Mulut Puaka

DAP’s Tony Pua is known to many as Tony Puaka as he has the uncanny ability to blurt out stupid and insensible statements. He is known to be a loudmouth who opens his mouth before his brain cells, if any brain at all, could function. In the older days he would be described as “mulut pantat ayam” referring to a certain rear orifice of a hen that is always open.

Tony would have a statement for everything and anything that would boost his ratings in DAP. As a member of the PAC he contradicted the PAC’a findings on 1MDB, the very same findings that he is a signatory of. Tony, being the mulut puaka that he is, also belittled other religions by making very insensitive statements:

His mouth is also a testament to his racist being. Feeling superior as a staunch Christian, he also ridicules other Chinese who are not Christians. This is depicted in a DAP-leaning blog:

The good thing about wanting to project himself as the righteous staunch Christian is that he finally made sense in March 2016 when he said that there is no need for Lim Guan Eng to step down as the Chief Minister of Penang as the latter was only being investigated for corruption. He however added that Lim should step down if charged:

If you think I made this up, you can watch this video of him saying it.

Being a staunch and righteous Christian Tony Pua should not lie and now insist on Lim Guan Eng to go on leave. Don’t use stupid excuses such as “this is different as the charges are politically motivated” because it was not any of the Barisan Nasional component parties that asked Lim Guan Eng to make deals with Phang Li Koon, and it certainly wasn’t any of the Barisan Nasional component parties that made Lim Guan Eng pen his signature on those documents. Yet, when Najib was being investigated you made no qualms about asking him to step down until he clears his name.

How now, Tony? Are you or are you not going to keep to your words and insist on Lim Guan Eng stepping down until the trial process has been exhausted? Or are you, being the PUAKA that you are, going to drop Christianity and Christian values to protect a man, charged for corruption and abuse of power, for political reasons?

Or are you going to do another Rafizi?


The Case For God – Part 4

The apex court of Malaysia, the Federal Court, has ruled in favour of the Appellate Court to deny the Christian Herald Weekly the use of “Allah” in its articles instead of “God” or “Lord”. Four out of the seven bench members voted to uphold the ruling by the Appellate Court while three dissented. While many jumped saying that it was an unfair decision, I did not see one person noting that one of the dissenting members is a Malay and a Muslim.

The ruling brings to a closure a divisive episode that began in 2006 that led to several unnecessary reactive incidents in early 2010 due to a High Court decision in favour of the Christian Herald Weekly. While BigDog argues that the apex court’s ruling upholds Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, many think that it is their right to use Allah in reference to God.

Let me quote what was said as part of the judgment delivered:

‘The usage of the word Allah is not an integral part of the faith in Christianity. The usage of the word will cause confusion in the community.’

Many including outsiders such as Francis X Clooney SJ in his article entitled “Is Allah Not Our God? – America Magazine (Catholic) tried to argue for the Catholics in Malaysia without understanding the history behind this ruling and how Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came about.

Perhaps, I may need to point out to Mr Clooney as well as uninformed Malaysians that while in the Peninsular Malaysia the use of Allah and several other words are regulated by various laws, they are not regulated for use in the Sidang Injil Borneo’s Bibles for the people of Sabah and Sarawak. Even in Indonesia some Christians use “Allah” – and this is all due to historical reasons.

In my blog post entitled The Case For God, I wrote about the history of the usage of “Allah” in Christian literatures:

Let us remember one thing. Malaya (Peninsula Malaysia) was never colonised as a whole by the British, save for Penang, Malacca, and Singapore, while Sabah and Sarawak came under direct British colonial rule. Penang was acquired through a deal to lease the island made between the British East India Company and the Sultan of Kedah; Malacca was acquired from the Dutch through the Treaty of Bencoolen; and Singapore was included in the Treaty of Bencoolen by making the severely weakened Dutch to not object to the British occupation of Singapore. The people of these three places, together with Sabah and Sarawak, became British subjects.
Through treaties with the Sultans on the Peninsula, the British helped administer the State of the respective Sultans, while the Sultans remained as the supreme head of these sovereign states. The administration of Islam came under the purview of the respective Sultans as the protectors of the state’s religion.

