The Pasir Mas Frog MP Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali you are still under coconut shell what you about muslim problem you UMNO Muslim are waiting to finish Muslim Brother Anwar Ibrahim

 By Ministry of Truth I refer to the fictional entity in Orwell’s M YasinThe recent seditious accusation by Utusan Malaysiabased on rumours by Umno-supported bloggers has cast and severely dented the image of Utusan Malaysia even further within the Malay community. And naturally Perkasa needs no introduction.

It seems very obvious that Utusan being a propaganda tool to a certain faction of the Umno spearheaded by none other than Dr Mahathir aims very clearly to raise and indulge in ensuring Malaysians stay divided to ensure the path is laid out for his son.

As for Perkasa, the alternative game plan to maintain the division between Umno as he observed the success with Hindraf.Sadly though, Hindraf had genuine reasons as we can naturally observe the dilapidated state of the Malaysian Indians who neither has political nor economical power, whereas Perkasa is a purely politically motivated tool that would eventually gather dust.

There is no question within the Umno power players that there is a tussle going on between the Najib camp and the Muhyiddin camp under the tutelage of Dr Mahathir with the assistance of PerkasA. It was all so obvious with the Interlok issue.

Malays like me don’t even take a second look at Utusan Malaysia or Perkasa as it does not reflect real reporting or contain any substance, but rather plays the role as the mouth piece for Umno’s power struggle. You don’t need a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Malays like me having lived with other Malaysians irrespective of their origin can comprehend the game plan of Umno and their mini Napoleoans in their attempt to create a rift amongst Malaysians as a ploy to hold on to power.

A slap on the wrist is all that Utusan gets for carrying out such seditious allegations against the Christian pastors, but can you blame Umno when they themselves have to squabble amongst themselves to maintain their hegemony for their preferred faction, like what we see in new found political clout within Pakatan?

Whether Umno maintains its hegemony is not the issue, neither is Pakatan coming into power, but Malaysians coming together as a united public.

Malays need to realise that we are all Malaysians along with our fellow non-Malays who seek our support and effort to ensure that fairness and justice are in place for them without the typical rhetoric that is based only for Umno or Pakatan to survive.I urge the Malaysian Malay to rally for any Malaysian with a genuine and real cause, not on a platform like how Utusan/Perkasa does it through the current active frontline crusader like Ibrahim Ali for the evergreen hypocritical racist Dr Mahathir, or for that matter not even like Pakatan.

Without pandering into the state of the present day Umno, I really don’t care if Umno wins or Pakatan wins but in fairness for all Malaysians, our elected representatives should ensure policies and governance implemented is able to ensure just and fair treatment for all Malaysian irrespective of their origin.

We had fair and wise leaders in Umno’s yesteryears like Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Ismail Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak and Hussain Onn, yet what we face with the current bred of Umno leaders is a neocolonialism of non-Muslim Malaysians courtesy of Dr Mahathir.

They were leaders who took risks to effect the desired change, no matter how great the challenges at that time in fairness without playing the racial political game that we observe with the current Umno breed.

As for the Pakatan faction who seems to enjoy their limited power seems all divided as preference is again their game plan to emulate Umno.

A very resounding statement by Ismail:

“Why did we fight for Merdeka? So that the different races can be divided? That can’t be the way, right? That can’t be why all these great Malay and Umno leaders fought for this … Something is wrong…”

I hope the new discussions will start. Why are we building Malaysia? What kind of Malaysia are we building? What kind of symbol is Malaysia supposed to be?

The power and money politics initiated by Dr Mahathir encouraging nepotism, bribery, corruption had totally paralysed the nation from its true objective of impartiality for the citizenry of the nation since 1980. Absolute domination and unbalanced policies in the socio-development against certain segments of the society has brought about the uprise of Hindraf, Orang Asli issues etc.

Dr Mahathir had to swallow his own pride when his own mismanagement of the nation led him to lose a divisional seat in 2006. He probably realised at that juncture that nobody seems to be invincible when nepotism, bribery, corruption is at play and realised that he had imbibed a culture of selfish leaders within Umno who are focussed on their personal wealth and well being as oppose to the development of the nation.

The recent uproar of Perkasa and Utusan Malaysia under the guidance of Dr Mahathir again is a dim reminder of the current mentality of Umno leaders who seem to observe silence with their toothless alliance, unlike the originators of Umno who ruled without fear or favour.

I am sure we may find goodness in Umno leaders or any leader for the matter if fair play is in place, rather than one stroking farcical notion like what we have seen lately with Perkasa and Utusan Malaysia. We have seen this in the pre-Mahathir Umno leaders and I see no reason why the current crop of Umno leaders cannot emulate their predecessors.

Umno or Pakatan, it does not really matter as long as the elective legislators play their role in fairness without their typical melodrama and self interest but addressing the issues in hand for the betterment of the nation as a whole for all.

