Muslim moral panic over movie and song


There was the uproar over monster hit song Despatico, banned from our RTM airwaves. A little earlier, there was the moral outrage over a gay moment in Beauty and the Beast − a Disney film, mind you.

And after 20 years, a cinema once again opened in the Terengganu state capital but CCTV was required to be installed in order to monitor moviegoers who might be misbehaving in the dark.

Dr Isham Pawan Ahmad, a lecturer with the International Islamic University (IIU), cited the above instances as examples of ‘moral panic’ fast growing in the country.

Isham was speaking today at a forum titled ‘Islam, Secularism and Nihilism’ co-organized by the Islamic Renaissance Front and the Asia West East Institute.

The forum held in Nottingham University’s KL branch campus also featured IRF chairman Dr Farouk Musa and Prof. Syed Farid Alatas of the National University of Singapore (NUS) – pix below – as speakers.

Global hit song Despacito is the first music video to chalk over three billion views on YouTube. Meanwhile, Beauty and the Beast raked in US$1.3 billion at the box office worldwide.

Both the Spanish song and the family fare, fairy tale Disney movie that are hugely popular across continents and across cultures had nonetheless met with objections and boycott in Malaysia.

Why? Are Malaysians, urm, a just little too uptight and unable to let things slide even though we’re a multiracial society where not everyone subscribes to Islamic mores?

⇓  Harry Potter heroine Hermione Granger (actress Emma Watson) is the female lead in 2017’s live action ‘Beauty and the Beast’

We’ve seen Malaysian Muslims fuss over a sexy song, and feeling disconcerted because a male character LeFou dances with a man for two seconds during Beauty and the Beast’s finale ballroom scene.

Uh, alright. We acknowledge it is the moral majority speaking.

The IIU academic Dr Isham questioned why Islamic authorities seemingly choose to focus on matters like tutup aurat but failing to place more serious emphasis on social issues like eradication of poverty.

As one example, Isham highlighted a controversy recently in Saudi Arabia where Riyadh police arrested a young woman who had posted in social media a video of herself wearing a mini skirt teamed with a sleeveless cropped top.

Quoting a Gallop poll cited in the book Who Speaks for Islam? (cover above), he conceded that in general, Muslims did not want Western-style democracy but preferred to carve a meaningful role for Islam in the public sphere.

This inclination, however, is not meant to be taken that syariah should predominate and nor should it be translated into Muslim support for a theocratic state generally, according to Isham’s interpretation of the book authors John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed’s argument.

Isham also said that Malay Muslims tended to have a ‘father knows best’ mentality.

“The modern age father does not know best. After a while what the father knows becomes outdated and is for the father, rather than for the son,” he claimed.

Such a patriarchal outlook has resulted in Malaysians being treated as being too immature to debate critical issues. Even in parliament it is difficult to bring up Islamic matters for debate, Isham claimed.

Question of gay rights in modern Muslim society

The present attitude of Islam towards secularism has revolved around the role of the state.

IRF’s Farouk Musa describes how to Islamists, Islam is the complete way of life whereas secularism is taken to be the fall of the caliphate. So how does one reach a compromise with the demands of our modern age where developed countries are largely secular?

There must be mutual respect but nonetheless a clear separation between political authorities and religious leaders and bodies is the progressive idea underlined by Farouk.

This concept is known as the “twin tolerations”, described by political scientist Alfred Stepan.
Tunisia – where the Arab Spring first flowered – has gone through the experience of its Ennahda party led by Rachid Ghannouchi now distancing itself from political Islam and evolving into ‘Muslim democrats’.
Hence Muslim democracy is the way to go, the liberals believe.

Like the firebrand lawyer-activist Siti Kasim, Farouk also believes that Jakim’s version of Islam should not be imposed on Malaysian society.

Instead everyone should respect the core values of secularism, he said, which were liberty, equality and fraternity in which everyone – regardless of his sexual orientation – would be treated equally.

NUS’s Syed Farid pointed out that the problem with secularism in the Muslim world is that people tend to ascribe a negative connotation to it.

Referencing some divergent historical outcomes, Syed Farid said a secular ideology could lead to secular states in the mould of the revolutionary French republic and the Turkish republic established by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk which were hostile to religion.

On the other side of the coin, there are secular states that are religiously neutral, such as USA, the UK and Singapore.

(It should be noted however that not all democratic republics are religiously neutral. India is one republic that is pushing back against syariah and at the same time elevating Hinduism.)

Given that Malaysia is not a republic but that our country applies syariah law, how can the liberals (like those in IRF, Bebas, SIS, etc) assuage the “moral panic” over objections to a song (Despacito) and a movie (Beauty and the Beast) which are really only symptoms underlying Muslim unease over issues involving LGBT?

Download PDF

Charlottesville lesson for M’sia



Charlottesville, USA was the scene of violent street battles between the radical left and nationalist right on Saturday.

A woman was killed and dozens injured when a car ploughed into a crowd of counter protesters at the Unite the Right rally in the southern city in Virginia.

Among celebrity casualties of the Charlottesville mayhem was a Yahoo! Global News production crew accompanying star journalist Katie Couric.

They were sprayed with urine by Antifa anarchists, complained Couric in her tweet (below).

Face off between Antifa and alt right

Antifa are leftist, identitarian/culture warriors who wear black hoods and face masks when they travel to disrupt rallies held by white supporters of the Republican party.

The professional troublemakers previously perpetrated violence at Trump rallies during the presidential campaign, most notably in San Jose, California and Times Square, New York City

They gained further notoriety for their tactic of launching urine or faeces-filled balloons and bloody tampons from slingshots, aside from the more conventionally violent protest tactic of hurling bricks and lit firecrackers.

Aside from Couric, another reporter Taylor Lorenz, attached to liberal political website The Hill, was punched in the face by an Antifa activist.

⇓  Pot calling the kettle black: Antifa labeling the alt right as ‘Nazis’

Weaponizing the ‘racist’ label

Political pundit D.C. McAllister wrote in The Federalist that not only have politicians on the left plus their allies in biased mainstream media given a nod to Antifa but they’ve further nudged the extremist protest group in radicalizing.

The American left constantly name-calling political and ideological opponents as ‘racist’ is merely a longstanding tactic from their Alinsky playbook.

McAllister wrote in her commentary yesterday:

“Antifa’s violence is closely connected to leftist labeling of Republicans — an important point politicians, thought leaders, and the media need to take seriously. Going back to the 1960s when conservatives were called ‘Nazis’ for supporting law and order, the label of ‘racist’ has been a club Democrats have used to beat Republicans into submission. If you’re for border control, you’re a racist. If you oppose affirmative action, you’re a racist. If you want greater opposition to radical Islam, you’re a racist. If you don’t believe there’s institutionalized racism in America, you’re a racist. Basically, if you don’t agree with Democrats, you’re a racist.”

(In Malaysia, Dapsters similarly claim that if you don’t agree with the DAP, you’re a racist too.)

Unfortunately, “the label of racist has stuck,” rued the writer in her Federalist article headlined ‘White supremacists were not the only thugs tearing up Charlottesville’.

⇓ Black Lives Matter joined the fray at Charlottesville

“The narrative that Trump and his supporters are racists has been perpetuated by Democrats — and they’re good at it because they were writing that narrative long before Trump came onto the scene,” she added.

McAllister continued:

“This narrative has been amplified with the Charlottesville clash. Now, everywhere you turn someone on the Right is being accused of racism. Those who don’t characterize the violence the Charlottesville according to the Left’s narrative are racists. All groups who stand for constitutional principles are racists. The National Rifle Association is racist. The entire GOP is racist. Any writer who criticizes Black Lives Matter for its violence is racist. The impression is that racists are everywhere;”

⇓  Antifa members falsely style themselves “anti fascists”


DAP trap of distancing from racism charge

McAllister suggests that liberals have successfully infected America with the idea that the USA “is intrinsically racist — a notion Obama perpetuated”.

The country had been brainwashed into believing, “We are racist even if we don’t know we’re racist. We’re not judged by our actions or personal guilt, but by those who have determined our collective guilt because of past injustices, our conservative beliefs, politics, and associations”.

An outcome of being at the receiving end of the ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ label slapped on anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party, “many Americans no longer know what real racism looks like”.

Acccording to McAllister, today ‘racists’ have become “anyone who simply wants to build a wall and put America first on the global stage”.

‘What happens when you think anyone who supports the president and his policies is a racist?”, the writer asks.

The answer was seen in the streets of Charlottesville over the weekend.

McAllister cautions the American political leadership against “giving legitimacy to Antifa by downplaying or dismissing its role in the violence”.

She makes a perfectly valid point that “Republicans who ignore the [Antifa] anti-fascists and the labeling they and liberals employ are once again playing the useful idiots because [these Republicans] want to distance themselves from actual racists and escape the label themselves”.

Her warning must be taken to heart by the establishment as well preemptively in our own local context.

Too many pro-government Malaysians similarly get played by the DAP because they fear the ‘racist’ label that the DAP wields like a propaganda club to beat Malays and Muslims.

In trying to distance themselves from the accusation of racism, BN voters fall into the trap of giving Dapsters a free pass on race baiting.

