1. Ramai juga yang menyoal kenapa saya marah sangat terhadap larangan bercakap berkenaan 3R – iaitu Race (Bangsa), Religion (Agama) dan Royalty (Raja).

2. Bukankah Kerajaan berhak melarang sesuatu.

3. Tidak. Kerajaan tidak boleh larang apa-apa melainkan ia ada kaitan dengan keselamatan negara.

4. Larang 3R terlalu umum. Tidak dijelas kenapa dan bagaimana bercakap berkenaan 3R boleh mencetus bahaya terhadap negara.

5. Apakah kalau saya kata “Saya orang Melayu” maka ia mengancam keselamatan negara.

6. Jika saya kata “Orang Melayu menghadapi masalah” maka saya dianggap sebagai pemberontak yang polis perlu soal saya.

7. Saya kata saya beragama Islam, maka ini juga melanggar arahan Perdana Menteri.

8. Kalau saya salah maka Perlembagaan juga salah kerana Perlembagaan menyebut “Islam” sebagai agama rasmi Malaysia.

9. Salahkah kalau saya kata kita punyai “Raja Berperlembagaan”?

10. Larangan yang dibuat terlalu umum sehingga rakyat takut disalahkan apabila menyebut bangsa, agama dan raja. Polis ikut penceramah seolah-olah hendak cekup mereka.

11. Ini tidak sihat. Rakyat berhak bercakap berkenaan masalah mereka. Apa gunanya pilihan raya jika masalah rakyat tidak boleh disuarakan oleh rakyat dan oleh calon yang berjuang untuk rakyat.

12. Apa hak Perdana Menteri membuat larangan. Negara ditadbir mengikut undang-undang. Tiap suatu yang hendak diperbuat oleh Kerajaan ada caranya.

13. Kita punyai Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara.

14. Ada cara tertentu untuk melulus undang-undang. Perdana Menteri bukan bebas untuk membuat undang-undang. Polis dan MACC juga tidak bebas bertindak sesuka hati. Semua gerakan Kerajaan mempunyai cara dan undang-undang yang perlu diikuti.

15. Cara manakah yang dibuat oleh Perdana Menteri dengan tiba-tiba merampas hak rakyat dan hak parti-parti politik bercakap.

16. Cuma pemerintahan kuku besi sahaja yang memberi kuasa tanpa had kepada pemerintah.

17. Sudahkah kita sampai ke peringkat itu?

18. Itu soalannya. Lebih-lebih lagi pelakunya ialah seorang Reformis yang kononnya menolak cara pemerintahan kuku besi?

1. Apa dianya LGBT. LGBT bermakna “Lesbian”, “Gay”, “Biseksual” dan “Transeksual”.

2. Pengamal “Lesbian” mengamal hubungan seks antara perempuan dengan perempuan.

3. “Gay” pula mengamal seks antara lelaki dengan lelaki.

4. “Biseksual” amal seks biasa dan seks sejenis.

5. “Transeksual” amal hubungan seks antara lelaki dan sesama perempuan dan aneka jenis cara seks.

6. Perkahwinan tidak lagi perlu antara lelaki dengan perempuan tetapi perkahwinan boleh diadakan antara lelaki dengan lelaki dan perempuan dengan perempuan.

7. Perkahwinan bukan untuk dapat anak dan mendiri keluarga.

8. Perkahwinan hanya untuk memuaskan nafsu.

9. Ada negara di barat sekarang yang tidak menyebut dalam kad pengenalan jantina pemegang. Lelaki dan perempuan tidak boleh dipisah, iaitu tidak boleh dianggap berlainan. Tidak ada jantina.

10. Seseorang berhak menjadi lelaki atau perempuan mengikut kehendaknya. Hak ini menjadi satu dari hak kemanusiaan (human right).

11. Jantina seseorang penuntut di sekolah tidak boleh disoal. Itu hak mereka. Dan itu yang diajar di sekolah. Ibubapa tidak berhak menentu pegangan kepercayaan atau amalan. Anak perlu bebas.

