Jerusalem — epicenter of the Clash of Civilizations (2)



Among the prominent legal minds supporting recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus.

Dershowitz is critical of the stack of one-sided resolutions passed by the United Nations against Israel and believes the decision on Jerusalem recently announced by President Trump is the “perfect response” to Barack Obama’s “stab in the back” of Israel last year.

He is referring to “President Obama’s outrageous orchestration” of the “benighted” UN security council resolution 2334 in the last days of his presidency.

“That resolution defined Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as a ‘flagrant violation of international law’ with ‘no legal validity’ and demanded Israel immediately cease all construction in those areas, deemed by the resolution ‘occupied Palestinian territory’,” reported Arutz Sheva, a conservative Israeli newspaper.

Arutz Sheva in its Dec 6 article described how the Obama administration had not only failed to veto the anti-Israel resolution but had instead “played an active role in promoting it”.

⇓  “Obama hates Israel” – Trump

In other words, American Jews such as Deshowitz view Obama as being vindictive against the Jewish state whereas Donald Trump is the very antithesis to Obama, on top of being the most pro-Israel president ever.

In his TV appearance on Fox News (video below), Dershowitz said:

“I think President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the perfect response to President Obama’s outrageous orchestration of the security council resolution which he pushed through as a lame duck, that declared the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory, the Hebrew University, Hadassah Hospital, the Jewish – according to this resolution that was basically pushed through by Obama, these are outrageously flagrant violations of international law.”

Dershowitz added, “The best response to that horrible resolution is for the President to say, ‘we don’t accept the UN resolution, and the best proof of it is, we’re going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel”.

“You say it’s occupied, we say it’s the capital.”

Conservatives and Christians are pro Israel

Alan Dershowitz’s views on Trump vis-a-vis Israel can be considered as aligned with conservative thinking.

The airing of his legal opinions not particularly favourable to the Democrats has, however, created rifts with his liberal social circle and caused them to unfriend him, Dershowitz told Politico in an interview on Dec 26.

“My liberal friends don’t invite me to dinner anymore,” Dershowitz revealed although he himself was previously embraced as a liberal standard-bearer. Today he receives hate mail in droves.

“I got e-mails saying, ‘You’re doing this because of Jerusalem,’ ‘you’re doing it because you’re being paid a lot of money,’ ‘you want to be Trump’s lawyer,’ ‘you want to be on the Supreme Court’.”

Denying the charges put forth by his distractors, Dershowitz countered that his only offline interactions with the administration have been about Israel, Politico reported.

“I’ve spoken to Jared [Kushner] about Israel, I’ve spoken to [Middle East envoy] Jason Greenblatt about Israel, I’ve spoken to the president about Israel,” he said. “I’m passionate about Israel,” the political news magazine quoted him as saying.

It is quite understandable for a practising Jew to be passionate about Israel. Another group that is passionate about Israel is the evangelical Christian.

It is equally understandable for an evangelist to be staunchly pro Israel as it’s to Jerusalem where they go to, after all, make their Christian pilgrimage.

⇓  Israel loves Trump

Former president Obama has found it difficult to hide his contempt for the evangelical Christians whom he characterizes as backward people who “cling” to their guns and their Bibles.

The feeling of loathing is mutual where the Bible Belters on their part believe the conspiracy theory that Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama is really a closet Muslim.

Among others who despise Obama are the pro-Israel proponents. Alan Dershowitz deems that Obama “will go down in history as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever”.

Commenting on Jerusalem initiative, Dershowitz said on Dec 20, “The Trump declaration restored some balance that was taken away by the Obama-inspired security council resolution [2334] of a year ago”.

Explaining why Obama changed the status quo in East Jerusalem to the disadvantage of Israel, Dershowitz said:

“Obama did it as lame duck revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he hated. His motive was personal, not patriotic. His decision was bad for America, for peace, and for America’s ally, Israel. He never would have done it except as a lame duck with no political accountability and no checks and balances.

Dershowitz concluded, “This entire brouhaha about Jerusalem — including the staged tactical violence by Palestinians — is entirely the fault of a single vengeful individual who put personal pique over American policy: Barack Obama”.

Therefore Trump’s Jerusalem move is a form of damage control “designed to undo” the setback (in legal status) inflicted by Obama, Deshowitz said.

Obama’s polar opposite is Donald Trump whom the Israeli Jews adore so much so that CNN mocks the phenomenon as a “Trump-naming frenzy” that is sweeping across Israel.

In the latest CNN report yesterday, America’s most anti-Trump news station told its liberal audience that apart from streets and parks, a high-speed rail station in the Old City of Jerusalem stopping just before the Western Wall (the holiest site at which Jews can pray) will also be named after Trump.

Both Obama and Trump are very polarizing figures. Obama has polarized American liberals and conservatives to unprecedented levels of animosity. Trump is polarizing the Christians and the Muslims.

Nonetheless, Trump has also nudged a paradigm shift in American policy dealing with the realpolitik of Israel-Arab tensions.

The Jerusalem decision is naturally applauded by Dershowitz who states “it is beyond the jurisdiction of the United Nations to tell a sovereign nation what it can and cannot recognize [as Israel’s capital]”.

Expect the conservatives and the evangelical Christians to dig in their heels. Other the other side of the religious ideological divide, Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi says Israel a threat to peace, harmony in Jerusalem.

This holiest of cities for Jews and Christians as well as one venerated by Muslims looms large in the threat to world peace.

Part 1  appeared yesterday



Download PDF

Jerusalem — epicenter of the Clash of Civilizations (1)



Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for more than 68 years.

On 14 Feb 1949, Israel’s freshly elected parliament, called ‘Knesset’, held its first sitting at the Jewish Agency building in Jerusalem. Knesset reconvened in Jerusalem on 13 March 1950 after a brief spell of nine months’ parliamentary sittings in Tel Aviv.

Ever since then (1950), Knesset has been situated in Jerusalem. Its new building was inaugurated in the Givat Ram precinct of Jerusalem on 30 Aug 1966. Construction of the permanent Knesset building was bankrolled by the generous legacy from a billionaire Rothschild baron.

The Israel Supreme Court too is located in Jerusalem’s Givat Ram government complex. So are many offices of the various Israeli ministries. The Bank of Israel is also there, as is a campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

To all intents and purposes, Jerusalem has been the functional capital of Israel ever since the country’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion made his proclamation of its role on 5 Dec 1949.

Yet Israel must be the only country in the world which the international community denies the right to choose the site of its own capital!