DAP supporters may think they’re on a winning streak in sticking the ‘racist’ label but they too should beware the consequences when senjata makan tuan.

As Charlottesville has proven, the lid will blow off when pressure in the cooker mounts past boiling point.

Download PDF

Cadangan pindaan di bawah RUU 164 bukan jalan baik


Oleh Fatihah Jamhari

Parlimen akan kembali bersidang bermula 24 Julai selama 12 hari dan walaupun aturan mesyuarat untuk sesi akan datang masih belum dikeluarkan, namun rata-rata sudah ramai yang tahu apa yang akan dibentangkan di mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat sesi ini.

Antara pembentangan dan perdebatan yang akan menarik banyak perhatian tentu saja berkaitan dengan perdebatan cadangan pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah) 1965 (RUU 355) dan Rang Undang-undang Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) (Pindaan) 2016 (RUU 164).

Apakah RUU 164?

RUU 164 adalah cadangan pindaan ke atas Akta Memperbaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Penceraian) 1976 (Akta 164).

Terdapat tujuh cadangan pindaan dalam RUU 164 namun yang menjadi isu kontroversi adalah beberapa cadangan peruntukan baru yang dilihat berupaya menghakis hak pasangan dan ibu bapa mualaf.

Sejarah RUU 164

RUU 164 adalah sebuah Rang Undang-undang yang diusulkan oleh pihak kerajaan dan pada 21 Nov tahun lepas, Parlimen telah mende­ngar bacaan kali pertama RUU164 seperti yang telah dibentangkan oleh Azalina Othman Said (gambar bawah) selaku Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Ahmad Zahid Hamid mengatakan bahawa pembentangan RUU 164 adalah selepas mempertimbangkan kepentingan rakyat.

Secara khususnya, ini tentu saja merujuk kepada lambakan kes-kes penceraian yang membawa kepada perebutan hak penjagaan anak-anak kepada pasangan mualaf.

Isu bertambah rumit lagi apabila berlaku pertukaran agama anak yang dipersetujui oleh hanya salah seorang ibu atau bapa yang mualaf tanpa mendapat persetujuan bersama pasangan yang bukan Islam.

Hal ini turut ditekankan dalam huraian RUU 164 yang menyebut bahawa cadangan pindaan adalah selepas mengambil kira beberapa kes-kes yang menjadi kontroversi dan mendapat perhatian keseluruhan negara. Antara kes-kes yang disebut dalam huraian itu adalah:

  1. Teh Siew Choo v. Teo Eng Hua
  2. Kung Lim Siew (P) v. Choong Chee Kuan
  3. Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v. Dr Jeyaganesh a/l C. Mogarajah
  4. Tang Sung Mooi v. Too Miew Kim
  5. Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan a/l Thangatoray
  6. Viran a/l Nagapan v. Deepa a/p Subramaniam
Pertikaian hak penjagaan anak kes Deepa dan bekas suami Izwan Abdullah

Ringkasan huraian cadangan pindaan

Pindaan kepada seksyen 3 Akta 164 bertujuan untuk membolehkan sesuatu pihak dalam perkahwinan bilamana ada pasangan yang telah masuk Islam untuk menyerahkan petisyen perceraian di hadapan mahkamah sivil di bawah Akta 164.

Pada masa sekarang, hak untuk menyerahkan petisyen perceraian hanya diberikan kepada pihak yang tidak masuk Islam. Orang yang masuk Islam tidak boleh memohon perceraian di bawah Akta/Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam kerana Mahkamah Syariah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk membicarakan apa-apa kes jika pihak bukan Islam terlibat.

Pindaan kepada seksyen 12(1) bertujuan untuk meminda subseksyen 12(1) Akta 164 bagi memberikan hak yang sama rata dalam memberikan persetujuan bagi perkahwinan kepada ibu atau ibu angkat seseorang yang di bawah umur 21 tahun, sama
seperti yang diberikan kepada bapa.

Pindaan subseksyen 51(1) Akta 164 adalah untuk membolehkan sesuatu pihak kepada sesuatu perkahwinan yang telah masuk Islam atau kedua-dua pihak untuk menyerahkan petisyen perceraian.

Kemasukan seksyen baharu seksyen 51A ke dalam Akta 164 untuk memastikan bahawa waris terdekat orang yang masuk Islam yang kemudiannya meninggal dunia sebelum perkahwinan bukan Islam itu dibubarkan berhak kepada aset perkahwinan itu. Dalam membuat pembahagian itu, mahkamah hendaklah mengambil kira takat sumbangan yang telah diberikan terhadap pemerolehan aset itu, hutang yang terhutang, tempoh perkahwinan itu dan keperluan anak-anak.

Pindaan kepada  seksyen 76 untuk membenarkan mahkamah untuk mengambil kira bayaran perbelanjaan untuk faedah keluarga, takat sumbangan yang telah diberikan oleh pihak lain yang tidak memperoleh aset itu untuk kebajikan keluarga dengan menjaga rumah atau menyayangi keluarga, dan juga tempoh perkahwinan itu bagi maksud kesamarataan pembahagian aset perkahwinan.

Kemasukan seksyen baharu seksyen 88A ke dalam Akta 164 untuk memperuntukkan bagi status agama anak jika bapa atau ibunya masuk Islam.

Pindaan kepada seksyen 95 Akta 164 adalah untuk melanjutkan tempoh perintah nafkah jika seorang anak mengikuti pelajaran atau latihan lanjut atau lebih tinggi.

Subashini dan Saravanan merujuk dan kini tinggal bersama sebagai pasangan Islam

Cadangan pindaan kontroversi

Ramai pihak menentang cadangan pindaan yang dibawa melalui RUU 164 terutama bagi perkara-perkara yang menidakkan hak seorang ibu bapa mualaf.

Antara yang dibangkitkan adalah isu menidakkan hak mualaf untuk menentukan agama anak mereka. Sebelum ini, pertukaran agama anak boleh dilakukan dengan kebenaran salah seorang daripada ibu atau bapa anak itu tetapi jika pindaan diluluskan, kedua-dua ibu bapa anak itu kenalah bersetuju dengan pertukaran agama anak.

Sebelum kerajaan membawa cadangan-cadangan pindaan yang mengecilkan hak sesuatu komuniti, seharusnya ahli komuniti itu dirujuk. Hal ini diketengahkan oleh Mustapha Ma yang merupakan Presiden Persatuan Cina Muslim Malaysia (Macma).

Antara lain beliau menyebut:

“Sebab pindaan undang-undang ini akan sekaligus merampas hak-hak mualaf. Jadi saya selalu mengatakan don’t forget, mualaf is a Muslim. Whether he was a Muslim or not a Muslim before is [irrelevant]. Tetapi pada masa ini, his rights are going to be deprived right across the board”

Perkembangan menarik kes Subashini v. Saravanan

Pada tahun 2007, nama R. Subashini dan T. Saravanan mendapat perhatian rakyat Malaysia apabila pergelokan kes penceraian yang difailkan oleh Subashini mula dilaporkan di media massa.

Di bawah peruntukan Akta 164 seperti yang sedia ada, Subashini hanya boleh memfailkan petisyen perceraian terhadap suaminya selepas tamatnya tempoh tiga bulan dari tarikh Saravanan memeluk Islam. Bagaimanapun, Subashini telah memfailkan petisyen perceraian itu 12 hari sebelum tamat tempoh tiga bulan berkenaan.

Yang menariknya, selepas bergelut untuk mendapatkan hak penjagaan melalui sistem mahkamah sivil di bawah peruntukan Akta 164, akhirnya dalam tahun 2010, Subashini telah memeluk Islam dan kini tinggal bersama suaminya, Saravanan.

Persoalannya sekarang, adakah kerajaan dengan tanpa segan silu akan meneruskan bacaan kali kedua RUU 164 tanpa terlebih dahulu menyantuni komuniti mualaf yang akan terkesan dengan undang-undang baru di bawah RUU 164?

Walaupun memang diakui perlu ditemukan jalan penyelesaian yang lebih kondusif dan konklusif bagi menyelesaikan masalah di antara pasangan yang mualaf, namun cadangan pindaan di bawah RUU 164 bukanlah jalan yang baik. Terutama sekali melihatkan terlalu besar pelanggaran hak mualaf yang akan berlaku jika RUU 164 diteruskan.

Jalan alternatif adalah dengan memperkasakan kewujudan Jawatankuasa Teknikal Undang-Undang Syarak dan Sivil dan memastikan jawatankuasa ini mempunyai kuasa yang lebih utuh untuk menentukan dan memutuskan sebarang permohonan yang melibatkan pasangan mualaf.

Fatihah Jamhari seorang peguam dan aktivis

Download PDF

Harapan line up is DAP’s Melayu-skru-Melayu strategy



The newly announced list of Pakatan Harapan office bearers is as about believable as any pure intentions Hannah Yeoh might conceivably harbour in choosing to wear tudung.

In short, the official Harapan line up is as genuine as Hannah’s tudung.

Voters would surely think it is surreal how the strongest opposition party (DAP) with 36 MPs can be willing to take a backseat to the party (PBBM) with only a single MP.