12. Di merata tempat pengamal lesbian dan gay mengadakan perhimpunan besar-besaran. Mereka berbangga dengan amalan mereka. Dan terdapat lelaki cium bibir lelaki dan perempuan cium bibir perempuan dikhalayak ramai tanpa segan silu.

13. Majikan tidak boleh soal akan jantina pemohon kerja, pakaian mereka atau kelakuan mereka.

14. Sesungguhnya akhlak bangsa barat sudah rosak teruk. Dalam mengejar persamaan (equality), antara lelaki dan perempuan, mereka sudah sampai ke tahap haiwan. Apa sahaja yang boleh dilakukan oleh lelaki boleh dilakukan oleh perempuan dan sebaliknya. Kalau lelaki boleh berzina dengan pelacur perempuan, perempuan juga boleh berzina dengan pelacur lelaki.

15. Undang-undang mereka pun sudah dipinda supaya yang diharam dahulu dihalalkan dan yang dihalalkan dahulu diharamkan.

16. Ramai juga penuntut Malaysia yang ke sekolah atau ke universiti di negara barat menerima budaya songsang ini.

17. Kata mereka apa salahnya. Mereka cuma ingin keseronokan. Mereka tidak membinasa sesiapa.

18. Demikianlah perubahan nilai hidup dan budaya hasil dari mengejar persamaan dan kebebasan oleh masyarakat manusia.

19. Dengan ini masyarakat akan hilang pedoman dan akan alami huru hara dan kehancuran.

1. When I questioned the Government for agreeing to settle out of court the suit for wrongful dismissal of former AG Apandi Ali, instead of the current AG providing an explanation, it was Apandi who reacted.

2. Obviously Apandi was not happy that I pointed out that his dismissal was justified on grounds of dereliction of duty and the Government’s decision to settle and compensate him with an undisclosed sum of money is tantamount to agreeing that he was wrongfully dismissed.

3. To my mind, it is important to establish whether Apandi had failed to perform his duties as an AG.

4. The decision by nine judges from three different levels of courts which found Najib guilty of the SRC International case (a 1MDB related company) proved that Apandi, who exonerated Najib for any wrong doing had failed in performing his duties. Clearly the nine judges believed that there were cases for Najib to be charged.

5. Similarly, last year, when High Court judge Datuk Azimah Omar dismissed Apandi’s defamation suit against Lim Kit Siang, her judgement was very damning of Apandi’s role in the 1MDB scandal.

6. In her judgement, on the above case, Azimah, among others, said of Apandi: “The Plaintiff’s action in hastily closing and concluding investigations, and the Plaintiff’s inaction to meaningfully investigate the matter, indeed justifies the Defendant’s imputation that the Plaintiff ought to be investigated for his conducts which may have assisted in the cover up of the 1MDB scandal.

7. She also noted that Lim was justified in his statement urging Apandi to answer why he had absolved Najib of the 1MDB affair in 2016.

8. If those were not sufficient grounds to prove Apandi’s dereliction of duty, the recent revelations by Zeti, former Governor of Bank Negara, at the 1MDB trial that she had asked Apandi to charge several staff of 1MDB for their involvement in the scandal but Apandi did not act on it.

9. I brought this matter up because public funds cannot be used to compensate Apandi when he was dismissed because of dereliction of duty.

10. His decision to absolve and exonerate Najib over the 1MDB scandal had allowed the kleptocrats to fleece the nations of billions of ringgit.

11. And then, more public funds are awarded to Apandi who was exposed to have abetted and absolved the kleptocrats.

12. Apandi also tried to defend himself over the issue of dereliction of duty by linking the decision to withdraw application for judicial review in relation to Pulau Batu Puteh which was made under my watch which he said was also a dereliction of duty.

13. In the first place, what kind of legal brain does he have when he tried to justify his dereliction of duty by citing my purported dereliction of duty? Does that mean that it is justified for him to commit dereliction of duty if others commit such things too?

14. Since he wanted to bring up the Pulau Batu Puteh issue, I am prepared to answer and explain my decision whenever and if the Government feels necessary.