If the international community really believes in the “two-state” solution and is willing to recognize (east) Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian ‘state’, then why deprive the Israel sovereign ‘state’ its use of (west) Jerusalem as capital city?

But there is the caveat. As long as an independent Palestine state fails to be established, the whole world – with the exception of USA, Guatemala, Czech Republic, Hungary, Panama and Honduras (the list so far) – will not acquiesce to Israel using Jerusalem as its capital.

A significant part of the world is even still refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel’s very existence. Iran is one prime example.

For a long time, Malaysia referred to Israel only as “the Tel Aviv regime” and furthermore imposing a blackout on any public mention of that country’s proper name over our official airwaves. Other Muslim countries called Israel by the label “the Zionist entity”.

With regard to its current censure by the UN, Israel is being sanctioned by a majority of the world (most recent count: 128 countries) for its refusal to cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

⇓  1967 war hero General Moshe Dayan helped negotiate Israel-Egypt peace treaty

UN wanted Jerusalem as ‘international city’

Jerusalem must be the only location on the planet where everyone – particularly evangelical Christians and Muslims – wants a stake.

Unfortunately Israeli Jews disagree. They regard Jerusalem as their eternal and undivided city on the basis of ancient religious claims, and don’t want to share possession.

The United Nations had originally desired that Jerusalem be a corpus separatum (Latin for ‘separated body’) administered as an “international city” by a trusteeship council.

The UN’s position was/is that due to the city’s religious significance, Jerusalem needs to be under global supervision for it to be freely accessible to all adherents of those religions that regard it as sacred and holy.

Nonetheless, the UN failed to implement its Resolution 181 for making Jerusalem a corpus separatum because as the popular saying goes – “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.

Winning a series of wars against the Arab states, the militaristic state of Israel – armed to the teeth like Sparta – successfully determined the facts on the ground.

⇓  Palestinians protest in Nablus against Jerusalem decision by Trump

After the 1948 war, Israel gained control of the western half of Jerusalem, while Jordan retained control of the eastern half. As mentioned earlier, the victor in the war – Prime Minister Ben-Gurion – rejected the UN’s Resolution 181 after Israel became the occupying power in West Jerusalem.

Following the 1967 war, Israel wrested control of East Jerusalem from Jordan.

This year, 2017, is presently 50 years down the road from 1967. Some evangelical churches in Malaysia actually planned to celebrate the Jerusalem Golden Jubilee, i.e. the 50th anniversary of the success of the Israel army in capturing east Jerusalem and reuniting the city’s two halves under Jewish rule.

These churches would have celebrated the Jerusalem Jubilee if not for intervention from the Malaysian authorities. It is clear as daylight on which side of the political divide Malaysia’s evangelical Christians are standing.

⇓  Israel’s Star of David flag wave by evangelical church congregation (screengrab from video)

To the victor go the spoils of war

A reality we cannot afford to discount is that wars often result in the redrawing of borders.

As an example in a similar vein, Russia (USSR) was a winner in World War Two. It annexed Kresy (today the area making up parts of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania) in eastern Poland. Ethnic Poles were expelled from the Soviet-occupied territories as a result of the Russians winning WWII.

France, also on the victorious side of WWII, was returned the Alsace-Lorraine region. In our modern era, the Alsatians and Lorrainians have ding-donged between French and German rule.

Historically, some 150,000 Germans were expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World War One. Hitler’s Third Reich seized back Alsace-Lorraine from the French in 1940.

Germany, as the WWII big loser, had a lot of its territories taken away as a consequence; not only Alsace-Lorraine but Danzig, the southern portion of East Prussia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg and German Silesia. Ethnic Germans were expelled from these territories taken by the Allies.

According to the Institute for Research of Expelled Germans (an organization tracking historically displaced Germans), in the aftermath of WWII:

  • over three million Sudetan Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia
  • over 400,000 Germans were expelled by Soviets from the Volga to Kazakhstan
  • over 200,000 Germans were either expelled, imprisoned, displaced or emigrated from Yugoslavia
  • over 100,000 Danube Swabian Germans were expelled, and a further 300,000 more were displaced from Hungary
  • over 30,000 German inhabitants were deported from Romania
  • and smaller numbers of German were expelled from various other European countries
⇓  Ruins of the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue destroyed by the Arab Legion

Which war doesn’t have consequences?

Former American president Barack Obama is infamous for gloating “elections have consequences”.

Among the consequences – and there are many – to Germany – for losing WWII is the expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from a host of European countries.

Moving on to the conflict in the Middle East, the Arabs notably fought several wars with Israel.

  • 1948–49: War of Independence
  • 1956: Suez-Sinai Campaign
  • 1967: Six-Day War
  • 1973: Yom Kippur War
  • 1982-85: First Lebanon War
  • 2006: Second Lebanon War

In between the major wars enumerated above, the Arab-Israeli military conflict also covered wars of attrition. Now if it was the Arab countries that won their wars against Israel, they would have recovered Palestinian territory or gained Jewish-held territory.

In late 1947, Jordanian forces enjoyed a piece of early success when they attacked and captured East Jerusalem, causing its Jewish inhabitants to flee.

In 1967 when Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the Six-Day War, had been under Jordanian rule for two decades. Entering the Old City, the Israeli forces found 34 out of a total of 35 synagogues within it destroyed.

Israel has also claimed that when Jordan was in control of the Western Wall – also called Wailing Wall or ‘Kotel’ in Hebrew – which is the holiest of sacred sites in East Jerusalem, Israeli Jews were not permitted to enter and pray there.

Currently however, Jordan maintains a special role as custodian of Muslim and Christian holy sites in the quarter of Jerusalem known as the Old City.

It is the nature of war that the side which loses in an armed conflict is often punished. Hence between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan had control of East Jerusalem, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall.

Jerusalem has always been a religious battlefield.


Will be continued in Part 2





Download PDF

Najib needs to adjust his sense of proportion



Our prime minister was yesterday the subject of a New York Times news article. The paper reported PM Najib Razak as telling a pro-Palestinian gathering in Putrajaya, “There are only 13 million Jews. It does not make sense if 1.6 billion [Muslims] lose to the Jews. If we don’t unite, we will be looked down upon”.

‘Malaysian leader says world’s Muslims should not “lose to the Jews”, blared the NYT headline.

The truth of the matter is that Muslims are not losing to the Jews totalling a mere 13 million worldwide but instead to the hundred millions of evangelical Christians who see Jerusalem as the City of God which must not be allowed to remain in Muslim hands.

On Friday afternoon, Najib had led thousands of participants in the ‘Solidarity Rally to Save Jerusalem’ (below) at the Putra Mosque venue after congregational prayer.

