Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang di dalam tulisannya di Harakahdaily yang bertajuk “Tolak parti yang menggugat agama dan perpaduan” menjatuhkan hukum haram kepada sesiapa yang menyertai atau menyokong DAP.
Meskipun hujah Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dengan panjang lebar tidak menyebut parti mana, namun jelas sekali sasaranya adalah DAP apabila menyebut:
“Pendekatannya memperjuangkan konsep ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ ke arah melarutkan kaum dan bangsa serta bahasanya yang sudah menjadi tabii manusia.”
Jika dahulu penyokong PAS tentu sudah terbiasa mendengar tuduhan ‘menghalang perjuangan Islam’, ‘memperjuangkan negara sekular’, ‘perkauman’ dan lain-lain ditujukan kepada UMNO. Namun kini dilihat Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang menghalakan meriamnya ke arah DAP pula. Semenjak dirinya menerajui PAS untuk berjinak-jinak dengan Dato’ Sri Najib Razak dan UMNO.
Amanat Haji Hadi 2.0
Ini tidak lain merupakan Amanat Haji Hadi 2.0. Amanat Haji Hadi 1.0 pada tahun 1981 dengan radikalnya menjatuhkan hukum bahawa melawan UMNO merupakan satu jihad dan sekiranya mati menentang UMNO, mati itu adalah mati syahid. Tindakan itu diketahui umum telah membenihkan budaya takfiri (kafir mengkafir) di kalangan penyokong PAS dan UMNO yang berpanjangan.
Sekali lagi atas kepentingan politik, dalam keadaan PAS yang semakin terdesak, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang menggunakan agama untuk menjatuhkan hukuman haram bagi orang-orang Islam bersama dengan DAP atau menyokong DAP.
Terang lagi bersuluh Haji Hadi mahu menghidupkan semula fatwa yang memupuk budaya saling bergaduh seperti yang telah diwujudkan Amanat Haji Hadi 1.0.
Ironinya, di saat rencana Haji Hadi itu cuba menyeru kepada keamanan dan harmoni, Haji Hadi tidak dapat meninggalkan tabiat radikalnya. Benarlah kata peribahasa Melayu, asal ayam hendak ke lesung, asal itik hendak ke pelimbahan. Tabiat yang susah mahu berubah.
Untuk memupuk keharmonian dalam negara, apa yang Haji Hadi perlu lakukan memadai belajar daripada pengalaman lalu. Menginsafi bahawa apabila hukum-hakam Islam bercampur-baur dengan permainan politik, maka akan muncul pelbagai kerancuan, dan yang jadi mangsa adalah penyokong dan rakyat Malaysia amnya
Lihat bagaimana Haji Hadi hari ini mampu melupakan Amanat lamanya, dan kini duduk semeja bercanda dengan UMNO. Meskipun UMNO masih lagi seperti yang dia katakan dahulu, “mengekalkan perlembagaan penjajah, mengekalkan undang-undang kafir”. Entah ke mana hilang seruan radikal jihadnya dulu.
Malah semakin hari semakin serupa dengan UMNO, dalam tulisannya, Haji Hadi turut menggunakan isu 13 Mei sebagai alat menakut-nakutkan rakyat Malaysia, modus operandi yang biasanya hanya digunakan oleh UMNO. Di tangan ahli politik, hukum-hakam agama tidak lain hanya menjadi alat untuk kepentingan politiknya.
Jika mahu Malaysia harmoni, elakkanlah mempergunakan nama dan firman Tuhan untuk tujuan menimbulkan perseteruan di kalangan rakyat. Elakkanlah mengeluarkan hukum sewenang-wenangnya mengikut selera politik sendiri.
Malaysia tidak perlukan ‘penguasa taliban’ yang kerjanya mengharamkan itu dan ini, mengkafirkan itu dan ini. Yang Malaysia perlukan adalah seorang alim yang apa saja dituturkan menenangkan hati.
Biarlah agama memainkan peranan mewujudkan suasana baik dan sejahtera, bukannya diletakkan di dalam tangan ahli politik untuk mencetus permusuhan. – Roketkini.com
BR1M - Malaysia's path is deeply troubling...
Singapore registered nearly S$10 billion dollars (roughly RM30 billion) of surplus in 2017. In its latest budget forecast, the government gave every citizen over 21 years a one-time S$300 bonus this year.
On the other hand, the Malaysia government registered a budget deficit of nearly RM40 billion in 2017, but it is still very generously dishing out subsidies to poor households. BR1M alone costs nearly RM7 billion.
The contrast between the two countries highlights what Singapore is doing right, and by comparison, what the Malaysian government is doing wrong.
