Ak57\’s Weblog

Thoughts and opinions on Malaysian news, its people and its culture

Archive for the ‘Local News’ Category

One Israel =/= 1Malaysia

I wrote this email to a friend a week ago and felt it worth sharing, on this accusation of One Israel and 1Malaysia being the same.

I find this issue to be a bit silly, as though it were brought up to distract the public from whatever Zahrain has mentioned. One Israel was a political alliance formed for an election campaign in the early 80s, no different from Barisan Alternatif in 2004. You could also say that at the time One Israel was trying to present a political alternative that was moderate and not extreme.

1Malaysia looks to me like a feel-good public relations (PR) exercise by the ruling government to win over the hearts and minds of the people, by making it appear as a multi-ethnic and not extreme regime.

They are two different things – a political coalition and a PR campaign. The easiest difference being that any politician whether BN/Pakatan/Independent can publicly say they support 1Malaysia. If I was a Pakatan leader I would say I support 1Malaysia and start a bunch of 1Something initiatives in the Pakatan states. This would confuse the rakyat because they can’t psychologically link 1Malaysia to BN if Pakatan supports it. It is an advantage that PR has – it’s not like the tagline for 1Malaysia is ‘BN Sayangkan Semua’ haha!

I know this won’t happen. Sad to say our PKR party grassroots are not educated enough to understand the logic of supporting the enemy platform to defuse it. Much easier to continue to tar and feather BN and hound them non-stop. Our party foundation is built on hating the enemy.

You know what I found funny? One Israel was a combination of left-centrist Social Democrats, Socialists and a religious party.

Doesn’t that sound a lot like Pakatan Rakyat? Haha!

So One Israel = Political Coalition

If Apco is confirmed to have come up with both campaign titles, the issue that PKR wants to highlight is that an Israeli government linked entity is directing Malaysian government public relations with the people.

Ultimately PKR needs to prove that Apco has Israeli government links. By that I mean the company is currently run by members of the Israeli government. Yusmadi Yusoff alleged as much today (http://malaysiakini.com/news/127181)

Having three members of an advisory council that were formerly working for the Israel government is a weak connection. It demonises Jews and places PKR in the same Jew-hating camp as UMNO. It is like saying any board that Tun Daim Zainuddin sits on is under the control of the Malaysian government by virtue of him being an ex-Finance Minister.

The fact is there are far more Americans sitting on the advisory council than Israelis (or maybe even Jews, but you can’t always tell a Jew by the name alone 😉 ). The member list is at http://www.apcoworldwide.com/content/international_advisory_council/members.aspx

One escape route would be to settle for attacking govt over-expenditure on this foreign company. But Anwar has closed the door on that by saying he will prove the Israel connection, which I’m interested to see.

One Alternatives

One Australia was an immigration and ethnic affairs policy that called for an end to multiculturalism. The fear then was that Australia would lose its identity if more Asians kept coming in. I don’t think the fears have gone away.

I could find no evidence of 1Britain or One Britain online. Perhaps it was an anti-immigration movement under a different name. It might be referring to the British National Party which has a strong anti-immigration platform, so one of their old slogans might have been 1Britain. Or Tian Chua/Harakah could have made it up.

I’m suddenly reminded of a saying that, ‘if you can’t attack a man for his ideas, attack the clothes he wears instead’. Talking about 1Australia, 1Israel or 1Britain (which I consider fiction) without linking it with the 1Malaysia campaign seems superficial. 1Malaysia is not a political coalition or anti-immigration political agenda. Is Pakatan so weak that we resort to attacking phrases? What happened to attacking ideas, principles and actions? One Israel was not even referred to as 1Israel until Pakatan chose to spin it!

In Closing

An MP cannot mislead the House so I have no issue with Anwar being referred to the Special Rights & Privileges Committee if the House votes on it. If Anwar does not produce the evidence then the only valid criticism I can see are:

1)            How much is being spent for Apco’s services? Assuming the figure is high, why is the taxpayer money being wasted?

2)            Why a foreign company instead of a local one?

I’ll admit, these criticisms are not as entertaining or dramatic as what they are alluding to now.

