Malaysia Chronicle

Yes, Mr Prime Minister you are right. Pakatan Rakyat is the Pied Piper of Malaysia not Hamelin. Let me refresh your memory, it seems to be a bit rusty.

In the town of Hamelin in Germany, the town was infested with rats and the people had to hire a man to get rid of these rodents. This man then used his magical pipe to lure the rats into a river, but the townsfolk reneged on their promise and refused to pay him. So in revenge, on a Sunday when all the folks were in a church, he played his pipe and lured all the children away to teach the people a lesson.

So that is the story of the Pied Piper, Mr Prime Minister. But the twist in Malaysia is different because the real pest here is you and your Government, who have been fleecing the people for past fifty-odd years.

Fresh start followed by destruction

It was a fresh start in 1957 when we achieved our independence as one nation with all the races on equal ground, but today your 1Malaysia has destroyed the very epitome of the one nation that was created 55 years ago.

Then in 1963, the Malaysia that was created with addition of Sabah and Sarawak – the land below the wind and land of the horn bills – was a pristine land with rich heritage, diverse and harmonious people, as well as enormous natural wealth. But that wealth has since been robbed, pillaged and plundered by irresponsible greedy leaders appointed by your Government.

Even the citizens of the states were short-changed by your appointed leaders who opened the doors to millions of foreigners, giving them citizen status and thus depriving local legal citizens of a decent living.

Mahathirism sounded the death knell

From 1982, the start of the Era of Mahathirism or the Malaysia Boleh Era, we saw and witnessed the euphoria of a false growth, the birth of cronyism and corruption, the emergence of Government Linked Companies and indiscriminate privatization for cronies. It was big time robbery and to cover it the Judiciary was stifled, the Police and the Attorney General’s office became puppets of the Puppet Master.

An illusion was created to show the people that the growth was immense, buildings, huge sky scrappers, new highways with tolls to burden the people, and a Vision 2020 that will never materialize to fool the people. This Era of Mahathirism plunged us to the bottom with its falsehoods and lies.

Badawism set us into hibernation

Then we went into hibernation when Abdullah Badawi took over from Mahathir. The Era of Badawism made us sleep like him. Although, the citizens gave him a good mandate to celebrate the departure of the Puppet Master and also in the hope of seeing changes being finally made, the Sleeping Beauty PM failed to live up to his promise.

The Puppet Master also made life difficult for the Sleeping Beauty and this resulted in the latter’s ouster. It was then that you were picked to replace Badawi and you gave us 1 Malaysia. Initially, there was hope and high expectation – just like for Badawi.

1 Malaysia or 1 Malay, 1 Chinese, 1 Indian …

But soon the people realized that 1 Malaysia was to divide Malaysians into 1 Malay, 1 Chinese, 1 Indian and 1 Every Other Race in this country. Even your Deputy says that he is Malay first and Malaysian second, so how can your 1 Malaysia survive in a divided country.

Now we have new issues in hand , a Cow Head and a Cow Gate scandal, both of which you condone. We have Churches raided and razed, we have Mosques desecrated with pig heads and paint, we have dangerous accusations being flung around of Christians proselytizing Muslims but nothing is done to punish the accusers despite their flimsy evidence.

We also have the racist Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, who can get away with anything with the backing of the Puppet Master. And not a word will you utter to defend the minority, whom you are duty-bound to protect. What can we conclude but the obvious – you are also in cahoots with them.

And at your own personal level, don’t forget the Birkin bags, the Diamond ring, the taxpayers-paid private family holidays, shopping sprees and misuse of Public Funds on Personal Agenda such as your daughter’s engagement party. Not to mention the still unexplained murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu and the RM570million Scorpene submarines kickback.

The Pied Piper of Malaysia

So you see Mr Prime Minister, we do need a Pied Piper to get rid of all this evil. We are already hearing the tune from the magical pipe that the Pakatan Rakyat and its conductor Anwar Ibrahim, are blowing.

We are going to follow in droves to the polling stations soon to ensure an end to your Barisan National rule. So Pakatan, you are indeed the Pied Piper that the Prime Minister said you were.

And Pakatan should be proud of it because behind you will follow millions of Malaysians who will place their hope and aspirations in your leaders.

This then is the story of the Pied Piper – not of Hamelin – but of Malaysia. Not 1 Malaysia – but just Malaysia, and that is good enough.

By Tariq Ramadan, Special to Gulf News

Tariq Ramadan is professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University and a visiting professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Qatar. He is the author of Islam and the Arab Awakening.

Dari Shahbudin.com

Semakin hampir tiba detik pilihanraya, serangan peribadi kepada Anwar semakin memuncak. Bekas pemimpin-pemimpin PKR sperti Ezam Mohd Nor, Anuar Shaari, Nallakaruppan, Zulkifli Nordin dan lain-lain nampaknya begitu rancak menyerang peribadi Anwar berkaitan isu seks dan moral. Umi Hafilda yang merupakan adik kepada Azmin Ali turut tumpang semangkuk menghangatkan lagi suasana dengan dakwaan yang jika dihalusi lebih bersifat masalah kekeluargaan semata-mata.

Mereka berjanji untuk berkempen ke seluruh negara bersama isu seks, liwat dan biseksual yang dikaitkan dengan Anwar itu. Di dada media dan kaca tv, mereka sudah muncul hampir setiap hari dengan isu yang sama seolah-olah itulah isu pokok dalam politik negara dan penentuan rakyat terhadap parti yang ingin diberikan kuasa.

Modal mereka hanyalah isu seks dan liwat yang dikaitkan dengan Anwar dan sudah pun menjadi pengetahuan umum sebenarnya sejak Anwar dipecat pada 1998 lagi. Mereka hanya mengulang-ulang cerita lama seolah-olah mereka mengetahui segala-galanya walaupun dalam dalam kes liwat pertama, Anwar sudah dibebaskan oleh mahkamah dan dalam kes liwat kedua, juga sudah dibebaskan di peringkat Mahkamah Tinggi. Ia kini sedang menunggu proses rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan.