When an entire establishment – the state machinery, the political right and the corporate world – wants something, it gets it. But not now in Gujarat, where a 47-year-old IPS officer, Sanjiv Bhatt has denied such glory to the mighty establishment just because he stands on the bedrock of his family’s support.
Any other man would have buckled under pressure as perceived and real threats could bring about pressure from within the home to give up. But Bhatt is lucky. His wife, Shweta, mother and two children, a daughter in the final year of MBBS and a son in class XII understand him and his fight for justice.
“My children are absolutely supportive, for over the years they have known the values and principles I stood for. And despite everything (that has happened in my life), my son also wants to join the police,” says Bhatt with pride.
Family support: Wife Shweta and his children are standing by Sanjiv Bhatt as he takes on Narendra Modi in the Gujarat riots case.
The whistleblower took Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi head on by filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court on April 14 to bring on record certain aspects concerning the investigation being conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court to go into the post-Godhra riots of 2002 that claimed around 1200 lives.
In his affidavit, Bhatt has stated that Modi instructed senior police officers and civil servants at a meeting on February 27, 2002, to let the Hindus vent their anger against an incident at the Godhra railway station where about 59 kar sevaks were burnt to death by pro-Pakistani elements.
Bhatt, who was Deputy Commissioner of Internal security in the state intelligence bureau during the riots that followed the Godhra incident, alleges that the SIT leaked his testimony to the Gujarat government.
“I had not talked about my testimony to anyone outside the SIT. But even as my deposition was on, I was receiving calls from people in the higher echelons of authority asking how I could say such and such things,” says Bhatt referring to his deposition before the SIT in November 2009 .
Though he had deposed truthfully and fearlessly with all documents and details, the SIT failed to conduct an impartial and thorough probe into the allegation of a larger conspiracy behind Gujarat riots of 2002.
“I was angry that the SIT was not living up to expectation and hence filed the affidavit. It is just a correspondence, putting things in perspective,” says Bhatt who is neither a petitioner nor a respondent in the riots case. He could not disclose information on such a sensitive matter earlier as he had to maintain confidentiality as a serving officer. However, Modi has denied that Bhatt was present at the February 27, 2002 meeting convened by him.
Bhatt reiterates there was complete subversion of the law during the 2002 riots and wishes such riots should never take place again. “People quote the riots of 1984 and 1993 to justify the 2002 riot; at least the 2002 riot should not be quoted as a precedent,” he adds.
The Mumbai born and Ahmadabad -bred alumnus of the reputed St Xavier’s High School, says it was an urge to bring about positive changes and make substantial contribution to society that motivated him to join the police. So, after doing his Post-graduation in Geotechnical Engineering (a specialized Civil Engineering branch) from IIT Mumbai and a stint in CMC Ltd, he joined the IPS in 1988.
In last 23 years he has served in different capacities in various districts, Police Commissionerates and Police Units. Now he is Principal of the State Reserve Police Training Centre in Junagadh.
Having done sensitive assignments, including being in charge of Chief Minister’s security, Bhatt is aware of threat perceptions. He has mentioned in his affidavit his concern for the safety of his immediate family members. “I have presently one PSO (Personal Security Officer) and one sentry, which is highly inadequate. The minimum requirement should be four more guards and one more PSO,” he says.
But that is not going to deter him from speaking the truth. Following summons, he is ready to face the Nanavati Commission – probing the Godhra case and the role of Modi in the post-Godhra riots – on May 16. We hope to hear more startling revelations from the man who knows too much and importantly, is willing to talk too.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, a negative image of Muslims was successfully portrayed in the media, tilting Americans toward buying and stereotypical images of Muslims. However, the year 2010 witnessed a dramatic shift in auto-correcting that error by un-stereotyping Muslims.
The Ground Zero Mosque, nay, the Muslim community center in New York was a major turning point in adding the average American Muslim to the media mix of the public faces of Muslims who are not only moderates but also contributors to the overall peace, prosperity and security ofAmerica.
While the intolerant ones in all groupings are in a panic mode, the religious leaders from every faith spoke up against gratuitous divisiveness caused by demonstrations at a Mosque in California or other mosques including the Ground Zero Mosque. During all of this Americans got to hear the common Muslim voices sidelined heretofore.
The moderate America is a powerful body that remains silent, but when the extremism reaches its limits, they will act and restore the goodness to America. They will speak up and not let a few tear down America’s cohesive fabric, they have done it before and they will continue to do that.