So, why does Indonesia have Bibles that use the word Allah to describe God?
Unlike Malaya, Indonesia was a nation of conquered people. Hello! Remember the Dutch? When Douglas MacArthur met Emperor Hirohito, he purposely stood next to the Emperor to show the Japanese people that the Emperor was not a demi-God. Victors get to do as they please, and this is probably the same case as the Ladang Rakyat issue in Kelantan. The Dutch conquered parts of Indonesia beginning in 1595, and as part of its attempt to call the Malay diaspora in Indonesia to Christianity, the Book of Matthew was translated into the Indonesian language in 1629; and where the Dutch set foot, other religions were formally prohibited although Chinese temples as well as mosques remained in existence.

Missionaries, too, made headway in Sabah and Sarawak, converting the populace to Christianity. Sir Stamford Raffles recommended to Rev. Thomas Raffles (Buitenzorg, 10th February 1815, Mss. Eur. F.202/6) that Borneo be given vigorous campaigns by the missionaries as “the island is inhabited by a race scarcely emerged from Barbarism.

This does not mean that the Malays were free from attempts to proselytize them. In fact, Raffles, in a letter to his cousin in 1815 mentioned how “Religion and laws are so united” in Muslim dominated areas that the introduction of Christian beliefs will bring about “much mischief, much bitterness of heart and contention”.

Raffles contended that Christianity must be packaged in a new form and be conveyed to the Muslim majority through a gradual approach. The “pagans”, on the other hand, required no stratagems. His methods include the establishment of missionary schools where the Malays are taught to read and write in their own language. Then he set up printers to publish books in Malay. Missionaries were largely responsible for this effort with the help of local agents, and the most famous of these agents was a chap called Abdullah Abdul Kadir who is better known as Munshi (Teacher) Abdullah. He and other Munshis taught Christian missionaries the Malay language. His role went beyond that and became the first Muslim in South East Asia to translate the Bible into the Malay language, that he became the target of his contemporaries who called him Abdullah Paderi (Pastor Abdullah) among other things.

It is interesting to note, however, that Raffles never once attempted to convert Malays in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States where the Sultans rule and guard the interest of the religion of Islam. This is because it would be foolhardy to anger the Sultans whom the British had a treaty with, by undermining the sanctity of Islam by converting their subjects. In the case of Raffles, he only focused his efforts on those who are British subjects.
Here we see the subtle tactics of the Christian missionaries during Raffles’s times, and the Malay lackeys who colluded with them. We can see the similarities in events of nowadays. But the above is also why we have Allah in the Bibles of Indonesia and Sabah and Sarawak, but not in Peninsula Malaysia.

And the above continues to be protected and respected in Sabah and Sarawak by the 10-point agreement which also includes the immigration right to refuse entry to any undesirable persons that the Opposition has said is a violation of their rights.

What does the above history have to do with modern-day Malaysia where history should or suggested be forgotten?

In my later post entitled The Case For God – Part 3 I wrote about the attempts to proselytise Muslims which is in contravention of the Federal Constitution:

As mentioned in the previous installment, too, I find the argument that Allah is the common denominator for God in this region a joke. The common denominator in the Indo-Malay speaking world would be Tuhan instead of Allah. However, Allah is the term that is inside the Quran for as long as time can remember. I cannot say the same for the Bible as it no longer reflects the Old Testament. Anyhow, you cannot find the name Allah inside the Old Testament. Just a Hebrew name that does not even resemble both the Arabic and Roman spelling of Allah. Even so, Elohim as called by the Jews, refers to The God that has no Son, nor an equivalent called the Holy Spirit. Mind you, even the Jews are totally against the concept of deifying a human being. I am sure my wife’s Iban relatives who are Christian would understand the term “Tuhan” without any problem since Bahasa Malaysia is derived from the Malay language, and the term for God in Malay is Tuhan.