Cerita seks dan liwat ini sudah diulang banyak kali walaupun hakikatnya rakyat menolak permainan menyerang peribadi secara keterlaluan itu. Lihatlah keputusan beberapa pilihanraya kecil sebelum ini dan arus sokongan rakyat di merata-rata tempat sekarang, jelas dapat dilihat bahawa isu ini tidak menjadi kudis kepada rakyat. Bahkan lagi disebut dan diulang cerita seks dan liwat itu, makin mencanak sokongan rakyat kepada Anwar.

Sesetengah rakyat tidak mempercayai isu seks dan liwat itu dan menganggapnya cubaan untuk membunuh karier politik Anwar yang direka sejak zaman Mahathir lagi. Sesetengah yang lain pula menganggapnya sebagai mainan politik longkang yang cuba dilakukan oleh BN untuk memenangi pilihanraya. BN dilihat seolah-olah sudah kering idea dan tiada modal lain untuk mendapatkan sokongan rakyat dan berhadapan dengan Anwar serta Pakatan Rakyat.

Jika diperhatikan gerak laku dan perangai bekas pemimpin PKR yang mengaitkan Anwar dengan pelbagai dakwaan berkaitan seks dan liwat itu, amat nyata bahawa bahawa mereka ingin menjadi hero dalam pilihanraya akan datang ini. Mereka ingin membunuh karektor Anwar dan mahu rakyat terus memilih BN semata-mata atas alasan Anwar seorang pemimpin yang tidak baik moralnya dan dikatakan gila seks.

Keghairahan mereka menonjolkan diri dalam media dan di sisi Najib telah menenggelamkan kewujudan pemimpin dalam UMNO sendiri. Peranan Ketua Bahagian dan Ahli Majlis Tertinggi UMNO seolah-olah tidak wujud dalam mempertahankan UMNO dan Najib. Sepanjang masa suara Najib lebih banyak disahut oleh mereka ini berbanding pemimpin dalam UMNO sendiri. Benarkan kata Tun Daim, Najib dalam persiapan menghadapi pilihanraya ini umpama jeneral tanpa askar.

Dalam masa yang sama, dengan menonjolkan isu seks dan liwat, penilaian rakyat cuba ditutup terhadap isu kenaikan harga barang, beban hidup yang meningkat, rasuah makin berleluasa, skandal lembu NFC, pelupusan hutang Tajudin Ramli sebanyak RM589 juta, hutang negara mencecah hampir 55 peratus KDNK negara, ekonomi yang tidak berkembang, urus tadbir negara yang lemah dan pelbagai isu lainnya yang menghenyak kehidupan rakyat seharian.

Apakah mungkin isu seks dan liwat itu mampu menjadikan rakyat buta hati dan melupakan isu lain seperti yang disebutkan diatas tadi?

Sudah bertahun-tahun terbukti bahawa isu seks, liwat dan biseksual yang dikaitkan dengan Anwar tidak memberi kesan apa-apa kepada kepada rakyat dan tindakan Ezam, Nalla, Umi Hafilda, Anuar Shaari serta rakan-rakan mereka yang lain terus membangkitkan isu itu tidak lain hanya umpama menambahbesarkan lagi kubur politik untuk Najib saja.

Anwar tidak akan ke mana-mana dek serangan itu tetapi sebaliknya Najib yang makin ditolak rakyat.

Najib yang kini bagaikan tercungap-cungap untuk mempertahankan kuasa, akan lebih ditolak rakyat dengan isu seks, liwat dan biseksual yang berterusan dibangkitkan ini kerana dalam masa yang sama beliau gagal menyelesaikan pelbagai isu dalam negara dan memberi jaminan tentang kehidupan yang lebih baik untuk rakyat.

Berbeza dengan Anwar dan Pakatan Rakyat, selain menjanjikan pengurusan ekonomi dan negara yang lebih baik, mereka juga menjanjikan penurunan harga minyak dalam tempoh 24 selepas menawan Putrajaya, kajian semula tarif letrik dan terbaru penghapusan hutang PTPTN pelajar serta jaminan memberi pendidikan percuma untuk rakyat.

Tawaran-tawaran itu tentunya lebih menawan hati rakyat berbanding hidangan cerita seks, liwat, biseksual dan dakwaan Umi Hafilfa terhadap Anwar dan Azmin yang lebih merupakan masalah keluarga. Masalah keluarga sepatutnya diselesaikan dengan kaedah kekeluargaan dan tindakan Umi Hafilda menyeret masalah keluarganya ke dalam UMNO dan BN hanya akan menambahkan lagi beban Najib dalam pilihanraya ini.

Jika benar bekas-bekas pemimpin PKR ini ingin membantu Najib dan mahu melihat UMNO dan BN terus berkuasa, mereka sepatutnya bukan menjaja cerita seks dan liwat terhadap Anwar yang dikitar semula tetapi mendedahkan bagaimanakah strategi dan rahsia PKR menghadapi beberapa piliharaya sebelum ini sehingga mampu memenangi beberapa kawasan pilihanraya. Mereka juga boleh menceritakan bagaimana untuk mendekati generasi muda kerana luka yang ditinggalkan Ezam kepada Pemuda UMNO khususnya ketika zaman kebangkitan reformasi masih segar dalam ingatan sebahagian besar ahli UMNO sendiri.

Atau setidak-tidaknya memberi idea bagaimana untuk melawan janji penurunan harga minyak, letrik dan penghapusan hutang PTPTN yang dibawa oleh Anwar dan Pakatan Rakyat yang dilihat begitu berjaya menawan hati rakyat.

Menjaja cerita seks dan mengulang skrip lama terhadap Anwar hanya mendedahkan tembelang ingin muncul hero di sisi Najib tetapi tiada idea segar yang boleh diterima rakyat. Di dalam UMNO sendiri kaedah yang digunakan oleh bekas pemimpin PKR ini tidak begitu disenangi kerana didapati gagal menarik sokongan rakyat. Ceramah yang mereka buat juga selama ini hanya dihadiri oleh AJK UMNO Bahagian, AJK UMNO cawangan-cawangan serta kelompok yang dekat dengan pimpinan UMNO saja. Tidak ada rakyat biasa yang mahu hadir dan mendengar ceramah Ezam dan rakan-rakannya dan ahli UMNO juga tidak bertambah hanya kerana ceramah mereka. Lebih dari itu, tidak ada ahli PKR atau Pas yang keluar parti dan menyertai UMNO disebabkan oleh Ezam, Nalla, Anuar Shaari dan Umi Hafilda.