Further reading (http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1999/244/oneisrael.html )

Written by ak57

March 28, 2010 at 7:58 pm

The Fuss Over Jantan and Betina

I was surprised to learn that several Pakatan MPs took offense at Nazri’s usage of the phrases ‘anak jantan’ and ‘anak betina’ in Parliament today. Curious to see what the fuss was about I chose to do some investigating.
Just to clarify, for animal breeders the terms mean:

  • Anak jantan; jantan = male
  • Anak betina; betina = female

Malays also use the terms the following way in reference to men:

  • Anak jantan = brave; strong man; champion
  • Anak betina = coward; weak; American equivalent of ‘pussy’

Betina on its own is also used to refer to promiscuous women (slut), and also I believe to unmarried women who are pregnant. The reasoning for that is that those women behaved like animals by having illegitimate sex, so they should be labelled as such. I don’t recall jantan being used in a derogatory fashion.

Colloquialisms are context-sensitive. I understood the chosen interpretation that Nazri was using and guessed who he was referring to on my first reading.

I read the Hansard and from page 72 – 94 (21 minutes excluding Saifuddin’s speech) this was the sequence of events:

1.    After some discussion/argument with the Deputy Speaker, the Pakatan Rakyat MPs obtained permission to respond to the issue of ‘misleading the House’ brought up by Abdul Rahman Dahlan (Kota Belud), which he had done in response to Anwar’s accusing the government of using alleged Israeli agent APCO to promote 1Malaysia. Saifuddin Nasution (Machang) was nominated to speak.
2.    Saifuddin Nasution stated that the Minister, Nazri Aziz (Rantau Panjang) had referred to the obsolete Ordinance 69 in discussing the limits of Kelantan’s border)
3.    Deputy Speaker asked the Minister to explain
4.    Hatta Ramli (Kuala Krai) and Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena) made some jibes at Nazri, ‘that he need not answer now, he can take a week if he likes’ and ‘has he read the obsolete laws yet?’
5.    Nazri responded that he need not fear, because he was ‘anak jantan’
6.    Hatta Ramli asked him to prove that he was ‘anak jantan’
7.    Nazri continued that what he had stated previously was not intended to mislead the House and he was ready to be investigated because all that was needed is to refer to the Hansard. Because he was anak jantan he had no fear. The anak betina on the other side however, were scared of being investigated.
8.    Lilah Yasin (Jempol) remarked that anak jantan ‘plays in the front, not in the back’
9.    Lo’Lo’ Mohd Ghazali (Titiwangsa) accused Nazri of being sexist and asked him to retract the word betina
10.    Siti Zailah (Rantau Panjang) stated that the word was an insult to women
11.    Arguments erupted between Sivarasa (Subang), Lo’ Lo’, Bung Moktar (Kinabatangan), Haji Ismail (Maran), Nazri and the Deputy Speaker
12.    Nazri explained that jantan and betina were references to the gender of animals. The ones standing in front of him were humans, so how could there be a question that he was referring to the human women as betina. Therefore they had no reason to get angry.
13.    Saifuddin countered that meant Nazri just stated he was the son of an animal
14.    Lo’Lo’ asked him to retract the word regardless of his reasons
15.    Nazri said he meant no insult to the women
16.    Zuraida Kamaruddin (Ampang) asked him to retract the word
17.    Nazri explained the Malay saying goes that ‘anak jantan’ are brave and ‘anak betina’ are cowards
18.    Deputy Speaker stated that Nazri had no ill intention
19.    The discussion went back on topic, regarding whether Kota Belud had misled the House and whether he had the right to use the Standing Orders to make the speech
20.    Lo’Lo’ quoted Standing Order 36(4) that states a Member of the House may not used words that are improper or rude. She asked the Speaker to make a ruling on the phrase ‘anak betina’ because it is an insult to all women even if it was directed at everyone
21.    Deputy Speaker stated that the Minister had explained the context of the terms used was bravery
22.    Pakatan MPs continued to ask for the word to be retracted. Arguments erupted.
23.    Bung Moktar retorted that it was just a Malay saying (peribahasa)
24.    Mahfuz Omar accused Puteri UMNO of not having brains, because they had not objected to the use of the word
25.    Ibrahim Ali (Pasir Mas) requested to debate the Royal Address
26.    His request was ignored and the argument continued for 10 minutes. Some quotes:
a.    Zuraida argued that any Malay that understood the meaning of the word would not use it in that manner, and questioned whether any Malay uses ‘jantan’ or ‘betina’
b.    Deputy Speaker reiterated multiple times that the words were used in a different context than what the protesting MPs was referring to
c.    Mahfuz Omar questioned whether betina was ever analogous to coward
d.    Lo’Lo’ and Zuraida demanded that the word be retracted and its usage in any context be forbidden in the House. They had no objection to anyone using ‘anak jantan’
e.    Fuziah Salleh (Kuantan) stated that within context ‘anak jantan’ meant brave, but ‘anak betina’ was sexist
f.    Zuraida later stated that any statement that refers to gender whether lelaki, perempuan, jantan or betina was itself sexist. She did not change her position on anak jantan
27.    Deputy Speaker told the MPs not to misinterpret the words as their meaning and context had already been explained. The argument ended with Ibrahim Ali giving his speech while Pakatan MPs asked the ‘cowardly Minister’ to retract.