15. My refusal to answer is to the committee which is headed by Apandi who had been exposed to be incompetent and had been accused of abetting in the 1MDB crime.

16. For the life of me, I cannot understand until today that the Government had appointed Apandi, whose credibility as an AG had been sullied and tarnished for his dereliction of duty, to head the Pulau Batu Puteh committee.

17. Isn’t it a joke that a person so obviously incompetent is given the responsibilities to find wrong doings of others?

18. Instead, based on all the court findings and expose, Apandi should be charged for his role in the 1MDB scandal.

19. My flying kites does not negate his dereliction of duty. It merely proves that the charge is correct.

1. Many parents are upset with the decision of Government to stop the teaching of science and maths in English as an option.

2. They feel that it would blight the future of their children.

3. I have always believed that science and mathematics should be taught in English. This is because this field of knowledge is not indigenous. This means that it comes to us not in the Malay language. And largely it comes in the English language.

4. This knowledge has to be translated into Malay. The translators must have a good understanding of the subject and be fluent in English and Malay.

5. Not many people would have this qualification. Besides, new discoveries in science and applications of mathematics are being added almost daily. To translate them would require an army of translators.

6. It is different with other fields of knowledge. In geography and history for example the basic facts hardly ever change. Only the presentation may be different. So the need to translate is quite limited.


7. But with science and mathematics new discoveries and new applications have to be learnt or acquired if the student is going to keep up with the new technologies.

8. For example knowledge of wireless broadcasting twenty years ago is not adequate for dealing with new means of broadcasting today. Updating in the science of communication is almost continuous.


9. If the teaching is in English, all the new knowledge can be learnt directly as most scientific papers are presented in English.

10. The Malay language has developed greatly. But for keeping up with scientific development, borrowing from other languages is essential. We are aware that we borrow a lot from the English language.


11. We understand the national desire to develop our language. But the objective of education is primarily to gain knowledge. We cannot sacrifice knowledge merely because we want to develop our language. Education would be worthless if we are left behind in terms of knowledge which is so essential for our development and progress.

12. So the Government should reconsider the decision to do away with the option to teach science and mathematics in English.

13. Better still let it not be just an option. Let us decide to teach science and mathematics in English.

1. I was startled when I read the news report that, during the trial involving 1MDB, Zeti, the former Governor of Bank Negara stated that she had reported to the A.G. at that time, i.e., Apandi the wrong doings of the staff of 1MDB. But the A.G. did not take any action. It seems to me like dereliction of duty.

2. Yet Apandi had sued me for wrongful dismissal. I was prepared to go to court to explain why I had to remove him.

3. Another example of Apandi’s wrongful decision was to dismiss all the cases against Dato Sri Najib. Yet when another A.G. brought Najib’s cases to court, three courts and nine judges found Najib guilty.

4. Clearly Apandi as A.G. did not study the case thoroughly before declaring that Najib had no case to answer.

5. This again shows a dereliction of duty on the part of Apandi. Yet when he sued the Government and me for wrongful dismissal, the Government agreed to settle the case outside the court and awarded Apandi an unknown sum to drop his action suing the Government and me.

6. This means that the Government agreed that he was wrongfully dismissed.

7. I was not party to the settlement. I did not agree that I had wrongfully dismissed Apandi.

8. But now, the report that he failed to take action on the report by Bank Negara, proves that he was not doing his duty as the A.G. This further justify his dismissal as A.G.

9. That such an A.G. should be compensated with unknown sums of money do not reflect well on the rule of law in this country.

1. Saya sedang baca sebuah buku, “The War of the Running Dogs”, oleh Noel Barber.

2. Buku ini mencerita berkenaan percubaan oleh Partai Komunis Malaya merebut kuasa dari British untuk mendiri republik Komunis di negara ini.

3. Saya tertarik dengan imej orang Melayu yang digaris oleh Noel Barber.

4. Dalam Bahasa Inggeris Noel menulis, “The Mohammedan Malays, whose country then was numbered just over half the population of 5,300,000 and was distinguished by qualities of dignity rare in the world, by impeccable manners, by love of an easy-going life and consequently a lack of interest in making money”.