He also reiterated Malaysia’s protest made last week at the OIC summit in Istanbul, Turkey against the controversial move by the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Peace process ended, Palestinian state not happening

In a related development, a large majority of the United Nations general assembly earlier voted on Thursday this week to similarly reject Donald Trump’s Jerusalem decision.

Malaysia is among the 128 countries that supported the UN resolution to delegitimize the Dec 6 American recognization of Israel’s capital as “null and void”.

Although Muslim countries are registering their continued support for the Palestinian cause, nonetheless any window of opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian state is now closed.

A string of American presidents – Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama – have in the past tried to broker that elusive peace deal between Jews and Palestinians.

Under President Trump, however, serious peace negotiations have been given a “kiss of death”. In fact, the president and his Vice President Mike Pence are the most staunchly pro-Israel chief executives ever to occupy the White House.

Today, less than half (47%) of Israeli Jews are in favour of the two-state solution, according to the results of a public opinion survey recently done in August. A little more than half (52%) of Palestinians are in favour of the same.

The joint poll above was conducted by the Tel Aviv University’s Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) based in Ramallah.

Lack of domestic popular support among both Jews and Palestinians has rendered the two-state solution effectively dead, and Trump – as his ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has averred – is merely acknowledging reality.

“President Trump has delivered a message to the Palestinian people: the two-state solution is over,” inveighed Saeb Erekat, the chief peace negotiator for the Palestinians – see below.

⇓  Erekat pronounced “two-state solution is over”

Erekat’s colleague Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to Washington DC, shares identical sentiments.

“They [the Trump administration] aimed a shot at the heart of the two-state solution, which is Jerusalem,” Al-Jazeera quoted Zomlot as saying.

“The two-state solution, from the US point of view and mediation, is dead,” added Zomlot who was previously a visiting scholar to Harvard University and specializes in economics. He should know.

  Al-Jazeera interviews Zomlot on whether the two-state solution is already dead

Unlike previous presidents and American administrations, Trump does not lay the blame for Middle East conflict at Israel’s door.

In this, the current White House has made a radical departure from its predecessors. The divergent path in foreign policy is reflected in the National Security Strategy (NSS) document for 2017.

Released this month and the first one to be issued under the Trump administration, the latest NSS paper said:

“For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region’s problems. States have increasingly found common interests with Israel in confronting common threats.” — (page 49, NSS policy, December 2017)

In the face of UN hyper partisanship, Trump still decided to cast America’s lot with the Jews of Israel … to please his Islamophobic, fundamentalist  Christian base, 

Too much history, too little land

Israel fought three wars with the combined Arab nations in a short span of two decades (1948-1967).

As a result of the 1948 war, the UN has estimated that some 726,000 Palestinians became refugees.

“Of the Palestinians who left, one-third went to the West Bank (which was under Jordan’s control), one-third went to the Gaza Strip (under Egypt’s control), and the remainder to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria,” revealed a research by leftist Zionist organization ADL.

In the Arab countries where there are a lot of Palestinians, pessimism is rife about the two-state solution. Only 11 percent of the public in Lebanon and 26 percent in Jordan believe that an independent Palestinian state will be able to “co-exist peacefully” with Israel, a Pew Research Center study found in 2014.

Israel is a tiny but invaluable piece of real estate.

“We have driveways in Texas longer than that,” GW Bush famously quipped was informed Israel was less than 10 miles wide at its waist. Bush Jr was then the Governor of Texas (before being elected as president).

Israeli Jews, however, fear that Palestinians pose an existential threat to their very small country. A proposed Palestinian state in possession the strategic heights is a cause for concern to Israel’s population living on the coastal lowlands.

The Israeli Jews also like to point out that Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport is a seven miles distance from the West Bank, and within firing range of terrorist missiles.

⇓  MAP: Philistines & Israelite tribes 1200-1020 BCE (175-mile radius from Jerusalem)

“I think anyone who is more than five minutes on the ground in the West Bank realises there is no space there for an independent Palestinian state,” said Prof. Ilan Pappe in a Q&A with Al-Jazeera on 6 July 2013.

Pappe is a historian living in exile in the UK who advocates an international boycott of Israel, accusing the Jewish state of “ethnic cleansing”.

Responding to Trump, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the American president’s Jerusalem declaration only encourages the occupation and construction of Israeli settlements,” Haaretz reported on Dec 7.

Indeed, the unabated building of illegal Israeli settlements undermines any attempt to achieve a two-state solution.

⇓  Jewish settler encroachment into West Bank

One land, indivisible, under God

In his Facebook response, Israel prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu insisted Jerusalem “always was, always will be” his country’s capital.

His stance has been consistent throughout the years – the City of David is not divisible. Israel will not countenance partitioning Jerusalem nor ceding the country’s narrow buffer zone.

“Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan,” Netanyahu was reported on 13 July 2014 by The Times of Israel as firmly avowing.

In other words, the Zionists want Israel to annex those lands the Jews call Judea and Samaria.

It’s also highly unlikely that Israel will choose to uproot its illegal settlers who comprise a powerful voting bloc in the national elections. With 400,000 Jewish settlers occupying land in the West Bank, the idea of a separate state for the Palestinians will never be realized.

The dream of establishing an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital has to confront the one-state reality Israel has created on the ground.

We can understand how Israel dictates terms to the disenfranchized Palestinians through its military might.

Najib is, on the other hand, wondering how 13 million Jews are able to dictate to the world’s 1,600,000,000 Muslims. The answer is ‘Of course 13m Jew cannot be more powerful than 1.6b Muslims’.

That equalizing power comes from the apocalyptic evangelical Christians.

“1.6 bilion umat Islam. Yahudi berapa? 13 juta. 1.6 bilion boleh kalah pada 13 juta? Tak masuk akal.” Najib has admonished that the ummah cannot “lose” to 13 millions Jews.

Needless to say, it defies commons sense that 1.6 billion Muslims are losing to the tiny community of Jews. They’re losing to the Christian Zionists.

Download PDF

MCA going for Umno’s jugular



How absolutely shocking!

Never before in the history of the Alliance and BN has a senior ally so directly attacked the anchor party as the MCA publicity spokesman just did, and on the very day that the Umno annual general assembly commenced.

‘The rulers institution & federal constitution (not politicians) will safeguard Islam & Malays’ was the title of the MCA statement issued on Dec 5.