Mereka mungkin berjaya menjadi senator dan mengaut sedikit habuan ekonomi tetapi sumbangan terbesar ialah kejayaan membesarkan lagi kubur politik untuk Najib dalam PRU 13 ini.

Malaysia Chronicle

Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has admitted that it would be difficult to predict the results of the 13th general election due to the “confusing” signals received from the ground.

“What is certain, it won’t be easy for BN to get two-thirds majority this time. The opposition now is not like that of the past, and the current situation is rather confusing,” Bernama reported Mahathir as saying.

Such an acknowledgement must have been hard for Mahathir to make, given that the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition is led by Anwar Ibrahim, whom he has tried hard to chop down to size and even oust from the political arena completely.

In 1998, fearing Anwar’s popularity and growing clout with the Malays, Mahathir threw trumped-up sodomy and corruption charges at his his former deputy and succeeded in jailing Anwar for 6 years. It was only after Mahathir retired that the Federal Court could summon enough courage to overthrow the charges and acquit Awar.

Now 64, Anwar is poised to lead the Pakatan into its second general election as a coalition. Although denied formal registration by the Registrar of Societies, the Pakatan parties of PKR, PAS and DAP have signed a Common Policy Framework and agreed on a joint manifesto – the Buku Jingga – for GE-13.Meanwhile, GE-13 is expected to be held before the end of this year.

Gaining strength

Since the 12th general election in 2008, the Pakatan has been gaining from strength to strength, with two of the four states it governs – Selangor and Penang – praised by the Auditor General as the best managed. Both Penang and Selangor have also drawn most FDI, trouncing the BN-ruled states.

A resurgent Anwar and Pakatan are now rated as having an even chance on improving on their 2008 electoral performance, with many pundits predicting they might even wrest the federal government from Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Mahathir apparently shares this view, saying that the various assumptions made about the support for BN were fluid, with some people saying it was increasing and others saying otherwise. Mahathir did not point the finger at anyone, but a day ago, he called on Najib to allow ‘outsiders’ to contest for seats under the Umno ticket.

Mahathir lamented the shortage of ‘smart’ Malays in Umno, a situation that perhaps he is most to blame for due to his refusal to soften his hardline stance during his 22-year rule from 1981 to 2003. Indeed, during his tenure, Malaysia experience huge ‘brain drain” including from the Malay community, but Mahathir had always dismissed the issue as minor and with a ‘let them leave if they wish’.

“None of Mahathir policies contributed to building a succession line in Umno, so what is there to say now. And the damage was not only to Umno but extended to the overall economy, where Malaysia lost talent beyond what it could afford. The effects on the economy are being played out now and if not reversed soon by fresh policies and reforms, we can expect further all-encompassing deterioration,” Ramon Navaratnam, the chairman of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, told Malaysia Chronicle.

Najib failed to deliver

In recent weeks, former Finance minister Daim Zainuddin had predicted BN would easily win in only three states – Johor, Melaka and Pahang. A large portion of the blame has been directed at Najib for failing to lead Umno-BN out of its quagmire.

Umno appointed Najib as their president in 2009 after forcing his predecessor Abdullah Badawi into early retirement for losing 5 states out of 13 to the Pakatan as well as the BN’s long-held two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Mahathir and other Umno leaders had hoped that Najib would reverse the slide and regain the crucial two-thirds majority, which would allow them to amend key laws to stay in power for perhaps a few more decades. But Najib’s clumsy political maneuvers were soon rejected by the people, who now see him as a fraud.

In his comments, it was telling for Daim to point out that if Najib failed to improve on Badawi’s results, he would have to step down in favor of either his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin or a ‘new challenger’. So far, no dark horse has emerged but bets are on that it could be Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who has lambasted Najib for his uneven-handed policies and lack of leadership.

During Najib’s tenure which began in April 2009, Malaysia suffered its worst bouts of racial and religious intolerance. Extremist groups such as Perkasa and Jati were fostered and allowed to flourish. At the same time, Najib preached policies of moderation to the West. But it looks like even they have found him out, with the influential Washington Post slamming him as a “champion of double-talk”.

Nonetheless, even with his mandate to rule expiring in March 2013, Najib has continued with the same strategies of gutter politicking against Anwar, using racism and religious bigotry to scare the Malays into voting for Umno so that it can ‘protect’ them from the non-Malays.

Meawhile, the economy remains neglected and soft due to Najib’s frequent overseas trips which have been criticized for burning a hole in taxpayers’ pockets.

Corruption remains at a record high, with Malaysia slipping 4 spots to 60 in the 2011 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. Malaysia scored 4.3 compared to New Zealand, the least corrupt at 9.5, and Somalia and North Korea who each scored 1.0, making them the two most corrupt nations in the survey. In ASEAN, Singapore scored 9.3 and Brunei 6.3.

Ihsan TVPAS

Malaysiakini

Pakatan Rakyat has condemned the latest move to instil fears about threats of Christianity being spread in in the country, blaming it as tactic by Umno to “frighten” the Muslim Malay majority.

“I want to state that Umno is mighty in Malaysia. Umno is in charge of religion, Umno is in charge of the finances, so if the allegations (of attempts to spread Christianity) are true, that means Umno has failed to strengthen the faith of the Muslims,” Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said.

Speaking at a press conference in the Parliament today, Anwar pointed out that there were adequate legal measures that could be imposed on any movement that threatened the faith of the Muslims in Malaysia.

He said this in response to a letter announcing a seminar to be held on Saturday, organised by the Johor Education Department .

The seminar is titled Pemantapan Aqidah, Bahaya Liberalisme dan Pluralism Serta Ancaman Kristianisasi Terhadap Umat Islam. Apa Peranan Guru? (Strengthening Faith, Dangers of Liberalism and Pluralism and the threat of Christianity towards Muslims. What is the Role of Teachers?)