We have seen the subtle tactics of missionaries of those days in the first installment and how their modus operandi is now refined by present-day missionaries. This blogger had had the opportunity to meet up with Muslims proselytized during the month of Ramadhan of 2012 and was told of the very fine and subtle methods used to proselytize Muslims in Malaysia. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Malay people were not only bombarded with the Malay Bible, but also Christian publications in Malay such as Buletin Ariffin, Cermin Mata, Sahabat and Warta Melayu. Little has changed, but made only better. Recently, Johor’s Department of Islamic Affairs, together with the Home Ministry, confiscated 250 Christian literature in the Malay language. Imagine these books having titles such as Kaabah, Mengenal Rasul and Wahyu Illahi. With the state of Johor having around 58 percent Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 40 percent other religions, who were these Malay literature targeting? Ibans? Christians? Chinese? Read more about the attempt to proselytize Muslims in BigDog’s post.

So, what about the use of Allah by Christians in Indonesia, Egypt etc.?
Tell me how good has that been for Indonesia and Egypt? How well do the Muslims and Christians get along in those countries? The very reason we do not have beheading of Christians in Kelantan or lynching of Muslims in Sarawak is because we do not step on each others toes.

I also wrote the following:

So is “Allah” an integral part of Christianity? I argued on this when the Appellate Court decided against the High Court ruling:

When the Turks charged at the British lines during the Battle of Gallipoli, they cried “Allahu Akbar.” The British soldiers retorted, “Come and get your Allah here!”
If the same British soldiers are here now, they would be utmost disappointed that the Christians in Malaysia now want to accept Allah – the name of the God they believed to be false – as the special noun to replace the word “god”.
Why am I still on this issue? Some lawyers now say whatever decree the Agong issues, is not binding for non-Malays and non-Muslims.
Fine. The Malay Rulers may not have intrinsic powers left apart from dissolving or withholding a cabinet or state assembly, appoint a Prime Minister or a Menteri Besar, and protect the religion of Islam and Malay customs. I shall not dwell too deeply into this but my friend SatD has written a very good piece on this in his blog Pure Shiite.
What is most important is that when the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) confiscated those Bibles containing the special noun “Allah”, they were acting on the provisions of Section 9 of the Selangor Shariah Criminal Enactment which prohibits the use of 25 or so Islamic words and nouns in non-Muslim publications. You will be committing a crime merely by having one in your house or car, let alone propagate one to a Muslim (or more).
What does the Shariah enactment have to do with non-Muslims, you may ask. Everything! It is NOT an Islamic law, it is a State law! Actually, it is a State Criminal Law! And a state criminal law applies to all be they Muslims or otherwise. And it is a STRICT LIABILITY law! Like I said, you have one, you break the law!
You constitutional law sexperts may also argue that the law is unconstitutional. It may be so. But it is the state law until and until a Constitutional court decides otherwise.
Oh, cry foul all you want and claim that the Apellate Court judges were all Malays. This is the part that I do not understand. All these challenges to the decision of the Apellate Court may be a norm to some of you common criminals and petty lawbreakers; the judges may not even hazard to act against them but the person who should be taking action, the Attorney-General, should. It is in contempt of a court ruling. What does that tell me, a layman? The A-G is simply useless for allowing lawlessness become a norm.
When Muslims cry foul to the Christians saying that “Allah” is an integral part of Islam, it is because the concept of trinity is an antithesis of the “Oneness” of Allah. The special noun refers to The God, One and Only God. Not a God that needs a trike to be able to “stand.”
The Christians lashed back saying that the Muslims should not tell them what is integral and what is not to them, saying that Allah is integral to the Christians. Else why quarrel over the special noun?
The word “integral” means something that if not present, does not complete something. Like tyres to cars.
Let me ask them this: if “Allah” is integral to the Christian faith, does this mean that the Popes, for 2,000 years, all the way from St Peter Petrus, have gotten it all wrong?
Maybe those adamant to use the special noun “Allah” can now shout to the Pope to come get his “Allah” here.