⇓  “… MCA ini seolah-olah sudah menjadi seperti gunting dalam lipatan kepada perjuangan Umno” – Dr Kamarul

MCA can be understood above as saying the public should not be looking to Umno to safeguard Islam and the Malays. MCA was even more explicit when it said that it’s “not true” to think Umno and PAS “are the guardians and saviours of Islam and Malays”.

Reading Tuesday’s statement by MCA spokesman Ti Lian Ker left political analyst Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff shaking his head and wondering if MCA is stabbing Umno in the back.

Umno has always posited itself as the ‘Bangsa, Agama dan Negara’ lifeblood party, and now MCA is declaring that the “political hype” how Umno is guardian and saviour of Islam and Malays is a patently false claim. Oh, the shock, the horror!

Umno in rebel MCA’s gunsight

“It is the manipulation and manoeuvre of the Malays and Muslims by Malay politicians that had contributed to myriads of our problems today,” said Ti Lian Ker the MCA spokesman in his shocking press statement.

Has MCA finally stepped up to reveal Umno politicians as the problem and not the solution? In making this type of innuendo, MCA is sounding like a clone of the DAP.

Ti went on further to say that Malaysia had been a tolerant and harmonious plural society “until of late when political greed and lack of ethics are tearing the nation apart”.

Whose political greed? Umno’s? Whose lack of ethics? Since MCA is fingering Malay and Muslim politicians, the party cannot be referring to the DAP.

MCA also asserted that we do not need any “fly-by-night politicians” to tell us that the position of the Malays and Islam is “under siege or threatened”.

It is not DAP that is telling the public that the Malay special position and Islam are under threat. Therefore it is obviously the Umno leadership which MCA is chastising as being “fly-by-night politicians”.

The MCA admonition – “No politicians or political parties should claim monopoly of being the defender of the Malays or Islam” – is directed squarely at Umno and PAS. But PAS not so much.

Wreak havoc in name of Malay race

Contained also in the MCA shocking press statement is the following reminder – “there is no need for any politicians or political parties to take umbrage or threaten to wreak havoc in the name of the Malay race or Islam as a religion” – is without a doubt targeted at Umno.

We have already suspected it for some time but now the truth is out: MCA is wary that Umno harbours some hidden intent “to wreak havoc in the name of the Malay race or Islam”.

This backlash by MCA against Umno over wreaking havoc likely stems from the stalking of Petaling Street – deemed a Chinese-representative trade area – by a group of red-shirted Malay nationalists rallying on Malaysia Day (16 Sept 2015).

A police barricadepix above had stood firm in protecting the KL Chinatown from any potential havoc wrought by troublemakers. The street protestors were believed to have links to Umno.

In a rare departure from its traditionally Chinese-centric focus, Ti two days ago ventured to opine “many Malays are beginning to question the way and the manner that this country [has] been administered or managed”.

Taking his critical appraisal one step further, Ti suggested that the Malay electorate has awakened “to look for an alternative government or a new political coalition”.

The big, broad hint by MCA for Malays to vote the “alternative” or in other words, “a new political coalition” should send Umno into a dead faint. As it is, MCA has precious few friends left in Umno. After this shocking outburst, MCA may have none.

⇓  Former MCA president Ling Liong Sik attended the 2015 Bersih gathering in Perth

MCA’s kamikaze dive before committing harakiri

“They [Malays] no longer want to swallow all shallow political rhetoric of the past by Malay politicians or parties,” stated Ti almost defiantly in his MCA press statement.

Malay politicians … Malay parties … it is none other than Umno at whom the barb is aimed.

The suicidal MCA statement – coinciding with the opening of the Umno assembly – has the effect of a pin drop in a shocked, silent room.

Its timing has not eluded the notice of political observers. Dr Kamarul asked, “Apakah tujuan sebenar Datuk Seri Ti Lian Ker membuat kenyataan media sesensitif ini di saat yang sensitif ini, iaitu tatkala Umno mula melangsungkan perhimpunan agungnya?”

Warning of a Malay tsunami, MCA challenges the “Malay politicians and political parties to look at the mirror and ask themselves where have they gone wrong”.

For “Malay politicians”, read Umno. For “Malay political parties”, read Umno. MCA is here practically eyeballing its BN Big Brother.

There’s no escaping that MCA is rebuking Umno and telling Umno to look in the mirror for the latter’s supposed sins of “instilling political dependency and putting fear into the Malays”.

Yet as Dr Kamarul has rightly pointed out, it is MCA which should look in the mirror since it is MCA that has been soundly rejected by its core voters.

In its petulant parting shot, MCA stressed that Malays “have lost their trust [in] the politicians and their political charades”.

How should one evaluate this thinly veiled attack by MCA on Umno?

What leaps to mind is that MCA has accepted its political life is all but ended, and that the party will be finished after the next general election. There is no possibility of the spent force recovering its lost support nor beating DAP anywhere in a Chinese-majority area.

It its death throes, MCA – as a ‘gunting dalam lipatan’ – is throwing a last stab at Umno.

Download PDF

Zaid Ibrahim – a misfit among DAP Christians


“[Preachers] just teach you to fear God. Every word about God is a reminder to follow His commands or you will go to hell.” — Zaid Ibrahim


Zaid Ibrahim remains on the periphery in the Christian-dominated DAP because the party has too many evangelical pastors in its top leadership to whom the outspoken and controversial Zaid would appear utterly sacrilegious.

Yet Zaid is the DAP leader with the highest political achievement on record. He had once been a Pak Menteri in the federal cabinet – the de facto Minister of Law.

Other DAP leaders with high positions are:

  • Lim Guan Eng (Penang chief minister)
  • P. Ramasamy (Penang deputy chief minister)
  • Hannah Yeoh (Selangor speaker)
  • Chow Kon Yeow, Chong Eng, Lim Hock Seng, Law Heng Kiang, Phee Boon Poh & Jagdeep Singh Deo (Penang excos)
  • Teng Chang Kim, Ean Yong Hian Wah & V. Ganabatirau (Selangor excos)
  • Ariffin Omar & Chandra Mohan (senators on the Penang and Selangor quotas)

The DAP notables listed above are however all state-level Yang Berhormats. Zaid has previously been a YB too; he was the Umno MP for Kota Bharu.

Nonetheless, Zaid the maverick has not been able to adapt to the political culture of his erstwhile (and current) party. He left Umno for PKR where he tried to unseat Azmin Ali and then he established his own party Kita where he imploded. Now he is in DAP.

Recently, the DAP was compelled to again conduct its party election where no Malay was elected to the CEC which is full of Christians.

One Malay YB Tengku Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji was appointed to the co-opted council. Out of the 30 CEC members (20 elected, 10 appointed), there is only one Malay – Tengku Zulpuri.