Imagine that, 21 minutes spent on this issue. Now who was Nazri referring to when he said betina?

It is clear that as Saifuddin’s speech was in response to Kota Belud’s request that Anwar be referred to the Special Rights & Privileges Commitee (the Commitee), then ‘anak betina’ used in this context likely refers to Anwar Ibrahim. Jempol’s immediate follow-up statement that anak jantan plays in the front, follows that interpretation as Anwar has been accused of sodomy (main belakang, playing in the back). I myself thought betina was referring to Anwar.

But Pakatan is critical of the government stand that Anwar be referred to the Committee if he does not prove his allegations on APCO. So Nazri’s statement can be interpreted as being directed at the whole bloc, which includes men and women. So he just referred to women as betina!

If only Nazri had said ‘anak betina dari Permatang Pauh’ then there would be no misinterpretation and less time would have been spent on the issue.

I see it as a colloquialism to be treated with care. Jantan and betina are not curse words and only betina has a negative meaning attached to it. I don’t believe it is commonly used either, searching online I only found it used negatively in the context of coward and not slut.

Given the evidence I feel that Pakatan MPs were trying to stir up trouble. If the word was slut; prostitute; whore; instead of betina, then the slur is clear. Today I didn’t see Nazri as being sexist, just crass. I would say he is ambiguously sexist at most.

Compare that with politicians like Bung Moktar Radin (Kinabatangan) who made the infamous ‘women leak once a month’ remark, or Badruddin Amiruldin (formerly Jerai) who made the ‘boleh nampak terowong tak?’ remark, both in 2007.

Sexism in Parliament is an ongoing problem, and it remains as long as we have boors as elected representatives. I hope that when there is a change in government that a code of ethics is drawn up to prevent sexist and racist remarks from being uttered in Parliament.

Sources
Parliament Hansard 22nd March 2010 (link)
Pakatan to campaign against sexist MPs (link)
Shouting match after motion to refer to Anwar (link)
MP: Anak jantan berani tapi anak betina penakut (link)
Badruddin apologises for ‘terowong’ comment (link)
MPs apologise for sexist remarks in Parliament (link)

Written by ak57

March 24, 2010 at 4:30 am

Anwar’s Trial, Day 2 Briefing

Jonson Chong, Mustaffa Kamil, Razlan, Amiruddin Shaari

I dropped by HQ tonight for the first nightly briefing on the trial proceedings. Attendees were mostly reporters and local PKR grassroots.

Jonson Chong, PKR Director of Communications started the briefing by stating that:

  • Karpal Singh requested the judge to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt of court due to the headline it ran today.
  • The judge ruled that there were no grounds for contempt of court, the defence can make a police report (which they did)
  • What was stated in the article implies that multiple acts of sodomy occurred, but the charges are only for one

Razlan (I believe he’s assisting Anwar’s legal team) then continued:

  • Today’s proceedings were held in camera at Karpal Singh’s request, so lawyers are not allowed to discuss what transpired
  • There was concern that the contents of the testimony would be damaging to the court proceedings if made public
  • There was a site visit to Unit 11-5-1 at the Desa Damansara Condominium by the judge and legal teams
  • There may be another site visit tomorrow to the Sekysen 16 office

Mustaffa Kamil Ayub (PKR Vice President)

  • We will continue to hold ceramah nationwide to educate people on current issues and the conspiracy that is going on in Anwar’s trial

Reporter Questions

Q: Why call Najib and Rosmah to testify?
Razlan: We know that Saiful met Najib prior to the alleged sodomy, so we want them to testify for the record.