Surat Terbuka Untuk Pengundi Melayu

Pada 9hb Mac 2008, buat pertama kalinya saya melihat seorang remaja Melayu dengan megahnya memakai sehelai kemeja ‘T’ yang tertera perkataan “DAP” dan mempunyai lambang roket DAP. Saya hanya mampu menggelengkan kepala. Di dalam hati saya teringat laporan kata-kata yang diungkapkan oleh Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Kit Siang:

“Melayu keluar! Apa lagi duduk sini, kita hentam lu…sekarang kita sudah ada kuasa…”

Begitulah bunyinya ungkapan beliau yang dilaporkan telah dilaung-laungkan di sekitar Jalan Khir, Kampung Baru, Kuala Lumpur pada 12hb Mei 1969. Sikap anti-Melayu Lim Kit Siang bukanlah suatu perkara yang baru, dan yang diungkapkan oleh beliau di atas bukanlah ungkapan anti-Melayu yang pertama pernah beliau ungkapkan. Sekiranya kita melayari laman dapat kita membaca siri ucapan dan surat-surat beliau yang dibuat sejak 1968, kita dapat melihat bagaimana beliau sering menggunakan isu perkauman untuk membuat kaum lain di Malaysia ini membenci kaum Melayu.

Apabila kita langkaui masa selama 44 tahun selepas itu, kita dapati parti DAP itu sendiri masih tidak berubah, malah masih mempunyai Lim Kit Siang sebagai Penasihat Parti. Yang berubah hanyalah sikap Lim Kit Siang yang lebih cauvinis. Beliau bukan sahaja masih bersikap anti-Melayu, malah anti-Islam juga. Sebagai contoh: dalam satu risalah yang dikeluarkan di media Internet, Lim Kit Siang berkata:

“Saya berpendapat Malaysia tidak akan dapat mencapai kemuncak potensinya sebagai sebuah negara maju kerana sekatan-sekatan dalam Islam. Sekaranglah masanya untuk untuk kita mengalihkan kesemua rintangan dengan menukar kerajaan yang sedia ada dan juga perlembagaan, Ini Kalilah!”


Maka tidak hairanlah kita apabila para pemimpin PAS yang kita mengharapkan dapat mengekang kemaraan sikap cauvinis ini sering lari bertempiaran dengan ekor dikepit dicelah kangkang disergah oleh DAP setiap kali isu Hudud atau penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam kitab Injil diutarakan. Malah, masih ingat saya sebuah artikel mengenai amaran Karpal Singh dalam Utusan Malaysia bertarikh 18hb Oktober 1990 yang menyebut:

“Mahu wujudkan Negara Islam langkah mayat kami dulu – Karpal Singh”


Disebabkan perbalahan di antara dua parti ini juga kita melihat pendirian PAS yang sering berubah-ubah. Dalam Utusan Malaysia bertarikh 4hb Ogos 2001, YAB Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat dilaporkan berkata:

“Bukan sahaja dalam manifesto, dalam perlembagaan PAS sendiri tidak mengandungi satu perkataan pun untuk menubuhkan Negara Islam, dia (DAP) boleh tengok sendiri dan baca perlembagaan itu.”


Maka, bolehlah kita simpulkan di sini bahawa menubuhkan Negara Islam itu bukanlah perjuangan sebenar PAS, malah dikeji oleh sekutunya DAP. Ini juga merupakan pendirian PKR sepertimana yang dilaporkan dalam akhbar Kosmo bertarikh 25hb April 2013:

“PKR, DAP tetap bantah rancangan PAS untuk laksanakan hudud jika menang PRU-13. Khalid tolak hudud di Selangor.”