Mentality of Chinese voters and DAP psychology

Appearances are deceiving and there is udang sebalik batu with regard to the topsy-turvy arrangement in Harapan. The Chinese electorate is well aware of this … nudge nudge, wink wink.

Or else how can this Harapan anomaly even be allowed to happen − that is, the ultrakiasu DAP apparently permitting the racialist (bumiputera only) PPBM to take the wheel?

Kiasu people, by nature, will never yield an inch. So obviously there’s more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.

It does not make sense otherwise that DAP – which controls the bulk of the opposition vote bank – can so easily let the untested PBBM grab the lion’s share of Harapan top leadership positions.

After all, the opposition base is Chinese and they were the tsunamic force that caused BN to lose the GE13 popular vote.

Here’s the most rational explanation

The DAP voter base is rabidly loyal. They are like the supporters of Donald Trump (or dictator cult figure) who are willing to accept whatever flip-flops or 180-degree turns by their Dear Leader.

No sin or volte face that the DAP commits can weaken the Chinese pro-opposition electoral support, making them abandon their longstanding anti-establishment fury.

And if DAP can sell them – these Chinese and Christian voters – a flimsy excuse as to why the Harapan leadership must look, at face value at least, like its being led by Malays, then these hardcore opposition supporters will be willing to play along with the charade.

⇓  “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.” — Donald Trump

Refer minute 0:22 above

Chameleon displaying false colours

Take the following example below as an illustration of how the camouflage tactic works.

Urban legend has it that while The Star is ostensibly the MCA’s newspaper, it is believed nonetheless to serve the real interests of the DAP.

Former DAP member of parliament Dr Kua Kia Soong once wrote:

“Back in Malaysia at the end of 1982, apart from working, I wrote profusely in response to many issues confronting our society during that time. It was a period when the press such as The Star were relatively freer and while it was owned by the MCA, we used to joke that it was ‘edited by the MIC for the DAP’.”

See his 31 Aug 2016 article ‘The patriot game revisited’ in the Suaram website.

P. Gunasegaram, an ex-managing editor at The Star, collaborates Dr Kua’s expose.

Gunasegaram similarly wrote:

“At one time in the late 80s and 90s when The Star was establishing its editorial credentials, a common quip was this: The Star is owned by the MCA and run by the MIC for the benefit of the DAP’.”

The excerpt above was taken from his Why Ho Kay Tat left The Star’.

What the widespread anecdote about The Star suggests is that behind the facade of MCA face that presented to the public, in actual fact, the organization was run “for the benefit of the DAP”.

Let’s do a reality check as to how the Harapan framework is close to The Star in design.

Puppetmaster DAP actually calling the shots

The Chinese electorate harshly castigates MCA for allowing Umno to be top dog in the BN. They sneer at MCA as Umno’s “running dog”.

They reject BN because they say that the ruling party’s Chinese component is always kowtowing to the Malay hegemon.

But look at the Harapan office bearers at ‘presidential’ level. Doesn’t it appear on paper that DAP is kowtowing to the Malay hegemon too?

  • Ketua Umum (ketum): Anwar Ibrahim (PKR)
  • Chairman: Dr Mahathir Mohamad (PBBM)
  • President: Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR)
  • Deputy presidents:
    • Muhyiddin Yassin (PBBM)
    • Lim Guan Eng (DAP)
    • Mohamad Sabu (PAN)
  • Vice-presidents:
    • Azmin Ali (PKR)
    • Mukhriz Mahathir (PBBM)
    • Chong Chieng Jien (DAP)
    • Salahuddin Ayub (PAN)

There are 10 names listed above. Only two are Chinese while the rest are all Malay. In other words, Chinese representation in the Harapan top tier is one-fifth or 20 percent.

Not only that but the DAP sec-gen is ranked fifth in the roll-call with four, more important, names above his. Where is the ‘meritocracy’ championed by DAP? Why is the most powerful party with 36 parliament seats being given only such a mediocre role?

Chinese nudge-wink understanding to DAP’s pretense 

Chinese voters in the last general election (2013) were full of contempt for MCA because the BN Chinese party failed to stand shoulder to shoulder with Umno in terms of leading the government.

So why would these same Chinese voters now be willing to close one eye to how DAP seemingly took a step back and allowed politicians previously connected to the hated Umno – Tun M, Anwar, Muhyiddin, Azmin, Mukhriz – to dominate a political bloc created by DAP?

Bizarre, isn’t it?

Chinese voters constantly trash MCA for not being influential enough in BN and allowing Umno to play Big Brother.

So where is the ‘ubah’ or change demanded when bossy DAP appears to be reduced to insignificance in Harapan while ex-Umno personalities are the new coalition’s headliners.

Why throw out or replace MCA for being weak in BN when, on the surface, it looks like DAP is equally weak in Harapan?

The answer: Elementary my dear Watson. Don’t trust the false picture they paint.

Opposition supporters would have already been made to understand implicitly that the Harapan line-up so lopsidedly favourable to Malays is a mere DAP ploy to ‘use Malays to screw Malays’.

This overarching strategy to exploit Malays to topple the current Malay leadership was inadvertently revealed when the DAP’s political strategist ‘Superman’ Hew Kuan Yau let the cat out of the bag.

What Hew said a couple of years ago about riding the Mahathir trojan horse is proving prescient.

Download PDF

There’s something not right about Ms Boo


By Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi

Boo Su-Lyn of Malay Mail Online notoriety is at it again. In a recent article of hers on June 23, she exhorted all Malaysians to “speak English“.

Ms Boo opens her article with a compare and contrast. She compares a foreigner who is a Bangladeshi national selling drinks with some officers she lodged a police report with − whom she laments can’t speak the language.

She then goes on to ask her Dapster readership the following incredible question: “If a foreigner can speak English, why can’t Malaysians?”

“Officer, I know it’s 2am but really, all I had to drink was English tea, coupled with muffins and scones”

Last I checked, Boo is Bangsa Malaysia

Her question is just plain odd. Odd in the sense a Japanese would be looked at askance for querying why her fellow Japanese could not speak English (instead of Japanese) or a Korean for asking why her fellow Koreans could not speak English (instead of Korean). Or Thai, or Finnish, Swedish etc, etc.

There is definitely something not right with Ms Boo and the same goes for many others in our urban society who claim to desire a united Malaysia. What is not right is their lack of respect our national language.

The law: Article 152(1) of our constitution makes clear that Bahasa Melayu shall be the national language.

Section 2 of the National Language Act 1963/67 further stipulates that as bahasa kebangsaan, Malay is to be the sole language used for all official purposes. Section 8 of the same Act states that it shall be used in all proceedings before our courts and the English language may only be used in the interest of justice.

It is for this reason that naturally, Malay, and not English, is the priority of our politicians, be they from the ruling BN or from the new Hope/Harapan coalition, as acknowledged by Ms Boo herself in her MMO piece.

The Malay Mail assistant news editor complained that “the BN government did not go through with making English a compulsory pass subject for the Form Five SPM exam” and “Pakatan Harapan, on the other hand, opposes the Dual Language Programme (DLP) that allows schools the option of teaching science and mathematics subjects in English or Bahasa Malaysia”.

But so what?

English is not the national language of our country, and as such, is not the main medium of communication in our education system.

Nor is English a language indigenous to Malaysia.

It is not the stated duty of every Malaysian to learn it for whatever purpose, including for further education, although admittedly competency in English is useful to gain additional knowledge.

But then again, mastery of any language contributes to this knowledge boom, not just English.

Malay however, occupies a special position in our highest law as our national language and is used as the medium of instruction in schools. That is, all schools but the independent Chinese schools.

Signage in Japan rarely feature anything other than Japanese writing

Japan and Korea doing fine sans English

Ms Boo writes “None of us made the rules and decided that English would be the world’s lingua franca. But because it is, we just have to accept it and make do”.

That is true. Likewise, none of us today debating back and forth made our constitution or laws that decided Malay would be our national language. But because it is, we have have to accept the fait accompli and learn how to communicate effectively in BM.

Therefore, we must give it due priority − over and above other languages, including English.

Ms Boo further writes, “It is also ridiculous to make excuses about how we don’t need to learn English to be good at science and math because Korea and Japan did fine with their own languages”. She also dismisses local R&D as “hardly groundbreaking”


The fact is, Japan and Korea are doing just fine without the English language. The fact that our own local research is hardly groundbreaking has nothing to do with language; it merely reflects the poor state of local researchers.

Local research can and must be enhanced without forsaking our national language. This can be done by having such research written in the Malay language, as the Koreans and Japanese have their own research written in their own Korean and Japanese languages, respectively.

⇓  Boo Su-Lyn refuses to be silenced

Why do Bangsa ‘MALAY’sia obsess over English?

In her article titled ‘Everyone must speak English’ I’ve cited above, Ms Boo complained – as typical for her – about racism.

She proposed that

“… Malaysia should enact legislation against discrimination in both the public and private sector so that in the corporate sector at least, English-speaking citizens who have the necessary skills and qualifications will not be discriminated against because of their race.”

What is that supposed to mean? Is she implying that Malay-speaking citizens without the necessary skills and qualifications are being unfairly advantaged because of their race?