Q: Can we have the court proceedings telecast live online?
Razlan: You can request, but normally that is not done.

Q: What about Saiful’s implication that sodomy occurred multiple times, and was the Can I F U remark made the first time or another time?
Razlan: That is outside the scope of the court proceedings, what I can say is the charges are for one incident.

Q: Do you have any comment on the turmoil in the Pakatan states primarily in Penang?
Mustaffa: We are not a party of angels, but it is clear that acts of destabilisation are going on. Small differences of opinion are being magnified and issues blown up out of proportion.

Q: What if Anwar is found guilty?
Mustaffa: I am confident that Pakatan Rakyat will go on.

Q: I’m sorry for this sensitive question, but why does Anwar use a condominium for his meetings when he has a house and office to use? This applies both now and in 1999 when he used Tivoli Villa.
Mustaffa: It is difficult for me to comment, but I can say that Anwar is a humble man and does not mind going to his friend’s house for a meeting. He does not stand on ceremony, you don’t have to go up to see him but rather he will come down to see you.

*Update* Date for Court of Appeal hearing has been fixed for February 12th.

Written by ak57

February 5, 2010 at 7:43 am

Arsonists Blacken the Name of Islam

I was shocked to wake up yesterday and read the news about the church bombings. Though I think the media could have used a better word – arson seems more appropriate because when people see ‘bomb’ they start thinking C4 and dynamite. It makes me sad to think that in all likelihood Muslims performed this crime. I cannot think of a group more motivated to do it other than the group that want Allah to be exclusive to Muslims in our country. That’s a large group with many suspects.

Reactions were swift and there were so many, I’ll only list some:

  1. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak issued a statement condemning the attacks (link)
  2. Selangor Chief Minister Khalid Ibrahim visited one of the churches attacked, condemned the attacks and called for calm (link)
  3. BN Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin also visited a church, condemned the attacks and urged for caution by the public in making statements or taking action following these incidents (link)
  4. The King urged people to remain calm (link)
  5. Cabinet Minister Bernard Dompok stated that actions by irresponsible parties had clouded relations between the races in the country, and called for reflection and prayer (link)
  6. Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein and Information Minister Rais Yatim condemned the attacks (link1 and link2)
  7. The government warned that ISA will be used if necessary (link)
  8. Pakatan Rakyat condemned the church attacks (link)
  9. PKR President Wan Azizah issued a statement calling for tolerance and peace (link)
  10. DAPSY and Selangor DAP issued statements condemning the attacks (link1 and link2)
  11. PAS issued a statement condemning the attack (link)
  12. Pakatan Rakyat asked UMNO to take responsibility for the attacks (link)
  13. 121 NGO groups released a joint statement condemning the attacks (link)
  14. Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan gave frequent updates on the investigation, too many links so I’ll only list one (link)
  15. PM Najib allocates RM500,000 to Metro Tabernacle Church to be rebuilt elsewhere (link)

For the record, the four churches attacked by arsonists were:

  1. Metro Tabernacle Church in Desa Melawati, KL
  2. Assumption Church in Jalan Templer, PJ
  3. Life Chapel in Section 17, PJ
  4. Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in PJ

After reading the reports I can’t help but feel that these attacks were coordinated. The hacking of the Judiciary and Herald websites; the use of motorcycle helmets as bombs; the close timing of the attacks – all of these indicate an organised group at work to intimidate our people and keep our country divided.

What message do these attacks send to non-Muslims in this country? The SMS messages being forwarded around sounded extreme – if you wear a cross you will be beaten; if your car has a church sticker it will be smashed; a church in Kg.Subang torched; cars in Bangsar KL smashed. All lies yet people still forwarded it around.

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance yet too often we see Muslims practicing bigotry, inciting hatred and curtailing personal freedom. Small wonder then that people are so gullible and paranoid.

It makes my heart weep to know these criminals have created fear of Islam and reinforced fear of Islam in this country. I am glad that leaders from both sides have condemned the attacks and the PM gave the allocation (despite losses of est. RM1+ million by that church).

Hopefully everyone will remain calm and there is no escalation to the conflict. I sincerely hope that Christians understand these acts do not reflect the feelings of most Muslims in this country.

I made the poster above, feel free to forward it around.