Pakatan Rakyat di dalam manifestonya (Manifesto Rakyat: Pakatan Harapan Rakyat) ada menyebut di dalam Bahasa Malaysia seperti berikut:

“Menghayati kedudukan Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan, menjamin hak kebebasan beragama.”

Tetapi dalam terjemahan kedalam Bahasa Inggeris pula, ianya ditulis sebegini:

“Respecting the position of Islam as the OFFICIAL RELIGION, guaranteeing the freedom of religion. (menghormati kedudukan Islam sebagai AGAMA RESMI, menjamin hak kebebasan beragama)”

Saudara dan saudari perlu membaca dan telitikan dua maksud yang berbeza di atas.


Jelas untuk pengundi bukan Melayu/Islam, agama Islam hanya menjadi agama resmi Persekutuan dan bukan agama Persekutuan seperti yang termaktub dalam Artikel 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. Ini bakal member kebebasan mereka untuk memujuk orang Islam, terutamanya dari kaum Melayu, untuk orang Islam menukar agama, dan juga kebebasan untuk mereka menggunakan apa jua bahasa termasuk kalimah Allah dalam kitab-kitab serta bahan cetak lain-lain agama.

Untuk memahami sebab kalimah Allah tidak dipakai di Semenanjung Malaysia tetapi digunakan di Sabah, Sarawak dan Indonesia, saudara-saudari pembaca perlu memahami sejarah kolonisasi rantau nusantara serta perjanjian-perjanjian di antara Raja-Raja Melayu negeri-negeri Bersekutu dan tidak Bersekutu dengan pihak British.

Sehingga tertubuhnya Malayan Union pada tahun 1946, kecuali Pulau Pinang, Melaka dan Singapura yang membentuk Negeri-Negeri Selat, Tanah Melayu tidak pernah dijajah. Negeri-Negeri Melayu Bersekutu yang dianggotai Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan dan Pahang menandatangani perjanjian perlindungan (independent protectorate) dengan pihak British dengan syarat seorang pentadbir British (Residen) digajikan oleh pihak Raja-Raja Negeri Melayu Bersekutu kerana mempunyai system pentadbiran yang seragam, manakala negeri-negeri lain mempunyai seorang Penasihat (Adviser). Contoh seorang Residen ialah Frank Swettenham, manakala Penasihat kepada Negeri Kedah ialah William George Maxwell.

Berbeza dengan Indonesia yang mana ianya ditakluk dan dijajah oleh Belanda, dan Sabah dan Sarawak yang dimiliki syarikat-syarikat kepunyaan warga British. Oleh sebab itu, di Indonesia, kolonialis Belanda memperkenalkan agama Kristian dan kitab Injil di dalam Bahasa Indonesia serta mengharamkan ibadah lain-lain agama termasuk Islam.

Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles, yang lebih dikenali sejarah sebagai Sir Stamford Raffles, gabenor British di Singapura, merupakan seorang mubaligh Krisitan yang masyhur. Beliau telah menggunakan kuasanya untuk menjemput rakan-rakan mubaligh dari England ke Borneo Utara dan Sarawak kerana “pulau tersebut didiami oleh satu kaum yang masih hidup belum keluar dari sifat kegasaran.” Di sinilah bermulanya titik permulaan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam kitab Injil dan lain-lain penerbitan Kristian yang menggunakan bahasa Melayu seperti Buletin Ariffin, Cermin Mata, Sahabat dan Warta Melayu.