5. Saya tak perlu terjemah tulisan Noel Barber.

6. Saya sendiri berasa seperti se-ekor kucing yang duduk diatas riba, yang sedang diurut kepala oleh Tuan empunya.

7. Orang lain mungkin memiliki reaksi lain.

1. Di masa ini terutama apabila pilihanraya sedang berlangsung, kenyataan yang benar dari segi sejarah dianggap oleh media cetak sebagai hasutan.

2. Dengan larangan 3R, mulut rakyat tertutup.

3. Dahulu semasa PMX berada di luar Kerajaan, laungan reformasi dijerit-jerit.

4. Diantara reformasi yang dituntut ialah kebebasan bersuara dan kebebasan media cetak.

5. Sekarang kebebasan bersuara terhad kepada menyokong Kerajaan.

1. I am surprised that many learned lawyers refuse to admit that multiracialism in Malaysia is just about people of different races living in the country. It is not about becoming the definitive people of the country.

2. It is normal for migrants wishing to become citizens of any country to identify themselves lingually and culturally with the definitive people of their adopted country. They would break off and reject their links with their countries of origin.

3. Certainly the children and grandchildren of the new citizens would have forgotten their previous languages and culture.

4. Long, long ago the Chinese came to stay in Malacca, Singapore and Penang. These people eventually spoke only Malay. Their dresses were influenced by Malay dresses. They sang their songs in Malay. Their social life was unique and include elements of Malay social norms. They became known as Baba and Nyonya.

5. There was no citizenship then. But the Malays accepted them as a part of the Malayan community.

6. But there were also Arabs, Indian Muslims and Pakistanis who readily adopted the Malay language, customs and tradition. They lost the languages of their countries of origin. Their being Muslims fulfill the legal criteria defining the Malays. They were therefore accepted as Malays, as the subjects of the Malay rulers.

7. At independence they were all entitled to full citizenship as Malays.

8. But the Chinese and Indian migrants who came later did not want to identify themselves with the definitive people, the Malays. They retain their links and identification with their countries of origin. They retain their own languages and cultures. On Chinese national days they even fly the Chinese national flags from their shop windows.

9. They may speak some Malay but not as their mother tongue. Their pronunciation of Malay words is influenced by their original language.

10. The non-Muslim Indians were only interested in the politics of India. They did do not want to be assimilated as Malays.

11. During the world recession of 1929-1930 many Indians and Chinese returned to their own countries.

12. It was the British who insisted that independent Malaya must accept Chinese and Indians as citizens. But the straits Chinese themselves were not keen to become Malayan citizens. Certainly not to become Malays.

13. They formed the Straits Chinese British Association and called themselves the King’s Chinese. They obtained assurance from the British that if Malaya gained independence they should be given the option to migrate to the UK and become British citizens.

14. But the Tunku not only accepted the British condition but gave one million citizenships to the Chinese and Indians even if they were not qualified.

15. Despite this, the Constitution made it clear that in terms of language, customs and tradition the Federation of Malaya is a Malay country.

16. Later when Sarawak and Sabah joined the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu to form Malaysia, the indigenous native tribes or Bumiputeras of these two entities were accorded the same status as the Malays.

17. The countries of South East Asia, the ASEAN countries all have substantial numbers of people of Chinese origins. But they are all identified lingually and culturally with the definitive people of those countries.

18. There has been no demand for these countries to be classified as multiracial countries. There are no race-based political parties in these countries either.

19. But in the Federation of Malaya and Malaysia the Malay people acceded to the demand that the migrants and their descendants retain their language, culture scripts and schools. They also form political parties confined to their races.

20. Being different and being separate from all the indigenous definitive people mean they have not fully integrated with the people of their adopted countries. The Malays had to accept their stand in fulfillment of the British condition for independence.

21. Malaysian Malaysia promoted by Lee Kuan Yew implies non-recognition of the origins of the peninsular and Sarawak and Sabah and the indigenous definitive people. It is no different from being conquered. No self-respecting people would accept that even if force is not used.