The letter, addressed to primary and secondary schools heads in the Johor Baru district, requires two religious teachers from each of the 55 schools in the district to attend the seminar.

TVRI stesen  rasmi Republik Indonesia akan menyiarkan rakaman wawancara khas bersama Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim  jam 10:30 malam ini. Program yang bertajuk ‘fokus Internasoinal‘ ini memberi penekanan kepada buku yang pernah ditulis oleh beliau pada tahun 1996 berjudul “Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia”.

Klik untuk menyaksikan siaran di link ini: TVRI NASIONAL

Keadilankini

SHAH ALAM, 23 Mac: Muafakat Pakatan Rakyat dipegang teguh melalui deklarasi khas yang ditandatangani oleh tiga pemimpin tertinggi Pakatan Rakyat, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit siang dan juga Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang pada 8 September 2008 yang lalu.

Timbalan Presiden KEADILAN, Azmin Ali sewaktu membahas titafh diraja Dewan Negeri Selangor menekankan melalui deklarasi Pakatan Rakyat akan mempertahankan dasar-dasar seperti kedudukan Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan dan menjamin kebebasan mengamalkan agama-agama lain.

Menurutnya lagi, kedaulatan bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan dan mempertahankan hak bahasa ibunda serta kedaulatan Raja-Raja Melayu, malah kedudukan hak-hak istimewa orang Melayu dan bumiputera serta hak-hak semua kaum yang telah dijamin oleh Perlembangaan.

“Ada pihak yang cuba menyinggung kita dengan membuat dakyah bahawa apabila Pakatan Rakyat menerajui Putrajaya, kita akan menukar pemerintahan Raja Berperlembagaan kepada sistem Republik.

“Ini adalah satu fitnah jahat yang bertentangan dengan akidah seorang Islam, sebaik sahaja berlaku tsunami politik pada tahun 2008, Pakatan Rakyat telah mengulangi ikrar melalui deklarasi khas yang ditandatangani oleh 3 pemimpin tertinggi Pakatan Rakyat iaitu YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Lim Kit Siang dan YB Dato’ Seri Abdul Hadi Awang pada 8 September 2008 dan in merupakan ikrar muafakat Pakatan Rakyat,” jelas Azmin.

Tambahnya, pengurusan ekonomi negeri yang terus berkembang biarpun berhadapan dengan persekitaran luar yang mencabar membuktikan kemampuan Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim dan Kerajaan Negeri mengurus khazanah dan amanah dengan tanggungjawab walaupun ada tekanan ke atas kerajaan negeri termasuk tekanan politik daripada Kerajaan Pusat yang menyalahgunakan institusi Kerajaan bagi tujuan politik mereka untuk merampas Negeri Selangor.

“Alhamdulillah, rakyat mengecapi hasil negeri yang merupakan hak mereka dan bukan kurniaan daripada pemerintah. Fakta, angka dan statistik yang dikemukakan ini membuktikan Pakatan Rakyat berupaya untuk mentadbir negeri dan mengurus ekonomi dengan berkesan berteraskan prinsip kewangan yang berhemah, tatakelola yang baik dan prinsip value for money.

“Selain pengurusan ekonomi, tadbir urus yang berkesan juga penting bagi sesebuah kerajaan yang unggul. Bagi memastikan tadbir urus negeri berada pada tahap yang terbaik, pentadbiran kerajaan harus memiliki ciri-ciri menggalakkan penyertaan rakyat, keputusan yang berorientasikan konsensus, telus, responsif, berkesan dan cekap, saksama dan inklusif serta menurut kedaulatan undang-undang,” sambung Adun Bukit Antarabangasa itu lagi.

Walau bagaimanapun, menurut Azmin karenah birokrasi yang keterlaluan menjadikan sistem penyampaian Kerajaan tidak efisyen seterusnya membantutkan produktiviti negeri.

“Sebagai sebuah kerajaan reformasi, sistem penyampaian  perlu menjadi keutamaan demi perkhidmatan kepada rakyat. Teknologi tinggi serba canggih serta keterbukaan teknologi maklumat harus menjadi asas reformasi sistem pentadbiran. Pentadbiran yang menggunapakai teknologi dapat menjimatkan kos, masa dan mengurangkan karenah birokrasi yang membebankan rakyat,” tambahnya.

Ini bukan sahaja menjamin usaha tadbir urus yang baik tetapi juga merupakan suatu usaha untuk memastikan pengurusan dan sistem perkhidmatan pentadbiran efisyen dan lancar. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor percaya pengurusan yang cekap adalah pengurusan yang mengurangkan karenah birokrasi dan meringankan kos yang ditanggung oleh rakyat.

I am deeply concerned with Lembaga Tabung Haji’s (LTH) continued missteps in its investment decisions affecting its 5.1 million depositors. Recently its investment in Silver Bird Group Bhd – which has received much negative press from concerned quarters including the Muslim Consumers Association Malaysia (PPIM) has come into question.

Silver Bird Group Bhd was designated a PN17 status (Practice Note 17 Financial Distress Status) since February 29, 2012 by Bursa Malaysia. Silver Bird’s woes affects LTH as the latter is one of the largest shareholders in the former (22.19%); leaving LTH exposed to Silver Bird’s estimated RM111.5 million financial shortfall.

Pattern of Questionable Investment and Decision Making
This is not an isolated case, as Ramunia Holdings Berhad, a company which is 25.17% owned by LTH, is similarly listed as a PN17 company. Needless to say, LTH’s investments in various listed companies have been under much scrutiny in the last few years.

Besides the investment in Silver Bird Group Bhd and Ramunia Holdings Bhd, there is also the case of an unfair tender conducted for IT related project named “Queue Management System” -and ended up being awarded to less experienced individuals. Just last week, PPIM had urged the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate the alleged irregularities in relation to the said project tender. (PPIM, 14 Mac 2012)

Additionally, the newly appointed yet sudden resignation of LTHs Chief Investment Officer (CIO), Halim Alias after Petra Perdana’s EGM on Feb 4th 2010 further reinforces the notion that the LTH’s decision making and investment foray is in fact, problematic.