The capstone to this sea change is the end of an evil era; thank God Osama bin Laden is now gone for good. It is some of the best news Muslims have had in a decade. We are delighted that an evil era has come to an end with the death of this evil man. It brings a sense of justice and relief to nearly 3,000 fellow Americans.
Time to Celebrate
It is time to celebrate the un-stereotyping of Muslim Americans who are adding to the goodness of Americaand the world.
The biggest celebration for humanity are the peaceful revolutions in the Arab World while the dictators and monarchs are resorting to violence signaling their last ditch effort before they run into a hole. The peaceful revolutions have upset the business of a few who had successfully cashed in on painting Muslims as terrorists. I hope and pray that they can do wonders by apply their passion in building cohesive societies.
Time Magazine lists several Muslims among the 100 Influential individuals of 2011. They are not only the heroes for heralding a new era but they also provide positive role models for Muslims to look up to. Mohamed ElBaradei writes in Time about Wael Ghonim, the #1 pick by the time, “By emphasizing that the regime would listen only when citizens exercised their right of peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, Wael helped initiate a call for a peaceful revolution. The response was miraculous: a movement that started with thousands on Jan. 25 ended with 12 million Egyptians removing Hosni Mubarak and his regime. What Wael and the young Egyptians did spread like wildfire across the Arab world.”
Time writes, “Yet Maria Bashir, 40, Afghanistan’s only female prosecutor general, defies the odds — and the death threats — to battle corruption, crime and domestic abuse. On paper, Afghanistan’s laws protecting the rights of women are robust. In reality they are ignored. Bashir’s campaign to enforce the laws — in 2010 she handled 87 cases on behalf of victims of domestic abuse, including forced child marriage — may appear Sisyphean, but she is establishing precedents that will become the foundations of a just and equal society.”
Imam Feisal Abdur Rauf of America is also listed on Time’s 100. He was unfortunately roasted by the politics of a few for short term political gains of the day, overlooking his long term commitment to interfaith initiatives to build a cohesive America and to become a beacon of hope for those who believe differently anywhere in the world.
Since the Ground Zero Mosque issue propped up, I have been a representation of moderate Muslims on Fox News’s Sean Hannity show. Thanks to Hannity for having the courage to present at least a semblance of another point of view in the world of right wing politics. Of the nearly two dozen appearances on his show, Hannity called me a defender of the imam, although it was what the imam represented that I defended.
America has been a world leader in innovation, science, medicine, technology, information and other things; it is time for us to lead the world in pluralism through the interfaith movement. The Imam has a vision to lead us onto a moral high ground, once we the Americans see the larger good that it brings to America; we will earn the courage to ask other nations to emulate us — and not the other way around.
Rev. Tully writes about the imam, “At a Manhattan church in 2004, a woman asked Rauf to explain hateful Muslim rhetoric. He gently proposed a deal: ‘You take the best of our tradition as a start, and I’ll take the best of Christianity … From there we can build.'”
His highness Aga Khan’s work is a shining example of what Islam is all about; God has entrusted humans with a life to be respectful to it and care for others in order to create a cohesive society where God’s entire creation can live in harmony. Aga Khan’s network of services lifts up the Muslim Spirit to serve and to create a better world for every human on the earth.
He received the 2011 University of California San Francisco Medal, the University’s most prestigious award. The plaque reads, “The Medal … recognizes outstanding personal contributions in areas associated with the University’s fourfold health science mission providing top-quality patient care, improving the understanding of the factors that affect human health and serving the community.”
Empowering women is crucial to bring about a positive change in a given society and the Nobel prize Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus’ is making that difference with micro-financing in Bangladesh. Dr. Tariq Cheema, founder and chair of the World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists announced the launch of a global initiative called “Empowerment through Enlightenment.” All of this will have a cumulative multiplier effect toward a positive change in the world.
Finally, Bill Gates writes about Azim Premji, “Inspired by his belief that a strong educational system is essential to sustaining the economic growth needed to pull millions of Indian citizens out of poverty, Premji, 65, is deeply involved in efforts to provide universal primary education in India. The Azim Premji Foundation supports programs that reach more than 2.5 million children.”
What do all these men and women have in common? They are boundless and serve the whole humanity and not just their own flock, thus fulfilling a major task God assigns to humanity, the best among you is the one who knows each other and cares for the other.