Or does Ms Boo perhaps mean Malaysian citizens who cannot speak the Malay language are treated unfavourably despite having the necessary skills and qualifications?

If so, then tough. They should learn the national language. Full stop.

Alangkah baiknya kalau Cik Boo Su-Lyn sedar diri — Baca sini


To the end of her article, Ms Boo pays lip service to a common complaint against the Chinese minority, “We cannot call ourselves Malaysian if we look down on the national language. So all of us must be able to speak Bahasa Malaysia, if only because unity is important, besides making money”.

Yet the gist of her article argues for empowering Malaysians to use and communicate not in the Malay language, but in English. Why?

Why did Ms Boo write an article emphasizing the mastery of English if she admits that as a Malaysian, mastery of Malay is necessary?

Could it have something to do with the irony of the fact that she expected local policemen to converse with her in English instead of Malay when she made a police report at the “upper middle class neighbourhood” that is Taman Tun Dr Ismail in Kuala Lumpur?

Why didn’t you speak to the policemen in BM then, Ms Boo?

Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi is a lawyer and activist

Download PDF

Pelindung dan pembela puak evangelis sebenarnya bersubahat


Temuramah eksklusif wartawan Menara dengan CEO Iksim

Putrajaya: Segala bentuk pengucapan atau perbuatan yang mengganggu kedaulatan negara perlu diambil tindakan segera. Ini tidak terbatas kepada gerakan evangelikal sahaja, bahkan setiap yang berbentuk sedemikian termasuk ekstremisme agama.

Menurut Dato’ Prof. Mahamad Naser Disa – gambar atas – ketua pegawai eksekutif Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (Iksim) lagi, jika gerakan sebegini dilihat sebagai sesuatu yang remeh dan tidak diendahkah, ia akan berkembang menjadi marak hingga tidak mampu dikawal dan mudah bagi mereka untuk memusnahkan kedaulatan negara.

Justeru kanun keseksaan di dalam bab VI menjadikan sebarang bentuk niat, hasrat atau perancangan untuk menumbangkan kedaulatan negara sebagai satu kesalahan berat, maka ia tergolong dalam kesalahan keselamatan di bawah Sosma.

⇓  “Allow me to chase away the enemy in this city” — petikan promosi bagi acara Johor for Jesus

Perbuatan seperti menganjurkan program ‘Johor for Jesus‘ dan ‘Jerusalem Jubilee‘ kelihatan seperti perhimpunan keagamaan biasa sahaja tetapi terbukti dari penganjuran-penganjuran yang lepas, ucapan-ucapan penganjur dan pemimpin evangelis serta pekikan yang dilaungkan oleh para hadirin amat bersifat ekstrim dan jelas menyatakan hasrat dan tekad untuk meruntuhkan kedaulatan negara dan digantikan dengan kedaulatan Kingdom of God yang berasaskan agama Kristian,” tegas Dato’ Mahamad Naser.

“Penggunaan ayat-ayat seperti ‘Kingdom of God‘ dan “Allow me to chase away the enemy in this city” memberi gambaran seolah-olah bukan Kristian dan umat Islam khasnya adalah musuh kepada penduduk Kristian di negara ini, maka akan berlaku penyingkiran dalam pemerintahan negara dan pemerintahan sedia ada akan digantikan dengan satu bentuk pemerintahan berasaskan agama Kristian,” ujar beliau lagi.

⇓  ‘Johor for Jesus’: Christians want to “take possession of the land”

Beliau juga berpendapat bahawa, pelindung dan pembela pelampau gerakan evangelis perlu merenung masa depan negara dan seluruh rakyat Malaysia. Kedaulatan dan keselamatan negara tidak boleh digadai hanya atas nama hak kebebasan beragama jika mereka memahami erti sebenar serial-seruan melampau ekstremis evangelis tersebut.

“Kenyataan-kenyataan mereka perlu dinilai dari perspektif keselamatan dan kedaulatan negara yang jelas tergolong dalam bab VI kesalahan-kesalahan terhadap negara seperti yang tersenarai dalam beberapa seksyen kanun keseksaan.

Kita tak perlukan undang-undang baru untuk menyekat pelampau evangelis ini, kita hanya perlu kuatkuasakan undang-undang sedia ada dengan menyiasat kenyataan-kenyataan yang mereka buat,” kata Dato’ Prof Mahamad Naser lagi.

Tegas Dato’ Prof Mahamed Naser, Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam dan ini termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, dan Ketua Negara adalah Yang Di-Pertuan Agung yang bersumpah untuk memelihara agama Islam. Maka sebarang usaha untuk mengubah pemerintahan negara ini kepada sesuatu yang terang dan nyata menyanggahi Islam terbukti menggugat kedaulatan negara.

Terdapat elemen-elemen campur tangan asing di dalam rencana evangelikal, campurtangan oleh pertubuhan-pertubuhan dari luar negara yang menyalurkan dana dan kepakaran untuk mengembangkan agama Kristian hingga ke tahap menumbangkan kedaulatan negara di tanah air yang tercinta ini, tegas beliau lagi.

Melihat kepada perkembangan terkini gerakan pelampau evangelikal ini negara berhadapan dengan ancaman keselamatan baru tanpa segan menyeru ke arah disaffection atau ketidak setiaan kepada Yang Di-Pertuan Agung atau Raja-raja.

Justeru segala bentuk gerakan yang menggugat kedaulatan negara merupakan satu ancaman yang perlu diberikan perhatian serius oleh pihak berkuasa.

Jika IS menjadi ancaman kerana ingin menubuhkan negara Islam di Iraq dan Syria, pelampau gerakan evangelikal berhasrat untuk mendirikan negara Kristian di Malaysia dan perancangan gerakan ini telah pun bermula di sini sejak puluhan tahun yang lalu dengan mendapat dana yang besar dari dalam dan luar negara.

Perlu diingat kanun keseksaan juga menjadikan perbuatan menyembunyikan gerakan yang mengancam kedaulatan negara sebegini juga sebagai satu kesalahan yang berat.

Semua pihak perlu peka kepada kegiatan sebegini dan mematuhi undang-undang dan kedaulatan negara.

Sumber: Menara

Download PDF

Israel affirming Jerusalem as its eternal capital



Anniversary celebrations lit up the reunified city of Jerusalem yesterday whose eastern half was captured by the Israeli army from Jordan exactly 50 years ago on 7 June 1967.

The Jerusalem jubilee was not only celebrated in Israel but elsewhere around the world.

As the whole world knows, Israel is a Jewish state. It is, however, not only of religious significance to the Jewish faith but to Christianity and Islam as well.

Indeed Jerusalem is the City of God albeit a disputed one.

⇓  Fireworks display in Jerusalem yesterday

Holy city that’s fittingly capital of religious state

The biblical King David conquered Jerusalem and established the city as capital of the united kingdom of Israel. Later in the 8th century BCE, it became the capital of the kingdom of Judah.

Both Israel and Palestine want this ancient city as their capital. Most countries however locate their embassies in Israel’s Tel Aviv, thus implicitly not giving recognition to Israel’s claim.

Israel stridently promotes itself to the west as a ‘democracy’ − the only one in the Middle East, in fact (as Israel often likes to boast). But the truth of the matter is that Israel is also a religious country practising orthodox Judaism.

Like Malaysia, Israel is not secular.

And just as Malaysia has our syariah courts, Israel has its rabbinic courts that administer halacha (Jewish religious law).

⇓  Thus spake Netanyahu … at the podium in front of the Star of David

Israel strictly follows halachic law

Israel’s parliament, called Knesset, has a total of 120 seats. The government of prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu holds a slim majority at 67 seats currently.

The ruling coalition led by Netanyahu’s Likud includes religious right party Shas with seven seats and the United Torah Judaism party with six seats. Israel’s religious parties are clearly the power brokers with their more than a dozen Members of Knesset (MKs).

It is even within the realm of possibility that one day Israel may become a theocratic state as the country’s religious hardliners become increasingly influential.

Jewish billionaire and meddler extraordinaire George Soros is everywhere fostering what his Open Society Foundation website calls “vibrant and tolerant societies“.

Soros has gone as far as to accuse Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban of turning Hungary into a closed border ‘mafia’ state‘ (note: Soros is of Hungarian origin).

Are the globalists, represented by Soros, or are the nativists, represented by Orban, winning the power tussle internationally?

In Israel, it is the conservatives who have gained the upper hand.

Israel is aligned to the trend of western European nations – France, Holland, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Switzerland, etc – all tacking sharply to the right.

⇓  This year (2017) is the golden jubilee of Jerusalem reunited under Israeli control

Jerusalem symbolizes cultural, historical legacy of Jews

Liberal American senator Bernie Sanders – who is a nominal Jew – has called for an end to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian side of Jerusalem.

His hope is forlorn … not likely to happen, especially now.

In 1980, the Knesset passed its Jerusalem law that declared the holy city to be Israel’s eternal capital.

Presently, the Netanyahu administration is taking the claim even further by allowing its Likud MK to propose a new law that would declare Israel a “national home of the Jewish people” as well as affirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

This idea of a Jewish homeland is strongly backed by right-wing Israeli politicians such as Naftali Bennett who is Education Minister and chairman of the Beyit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party.