A report with the MACC was also lodged, leading to the investigations of five members of a syndicate, including Tabung Haji officers, who have allegedly been offering “express haj” services to pilgrims.

Immediate Action Must be Taken

Former Chairman and General Director of TH, Tan Sri Hanafiah Ahmad said that an independent investigation should be expedited because of the many activities by the board’s investment panel being questioned by depositors. (March 7, 2010 Utusan Malaysia). At the same time, the Secretary General of the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (Fomca) Sha’ani Abdullah said: “accountability and transparency of LTH investment is not satisfactory.” (February 27, 2010, StarBiz)

The pattern of consistent investment failures have led to the questioning on the integrity investment decision making made, especially a concern for all LTH depositors. Immediate and decisive action must be taken to allay depositors fear and doubts on the viability of LTHs investments.

I therefore urge Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, Minister in the Prime Minister Office, to appoint an independent auditor to investigate in detail the activities of all LTH investments and its subsidiaries to that the investment and fund management decision making is free from any allegations of fraud and wrongdoing.

I hope that the truth in these issues will be discovered and disclosed, in the interest of many Malaysians who have entrusted their savings as well as belief in Lembaga Tabung Haji.

Nurul Izzah Anwar
Lembah Pantai, M.P.
Vice President, Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Mutakhir ini isu Salman Rushdie menjadi pilihan media UMNO dalam cubaan  mereka untuk terus menyerang karektor peribadi Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Kehadiran Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim diatas jemputan penganjur India Today Conclave 2012 pada 16 March, 2012 telah dimanipulasi ekoran kehadiran sama Salman Rushdie.

Ingin diperjelaskan bahawa Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim mempunyai slot yang berbeza dengan Salman dan beliau diundang untuk memberi ucapan sehari sebelum slot yang menampilkan Salman.

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah memboikot acara yang melibatkan Salman Rushdie pada keesokan harinya iaitu 17 March 2012 bagi tanda memprotes tulisan kontroversinya yang menghina peribadi Rasullullah SAW.

Berikut adalah  Keratan Akhbar  dari Asiaweek bertarikh 17 November 1993 yang menjelaskan pendirian Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkenaan  isu Salman Rushdie.

Soalan yang terkandung dalam petikan tersebut antaranya menyebut begini:

Should the Ayatollah Khomeinei’s death sentence on Salman Rushdie be lifted?

Jawapan  Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim:

I have read the Satanic Verses. I also read Midnight’s Children much earlier. I think he’s a profound writer. I disagree with him in The Satanic Verses, but you have to deal with this situation. First it is a literary piece. And second I think any ruling on any ill doing by any person must be determined by a court of law. I dont believe it’s legitimate for someone to make a pronouncement to condemn any person. If countries dispute the writings of Salman, it should be brought to trial. …

In the name of God, prayers and peace be upon His Messenger, his household, companions, and supporters.

Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters may God’s peace and blessings be upon you.

I thank the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak to this distinguished elite of Tunisian men and women and those coming from abroad. I am not here to teach you anything, since the subject we are here to discuss has no set instructions to be delivered but rather only points of view to be deepened and efforts to reach a common ground that would enable our elite to reach a consensus or at least a quasi-consensus.

Our topic is quite problematic in the sense that it deals with the Islam’s relationship to secularism. Is this relationship one of conflict and disaccord or one of harmony and overlap? Related to this question are issues such as Islam’s relationship to governance, the relation between Islam and Law, which are all contentious matters.

It seems that when we speak of secularism and Islam, as if we are talking about evident and clear concepts. However, a non-negligible amount of ambiguity and multiplicity of understandings surround these concepts, in that we are not talking about ‘a’ secularism but rather a multitude of secularisms as is the case with Islam, by virtue of what is proposed in the arena, we are faced with various understandings of what it means.

Although secularism seems as if it was a philosophy and the fruit of philosophical reflections and meditations which came to fight idealist and religious outlooks, it is not so. Secularism appeared, evolved, and crystallized in the West as procedural solutions, and not as a philosophy or theory of existence, to problems that had been posed in the European context. Most of these problems emerged following the Protestant split in the West, which tore apart the consensus that had been dominant in the Catholic Church, and imposed the religious wars in the 16th and 17th century. It was thus that Secularism and/or secularization began.

This leads us to ask the following question: are we in need of secularism in its procedural aspect? Perhaps the most important idea in the ensemble of these procedures is the idea of the state’s neutrality i.e. towards religions and its abstention from interfering with people’s consciences. Whereas, the state’s scope or jurisdiction is limited to the ‘Public Domain’, religion’s scope extends to the ‘Private’. In the United States religious interference in the public domain is evident, despite the differentiation that exists there remains a significant religious influence. Their leaders’ speeches are laden with religious content and references, and religion is debated in all electoral campaigns where it manifests itself in issues such as prayer in schools and abortion. This in reality is due to the fact that America was founded by evangelical pilgrims fleeing with their religion from the Catholic Church’s persecution in Europe. It is for this reason that the U.S. is looked at as the Promised Land, the land of dreams mentioned in the Torah and Gospels.

As the Franco-American thinker Tocqueville once remarked that the Church is the most powerful party in the United States. This is by virtue of the huge influence that it enjoys, though this is not the case in Europe. Whereas the number of those who can lead prayer in the US exceeds 50%, in Europe it does not reach 5%.

In the European context, also, there are differences in the state’s relationship with religion between the French heritage and Anglo-Saxon one, whereby in the UK the Queen combines the temporal and the religious powers. The complete separation is the one that is associated with the French experience, which resulted from the clashes that took place in French history between the revolutionaries’ state and the Catholic Church. Even in Europe, therefore, we are not dealing with one experience in secularism, perhaps for our purposes, since our elite is influenced by the particular French perspective (particular even for Europeans) where religion is totally excluded from the public sphere and the state considers itself as the sole guardian of national identity. This exclusion of the religious and its symbols from the public domain is what lead France to be the only country that refused the covering of heads for Muslim women, while we don’t see such a crisis in any other European country over the issue of headscarves. This is exclusively due to the particular nature of the relationship between state and religion in France which was the result of a particular historical experience.

