this moment of collective relief; this moment of well earned catharsis. But, tomorrow we will wake up and realize that we still have a long way to go in battling extremism and ignorance. Ten years later, at least many of us now understand that the only way forward is by embarking on this journey together. We have also earned and learned the valuable lesson that if we are to truly change ourselves, then the only way to escape our shadow is to finally confront it.
The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement is a byproduct of the Arab Spring, and the Palestinian chess game to position the public of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip for Palestinian statehood. The questions that the deal raises are numerous -- yet so are the possibilities. Should this new Palestinian understanding hold, and should it serve to advance national aspirations for a Palestinian state living at peace alongside the State of Israel, the Fatah-Hamas agreement could prove to be a critical step toward securing Palestinian independence based on a two-state solution.
The Fatah-Hamas deal comes after more than a year of reconciliation talks and two previously failed attempts (in 2007 and 2009) -- so why now? After all, the agreement calls into question Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation and continued aid from donor countries (particularly the United States), just as the Palestinians are gaining momentum for international recognition of a Palestinian state. For Fatah, the agreement serves three purposes. First, it ensures that its agenda, a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip come September, is feasible. Just days ago, Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, the architect of Palestinian institution building in preparation for statehood who will be forced to step down as part of the unity deal, stated that establishing a Palestinian state required an urgent end to Palestinian disunity. Second, it addresses the demands of the Palestinian people in the midst of the radical change sweeping the Arab world. Those who have protested in Ramallah and Gaza have not used "down with the regime" or "down with Israel" as their rallying call, but rather "the people want to end the split." Third, it serves to reconnect Fatah with Gaza, where Fatah's operations have been all but erased by Hamas' grip on the territory.
For Hamas, the reasons are also clear. First, the unrest in Syria threatens Hamas' operations and support base in Damascus, weakening its overall position. Second, Hamas was more comfortable with the mediation of the caretaker government in Egypt after its clear friction with the ousted President Hosni Mubarak, whose alliance with Abbas and opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood were well-documented. Reports that the new Egyptian government will permanently open the Gaza-Egypt border indicate the new tenor of the Hamas-Egypt relationship. Finally, just as Fatah seeks to gain a foothold in Gaza, Hamas seeks to gain a foothold in the West Bank. The next several months will be critical as both factions compete for influence and political power in advance of the general elections for a president and parliament.
To be sure, while announcing that they have reached an agreement on five points -- forming an interim government, convening elections, combining security forces, activating the Palestinian legislative council and exchanges prisoners--- there was no mention of any commitment as to how to pursue peace with Israel. However, there was a clear statement that the agreement would pave the way for the Palestinians to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 Green Line at September's United Nations General Assembly. In announcing the agreement, Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar stated: "Our plan does not involve negotiation with Israel or recognize it, it will be impossible for an interim government to take part in the peace process with Israel."
The emphasis on an interim government is critical. Officials on both sides have emphasized that the unity agreement is intended to address internal Palestinian governance and set the stage for elections in less than one year, while the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by Mahmoud Abbas would continue to represent the Palestinian people in negotiations with Israel. Yet, should the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state in September, the next Palestinian elections will be those of a state, which will have full authority (and responsibility) for both domestic and foreign affairs. As such, the new Palestinian government will be faced with a choice: negotiate with Israel, or fight it. Many members of the United Nations, especially some of the European countries, are not likely to move forward in recognizing a Palestinian state if they believe that the newly admitted member that includes Hamas is committed to the destruction of another member state: Israel.
Unfortunately, the possibility that a unity government might serve Israel's strategic interests has eluded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His knee-jerk reaction to the Fatah-Hamas deal, stating that Fatah must choose between Israel and Hamas, but that there is "no possibility of peace with both," fundamentally misreads the implications of the agreement. In the past, Netanyahu has pointed to Palestinian disunity as a significant obstacle to a two-state solution. He cannot have it both ways. Just two weeks ago in Tunisia, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas proved yet again that he is a partner for peace when he renounced violence and stated his clear opposition to a third intifada. With over 130 nations prepared to recognize a state under his leadership, and the United Nations, IMF and World Bank all endorsing the PA's preparedness for statehood, Abbas would not risk entering into an agreement with Hamas unless he felt it would advance, rather than hinder this statehood effort, the viability of which depends on continuing Israeli cooperation.