MK Avi Dicher is privately sponsoring a bill on tightening nationality and enshrining Hebrew as the sole national language of Israel.

According to Dichter’s draft, “the State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people where they realize their aspiration for self-determination according to their cultural and historical legacy”.

Every Jew has potential citizenship right in Israel

The nationality bill has passed its initial reading in the Knesset by a majority of 48 to 41, and will be transferred to a law committee to be drafted for its first reading, reported Arutz Sheva, the Israel national news.

The bill would also make the law of return a basic law, stating that “every Jew [from anywhere] has the right to immigrate to the land and acquire citizenship of the State of Israel.”

MKs from the Joint Arab List have opposed the bill, saying the proposed law is racist and designed to “harm” the rights of Israeli Arabs by making Jewish rights superior to theirs.

(Note: Israel does not have a written constitution. Instead it has a collection of 11 so-called ‘Basic Laws‘ that are interpreted as its constitutional basis. The Father of modern Israel David Ben-Gurion drafted his country’s Independence Declaration of May 1948 with a view to the eventual adoption of a written constitution by October the same year, but this has never materialized.)

There is also an alternative version of Dichter draft being proposed by a trio of MKs − Likud’s Yariv Levin, Bayit Yehudi’s Ayelet Shaked and Yisrael Beytenu’s Robert Ilatov.

⇓  Shaked is Justice Minister in the Netanyahu cabinet

The Levin-Shaked-Ilatov bill is clearer in its text and aims and adopts many of the elements of the older Dichter’s version, including its name, ‘Basic Law: Israel—the Nation-State of the Jewish People.”

This revised bill, however, sharpens Dichter’s objectives by stating, among others, that “[t]he purpose of this Basic Law is to define the identity of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people”.

Clearly even in modern Israel, religion – specifically Judaism – takes the utmost precedence. Hence the spiritual importance of Jerusalem and why the Israeli Jews are demanding that it must be their “eternal capital” should not surprise anyone.

What is surprising though is the commitment of evangelical Christians in Malaysia – those with Zionist sympathies – to the above Jewish aim.

Article updated June 9 



Download PDF

Apa silap mata pemimpin Kristian dengan agenda DAP?


Oleh Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff


Sungguh melucukan sekali melihat penasihat DAP merangkap ketua parlimen DAP, Lim Kit Siang, bergelut untuk memisahkan DAP dari agenda Kristianisasi yang dibawa oleh Hannah Yeoh (gambar bawah).

Hannah Yeoh bawa pelatih-pelatih (interns) beliau masuk masjid

Dua kali, pada 18 Mei dan 27 Mei, Lim Kit Siang menekankan betapa beliau bukan seorang Kristian (“I am not a Christian”) seolah-olah Lim Kit Siang adalah DAP dan DAP adalah Lim Kit Siang.

Walhal dunia, termasuk Dr Zulqarnain Lukman dari Kanun Amanah, tahu bahawa kuasa eksekutif di dalam DAP terletak di tangan setiausaha agung DAP, bukannya penasihat atau pengerusi DAP.

Ramai yang berspekulasi bahawa setiausaha agung DAP sejak 2004, Lim Guan Eng, adalah seorang Kristian, tetapi tidak ada yang benar-benar mampu memberikan bukti konkrit mengenainya.

Sebagai seorang pembaca tegar, saya berpeluang membaca pengakuan sensasi Guan Eng mengenai bagaimana beliau memeluk agama Kristian sewaktu berada di dalam penjara Kajang pada 1998.

Pengakuan beliau ini terdapat di dalam wawancara bertajuk ‘Lim Guan Eng: The Prison to Parliament Leader’ di dalam buku Heart to Heart with Asian Leaders: Exclusive Interviews on Crisis, Comebacks & Character.

Di antara pengakuan Lim Guan Eng ini ialah:

1. “However, I had to take a leap of faith, which was not a forethought but an afterthought. That came when I converted to Christianity very late in my years, when I was searching for answers. I found them in the Bible.”

2. “I read the Bible cover to cover. Three times. I requested for the Bible when I was in prison in 1998… During my second imprisonment in Kajang Prison in 1998, being a family man, I had to worry about my wife and children. So it was much more painful. You realized suffering. Then I looked at the suffering that Christ endured… The suffering that he endured gave me strength. What was my suffering compared to His?”

3. “I kept telling my family to just look at the Bible, look at the characters in the Bible… That’s why you need to read the Bible… I kept telling myself that the people in the Bible suffered much more…”

Lebih menarik lagi, Guan Eng turut menyebut nama dua pemimpin DAP yang beliau jadikan tempat pergantungan, iaitu Tony Pua Kiam Wee, setiausaha publisiti kebangsaan DAP, dan Anthony Loke Siew Fook, setiausaha organisasi kebangsaan DAP.

Mengikut Lim Guan Eng, dengan kedua-dua pemimpin DAP yang beragama Kristian inilah beliau duduk untuk berbincang dan berstrategi.

Dedah Lim Guan Eng: “Right now, I rely on a younger group of people, like Tony (Pua Kiam Wee) and Anthony (Loke Siew Fook), to get things done. We sit down to talk and strategize.”

Lim Kit Siang juga berkata, tidak terdapat agenda Kristian di dalam DAP atau di kalangan mana-mana Ahli Parlimen atau Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri DAP (“There is no such ‘Christian agenda’ in the DAP or among any DAP MP or state assembly representative.”)

Bagaimanapun, sehingga kini beliau atau mana-mana pemimpin DAP belum mampu menafikan tiga pengakuan Hannah Yeoh ini, iaitu

  bahawa beliau menggunakan jawatan politik beliau untuk berdiayah di gereja-gereja, kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dunia dan kepada orang-orang muda;

 bahawa penganut Kristian perlu membina semula Malaysia kerana Tuhan mahu menuntut semula politik dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia; serta

 bahawa beliau bercita-cita untuk membawa kepercayaan dan perkhidmatan Kristian kepada dunia awam.

Ini adalah contoh agenda Kristian seorang Adun DAP, iaitu Hannah Yeoh.

Saya juga boleh berikan contoh agenda Kristian seorang Ahli Parlimen DAP yang juga strategis Pilihan Raya DAP, iaitu Dr Ong Kian Ming.

Dari kiri: Ahli-ahli Parlimen & para Adun DAP: Tony Pua, Ong Kian Ming, Hannah Yeoh, Lee Kee Hiong, Lau Weng San

Di dalam satu kenyataan Facebook beliau pada 4 Feb 2014, Dr Ong Kian Ming jelas menulis, “Di gereja saya di [Sidang Injil Borneo KL], kami telah berdoa semoga satu kebangkitan semula Kristian berlaku di dalam negara kita” (“In my church at SIBKL, we have been praying for a Christian revival to take place in our country”.)

Di dalam satu tulisan beliau pada 19 Mac 2014, penyelidik parlimen Dr Ong Kian Ming bernama Sharon W.H. Ling menyebut: “To hope for a better tomorrow is only human; perhaps, to commit to realizing that dream is something more. For some, it is a calling, a conviction. For my boss, a Christian, it is a higher power; for myself, a secularist, it is humanity.”

Bagaimana mungkin Dr Ong Kian Ming boleh memperjuangkan agenda sekular bila penyelidik parlimen beliau sendiri menyifatkan beliau bukan sekularis?

Bagaimana mungkin Lim Kit Siang memisahkan agenda Kristianisasi yang dibawa oleh Hannah Yeoh dari DAP bila tokoh yang melancarkan buku Becoming Hannah – yang ditulis Hannah – ialah setiausaha agung DAP sendiri?

⇓  Guan Eng melancarkan Becoming Hannah di Subang Jaya (‘ibunegeri evangelis’) pada 10 Jan 2015

Bagaimana mungkin Kit Siang memisahkan agenda Kristianisasi yang dibawa oleh Hannah dari DAP bila Guan Eng sendiri yang melancarkan Becoming Hannah, di Pulau Pinang pada 22 Mac 2015, dan bila pelancaran buku ini dan forum mengenainya dianjurkan oleh Wanita DAP Pulau Pinang?

Bagaimana mungkin Kit Siang memisahkan agenda Kristianisasi yang dibawa oleh Hannah dari DAP bila, terbaru, beliau sendiri yang mati-matian mempertahankannya, termasuk di dalam ‘Bicara Buku Becoming Hannah‘ di Kuala Kubu Bharu pada 27 Mei lalu?

Dan bagaimana mungkin Kit Siang boleh mengatakan bahawa, sebab beliau bukan seorang Kristian, agenda Kristianisasi tidak terdapat di dalam DAP atau di kalangan mana-mana Ahli Parlimen atau Adun DAP sedangkan yang benar-benar berkuasa di dalam DAP adalah Guan Eng yang beragama Kristian?

Mengapa Kit Siang hanya menonjolkan hakikat bahawa beliau, yang hanyalah merupakan penasihat DAP, bukan seorang Kristian, tetapi tidak ditonjolkan hakikat bahawa Guan Eng, yang merupakan setiausaha agung DAP, adalah seorang Kristian?