Zaid was clearly sidelined. Despite his long and varied political experience, DAP did not see fit to elevate him to a more influential or decision-making role.

His outsider status, however, hardly comes as a surprise as his track record testifies. In the DAP, not only is Zaid an ethnic and religious minority, he is also a wanderer in the ideological wasteland.

⇓  Mahathir Mohamad suggests that Zaid is a thinker

Suckered into thinking DAP is ‘secular’

Zaid Ibrahim is a liberal, secular Muslim. He has said plenty of things before that have shocked or discomfited the more orthodox among the Malay-Muslim community.

A little over two weeks ago, Zaid asserted, “Under [Najib Razak’s] leadership, we have seen the non-Muslim community grow increasingly distrustful of Islam”, adding also “many Muslims like me are fearful of what the country is becoming”.

“Under his wasatiyyah rule, ordinary Malaysians live in fear of government-funded religious zealots and extremists,” Zaid added. (Source: ‘Don’t blame non-Muslims’ in his website on Nov 17)

Last week (Nov 27), Zaid cautioned, “Don’t give any advice or talk about Islam unless you are from Jakim, Jais or Jawi”.

In his blog entry Muslims in Selangor‘, Zaid explained that in view of the government religious agencies’ claimed jurisdiction, anyone publicly talking about or discussing Islamic matters to an audience “may be construed as teaching or propagating Islam without their permission”.

He elaborated:

“What is disappointing to me is the fact that Jais brought this case up in a state led by the reform-minded (so-called, anyway) PKR state government. It’s clear that when it comes to matters of Islam and Islamic institutions, it matters very little if you are living in states led by PKR or PAS or Umno. None of them are willing to approach the Ruler for a more progressive, responsible and open-minded interpretation of Islam that is consistent with the democratic rights of Muslims in a modern world.”

Zaid concluded, “None of them are willing to engage with Jais or Jakim on Islamic reforms. Votes are obviously more important, especially now, so ‘why stir the hornet’s nest’ seems to be the code practical politicians live by — even in a reformist party like PKR”.

His conclusion, to summarize, is that it’s immaterial whether the state is led by PKR or PAS or Umno (or DAP), our self-serving politicians – whether as ruling party reps such as DAP is in Penang and Selangor, or as the federal opposition such as DAP is in the rest of the country – will not lift a finger to roll back the religious bureaucracy.

Zaid is correct about the increasing religiosity in our political landscape. He had also referred specifically to Selangor where it is his own party DAP that has the most number of Aduns in the state legislative assembly.

He takes aim at a so-called “reformist party like PKR” while ignoring that it is DAP that is bestriding the ‘Ubah’ platform. If any political party is most strident over the message of ‘change’, it is DAP and hence it is DAP that should be held to account.

‘Atheists’ fear-mongering a conspiracy to take heat off DAP

Wading into the storm in a teacup stirred by PAN to deflect attention away from DAP’s political Christianity, Zaid commented:

“If [deputy minister] Dr Asyraf Wajdi wants to send an atheist to jail, Parliament must first enact a law prescribing that a person commits an offence if he or she does not believe in God. In Malaysia, it is not — and has never been — an offence for anyone to believe in a hundred Gods or no God at all.”

All the ruckus raised by PAN was over a handful a Malay-looking youths who had attended a small multiracial gathering of perhaps 30-plus Chinese, Indians and foreigners organized by a Facebook group called Atheist Republic Consulate.

The event, apparently held in KL, took place almost four months ago on Aug 3.

That it is expediently being blown up only now – coming right after the national spotlight was shone on the DAP’s Christian CEC dominance – smells of diversionary psywar crafted to draw scrutiny away to a convenient scapegoat (atheists).

Zaid purports himself a fighter for religious freedom or freedom from religion but his own party is going the opposite direction.

And in his most recent salvo fired yesterday (Dec 4), Zaid complained there is too much religion in our schools.

Zaid is evidently trying to defend and preserve secular mores. He is nonetheless going against the party grain. DAP is hardly secular. It is as much about political Christianity as its nemesis PAS is about political Islam.

That’s why DAP leaders do not speechify remotely in the way Zaid does. On the contrary, they’re piling on the same religiosity, both Muslim and Christian, in those areas where they do exert some control – one example being the syariah-compliant hospital supported by DAP.

Zaid should ask his party’s high priests whether they’re suggesting that government hospital doctors in BN-ruled states are at present not syariah-compliant.

Malay personalities in DAP are like fish out of water. It’s a toss up whether the intellectual civil rights activist Senator Ariffin Omar or the “thinking” secular rights activist Zaid Ibrahim is more isolated within the DAP Christian congregation.

⇓  The joke “ha ha” is on Zaid who makes fun of “Najib keseorangan”, for it is he himself that is alone on the secular front


Download PDF

DAP points — ‘look over there, look at ’em atheists!’


‘With anti-atheism claims, Umno reconstructing constitution’ – the headline accusation against Umno sure looks like a DAP ploy to scapegoat an illusionary group of irreligious individuals.

DAP is catching its headlights on a startled ‘deer’ (young Malays who are allegedly atheists).

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua wrote a commentary yesterday in Malaysiakini focusing on the elusive atheists.

This sudden change of religious topic by Tony is likely a diversionary tactic to deflect public scrutiny from DAP over its preponderant Christian leadership.

DAP had been feeling the heat, so much so that its highest profile Christian missionary Hannah Yeoh was dropped three days after she was first coopted so ceremoniously into the party executive council.

Call the fingerpointing a red herring, smokescreen or what you will but it is certainly expedient for the DAP should the eyes of the public be taken off its Christians and redirected to an atheist bogeyman.

⇓  Sounds like Isma is talking about Umno leaders

Throwing atheists under the bus

Preferable to Tony Pua accusing Umno of an attempt to reconstruct the federal constitution, DAP should instead have the courage of its conviction and ‘ubah’ the law to permit those increased religious freedoms that it is demanding.

DAP is the preeminent party holding a relative majority in the Penang and Selangor state legislatures. Together with its Pakatan allies, DAP commands a comfortable two-thirds majority in both DUNs (state assemblies).

This means DAP has got enough Yang Berhormats to pass a bill to change the law in order to permit Christian missionaries to preach to Muslims, or allow Malays to leave Islam under the operation of secular law.

(Presently the federal constitution does not allow Muslims to be exposed to preaching about other religions than Islam. It also defines a ‘Malay’ as necessarily a Muslim person.)