Beliau bukannya tidak pernah mencuba untuk mengKristiankan orang Islam di Tanah Melayu, tetapi mendapatinya sukar dilaksanakan memandangkan perjanjian di antara pihak British dengan Raja-Raja Melayu yang mempertahankan agama Islam dan adat-istiadat orang Melayu. Di dalam surat beliau kepada sepupunya, beliau menulis:

“Agama dan undang-undang adalah terlalu sebati sehinggakan memperkenalkan agama Kristian akan membawa kepada kemusnahan, dendam dan perbalahan.” (Buitenzorg, 10hb Februari 1815, Mss. Eur. F.202/6)

Itulah sebabnya apabila ahli-ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri dari parti DAP mengangkat sumpah pada tahun 2008, mereka menunjukkan sikap biadap terhadap Raja-Raja Melayu. Tidak cukup dengan itu, digalakkan pula anak-anak muda Melayu bersikap biadap terhadap institusi Raja. Serang pengaruh Raja-Raja Melayu maka ianya akan melemahkan kepercayaan dan sikap hormat orang Melayu terhadap institusi Raja-Raja Melayu yang menjadi penjaga dan pemelihara agama Islam dan adat-istiadat orang Melayu.

Kita dapat lihat dengan jelas bagaimana mubaligh-mubaligh Kristian mula menyiarkan risalah-risalah dan lain-lain penerbitan dalam Bahasa Malaysia bertujuan untuk memesongkan aqidah umat Islam di Negara ini. Sebagai contoh, di Johor, sebanyak 250 buah buku bertajuk seperti Kaabah, Mengenal Rasul dan Wahyu Illahi disebarkan tetapi dirampas oleh Jabatan Agama Islam Johor dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri. Dalam sebuah negeri yang 58 peratus penduduknya beragama Islam, manakala hanya 2 peratus penganut agama Kristian, untuk siapakah yang saudara-saudari pembaca sekalian rasa risalah-risalah ini dicetak?

Semua ini dilakukan demi kuasa. Dan demi berkuasa, insan yang bernama Anwar Ibrahim sering berdolak-dalik dalam isu penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut agama lain.

Pada 24hb Jun 2010 di Woodrow Wilson International Centre di Washington D.C, Anwar Ibrahim telah mengulas isu kalimah Allah dan menyatakan:

“Trend di Malaysia, yang pertama sekali isu kalimah Allah. Ia benar-benar tidak waras sekiranya tidak teruk untuk mengesyorkan, bahawa anda memaksa, bukan Muslim menerima undang-undang yang menafikan hak mereka, memanggil Tuhan mereka dengan apa-apa nama. Anda boleh memanggil nama-nama lain kecuali Allah. Tetapi perkara ini hanya boleh datang daripada golongan Pemerintah yang tidak berpandangan jauh, bersifat perkauman, tidak bersikap toleran dan tidak demokratik. Kami di dalam Pakatan Rakyat, bukan sahaja PKR dan DAP, malahan PAS telah mengambil pendirian bahawa kami tidak boleh menerima undang-undang ini. Kami mesti menghormati hak agama atau kepercayaan lain untuk memanggil Tuhan mereka dengan nama Allah.”

Saudara dan saudari sekalian, cukuplah Melayu diperbodohkan atau buat-buat bodoh terutamanya dalam isu yang melibatkan agama Islam serta maruah bangsa Melayu. Silap kita memangkah nescaya yang bakal menerima akibat khilaf kita adalah anak cucu kita. Janganlah kita fikirkan bahawa kita akan tetap selamat sekiranya calon tersebut Melayu PKR atau PAS menentang bukan Melayu dari MCA atau MIC. Kita perlu lihat siapa peneraju dan terbuktikah beliau mempertahan dan memperkasakan kedudukan Islam dan Melayu di Negara ini. Lihat juga siapa menjadi dalang utama di dalam Pakatan Rakyat – tidak lain tidak bukan DAP yang tidak pernah berubah sejak tahun 1969.


Ingat saudara-saudari sekalian, satu undi untuk PKR mahupun PAS adalah merupakan satu undi terhadap penguasaan DAP ke atas agama Islam dan bangsa Melayu.

Sekian, terima kasih.