Silap mata apakah yang cuba kamu mainkan, wahai Lim Kit Siang?


Adakah evangelis yang tak puasa layak berbuka di masjid? —  BACA

Download PDF

Wahai Hannah si ‘duta Tuhan’, betulkah ada surat tauliah?


Bedah buku ‘Becoming Hannah’ dan kontroversinya

Oleh M. Kamal Affandi

Buku Becoming Hannah – A Personal Journey oleh YB Hannah Yeoh (2014), Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Selangor mewakili parti DAP sebenarnya adalah sebuah buku cerita biasa dan menarik gaya penulisannya.

Buku ini mula popular apabila seorang pensyarah kanan, Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff, pengarah Institut Kajian Politik, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) mengulasnya dalam akaun Fesbuk beliau menerusi muatan bertarikh 10 Mei 2017 @

Kamarul telah berhujah bahawa penulisan Hannah mengandungi unsur-unsur penyebaran agama Kristian secara terbuka termasuklah ke atas orang-orang Islam sesuai dengan pengakuan beliau sendiri bahawa “Hannah Yeoh, lives for God” (muka surat 23). Perbuatan ini, menurut Kamarul, boleh dianggap telah melanggar peruntukan undang-undang persekutuan dan enakmen kerajaan negeri Selangor.

2. Hannah membalasnya dengan membuat satu laporan polis ke atas pensyarah berkenaan seperti dilaporkan oleh Malaysiakini pada 17 Mei.

Hannah dipetik sebagai berkata bahawa “Apabila saya takut kepada tuhan, saya akan bersungguh-sungguh dalam melakukan pekerjaan dan tidak mencuri wang rakyat. Saya tidak akan menjadi korup kerana Tuhan melihat,” tambahnya.

Semalam, Yeoh membuat laporan polis terhadap Kamarul Zaman kerana mendakwanya mahu membina semula Malaysia mengikut acuan agama Kristian. Katanya, tulisan itu telah diputarbelit dan mempunyai unsur fitnah pada beliau dan partinya DAP.

3. Sebagai seorang akademik dan aktivis sosiopolitik yang sangat prolifik, Kamarul amat pantas memberi reaksi menerusi laporan polis olehnya di mana beliau menyebut “bahawa buku ini merupakan satu cubaan untuk memujuk, mempengaruhi, atau menghasut seorang lain yang bukan beragama Kristian, termasuk yang beragama Islam, supaya menjadi penganut atau anggota agama Kristian atau supaya cenderong kepada agama Kristian”.

4. Selain itu, Kamarul juga berpendapat “Kesemua cerita ini boleh mendorong pembacanya, termasuk saya, merasa kagum dengan kehebatan Tuhan Hannah Yeoh. Sedangkan pada masa lain beliau selitkan pula catatan mengenai ajaran Kristian yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam, termasuklah bahawa manusia adalah anak Tuhan (“His beloved child” dan “Child of God”, muka surat 22 dan 89) dan Isa/Jesus adalah anak Tuhan dan Tuhan (“the Son of God” dan “God”, muka surat 102).”

5. Beliau yakin bahawa Hannah “….bermaksud supaya buku beliau turut dibaca oleh orang bukan Kristian. Ini tergambar di dalam tulisan beliau berbunyi: “Jika kamu bukan seorang Kristian dan sedang membaca buku ini” (“If you are not a Christian and are reading this book”, muka surat 14). Ini selari dengan pendedahan mengenai misi beliau sebagai duta Tuhan dan untuk mencari pengikut (as “ambassador of God” and to make disciples of others”, muka surat 7).

Hakikat bahawa Hannah memang memaksudkan buku beliau turut dibaca oleh orang bukan Kristian juga terbukti kerana buku ini boleh dibeli oleh sesiapa sahaja, termasuklah yang beragama Islam. Ini diakui sendiri oleh Hannah di dalam kenyataan media beliau pada 15 Mei 2017 bahawa buku ini “boleh dibeli secara atas talian di atau mana-mana gedung buku utama seperti Kinokuniya, MPH, Popular dan Times”.

6. Sehubungan itu, pensyarah itu terfikir bahawa Hannah mungkin – dihitamkan dan digariskan oleh penulis rencana ini – telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 4(1)(a) Enakmen Kawalan dan Sekatan (Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam) Selangor 1988 (Enakmen No 1/1988) yang menyebut “Seseorang adalah melakukan kesalahan jika ia memujuk, mempengaruhi, atau menghasut seorang lain yang beragama Islam supaya menjadi penganut atau anggota suatu agama bukan Islam atau supaya cenderong kepada agama itu”.

7. Selain itu, Hannah Yeoh juga mungkin – dihitamkan dan digariskan oleh penulis rencana ini – telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 298(A)(1) Kanun Keseksaan kerana (a) menyebabkan, atau cuba menyebabkan, atau mungkin menyebabkan suasana tidak harmoni, perpecahan, atau perasaan permusuhan, benci membenci atau niat jahat, atau (b) memudaratkan, atau cuba memudaratkan, atau mungkin memudaratkan pemeliharaan keadaan harmoni atau perpaduan, di atas alasan agama.

8. Kebimbangan pensyarah UUM itu juga dibayangkan dengan jelas apabila beliau berkata “…Saya sendiri pernah mendengar luahan kawan-kawan beragama Islam yang sangat tidak berpuas hati dengan tindakan Hannah Yeoh ini kerana ia dikatakan -dihitamkan dan digariskan oleh penulis rencana ini – bertentangan dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menyebut bahawa agama Islam adalah agama Persekutuan selain bertentangan dengan Perkara XLVIII(1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan yang menyebut bahawa agama Islam adalah agama Negeri.”

9. Demikianlah kisah “drama pendek” antara dua insan ini: seorang adalah ahli politik DAP yang amat komited dengan Kristianiti evangelismenya dan seorang lagi seorang akademik yang mengkhususkan kajian dalam bidang politik dan pernah menyiapkan tesis PhDnya mengkaji PAS secara mendalam.

Ada kawan berkata: “Pensyarah tu menulis kemungkinan Hannah boleh dikatakan telah melakukan kesalahan dan boleh disabitkan dengan peruntukan perlembagaan persekutuan atau enakmen negeri Selangor menerusi bukunya itu. Yang Hannah Yeoh melompat buat laporan polis itu apa hal?” Logik juga kata kawan tu.

Kalau Hannah tidak bersetuju, jawab sahaja dalam media. Kenapa sampai buat laporan polis yang kemudiannya mengundang laporan polis balas oleh Kamarul dengan memperjelaskan maksud tulisan asalnya yang mula viral di media sosial. Inilah yang trigger ramai akademik dan pemerhati politik untuk menilai buku ini semula secara kritis.

10. Tepuk dada, tanya selera! Kalau dibaca dengan teliti baris demi baris buku Becoming Hannah itu, tanggapan Kamarul ada benarnya dan penafian lemah Hannah menerusi laporan polisnya itu sebenarnya, daripada segi reverse psychology, “telah membenarkan” dakwaan pensyarah berkenaan! Inilah padahnya apabila kita melompat menari di atas rentak muzik yang dimainkan tanpa bertanya si pemain lagu maksud muzik itu dimainkan. Begitu sahaja atau ingin ditarikan? Ternyata Hannah terlajak kaki dan kini langkah tariannya sumbang tak kena rentak muzik yang dimainkan!

11. Teramat sukar untuk Hannah menolak anggapan bahawa sememangnya beliau meneruskan usaha evengalismenya menerusi bukunya yang mengisahkan latar belakangnya sehinggalah beliau berjaya memenangi kerusi DUN Subang Jaya dalam PRU13 yang lalu.

Tidak perlu dihairankan atau diselindung lagi kerana Hannah sendiri berpuas hati mengikuti “kehendak Tuhan beliau” dengan tanda-tanda dan prophecies yang dilaluinya sendiri sebagaimana dihuraikannya dalam buku berkenaan. Bukankah Hannah adalah bekas graduan OCFers yang sangat komited dan beliau sendiri telah berkata di muka surat 110 buku tersebut bahawa:

“It is here that I want to specially address the OCFers (Overseas Christian Fellowship), wherever you are now, to never forget the mission of being trained and equipped and returning home to serve… We want to encourage fellow OCFers to come home. There is much work to be done to rebuild this beautiful nation. Just like Nehemiah overseeing the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s walls, everyone has to be at it, working. God wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia for righteousness’ sake. He is looking for God-fearing men and women who are willing to roll up their sleeves and labour in this very demanding field. No experience in politics? Remember, I had none. No finances? I had none. Not a good time yet? I just got married when I ran my first campaign. He uses very ordinary vessels to do extraordinary things. He does this so His Name is glorified.” [tanpa terjemahan]

12. Berdiri teguhlah pertahan hujah-hujah anda, wahai “si anak Tuhan”. Jangan lari dari medan sebenar. Hannah sendiri telah mencatatkan bahawa sebagai anak didik Overseas Christian Fellowship (OCF) semasa belajar di Tasmania, ”it was drummed in pretty clearly into all OCF Australia members upon completing our degrees, we were to return to our home countries as ‘ambassadors of God’ and to make disciples of others. I was an active member of OCF Hobart, even co-leading a cell group of other students…”.