If DAP acknowledges, however, the legitimacy of both Articles 11(4) and 160 in the federal constitution, then the Christian-dominated party should cease whining about the lack of religious freedom.

And if the DAP still insists on enjoying unfettered freedom of religion, then it should go about creating the remedy through proper legal measures rather than engaging in demagoguery against Umno.

With the support of its Pakatan partners, DAP has the power to change state laws in Penang and Selangor.

Is the ‘secular’ DAP willing to be upfront and honest about its position relating to the aforementioned provisions on Islam and Muslims that are contained in the constitution?

But since DAP fears jeopardizing Malay voter support, expect the party only to continue its double game of pretending to be secular, prioritizing Christians and playacting all pious in the mosques.

Atheism makes for convenient distraction

Tony alleges there is an “increasing attempt to demonise other religions, in particular, Christianity” by Umno elites.

He lists among the restrictive measures: “We have seen the confiscation of bibles, seditious and incendiary talks to incite hate against Christianity by renowned fraudulent ‘scholars’ such as Irene Handono, as well as banning the use of the term ‘Allah’ by other religions”.

For the record, the so-called ban on kalimah Allah is not an Umno decision but one made by the superior courts and various Islamic departments which, again, are not Umno entities but falling rather under the purview of the sultans.

Tony Pua also – most laughably – credits Umno with concocting the “Christian threat”.

He wrote:

“Christians are the convenient bogeymen for the Umno political elite to continue to strike fear among their core Malay-Muslim supporters to ensure that all other transgressions by the party, such as brazen corruption and outrageous scandals, will be set aside to face a concocted Christian threat head on.”

Latest, Tony claims that an Umno deputy minister is attacking atheists/atheism, and alleging:

“… the ruling political elite [trying] to strengthen their grip by striking fear into the hearts and minds of Muslims – to focus on the purported threat of Christianity, and now atheism; and of non-Muslims, by taking away their freedom, one bit at a time.”

On the contrary, it is perceived by political observers on social media that DAP is escalating this atheist issue in order to divert the unwanted attention paid to the DAP over its political Christianity.

If the DAP were really secular as it self-proclaims, it is more likely that seven (maybe even up to eight) of the CEC members initially appointed would have been atheists, not staunch Christians.

After all, it is the atheists who want religion to be left at the door and this belief is congruent with the concept of separation of church and state.

Some among the DAP leadership, on the other hand, preach in church and mix politics andvtlofon

So with a sleight of hand, it’s telling the public, ‘Oh look at the atheists, look at the atheists’. Yeah, nice try.

Download PDF

Religious animosities and mistrust



There is more than a dollop of irony in the Battle Between the Two Malay PhDs. Both, it seems, have links with the same department in Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM).

Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff is a senior lecturer with UUM’s College of Law, Government and International Studies. His adversary Dr Ariffin Omar too was formerly an associate professor in UUM’s school of International Studies.

Before Senator Dr Ariffin became a DAP politician, he was an academic whose field of expertise covered history, as well as a civil society activist – also once holding the post of Aliran president. (Aliran is a pro-opposition NGO.)

Dr Kamarul and Dr Ariffin were in the limelight recently when they crossed swords over the race and religion polemics of BN big brother Umno vs Pakatan Harapan taiko DAP.

Their online rivalry has caught the attention even of Umno figures such as prominent social media personality Dr Novandri Hasan Basri.

In his popular blog Dr MIM yesterday, Dr Novandri penned an allusion in his post ‘Tolak jawatan kerana Kristianisasi & rasis?’ that appears to be aimed at Dr Ariffin.

Dr Novandri wrote:

“Tetapi penulis menjangka puak DAP akan mendiamkan diri dan tidak akan menjawab persoalan yang dibangkitkan [referring to question of DAP’s top heavy Christian leadership raised by Dr Kamarul].”

Dr Novandri further wrote:

“Lebih malang lagi ialah terdapat individu-individu Melayu di dalam parti DAP dan mereka yang menagih sokongan parti tersebut. Mereka ini bersekongkol dengan parti yang menentang kewujudan bumiputera.” (ouch!)

Is DAP’s Dr Ariffin Omar toeing his party line that the ‘bumiputera’ distinction must be abolished?

Refreshing Dr Ariffin’s memory

Interestingly, Dr Ariffin has done historical research on the very subject matter of the nuances of Malaysia’s nation-building.

One of Dr Ariffin’s academic analysis is contained in the chapter titled ‘The struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after the Second World War’ of a 2009 book compilation, Multiethnic Malaysia — Past Present and Future.

But before we go to his ‘Struggle for Ethnic Unity’ essay, let’s touch briefly on the gauntlet that Dr Kamarul has thrown at Dr Ariffin.

•  “If you look at the historical background of the DAP, it is basically an urban party mainly with Chinese support,” said Dr Ariffin.

  Dr Ariffin: “For the moment it [DAP] is still perceived as a mainly Chinese party.”

  Dr Ariffin: “In the recent election [GE13], undeniably the DAP obtained Malay urban support but still its image is that of a Chinese party because we have yet to make a serious attempt to woo Malay members into the party.”

The statements above were published on 12 May 2013 in a review fresh off the Chinese tsunami that swept away the BN’s popular vote for only the second time in history (the first time the BN’s progenitor Alliance had lost the popular vote was during the 10 May 1969 general election).

Dr Kamarul brought up the ‘DAP is mainly Chinese’ statements again, reproducing Dr Ariffin’s quotes in his Facebook entry yesterday.

Today it would seem DAP is mainly Christian in leadership too.

Race & Religion: The two pillars of ‘bumiputera’

Returning to Dr Novandri’s jibe, DAP is “parti yang menentang kewujudan bumiputera”. Therefore DAP – as a mainly Chinese and Christian-dominated party – by its very nature is antithetical to the Malay bumiputera understanding of Bangsa dan Agama.

What does Dr Ariffin’s own past writings say with regard to the thorny issue above? You need to remember that Dr Ariffin is a qualified historian, and as such, his earlier academic work is worth revisiting.

In his essay ‘The struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after the Second World War’, Dr Ariffin wrote, the “Persekutuan Tanah Melayu bestowed citizenship but not nationality”, citing how the Malay elite at that point in 1948 was not even prepared to accept the emergence of a nation state.

In the 1948 union of the peninsular states, Malay special privileges were upheld by the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu agreement.

Dr Ariffin explained, “The non-Malays were only given citizenship rights. They were not even referred to as Malayans in the final report.” [The final report refers to the Constitutional Proposals for Malaya: Report of the Working Committee; the committee had been appointed by the Malayan Union governor, the Malay sultans and Umno.]