Written by ak57

January 10, 2010 at 5:15 am

The Ban on Christians Reading Allah

When I was growing up I had a number of bad experiences with Christian friends trying to convert me. I’ll leave the details for another article but most of the time they would use deception by tricking me into joining their social outings that included prayers, chanting, singing hymns etc. Once the religious nature of the activity was revealed there would be an awkward situation as I excused myself. They did not respect my right to refuse, insisting that my faith was ‘wrong’ and I ‘needed to be saved’. Sometimes we would be friends for years and suddenly they would pressure me to join their faith. I have even seen Christians enter relationships with non-believers for the purpose of converting the other. I’m not making this up.

I don’t care what religion you come from but if the person you are trying to convert is not interested in listening to your preaching then you should just leave him be. Don’t force them to listen or use deception. You can’t expect people to respect your faith if you don’t respect theirs.

I initially found myself conflicted when the Roman Catholic Archbishop as publisher of The Herald went to court to get the right to use Allah to refer to God in the publication. I haven’t met a religious Christian in this country who accepts that we both worship the same God but in different ways. I have also met religious Christians who find the idea of using Allah in that context to be insulting. Obviously Christians themselves are divided on this issue.

What is the issue really? What problems could it cause? I think back to my own bad experiences. If I did not have a strong grounding in my faith, and a group of friends came up to me asking for me to join them in prayer to Allah – I would say yes. If everyone spoke in Malay and someone preached teachings from God I would listen and take it to heart. I would be happily learning about Christianity, all the while thinking it was Islam. At some point my friends would lift the veil and reveal that all that the activities that had been giving me comfort and joy were Christian activities, and Islam isn’t providing me with any of this so I should become a Christian.

So I will admit that I felt a bit uneasy because I wasn’t sure why The Herald publisher wanted to use Allah instead of Tuhan (a generic Malay word for God, used in a monotheistic context).

I soon learned that this use of Allah issue is mainly for the benefit of Sabah and Sarawak where Malaysians have been practicing Christianity in Malay for a long time, where they do use Allah instead of Tuhan. It should be a non-issue then as there is a pre-existing use of the word Allah by the church.

So why is the BN-led Federal Government playing up this issue? Why file a stay of execution on the court ruling? The Home Ministry banned the use of the word by the publisher; the publisher went to court; court ruled in favour of the publisher – it should have ended there. Dragging it out further just continues to reinforce the message that the current government suppresses the rights of Christians, Sabahans and Sarawakians.

I know that Allah is merely Arabic for God. I do support the right of Christians to print Malay bibles and related publications for their followers. Religion should not be constrained by language because it’s easier to understand if it is written in your native language. I myself have an English Al-Quran because I understand English better than any other language, and a trusted fellow Muslim recommended the translation that I have. It should be alright to use Allah in a Malay-medium Christian publication whether in Peninsular or East Malaysia.

But I can’t completely shake off the fear that young Muslims will undergo more subversive conversion tactics such as the one I described. I don’t know if you, the reader, have experienced what I have but I’m glad I did because it helps me understand why many Malay Muslims are riled up about the court ruling and plan to protest today. Without my bad experiences I too would join the many bloggers out there condemning these protestors.

If I had not been exposed to foreign culture, not learned about other religions, and stayed in one town for most of my life then I would be quite narrow minded. It is easy to criticise the mentality of the poorly educated. What I feel the government should do is accept the ruling and allow The Herald to use Allah, and focus on improving religious education at school. Better yet have a Proposition for people to vote on so each state can have its own ruling on this issue. If that is not possible then let the State Assemblies vote on it for their respective states.

Remember, there are many Muslims in this country that don’t use Internet and have a poor command of English which limits their access to television shows and newspapers. Mention of Christians using Allah in their publications is very offensive to them – even PAS is internally divided on this issue.

I have more to say, but I have not been watching this issue very closely and I’m still playing catch-up. I’ll write further on this issue soon.

Written by ak57

January 8, 2010 at 8:06 am

Augustine Paul’s Passing

I was surprised to learn of Judge Augustine Paul’s death this morning. I didn’t think much of it and felt nothing. It isn’t like I knew the man after all. I only knew him as the judge who sentenced Anwar to prison, and his involvement in other high profile cases was unknown to me.

I don’t get it. After he sentenced Anwar he walked freely around the neighbourhood, all alone, and nobody assaulted him (in retaliation for his judgment). In my naiveté I thought the nation saw him as a pawn, a small fish, not worth taking revenge on.