13. Membaca penulisan beliau dalam Becoming Hannah seakan-akan mengingatkan kita kisah-kisah ‘penghijrahan’ seorang pendakwah muda yang mula mengenali Islam di kampus menerusi usrah, ceramah dan kursus lalu mengaktifkan diri dalam persatuan Islam universiti dan meneruskan usaha dakwahnya di luar kampus termasuk NGO dan parti politik tempatan.

14. Hannah adalah serorang amat percayakan elemen prophecies dalam Kristianiti malah menjadikan ia “jalan hubungan langsung beliau dengan Tuhannya.” Ini diperkuatkan lagi dengan Hannah sentiasa cuba mengenepikan perasaan cinta beliau dengan rakan baik seagama Kristiannya, Ram (yang kemudian menjadi suaminya) kerana mahu lebih fokus dan komited dengan agama Kristian yang difahaminya. Beliau menantikan “tanda-tanda daripada Tuhan” untuk endorse perbuatannya supaya “gerak-gerinya benar-benar didorong oleh Tuhan kepadanya” dan bukan naluri nafsunya. Ini dapat dibuktikan betapa secara kebetulan nama ‘Ram’ timbul di kaca filem yang ditontonnya dalam kapal terbang dan sekali lagi lagi nama ‘Ram’ dimiliki oleh steward kapal terbang yang bertugas ketika – satu kebetulan yang diterima sebagai ‘gambaran’ untuk memudahkan beliau menerima lamaran Ram kemudiannya – dengan “petunjuk daripada Tuhan”.

15. Ringkasnya tulisan Hannah mengingatkan kita kepada penulisan V.S. Naipaul, Among the Believers (1981) yang mengisahkan secara terperinci pengembaraan peribadinya yang boleh mengajak pembaca menyelami perasaannya dalam mengisahkan sesuatu insiden atau kejadian. Sesungguhnya Hannah jelas mempunyai bakat penulisan yang baik dan boleh berjaya tanpa karier dalam bidang politik pun bersama DAP.

16. Bagi pensyarah berkenaan dan kita percaya ramai lagi umat Islam di Malaysia, seakan-akan Hannah Yeoh sudah cross the line dan seperti katanya, mungkin melanggar perlembagaan persekutuan dan enakmen kerajaan negeri Selangor dengan membiarkan buku berkenaan dijual secara terbuka di Selangor, terdedah kepada orang-orang Islam, dengan maksud untuk menunjukkan betapa jalan yang telah dilaluinya sebagai seorang Kristian sejak berumur 19 tahun mendapat restu Tuhan dan Tuhan telah menentukan untuk beliau terus menyampaikan mesej berkenaan menerusi parti politik yang dianggotainya, yakni DAP.

17. Kenapa beliau begitu terasa sehinggakan mendorongnya membuat laporan PDRM ke atas Kamarul – hanya dia dan partinya yang tahu. Yang pasti, beliau tidak bergerak solo dan pasti DAP serta sekutu-sekutunya termasuk PAN/Amanah akan back up Hannah semahu-mahunya. Tak mustahil selepas ni mungkin ada usaha untuk lakukan tabbayyun daripada pihak mufti atas faktor “untuk meredakan keadaan” atau sokongan terbuka daripada “Tok Mopti” atau tokoh dan “pakar hadith” tertentu!

18. Kita berpandangan berkemungkinan besar protes Hannah dan DAP ke atas tulisan Kamarul berpunca daripada ayat-ayat berikut: “Jelas berdasarkan kepada segala pengakuan terbuka Hannah Yeoh ini maka peri pentingnya prinsip sekularisme dalam perjuangan politik DAP adalah satu hipokrasi semata-mata. Sebaliknya, gambaran yang diberikan melalui buku ini adalah bahawa, bagi DAP, pemisahan urusan politik daripada urusan agama ini hanya perlu dibuat jika urusan agama ini adalah urusan agama Islam, tetapi jika urusan agama ini adalah urusan agama lain seperti Kristian maka tidak mengapa.”

DAP terasa amat terpukul dengan kenyataan tersebut lalu mendorong penulis buku membuat laporan polis untuk mendiamkan pensyarah kanan UUM tersebut. Tapi DAP dan penulis Becoming Hannah tersilap duga kerana ilmuwan berkenaan amat teliti dalam pemikiran dan penulisannya.

19. Seperkara lagi yang amat ditakuti DAP ialah buku berkenaan yang sudah diterbitkan sejak tahun 2014 belum pernah “diangkat martabatnya” sebagai boleh menimbulkan impak yang mendalam sebegini rupa kecuali menerusi komentar Kamarul dalam Fesbuknya dan kemudian dalam laporan polis susulan sebagai hujah balas laporan polis oleh Hannah.

DAP amat bimbang jika sebahagian besar ahli-ahlinya yang sudahlah tidak berpuas hati dengan proses lantikan jawatankuasa pusat (CCC) kepimpinannnya yang jika ditinjau dimenangi oleh kroni Lim Kit Siang dan boboinya Guan Eng secara kebetulan − benarkah “kebetulan”? Yang namapk, kerusi-kerusi CCC dimenangi oleh mereka yang menganggotai Kristianiti evangelis yang sama.

20. Sehubungan itu, timbul beberapa persoalan penting:

(i) Berdasarkan pendedahan gerakan Dominionisme dan Zionisme Kristian yang mula menular ke negara kita oleh Iain Bucahanan dalam bukunya, Sang Nila Utama and The Lion of Judah (2015), benarkah wujud pakatan dalaman gerakan evangelisme Kristian dalam inner circle kepimpinan DAP tanpa pengetahuan pimpinan lain bukan Kristian apatah lagi oleh ahli-ahli DAP lainnya?

(ii) Buku Iain Buchanan berkenaan lebih deskriptif dan mendalam – kenapa DAP tidak mahu bangkitkan? Jika tidak, bukankah ia memberi makna seolah-olah isi kandungan buku itu adalah “100% benar” dan tak dapat disangkal lagi terutamanya di bawah tajuk-tajuk kecil: “2. Christian Dominion: Lessons From Penang”, ms. 44-57; Bab 5: The Guanxi Network: Three Churches, ms. 129-143 dan Bab 8: Christian Zionism in Malaysia: The Singapore Connection, ms 166-177?

(iii) Benarkah dakwaan pihak-pihak tertentu bahawa kempen DAP dibiayai oleh pihak Kristian dari dalam dan luar negara untuk menggerakkan agenda Kristianisasi menerusi parti politik DAP yang mampu mempengaruhi parti-parti lain seperti PKR, PAN dan PPBM?

(iv) Buku Becoming Hannah yang ditulis dengan gaya bahasa lunak dan memikat ini dianggap sebagai percubaan lembut untuk mengetengahkan ikon muda Hannah Yeoh sebagai lambang kejayaan seorang politikus yang komited dengan perjuangan menegakkan keadilan sosial di samping beliau juga seorang penganut Kristian yang komited – kononnya dengan maksud “ikutilah best practice sedia ada yang berkaya dilahirkan oleh DAP”!

Dengan demikian, maka tidak hairanlah pujian ke atas Becoming Hannah turut diberikan oleh YB Saari Sungip (ADUN Selangor, Ex PAS dan kini PAN/Amanah dan juga berupa penulis siri buku-buku panduan dakwah dalam gerakan Islam, ‘Risalah Usrah’) dan juga oleh YB Rafizi Ramli (yang semakin hari kredibilitinya tercemar oleh tindakan kendirinya!). Macam kita sebutkan tadi, silap-silap nanti ada Tok Mopti FB pulak yang sambut masuk gelanggang lalu mengelabukan lagi isu demi mendapatkan perhatian netizen.

(v) Kisah menarik Becoming Hannah ini menepati idea Kristianisasi sebagaimana yang terungkap dalam catatan khutbah yng disampaikan di Gereja Methodist Damansara Utama (DUMC) berjudul, Principles of Influence in Politics bilamana beliau menjelaskan: “Hannah’s hope is to encourage and inspire young people to go into politics and try to make a change in the political domain in Malaysia (dihitamkan dan digariskan oleh penulis rencana ini). Many people say that politics is dirty and that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, but Hannah disagrees. Because politics is dirty that is why righteousness needs to be there, especially those who know and fear God.” (dihitamkan dan digariskan oleh penulis). Tidakkah kata-kata itu berkait rapat dengan buku beliau sebagaimana diulas oleh Kamarul?

21. Sehubungan itu, oleh sebab laporan polis kedua-dua pihak sudah dibuat, maka eloklah pihak berkuasa PDRM, barangkali menerusi Ketua Polis Negara sendiri, memulakan arahan siasatan penuh dimulai dengan mengambil kenyataan kedua-dua pihak berkenaan, sekurang-kurangnya “untuk meredakan perbalahan di medan terbuka.”

Jika ada fakta kes, maka Jabatan Peguam Negara boleh bertindak segera demi mengekalkan kedaulatan Islam dalam peruntukan perlembagaan persekutuan sebagai agama Persekutuan, Perkara 3(1) dan Perkara 11 (4) yang tidak membenarkan agama lain didiayahkan ke atas orang Islam dan enakmen kerajaan negeri Selangor juga mendaulatkan Islam sepenuhnya.