A necessary and relevant historical background around the years 1946-48 and the Malayan Union project reads – “a Malay is a member of the Malay race; a Malayan is a person of any other origin who happens to live in Malaya. There are 2,250,000 Malays; and 3,050,000 Malayans.” (Michael Ardizzone, A Nation is Born, London, 1946, p.34).

“There was no official British plan to apply a policy of divide and rule in the Malay states. However, it cannot be denied that it was British economic policy that led to the entry of vast numbers of Chinese and Indians into the Malay states in the early 20th century to the point that the Malays became a minority in some Malay states,” said Dr Ariffin in one of his explanatory footnotes.

“At that point in time [mid-1940s], ethnic animosities and mistrust were the dominant features of inter-ethnic relations,” noted Dr Ariffin.

“To the Malay elite who were leading Umno at that point in time, the boundaries of the Malay community were impenetrable; non-Malays were excluded in no uncertain terms. But the door was open for the non-Malays to become Melayu (masuk Melayu) but only on the established terms of religious as well as cultural conversion,” Dr Ariffin wrote.

“For the non-Malays, acceptance on such terms was seen as too high a price to pay to gain acceptance by the Malay elite,” he added.

In other words, the Chinese and Indians back then wanted Malayan citizenship but nonetheless rejected assimilation into Malay culture together along with conversion to Islam in exchange for procuring a shared national identity. Has anything changed since then?

Summing up the eventual Faustian bargain that was reached, Dr Ariffin commented:

“Unlike Onn he [Tunku Abdul Rahman] was shrewd enough to enter into a bargain with the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and later on with the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) whereby the ethnic identities of the political parties would be maintained but they would cooperate together in order to acquire a common objective i.e. Merdeka.” [Onn refers to Umno founder Dato’ Onn Jaafar.]

The Alliance cooperation was on the basis of maintaining separate races and its corollary, separate religions.

Fast forward to the here and now

Dr Ariffin, in his historical review of our ethnic relations after WWII, acknowledged the fear harboured by Malays for the legions of Chinese and Indian transients who sought citizenship but ultimately fell short of embracing nationality.

These Malays feared they would be marginalized and relegated to the periphery of social, political and economic development by the immigrants.

Pre-Merdeka, Malays were unwilling to trust the non Malays within a milieu where the approach to nationalism was ethnic. The present-day approach to nationalism, however, is more heavily religious.

With his background in International Studies, Dr Ariffin would surely be aware how much religious nationalism colours the world today.

Closest to home, there is the Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar and the Muslim nationalism in Indonesia that contributed in part to the jailing of former Jakarta governor Ahok for the crime of blasphemy.

In India, there is the Hindu nationalism of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Across Europe, there is the Christian nationalism of the ascendant far right.

Malays are fearful and distrustful of the DAP’s religious agenda.

Umno figures are now beginning to add their voices to PAS’s and that of the Islamist movement (Isma, Iksim, etc) in querying the evangelism, or in their words “agenda Kristianisasi”, being exhibited by the DAP.

Dr Ariffin, with his depth of historical knowledge and political awareness, cannot be ignorant of their concerns. In simple terms, he knows but dunno what to say to the questions.

Download PDF

Hannah Yeoh too radioactive, dropped from CEC



DAP sec-gen Lim Guan Eng has announced that Penang deputy chief minister (II) P. Ramasamy is replacing Hannah Yeoh as a member of the party’s appointed central committee.

This backpedalling is likely due to the highlight by political analyst Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff regarding the dominance of Christians – some seven or eight of them – appointed to the 10-seat coopted CEC.

Dr Kamarul had commented, “tindakan DAP melantik sekurang-kurangnya 7 daripada 10 orang ahli tambahan CEC DAP ini dari kalangan penganut agama Kristian hanya akan memperkuatkan lagi dakwaan bahawa DAP memang mempunyai agenda Kristianisasi”.

There is a legitimate basis for DAP to be widely perceived as an evangelical party engaged in political Christianity.

Among the DAP’s preponderance of Christian leadership, it is Hannah Yeoh who’s most prominent for publicly carrying out proselytization activities.

Undeniably, certain DAP leaders are active in spreading the gospel without any separation between their politics and their religion. This is called ‘Christianization’ as Dr Kamarul has correctly pointed out.

The aggressive movement to Christianize our country is something real and a security issue which Bukit Aman is concerned about.


PAS knows what’s really going on

Bigshot lawyer Steven Thiru – who is the immediate past president of the Bar Council – is representing the family of missing pastor Raymond Koh (above) in the Suhakam enquiry hearing. The pastor is widely rumoured to have converted Malays.

Thiru’s involvement signals that the controversy is not taken lightly.

And now it appears that the DAP top guns feel Hannah Yeoh is becoming too hot to handle, and hence dropping her from the CEC.

The decision to drop Hannah in favour of Ramasamy (a Hindu) was made at the CEC’s second meeting on Nov 15 – three days after the council’s first meeting and following public scrutiny of the appointed Christian members.

There is no smoke without fire.

PAS has made public that its reason for leaving Pakatan Harapan is the DAP’s in-your-face Christianity.

It is time for PAS to brief the Islamic religious authorities what they have learned from their almost decade-long up close and personal experience with the DAP.

For the sake of protecting the ummah, PAS must speak up.


Download PDF

What are young DAP Malays being exposed to?



So our police ARE interested in the issue of sub rosa Christianization – see the tweet below regarding their persistent line of questioning in the case of missing Pastor Raymond Koh.

It is clear that Bukit Aman and Special Branch are monitoring this subterranean syndrome of pastors who, throughout the length and breadth of the country, have successfully persuaded vulnerable or impressionable Malaysians to embrace their Christian faith.

Yet there remains a veil of silence and secrecy cast by our authorities themselves over such public concerns. This is despite the fact that here all are ethnicities increasingly “becoming Christian” as a result of the concerted proselytization carried out by Malaysian evangelists.

⇓  We can see a microcosm of the face of Christianity in the DAP

CEC dominated by Christians

While the Christian missionaries feel at liberty to aggressively convert Malaysians from all walks of life, it is nonetheless still against our law for them to preach to Muslims and Malays.

This brings us to the exposure, environmentally, of Malays who are enticed to flirt with the DAP – a party that has pastors and church activists among its leadership.

The growing party has been loudly boasting that it has, of late, attracted legions of young Malays to join.

These are the new generation of Malay youth DAP members who will be taking part in party activities.

It has also been recently revealed how much of a grip charismatic Christian leaders have on the DAP.