First of all, Singapore’s bonus is funded by surplus while Malaysian subsidies are funded by debt. Singapore can afford to pay a bonus, Malaysia can ill-afford mounting debt, the payback of which will eventually be borne by the children of those who received the subsidies.
Secondly, Singapore’s bonus is a one-time gift, conditioned on the government’s performance, not a perpetual handout.
If the government works to develop the country and grow the economic pie, instead of exploiting it as a tax base to fund unsustainable subsidies, all citizens will still own a piece of this country.
If the government continues with a policy of racial discrimination, someday they may find themselves sold to a foreign power to pay for their debt and they become squatters in their own country.
However, not all debts are created equal. If the debt is used to finance infrastructure building like schools, hospitals, building roads, bridges, flood mitigation systems, street lamps, or improving human resources etc. then the debt can yield much more benefits than the interest payments.
But if the debt is used to fund consumption, like paying for Astro satellite television services, then the debt is unproductive and a burden.
The path where Malaysia is heading is deeply troubling and disturbing. It is rolling back decades of civil liberties, squeezing the space of freedom, expression (and thoughts) and at the same time ramping up religious intolerance towards the minorities.
Unfortunately, those who receive subsidies do not see the big picture. For all they care, the subsidies they receive came from rich people and by their reckoning, the rich have the obligation to pay and the poor deserve the benefits.
It is a tall order convincing the poor they don’t deserve to be poor. Just look at Venezuela. It is on a death spiral. The more the country is in debt, the more the people demand subsidies and the deeper in the hole it digs itself into.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserve in the world. Yet it is mired in turmoil. Malaysia, like Venezuela, is also resource-rich, but it performs on a level far below the resource-poor little brother Singapore.
It goes to show, resources count for squat if you have incompetent and corrupted people managing it. - mk
Even if DAP was funded by
Robert Kuok, so what?...
Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s accusation of tycoon Robert Kouk funding DAP may be true or false. What is more important, however, is how political elites and Malaysians in general look at this accusation.
For a long time Kuok did his business quietly, preferring to play whatever roles entrusted on him behind the scene.
For a long time too, the Malaysian, Singaporean and the Chinese governments had no problem with him. He has always played the conciliatory roles to smooth out rough edges.
I think the problem started when he published his memoir a few months back. He explained why he moved to Hong Kong and why systemic preferences practised in Malaysia may not work out well for the country in the long run.
Frankly, what he said was nothing new, but because he is a respected tycoon, it annoyed the political elites in the country.
They have just unwittingly admitted that the success of any Malaysian must be due to the nexus of patronage. How dare this tycoon challenges this very fundamental “operating principle”?
Hence the accusation that the tycoon is funding DAP, just to get everyone rattled.
Although Lim Kit Siang has denied the funding from Robert Kuok, the pertinent issue here is really is why the big hoo-ha even if it was true.
I believe businesses funding politicians and political parties, especially those in power, is nothing new. We normally do not ask who is funding who in our political processes. Sometimes businesses bet “both ways,” just in case.
If we believe there must be robust competition in businesses, we too must believe there must be competition in politics. Is this not the essence of democracy and free society? Is this not competition for power is all about?
If we disdain anti-competition behaviour in business, we too must disdain anti-competition behaviour in politics.
Why harp on DAP getting funding from the tycoon even if it is true? Why can’t the oppositions get their funding just like the ruling parties?
I think it is matter of time people will begin to see the gross unlevelled playing field in competition for political power. Most people have a built-in sense of justice and fairness in their hearts.
Denying opposition parties from funding is one such form of unfairness. Of course, there are many others which need no mention here. - mk
If Najib can get a RM2.6 billion donation from the Saudis who cares what the DAP gets from global business leaders? There is no law to prevent this even if true. RPK is a 100% Najib boffin boy hiding in the UK. He is the biggest purveyor of lies and fake news in recent times. So why bother with this lunatic? - Gerard Lourdesamy
Everyone who is not apolitical or is in the political circle knows that Raja Petra is a wellknown fake news spinner against the opposition caused. This spinning about James Kuok supporting DAP is downright bigotry. However, on the other hand if Robert Kuok truly support DAP or for that matter the opposition Harapan cause, there is nothing wrong. It is far better than being involve in corruption and stealing the people money through some kind of dubious sovereign funds. - Tax-Payer
Heck, even if it is true that Robert Kuok is contributing funds to the oppositon, so what? Is it wrong? I have donated to them many times, albeit small amounts only. And if it is true that James Kuok helped out RPK in the past, then RPK should hang his head in shame! One wonders how he can sleep at night! - Anonymous #28648954
"Briged Gempur Pemuda BN WP" untuk apa?
Rakyat nak keluar mengundi je, bukanya nak buat kecoh.
Ni rakyat Malaysia kah?
Cam mana boleh dapat lesen memandu?
No comments:
Post a Comment