We in turn are not faced with one understanding; perhaps the most important procedure invented by the secular worldview on this level is the state’s neutrality. In other words, the state is the guarantor of all freedoms be them religious, political or otherwise. And the state should not interfere in favor of this or that party. We pose the following question now: Is Islam in need of such a procedure? i.e. the state’s neutrality towards the various religions.

Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics, religion and state. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder of the religion as well as the state. The first pledge of allegiance made by the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge to believe in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protect the Muslims, even by sword, should al-Madina be attacked. Al-Madina, and this expression is of the utmost importance, used to be called Yathrib before becoming Al-Madina (The City) which implies that Islam is not merely a religion but also carries a civilizational meaning. It is a transferring of people from Bedouin life to urban/civilizational life. This is why ‘Bedouinization’ was considered a great sin once urbanization had been achieved. No wonder then that wherever Islam went it established cities and our country hosts the oldest city built by Arabs in North Africa. Therefore, The City founded by the Prophet (pbuh) is a clear indication that Islam is a religion of civilization, whereby it shifted those warring tribes from a Bedouin level to a civilized one and united them around a state.

The Prophet (pbuh) was a an imam in the religious sense as he lead prayers in mosques, and at the same time a political imam that arbitrated people’s disputes, lead armies, and signed various accords and treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival to Medina he established a mosque and put in place a constitution that was called Al-Sahifah. You have precedents here Mustapha! [In reference to Mr Mustapha Ben Ja'afar, President of the Constituent Assembly, who was present in the audience]. This Sahifah, which is one of the oldest constitutions in the world, contained a bundle of covenants regulating the relations between Meccan immigrants and their hosts (these were considered as one nation) and the Jewish tribes of Madina (also considered a nation). Al-Sahifa considered these two religious nations as comprising one political nation and entity that is distinct from others. The most important concept offered by such scholars as Muhammad Salim Al ‘Awwa and Muhammad ‘Umar is the distinction between the religious and the political as corresponding to the separation between state and religion.

The distinction between that which is political and that which is religious is clear in the Sahifah in that Muslims are a religious nation (ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of the two plus other polytheists made up a nation in the political sense. This distinction can be witnessed in the Prophet’s dealings even if the boundaries were not always clear. Whereas the religious is the sphere of observance and obligation, the political is the sphere of reason and Ijtihad. At times when the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet (pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. In the case of the former they would obey, and when it is the latter they may differ and offer alternatives. On more than one occasion did the companions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head of state, and Sheikh Tahar Ben Ashour has dealt in detail with the topic of what he called ‘Prophetic Statuses’.

One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinating palm trees and said: ‘I do not see the benefit of doing so.’ The Medinan people thought that that was divine revelation and stopped treating their trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser quality. They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: you are best placed to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires. Therefore, it is not the duty of religion to teach us agricultural, industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified to reach these truths through the accumulation of experiences. The role of religion, however, is to answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose for which we were created, and to provide us with a system of values and principles that would guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state to which we aspire.

So, Islam since its inception and throughout its history has not known this separation between state and religion in the sense of excluding religion from public life. And Muslims, to this day, have been influenced by Islam and inspired by its teachings and guidance in their civic life, with the distinction remaining clear. This distinction between the religious and the political is also clear in the thought of Islamic scholars/jurists. They have distinguished between the system of transactions/dealings (Mu’amalat) and that of worship (‘Ibadat). Whereas the latter is the domain of constancy and observance i.e. reason cannot reach the truth, the former is the domain of searching for the general interest, for Islam came to realize people’s interests as confirmed by such great jurists as Al-Shatibi and Ibn ‘Ashour. These scholars have agreed that the highest objective of all divine messages is to establish justice and realize people’s interests, and this is done through the use of reason in light of the guidelines, objectives, values, and principles provided by religion. Thus, there is a domain of transactions/dealings which is constantly evolving and represents the sphere of variables, and there is the domain of creed, values, and virtues which represents the sphere of constants.

Throughout Islamic history, the state has always been influenced by Islam in one way or another in its practices, and its laws were legislated for in light of the Islamic values as understood at that particular time and place. Despite this, states remained Islamic not in the sense that their laws and procedures were divinely revealed, but that they were human endeavours open to challenge and criticism. States have also practiced a degree of neutrality, and when they tried to interfere and impose one understanding on Muslims, as happened in the Abbasids state, it sparked revolution. It is mentioned that al-Mansour had become concerned with the multitude of religious views and interpretations emanating from the same religion and feared their divisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him to amalgamate all these in one to unify people’s outlooks. Imam Malik produced his famous book al-Muwatta’, with which al-Mansour was greatly pleased and wanted it to become a law that binds all Muslims. This horrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so, because the Prophet’s companions have travelled to different lands and took with them much knowledge, so allow people to choose what they see fit. This is why we see that one school of thought is dominant in the Maghreb, while another is so in the Levant, and yet another in Egypt…etc

It is due to the absence of a church in Islam that what remains is the freedom of thought and interpretation. This will naturally lead to a diversity in interpretation, and there is no harm in that except when we need to legislate, at which time we are in need of a mechanism, and the best mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which produces representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as opposed to an individual effort. Again, in the absence of a church representing the sacred on earth and a spokesperson of the Qur’an, the nation is the only manifestation of divine will through its interactions and not any particular scholar, party, or state.

When al-Ma’moun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation of the Quran and one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of the Mu’tazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal revolted and refused the state’s attempt to dominate religion. This lead to him being persecuted and tortured, but in the end he managed to turn public opinion against the state and force al-Ma’moun to cede.

While the problematique in the west revolved around ways of liberating the state from religion and lead to destructive wars, in our context the problem is one of liberating religion from the state and preventing it from dominating religion, and keeping the latter in the societal realm, open to all Muslims to read the Qur’an and understand it in the manner that they deem appropriate, and that there is no harm in the plurality that is combined with tolerance. But should Muslims be in need of laws, the democratic mechanism is the best embodiment of the Shura (consultation) value in Islam.