There they mix politics and religion. The leaders have even conducted voter registration drives in church premises.

Some of the DAP leaders, like Hannah Yeoh for example, use their political platform to preach religion. At the same time, they also use their religious platform (being lay pastors) to talk politics.

This is the political Christianity milieu into which DAP Malay youths are immersing themselves.

Download PDF

Christian issue: Denial won’t help DAP



Tengku Zulpuri Shah Raja Puji, one of DAP’s five new vice chairmen, has responded to Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff’s public musing about the ‘strange’ over abundance of Christians in the party top leadership.

Zulpuri – appointed on Sunday to fill the Malay quota among the vice chairmen – asked, “Apa yang peliknya sehingga dia (Dr Kamarul) terus menjaja isu ini?”

Dr Kamarul also came under fire over the same issue from Zulpuri’s predecessor Dr Ariffin Omar, a DAP Penang senator.

To recap, Dr Kamarul observed today in his Berita Harian column:

“Jadi, pemang pelik cara DAP berpolitik. Pada saat ia hadapi krisis keyakinan serius dalam kalangan pengundi Melayu, dan diserang dengan isu Kristianisasi, tokoh Kristian juga jadi pilihan utamanya untuk dilantik ke dalam CEC sedangkan ini hanya akan memperkuatkan lagi dakwaan bahawa DAP mempunyai agenda Kristianisasi.”

To be more precise, Dr Kamarul is noting that seven, or perhaps maybe eight, out of the DAP’s ten newly appointed CEC members are Christian. Is this not a curious fact to Tengku Zul?

To deflect Dr Kamarul’s perfectly legitimate observation, Zulpuri nonetheless accused the UUM academic of “rehashing a stale Umno script” in the run-up to GE14. The DAP leader’s allegation is reported in a Roketkini article today headlined ‘Agenda Kristian’: Pengulangan skrip lapuk Umno menjelang PRU14’.

⇓  It’s PAS – not Umno – that is opposed to ‘evangelis Kristian DAP’

Not at all an Umno script

Zulpuri’s accusation is off the mark. Dr Kamarul’s most recent analysis was not even reported in the official Umno Online or by the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) website or in the popular MyKMU, the Umno supporters’ portal.

Dr Kamarul’s view on the strong Christian element in the DAP was, however, yesterday given coverage in the PAS party organ – see ‘Komposisi baru DAP bukti agenda Kristianisasi?’, Harakah Daily.

This Christian factor is of great interest to PAS. Harakah Daily also carried an article querying ‘DAP dikuasai Kristian?’ previously on 30 May 2017.

Umno is actually quite indifferent to the matter. A Christianization agenda is concerning to PAS, not to Umno.

The following was reported in the alternative media: ‘PAS keluar dari Pakatan kerana sedar DAP adalah evangelis Kristian’ (Utara News, 5 June 2017), ‘PAS tuduh DAP perkasa Kristian’ (Malaysia Dateline, 21 May 2017), ‘Evangelis Kristian DAP, punca PAS batal tahaluf siyasi – Dr Zuhdi Marzuki’ (Menara, 4 June 2017), and many others in the same vein.

As early as two years ago, Isma first raised the red flag with its 11 June 2015 editorial ‘DAP dikuasai pemimpin berbahaya Kristian evangelis’.

This DAP-Christianization issue is rarely, if ever, touched on by mainstream Malay media linked to Umno ownership or media considered pro-establishment.

Umno does not want to rock the boat seeing that its fixed deposit votes are in Sabah and Sarawak – both states having a significant Christian population.

⇓  ” tak kira mana-mana individu pemimpin yang kuat agama”

Most reasonable to highlight DAP’s Christian factor

Contacted by Roketkini, DAP’s senator Dr Ariffin brushed off Dr Kamarul as making a wild and baseless accusation (“tuduhan semberono”).

Dr Ariffin further advised Dr Kamarul, “Nak cari pasal pun carilah yang munasabah sikit,” while adding “DAP dari dulu parti sekular berlandaskan perlembagaan, tak kira mana-mana individu pemimpin yang kuat agama atau tak kuat agama; Islam atau bukan-Islam, siapa-siapapun boleh sertai DAP”.

It is true that anybody is free to join the DAP.

But Dr Kamarul’s question – one which Dr Ariffin signally failed to address – is why the DAP appointed seven or even eight Christians to its 10-member unelected but co-opted CEC.

Let’s do a fact check first:

  1. Is Stephen Wong Tien Fatt a Christian?
  2. Is Thomas Su Keong Siong a Christian?
  3. Is Yeo Bee Yin a Christian?
  4. Is Ong Kian Ming a Christian?
  5. Is Jannie Lasimbang a Christian?
  6. Is John Brian Anthony a Christian?
  7. Is Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan a Christian?

From his research, Dr Kamarul is convinced that they are. Indeed the evangelical activities carried out by several of the seven aforementioned individuals is on public record.

Is Wong Kah Woh a Christian? Dr Kamarul believes, very possibly.

Eight of ten… Pause and think about that number for a minute.

Clearly no Hindus were appointed, and only one Muslim, i.e. Tengku Zulpuri to the CEC.

Why then stack the deck with that very many Christians?

Dr Ariffin claims DAP is a secular party. “Elok dia fikir dulu sebelum bercakap” (to borrow and return his own words to him) … pray tell, why are leaders of a supposedly secular party so preoccupied with camping in the mosques?

Is it “munasabah” that eight Christians should be appointed to fill the ten available exco slots in a party that professes itself multi-religious? Tak pelik?

PAS has “seen the light” with regard to the DAP’s hidden nature and wants to have nothing to do the Christian-dominated party.

This evangelism narrative remains a ‘no go zone’ in the Umno sphere. It is laughable for the DAP’s Malay window-dressing to be taking personal potshots at Dr Kamarul and deceptively calling (what he has rightly highlighted) it as an “Umno script”.

This latest move by DAP will not go unnoticed by PAS.

What is being weighed in the balance is who – PAS or Umno – is reading the Malay ground better?

Umno is harping on the lack of Malay representation in the DAP leadership. Is this anything new?

PAS, on the other hand, will have realized that there is an over representation of Christians in the DAP upper echelons. Is this fact something worth pointing out?

Next question: What is the DAP agenda for not picking Malays (and Hindus) to have a stronger role in steering the ship? Duh.

What is the DAP agenda for picking an overwhelming number of Christians to sit in its highest council? Which of the two questions is more pertinent?

Despite that Umno steadfastly refuses to glance at this relevant question, don’t think that the Malay general public won’t.



Download PDF