Congratulations to all those who are committed to building cohesive societies whether they made the list or not, but celebrate we must to uplift our own spirit to serve humanity.

Can Mainstream Media Match WikiLeaks? Not Likely Western media fraud in the Middle East

Ever since WikiLeaks became a household word, traditional news media have had every reason to try to replicate its technology for receiving leaked documents, via the Internet, on an anonymous and secure basis.
Traditional media may be at war with Julian Assange and disagree fundamentally with his methods in vetting and disseminating classified documents, but they can still see the appeal of a technical mechanism to frustrate eavesdropping on journalists and sources. If you’re in the investigative journalism business, anything that protects confidential sources, enhancing the security of their communications with reporters, is an obvious benefit.
Even more important is the media’s desire to neutralize WikiLeaks’ advantage in the competition for access to sensitive government records. WikiLeaks, on the strength of its promise of anonymity, has managed to insert itself as an intermediary between news sources and the news media, relegating the latter to a secondary role on some of the biggest stories of the past year. This change in status is a source of considerable resentment among affected news organizations, particularly the New York Times, whose editorlashed out at Assange in a recent Times‘ magazine article.
So, will mainstream media be able to match WikiLeaks’ leak technology? Of major U.S. news organizations, the Wall Street Journal is the first to try. Unveiled last week, theJournal‘s system for secure receipt of documents, called SafeHouse, is on a new website with its own domain. Like WikiLeaks, SafeHouse enables users to upload documents directly to a secure server, bypassing email services. Access to the server is limited to theJournal‘s editors, who use an encrypted connection to retrieve documents.
Although SafeHouse is a commendable effort, it is handicapped by limitations that do not affect WikiLeaks. I am referring not to any technical shortcomings of the Journal‘s service (which, in any case, I would not be competent to judge), but to the fact that the Journal, as a legitimate company with assets, employees and shareholders to worry about, is constrained by legal considerations that WikiLeaks is more or less free to ignore.
Consider the terms of service for SafeHouse. Sources who submit documents must “agree not to use SafeHouse for any unlawful purpose” and to represent that they “have all the necessary legal rights to upload or submit such content and it will not violate any law or the rights of any person.”
Hmmm. That pretty much rules out all classified government documents (and even unclassified documents that a would-be source is not authorized to disclose). Also ruled out by the terms of service are leaks of any documents belonging to private corporations, since they would be copyrighted in nearly all cases (and in some instances would also constitute “trade secrets”).
The SafeHouse terms of service go on to warn that, unless the source and the Journal agree otherwise, theJournal has the “right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice, in order to comply with any applicable laws and/or requests under legal process… “
Translation: If the Journal receives a subpoena demanding copies of documents that you submitted confidentially through SafeHouse, don’t expect Journal editors to pay fines or go to jail to keep them secret. Don’t even expect the Journal to give you a heads up about a subpoena; it may turn over your documents and tell you after the fact (or not at all).
The SafeHouse disclaimers seem laughably out of place: OK for freelance articles submitted for publication, but not for a website whose purpose, after all, is to encourage submission of documents by persons who, if exposed, could be fired, sued or prosecuted. But, while the legal fine print might have been phrased more felicitously, the Journal‘s lawyers had no choice but to include these warnings in some form.
The Journal can’t ignore a subpoena or court order. Neither can the New York Times,Washington PostLos Angeles Times, etc. Although they might choose to go to the mat in a particular case, they certainly can’t commit in advance to do so for a source they don’t know, offering government records they’ve never seen. The best they can do (or, that the lawyers will let them do) is leave open the door to possible negotiations of different terms of service, at the news organization’s option, in appropriate cases.
But those subtleties will be lost on confidential sources working, say, for the National Security Agency or Apple Computer. WikiLeaks, on the other hand, needn’t deter them with legalese. Court orders against WikiLeaks, for all practicable purposes, are unenforceable. Attempts to shut it down are of no avail because its content is “mirrored” on dozens of other websites and servers. If one iteration of WikiLeaks is disabled by court order (or other government action) others pop up in its place.
WikiLeaks is a rogue news outlet that is both stateless and virtual. Unfortunately for mainstream media, those characteristics give it a permanent leg up in protecting confidential documents and sources.
Most Western reporters covering the war in Iraq do not speak Arabic, so they are dependent on translators and various officials and getting opinions average people becomes challenging [GALLO/GETTY]

Too often, you consumers of mainstream media are victims of a fraud. You think you can trust the articles you read – why wouldn’t you? You think you can sift through the ideological bias and just get the facts. But you don’t know the ingredients that go into the product you buy. It is important to understand how knowledge about current events in the Middle East is produced before relying on it. Even when there are no apparent ideological biases, such as those one often sees when it comes to reporting about Israel, there are fundamental problems at the epistemological and methodological level. These create distortions, falsehoods and justify the narrative of those with power.
In discussing the manners in which the Western intelligentsia and media depict the Middle East, the French intellectual and scholar Francois Burgat complained that two main types of intellectuals tasked with explaining the “other” to Westerners dominate. Firstly, there is what he and Bourdieu, another philosopher, describe as the “negative intellectual” who aligns his beliefs and priorities with those of the state, and centres his perspective on serving the interests of power and gaining proximity to it. And secondly, there is what Burgat terms as “the facade intellectual”, whose role in society is to confirm Western audiences with their already-held notions, beliefs, preconceptions, and racisms regarding the “other”. Journalists writing for the mainstream media, as well as their local interlocutors, often fall into both categories.readmore The Pasir Mas Frog MP Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali you are still under coconut shell what you about muslim problem you UMNO Muslim are waiting to f

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s