Yet now that he is dead I see all these postings online expressing joy, thanking God and so on for his death.

It was worse when I saw activists I knew expressing the same feelings. There is a dark vengeful side to them that I wasn’t aware of.

He was not the evil dictator of a downtrodden country. He was not a mass murderer. He was not a terrorist mastermind. Truly, are there not better villains out there to hate? Why take joy in someone’s death?

Having read these postings I feel sad now for his family, knowing that their father’s name is being cursed now and possibly for years to come. I feel sad to see the lack of humanity among Malaysians online, and among the ranks of Malaysian activists fighting for justice and peace.

You know what would have made me happy? If he had made a death-bed confession admitting to the corruption charges that people assume he is guilty of. If he done that and named the person(s) involved in said corrupt judgments. Who knows, if PR had taken over the Federal Government he might have worked out a plea bargain to deliver the bigger crooks to justice? It’s not like he can come forward now when the crooks are free to make his family disappear.

He’s dead now so we’ll never know what might have been.

 As it stands now his death served no good. It has given grief to his family and friends and short-lived joy to his accusers.

Does his passing on mean that the Judiciary is no longer corrupt? Does it undo any damage he has done to victims of his judgments?

No, it does not.

I’m sure some of the people dancing with joy now will realise that the next time the courts make a ruling that is deemed unfair. I hope they realise then that ultimately, revenge is not rewarding.

To think I’m friends with some of these people. Ugh.

References

The Star: Judge Augustine Paul dies at 66 (link)

The Star: Judge Augustine Paul laid to rest (link)

Malaysiakini: Federal Court judge Augustine Paul dies (link)

Written by ak57

January 3, 2010 at 10:15 pm

Hassan’s Moral Police Draft

It bothers me greatly to hear that many people believe that Dato’ Dr. Hassan Ali has created something new: a moral police that watches Muslims and arrests them for drinking.

JAIS officials have been empowered to ‘nab’ Muslims drinking alcohol and committing adultery for many years. Hassan Ali did not create any new laws – the moral police already existed. Just because you don’t hear about raids does not mean they do not happen, or that the threat does not exist. Maybe this ignorance among the people explains why it’s not hard to find Malay-Muslims drinking outside convenience stores in the wee hours. They have no fear of getting caught.

What Hassan Ali has done is draft more people into the moral police. Empowering untrained persons to monitor the morality of others… it’s a recipe for trouble. There’s bound to be a case of some overzealous chap harassing a Malay-looking fellow drinking beer or worse, starting fights.

Personally I don’t see how PAS/JAIS can implement their moral police. It is not right to enforce Islamic practices on non-Muslims. When a raid is done on a hotel/disco, the very act creates fear among the non-Muslim patrons. They should have the freedom to enjoy their life without being suddenly harassed on suspicion of being Muslim.

I am conflicted on the issue of JAIS keeping an eye on Muslims though. I know alcoholism is a problem among the urban Malay youth. JAIS has the responsibility of ensuring Muslims don’t stray from the path. But I disagree with the methods currently used. I think that finding out the reasons Muslims drink in the first place, then addressing those reasons makes more sense than banning alcohol or having moral police.

JAIS should only advise errant Muslims on why Islam has such rules. Fining, jailing, whipping and shaming are such harsh punishments in comparison. If a Muslim is flaunting the rules of the faith, chances are their faith is weak. Such punishment may then only serve to scare them into pretending to be Muslims; and be more careful when breaking the rules in future. They need to be convinced in their heart, and to reach someone’s heart is a slow and arduous process.

I hope one day that religious officials in our nation remember that Islam’s goal is to help spread peace and harmony. They need to focus on co-existing peacefully with other religions, instead of trying to police their brethren at the expense of non-Muslims’ quality of life.

References

Sultan wants explanation over arrest powers for mosque officials – Malaysian Insider (link)
Crackdown: Breweries not targeted … yet – Malaysiakini (link)
Pegawai masjid S’gor boleh tangkap pesalah serta-merta – Malaysiakini (link)
Selangor mosque officials can detain beer-drinking Muslims – Malaysiakini (link)
Selangor mosque officers can now arrest Muslims drinking in public – Star (link)

Written by ak57

August 30, 2009 at 6:34 am

Posted in Local News, Politics, Selangor

Tagged with , ,