It is of the utmost importance that our heritage is devoid of a church. Maybe only our Shi’ah brothers hold the belief in a religious institution, but in the Sunni world there is no such a thing save for a council of scholars which are usually in disagreement and hold different views. For this reason, we are in need of scholars and intellectuals to debate and study our issues in a climate of freedom and accept that the legislative institution is the ultimate authority by virtue of being elected.

There is a debate that is currently ongoing in our country between secular currents which may be described as extremist and Islamist ones which may be described in like manner. One would like to impose their understanding of Islam from above using state tools and apparatuses and the other aspires to strip the state, educational curricula, and national culture of all Islamic influences. At a time when the whole world, including the Islamic world, is witnessing a religious awakening, and having seen the role played by the Catholic Church in the development of Eastern Europe, starting with the efforts of Pope John Paul II, and also the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the success of Putin’s presidential campaign. At such a junction in time, it is unreasonable to object to religious influence on the state’s cultural and educational policies. In fact, we do not need do impose Islam because it is the people’s religion and not the elite’s, and Islam has not endured for so long because of states’ influence but rather due to the large acceptance it enjoys among its adherents, in fact the state has often been a burden on religion.

As I said, many of those who belong to the Islamist current and others fear the religion’s emancipation from the state to be left as a societal matter. Why does the state train Imams? Why does it control mosques?

The issue of the state’s neutrality involves a great deal of risk and adventure. If what is meant by the separation between religion and state is that the state is a human product and religion a divine revelation as the distinction was made clear in the context of the early Muslims between the realm of revelation (wahy) and what was the realm of the political, then it is ok. But if what is mean is the separation in the French sense or in accordance with the Marxist experience then we may engage in a dangerous adventure that may harm both religion and state. The total stripping of the state from religion would turn the state into a mafia, and the world economic system into an exercise in plundering, and politics into deception and hypocrisy. And this is exactly what happened in the Western experience, despite there being some positive aspects. International politics became the preserve of a few financial brokers owning the biggest share of capital and by extension the media, through which they ultimately control politicians.

In this context, people are deeply in need of religion and its spiritual and moral guidance which would enable them to distinguish between right and wrong (halal and haram). And in the absence of a Church that monopolises the definition of what is halal and haram, this task is left to be debated by the elite of thinkers, the people and the media.

Should religion be entirely emancipated from the state and politics, this would also carry some risks whereby things would get out of control and social harmony would be endangered. The way to do it, therefore, is to find a balance that would guarantee people’s freedom and rights, because religion is here to do exactly that. To achieve this balance, we need to go back to the issue of distinguishing between religion and politics and adjust the parameters of what is constant in religion and that which is variable. We need our legislators to be well acquainted, educated and versed in religious values, so that when they are legislating they do not require the tutelage of religious scholars and authorities, and the same goes for politicians. There is no value to any religious observance that is motivated through coercion. It is of no use to turn those who are disobedient to God into hypocrites through the state’s coercive tools. People are created free and while it is possible to have control over their external aspects, it is impossible to do so over their inner selves and convictions.

This is exactly why we saw two models in dealing with issue of the headscarf/veil, the first is a veil that is dictated and imposed by the state and the second is a veil forbidden by it. Once I was in a Muslim country’s (in reference to Saudi Arabia?) airport where all women were covered, but as soon as the plane took off the veils flew away with it. This is a clear failure of that country’s educational system, which was unable to guarantee people’s religiosity except through coercive tools. In Ben Ali’s Tunisia, women were forbidden from wearing the veil and express themselves in whatever appearance they saw fit, also through the state’s coercive means. This was also a failure.

The primary orbit for religion is not the state’s apparatuses, but rather personal/individual convictions. The state’s duty, however, is to provide services to people before anything else, to create job opportunities, and to provide good health and education not to control people’s hearts and minds. For this reason, I have opposed the coercion of people in all its forms and manifestation and have dealt with such controversial topics such as al-Riddah (apostasy) and have defended the freedom of people to either adhere to or defect from a religious creed, based on the Qur’anic verse that says: ‘there is no compulsion in religion’.

There is no meaning in forcing people to become Muslims, the Muslim nation has in no need for hypocrites who manifest belief and conceal disbelief. Freedom is the primary value through which a person adheres to Islam, so he who announces his shahadatayn (‘I declare that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his final Messenger’) does so on the basis of free choice underpinned by awareness and conviction. In this manner, the state is Islamic insofar that it assures its actions are in accordance with Islam’s values without being subjected to the tutelage of any religious institution for there is no such a thing in Islam. Rather there is a people and a nation who are the decision makers through their institutions.

When the Meccan people objected to Muhammad’s religion, he asked them not to interfere with his preaching activities and to allow him the freedom to communicate his message to the people. Had the Meccans accorded the Prophet (pbuh) the freedom of expression, he would not have immigrated and left his homeland. But because his message was so powerful, they could not offer an alternative to counteract it. This is why Muslims consider Islam’s proof to be so powerful that there is no need to coerce people, and when the voice of Islam proclaims ‘Produce your proof if ye are truthful’ this challenge is being proposed at the heart of the political and intellectual conflict.

Thus, the greater part of the debate taking place nowadays in our country is a misunderstanding of such concept as secularism and Islam. We demonstrated that secularism is not an atheist philosophy but merely a set of procedural arrangements designed to safeguard the freedom of belief and thought as Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri distinguished, in his writings, between partial and total secularisms. An example of the latter would be the Jacobin model in French history. In their war on priesthood, the Jacobins’ raised the following slogan: “strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest.” This is a French specificity and not the absolute definition of secularism. There is also an ambiguity regarding Islam, for there are those who believe that Islam can only be victorious by confiscating people’s freedom and imposing prayers, fasting, and the veil through force. This would be far from being a success, for Allah Almighty had considered hypocrisy to be the greatest crime, and the hellfire to be the eternal abode of Hypocrites.