22. Terserahlah kepada kepada pihak berkuasa kerajaan (government of the day) dan penjawat awam berkedudukan kuasa yang menjalankan tugas dan amanah yang dipikul di bawah titah perintah Tuanku Agong yang telah melafazkan sumpah jawatan SPB Yang diPertuan Agong (Perkara 37) selaku ketua agama Islam persekutuan untuk mempertahankan kesucian agama Islam di Malaysia.

23. Selain itu, selaras dengan titah DYMM Tuanku Sultan Selangor pada 13 Mei 2017 baru-baru ini supaya ahli politik menjaga sahsiah, perilaku diri dan tidak cross the line agar nanti tidak sampai ada desakan supaya Hannah perlu dilucutkan jawatannya sebagai Speaker atau sekurang-kurangnya disekolahkan semula dan diberikan amaran keras, ikut mana yang bersesuaian.

24. Walaupun PRU14 dikatakan semakin hampir, undang-undang negara mesti dipertahankan dan semua orang tertakluk padanya. Malu saya sebagai anak Selangor, Speaker tidak hormati kedudukan agama Islam dalam perlembagaan negara dan enakmen kerajaan negeri Selangor, seolah-olah berlaku biadap terhadap Tuanku Agong dan Tuanku Sultan Selangor!

Download PDF

DAP secularism fake since Hannah preaches politics in church


DAP is throwing a red herring to divert from the issue of Hannah Yeoh et al.’s religiosity negating any possibility for her party to be secular

By Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi

Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff lectures in political science. It is his area of academic study and professional expertise.

It is also his expert opinion that Hannah Yeoh is being hypocrital in her role as party poster girl.

DAP portrays itself to be a secular party and championing secularism. In practice though, its national leaders actively play the religious card, same as their political opponents whom they viciously condemn.

Now that’s hypocrisy. It’s doubly hypocritical when DAP plays both the Christian and Islam card, and triply hypocritical when its sec-gen Lim Guan Eng hijacks Wesak, Deepavali and Thaipusam festival greetings too for his political agenda.

⇓  Hannah Yeoh’s Chinese interns 

Now look at the photograph below. It is Subang Jaya Adun Hannah Yeoh speaking at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC). See the projected slide behind her; can you see the words “politics & government” in bullet point?

Hannah, presently the Selangor Speaker, was in church talking about politics. This is the crux of the matter. ‘Secularism’ – which the DAP preaches but fails to comprehend – separates religion from church and the function of the state.

When DAP politicians bring God into everything, then religion and church become fused. Hence DAP can hardly be called secular.

⇓  Hannah talking about DUMC’s ‘Year of Influence’ in various spheres, including the political dimension

DAP’s Christianity a cause for concern

Can you picture an imam or khatib making a power point presentation in the mosque on politics?

It is the evangelical Dapsters who always attack Muslims on our political Islam but conveniently ignoring the political Christianity of the DAP.

Note that Hannah is as good as a career pastor. She is evidently an itinerant lay preacher, giving talks from church to church.

Rightly, PAS research centre director Dr Mohd Zuhdi Marzuki wants to know if Hannah is a Dominionist. Dewan Ulama PAS believes that DAP is full of Christians.

Prominent Muslim NGO Isma is convinced of the strong Christianity strain (influence) running through the DAP.

⇓  What a vulture! Hannah praising a teenager’s deathbed conversion

Dapsters can’t tolerate someone speaking truth to The Party

When such blatant hyprocrisy on the part of the DAP pretending to be secular is called out, the Dapsters go berserk.

Such was the case when Dr Kamarul, a Universiti Utara (UUM) academician, cited on his Facebook the doublespeak which the DAP and its supporters prefer to engage in.

They like to scream “secular, secular, secular!” and at the same time raise their hands to high heaven crying ‘hosanna’ at Hallelujah Hannah’s sermons.

⇓  Hallelujah Hannah, preacher woman extraordinaire

How can DAP ever square the ‘secular’ circle in view of Hannah’s Christian preachiness?

Dr Kamarul had pointed out some salient facts disclosed by the DAP media darling in her own book Becoming Hannah. Basically, she is a politician cum preacher.

YB Hallelujah describes herself thus – “Hannah Yeoh, lives for God” in both her autobiography and her Twitter profile.

Hannah may claim that she “lives for God” but do observe the order of priorities listed in her Twitter biodata (see below). 


(1) Speaker of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly

(2) Adun for Subang Jaya since 2008

(3) Lives for God

(4) Ram’s wife

(5) Mommy to Shay Adora & Kayleigh Imani

Living for God comes only after her vocation as Speaker and Yang Berhormat. Hannah is the consummate political animal preying on religion just like the Borgia cardinals in Machiavelli’s Italy.

In summary, Hannah is a politician-preacher. Or a preacher-politician if you will. But most of all, she’s a hypocrite.

Dr Kamarul (below) actually has no issue with Hannah’s Christian faith. It is her sly pretense that grates.

The fruit does not fall far from the tree

We can’t fault Dr Kamarul either for highlighting how, although Hallelujah Hannah’s avowed “true longing” is to be a preacher, yet she basks in the worldly glory of her Madame Speaker robes.

Hannah’s many little helpers in media and her rabid fan club would have you believe that poor Dr Kamarul is so “weak” a Muslim that his faith can be easily shaken by Hannah’s Christian-flavoured book.

  @syahredzan is a former Bar Council member

The twit above is my senior in legal practice but he makes a truly loyar burok not to mention, hypocritical, argument. His line about “sikit2 baca benda pasal agama lain konon tergugat” is merely a straw man ventilated by DAP defenders to deflect from the real issue.

It is not Dr Kamarul’s iman that is in question. He is not a politician. And nor is he advocating the secular state.

What the UUM academic has pointed out – quite validly – is Hannah’s declaration that it is her elevated “political office” which has provided the opportunity and a wider platform to preach to audiences.

In a nutshell, Hannah’s political position it what enabled her preaching, and vice versa her mission in the churches is the enabling mechanism for creating her voter base.

⇓  Hannah on godly mission to cleanse Malaysia of its sins

Hannah, holy vessel of God

The whole lot of them – the leftists, the liberals, evangelicals – are a bunch of hypocrites from head honcho down to the Dapster foot soldiers.

Take our pro-Hannah human rights warrior Syahredzan Johan for one. He says only chickens will make a police report.

In truth, it is Hannah who is the most trigger happy in making police reports. Why Hannah had even wanted to lodge police report(s) against an ustaz and others who merely wished to ascertain whether the tudung fashion icon had already converted to Islam.

If you’re frequently seen camping in mosques, then it is only natural for ordinary Muslims to wonder if you’re a maulaf. Why should this curiosity be a cause for police reports to be made against you, as threatened by Hannah.

Selangor Speaker Hannah Yeoh in her tudung costume

Syahredzan also forgets that it is Hannah who first lodged a police report against Dr Kamarul. Woi! To mirror Syahredzan, “Kenapa tak pi ajak Dr Kamarul debat?”

On Twitter, @syahredzan parrots the DAP mantra that Hannah’s book is harmless. He calls it “a personal account of her journey to becoming an Adun” (see below).

Syahredzan’s mindless echo reflects the standard DAP excuse – “personal biography of herself and did not directly nor indirectly refer to the principles and struggles of DAP”.

LOL! I’ve read her book and all I can say is, who does she think she’s trying to kid? But more on that later.

In the meantime, let’s consider Syahredzan’s other pronouncements on Hannah, i.e. “Her strength and conviction comes from her religion” and “What is wrong with drawing strength from one’s faith to be in politics?”

So we have Hannah the Political Animal inextricably intertwined with Hannah the Religious Chameleon. Indeed, Dr Kamarul is right to be worried. Very worried.

Cakap tak serupa bikin

Lastly, permit me to touch on the popular ‘freedom of speech’ concept.

Expecting the DAP and Dapsters to practise what they preach is like expecting it to snow in Subang Jaya.

Hannah is a noisy advocate of it (see her tweet above). However, for all her chest-thumping, she does not endorse Dr Kamarul’s right to his freedom of expression notwithstanding that as an academic, it is incumbent upon him to be a critical thinker.

And then there are the usual suspects proclaiming their adherence to free speech and secular state. Like the Bangsa Malaysia talking heads in The Star, for example.

Hannah’s fanatical fan base has been attacking Dr Kamarul with rabid abandon. The fruit does not fall far from the tree. As the leader is, so are her pathalogical followers – 138,000 of them in Twitterverse alone.

One cannot imagine the supporters of, say, Hassan Nasrudin et Tantawi (Temerloh MP) to be savagely attacking the PAS ustaz’s critics in academia – just to toss a name, say, Azmi Sharom – compared to Hannah’s supporters now attacking Dr Kamarul.

For the followers to be so psychotic says a lot about the DAP idols they worship.

The deranged Dapsters have been savaging and slandering Dr Kamarul but I do not see the regular free speech fighters coming to his defence. How shameful.

Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi is a lawyer and activist

Download PDF