22. Matters are made worse because the unassimilated citizens and their descendants are aggressively capable of leaving the indigenous people economically deprived. In the economic, social and political life they refuse to be integrated.

23. Compared with the other ASEAN countries the Malays have been very generous. But the only tangible result so far is for them to face the threat of losing their rights as the definitive people. Unable to compete they will become the deprived people in their own country.

1. KDN dan Menterinya tuntut supaya saya buktikan jutaan pelancong China tidak pulang ke negara asal.

2. KDN sendiri telah nyata di Parlimen seperti yang dilaporkan di Berita Harian pada 27 Julai 2022 mengenai lebih 1.2 juta warga China dikesan tidak keluar dari Malaysia setelah tiba di Negara ini dalam tempoh antara 2018 hingga 2021. Ini juga telah dilapor oleh media pada bulan Julai 2022.

3. Saya telah berjumpa dengan ramai mereka dan ramai yang memiliki rumah di Kuala Lumpur. Angka 1.5 juta disebut oleh pendakwa lain. Saya cuma terima dakwaan mereka.

4. Menteri boleh semak data dalam simpanan KDN.

5. Yang punyai maklumat ialah KDN dan Menteri. Tiap tahun Kerajaan isytihar jumlah pelancong yang masuk. Kerajaan tentu tahu jumlah yang keluar. Kenapa tanya saya.

6. Teknologi kini memboleh data dikutip di semua pintu masuk dan pintu keluar negara.

7. Tiap pelancong perlu tunjuk passport yang mempunyai butiran yang cukup.

8. Bukankah menjadi tanggungjawab KDN dan Menteri menghitung siapa yang masuk dan siapa yang keluar.

9. Jika saya diberi akses kepada semua rekod saya boleh bukti. Tetapi untuk semak rekod-rekod yang disimpan oleh Kerajaan bayarannya amat tinggi. Ia seolah Kerajaan ingin sembunyi data.

10. Apa gunanya rekod jika Menteri pun tidak dapat maklumat akan data di dalamnya.

11. Banyak lagi rekod yang disimpan oleh Kerajaan. Umpamanya siapa yang memiliki tanah, siapa yang kaya yang tinggal dalam perumahan mewah.

12. Mengklasifikasikan B40 dan T20 sahaja tidak cukup. Kerajaan boleh dapat lebih banyak maklumat untuk bertindak, untuk menentu dasar.

13. Rakyat berhak tahu data ini dan dasar Kerajaan berkenaan dengan maklumat yang didapati.

1. Pada tahun 2021 Russia, satu negara gergasi menyerang Ukraine sebuah negara kecil. Tujuan Russia ialah menawan dan mengambil sebahagian dari wilayah Ukraine untuk dijadikan wilayah takluk Russia.

2. Ukraine terlalu kecil dan lemah untuk mempertahan wilayahnya. Ukraine boleh tunduk kepada Russia. Dan akan terselamatlah rakyat Ukraine dan terselamatlah juga bandar-bandarnya dari dihancurkan oleh tentera Russia dengan meriam dan roket canggihnya.

3. Tetapi tidak. Walaupun kawasan yang hendak direbut oleh Russia kecil sahaja, Ukraine tidak rela barang secebis pun wilayahnya dikuasai oleh bangsa lain.

4. Dengan itu, apabila tentera Russia serang, tentera dan rakyat Ukraine pertahankan wilayah mereka. Beribu askar dan orang awam Ukraine terbunuh dan cedera parah mempertahan negara mereka.
5. Tetapi mereka tidak gentar. Mereka akan terus pertahan negara mereka walaupun lebih ramai akan menemui maut, cedera parah dan negara hancur.

6. Kita di Malaysia sanggup terima orang asing menjadi warga negara. Kita sanggup kongsi negara kita ini. Tetapi tidaklah sampai negara tercinta ini dimiliki oleh keturunan orang asing dan kita menjadi puak yang miskin di negara yang kaya ini.