The fact that our revolution has succeeded in toppling a dictator, we ought to accept the principle of citizenship, and that this country does not belong to one party or another but rather to all of its citizens regardless of their religion, sex, or any other consideration. Islam has bestowed on them the right to be citizens enjoying equal rights, and to believe in whatever they desire within the framework of mutual respect, and observance of the law which is legislated for by their representatives in parliament.

This is my understanding of things, and my view with regards to Islam’s relation to secularism. I hope that I have touched on the main issues, and I thank you profusely for your attention.

Transcripted and translated by: Brahim Rouabah/CSID

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Datuk Seri Wan Azizah tidak akan hadir ke acara petang ini kerana membantah kehadiran Salaman Rushdie yang secara biadab menghina RasululLah

The Malaysian Insider

Oleh Subky Latif

9 MAC — Saya tidak bercadang untuk membela Anwar Ibrahim yang menyatakan boleh menimbang menjamin keselamatan Israel dengan syarat-syarat yang dijangka tidak akan diterima oleh Israel.

Tetapi Perdana Menteri Najib Razak, Dr Mahathir Mohamad dan pemimpin Umno lainnya belumlah lebih jelas sikapnya terhadap Palestin dibandingkan dengan Anwar Ibrahim.

Kerajaan Malaysia baik di bawah Mahathir mahupun di bawah Najib ada membela Palestin dan negaranya yang dicadangkan di bumi Gaza dan Tebing Barat yang ditadbir oleh kerajaan Palestin sekarang. Mahathir akrab dengan Yasser Arafat dan Najib kenal Presiden Mahmood Abbas.

Mahathir dan Najib tidak kenal rapat Khalid Mishal, pemimpin Hamas yang mendapat perlindungan di Syria selepas dia dibelasah agen rahsia Israel di Jordan tidak lama dulu. Tetapi Anwar Ibrahim kenal Arafat, Mahmood Abbas dan kenal semua pemimpin Hamas.

Antara Anwar dan Najib campur Mahathir siapa lebih kenal dan lebih rapat dengan Khalid Mishal yang memimpin Hamas? Tentulah Anwar. Malah selepas kenyataan Anwar tentang apa yang dikatakan menjamin keselamatan Israel di WSJ, Anwar sudah berjumpa Khalid Mishal. Mereka sudah membincangkan isu yang berbangkit itu.

Khalid dan Hamas mewakili perjuangan membebaskan Palestin yang lebih jelas dari perjuangan PLO. Pendirian Mahmood dan Fatah yang dipimpinnya telah lama cair terhadap Israel, tetapi Hamas belum melepaskan senjata terhadap regim zionis itu.

Menyokong Palestin saja tidak cukup kalau tidak sama menyokong Hamas. Adakah Najib dan kerajaan mempunyai hubungan yang baik dengan Hamas? Semasa Hamas berkuasa di Palestin ada satu sidang antarabangsa di Kuala Lumpur. Kerajaan Malaysia memberi perwakilan itu kepada Fatah sedang Menteri Luar Palestin dari Hamas yang sudah berada di Kuala Lumpur dinafikan.

Semasa Najib jadi ketua Pemuda Umno Khalid Mishal pernah datang ke Kuala Lumpur. Dia bercadang untuk menermui Nazri Aziz yang belum jadi menteri tetapi menjadi Ketua Biro Antarabangsa Pemuda Umno. Mishal bercadang untuk membincangkan kemungkinan Hamas menubuhkan pejabatnya di Kuala Lumpur sama seperti yang diberikan kepada Fatah.

Rombongan tertinggi Hamas tidak dapat layanan yang baik kerajaan dan Umno. Semasa Khalid berada di Malaysia, saya yang menemankannya ziarah hingga ke Kuala Terengganu dan Kota Baru. Bukan Wisma Putra dan bukan pemimpin Umno.

Kiranya ditanya pemimpin dan penyokong Hamas, siapa lebih mereka kenal antara Dr Mahathir, Najib dan Anwar? Kita terkejut jawapannya ialah Anwar. Mengapa? Justeru Anwar ada talian dengan kebanyakan orang Palestin. Ada pun Najib dan Dr Mahathir, ramai yang kenal tetapi dipercayai jaraknya tidak sama dengan Anwar.

Justeru itu, apa pun yang Anwar kata tentang Palestin dan Israel, hati rakyat Palestin lebih kenal dengan Anwar dari semua yang pernah menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Untuk dikatakan Anwar itu alat dan boneka Israel, bagi setengah orang Palestin belum tentu Anwar lebih dari rekod Arafat dan Mahmood Abbas.

Kenyataan Anwar tentang Israel rasanya sekadar menjamin bersyarat jika ia dapat dipenuhi Israel. Jaminan belum sama dengan pengiktirafan. Anwar belum menyebut tentang pengiktirafan. Apa lagilah hubungan diplomatik.

Kiranya Zionis boleh bersetuju dengan syarat Anwar itu, maka barulah jaminan itu akan dibincangkan. Kalau pun jaminan itu boleh diberi, tetapi tidak semestinya ia boleh diiktiraf.

Saya kata begitu untuk bersangka baik dengan Anwar bahawa dia tidak dapat disama dengan Najib dan Mahathir yang dipercayai banyak bermain mata dengan Israel.

Contoh terbaik jaminan Malaysia tanpa pengiktirafan dan tanpa hubungan diplomatik ialah dengan Taiwan. Malaysia hanya mengakui satu China di dunia. Siapa yang mengakui Taiwan maka rosaklah hubungannya dengan China.

Tetapi China tidak tersinggung dengan jaminan Malaysia kepada Taiwan dan segala hubungan dagang antara keduanya.

Bagi mengukur sokongan kepada Palestin sekarang apa kata kalau Khalid Mishal tidak selesa tinggal di Syria berikut pergolakan di negara itu. Di mana Khalid hendak mendapat perlindungan? Jika dia mohon perlindungan menetap di Kuala Lumpur sambil meneruskan perjuangan Hamas. Adakah Najib bersedia? Kalau Pakatan berjaya mengambil Putrajaya, rasanya Khalid tidak ada masalah.