Furthermore, Abbas' remarks against violence were not made to the western media in English, but to the Arab world in Arabic -- he understands that a renewal of violence will inflict a major setback to the Palestinian national aspirations and severely undercut the considerable progress they have made toward achieving them in the past two years. Meanwhile, by entering a unity government, Hamas has indirectly taken on a significant level of responsibility. A renewal of violence from Gaza would seriously impede the Palestinian statehood efforts, in addition to halting international financing of Palestinian projects, to the detriment of Hamas' political standing in Palestine. In this context, the unity agreement is a renewed challenge for Hamas to behave in a responsible way.
But Netanyahu's quick dismissal of the agreement signals that he did not read the agreement for what it is: a potentially significant shift in the Palestinian political dynamic in preparation for independence. Instead, Netanyahu seized the announcement as a political tool to shift away the pressure that had been building on him to announce a peace initiative of his own. Indeed, the pressure for now has shifted to the Palestinians, who are being watched closely by the international community to see if this deal holds and if it will lead to responsible governance.
However, while the sudden shift of attention away from Netanyahu may be welcome to the prime minister now, it may not be long before attention returns to his government. In fact, should the Palestinian unity agreement hold without a renewal of violence, as Khalid Mash'al, Hamas' political guru, suggested during the signing ceremony of the reconciliation agreement, the Palestinians will be in an even stronger position to gain international recognition for state of their own. Although from the Israeli perspective Hamas must first meet the Quartet's three conditions that it renounces violence and recognizes Israel and past agreements before Israel can engage Hamas, it is not likely that Hamas will accept all of these requirements in advance of the Palestinian elections other than informally halting all violent activities against Israel. In fact, Russia's hailing of the agreement, and the European Union's Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton statement that she would "study" the deal, suggests that members of the Quartet may be weakening their demands.
Indeed, only one condition should matter going forward: a complete cessation and permanent renunciation of violence by Hamas as a means by which to achieve Palestinian statehood. This would signal the unified Palestinian polity's willingness to negotiate with Israel, and could ultimately produce the recognition and lasting peace agreement that both sides profess to seek. Instead of dismissing the report of unity, Israel should join other nations in studying it, and should signal its readiness to welcome a change of attitude on the part of Hamas to permanently renounce violence and annul the clause that calls for the destruction of Israel from its Charter. However, just as the Israelis have every right to demand that the Palestinian unity government permanently rules out all forms of violence, they must recognize that such a government should be able to recognize Israel, defined by mutually acceptable borders as the result of a negotiated accord, not as a precondition to talking.
The United States should respond similarly. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the past two years based on a two-state solution was not possible without the inclusion of Hamas -- who could undermine peace talks at any time with renewed violence -- and that the blockade policy of Gaza has worked to entrench Israel's isolation, not Hamas'. The United States should recognize that Hamas is unlikely to accept the Quartet's conditions, although challenging these conditions amounts to a misguided policy. After all, many figures in Fatah today view their own recognition of Israel in 1993, prior to a final peace agreement, as a strategic mistake for which they have paid dearly.
The United States should lead by example, and encourage Israel to follow, by challenging Hamas to utilize unity to demonstrate that a Palestinian state with a unified government will be a responsible member of the international community seeking to coexist in peace alongside Israel.
The reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas -- should it withstand the test of time -- offers Israel and Hamas the opportunity to face what they have denied each other for nearly three decades. Hamas must accept Israel's reality, not only because it will never be able to destroy Israel, but if it ever poses a real danger to Israel, it will be destroyed first, and no one know this better than Hamas. Conversely, Israel must accept a nonviolent Hamas as an integral part of the Palestinian community, because without Hamas' active participation, no Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on a two-state solution is sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment