Saturday, July 26, 2014


By Dr Chandra Muzaffar

The Russian military has released military monitoring data which challenge allegations circulating in the media pertaining to the MH 17 crash in the Donetsk Region of Eastern Ukraine on July 17 2014. Questions have been raised about Kiev military jets tracking MH 17, Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the deployment of Buk missile systems. Kiev should also release military data on the circumstances leading to the crash. So should the Pentagon which reportedly has relevant intelligence and satellite data.
Since military data is hardcore information, Kiev and Washington should be persuaded to be transparent and accountable. The UN Secretary-General can play a role in this since there is a specialized agency within the UN, the ICAO, dedicated to international civil aviation. Military data from Moscow, Kiev and Washington should be scrutinized by the independent international panel that is supposed to probe the MH 17 catastrophe.
Such data carries much more weight than videos purportedly revealing the role of the pro-Russian rebels and the Russian government in the crash. One such video showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia is a fabrication. The billboard in the background establishes that it was shot in a town --- Krasnoarmeisk --- that has been under the control of the Ukrainian military since May 11. Similarly, a You Tube video showing a Russian General and Ukrainian rebels discussing their role in mistakenly downing a civilian aircraft was, from various tell-tale signs, produced before the event.
The public should be wary of fabricated “evidence” of this sort, after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton US aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than 3 million Vietnamese? The “babies in incubators” incident in Kuwait in 1990 was yet another manufactured lie that aroused the anger of the people and served to justify the US assault on Iraq.  Just last year we saw how an attempt was  made by some parties to pin the blame for a sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria upon the Assad government when subsequent investigations have revealed that it was the work of some militant rebel group.
From Tonkin to Ghouta there is a discernible pattern when it comes to the fabrication of evidence to justify some nefarious agenda or other. As soon as the event occurs before any proper investigation has begun, blame is apportioned upon the targeted party. This is done wilfully to divert attention from the real culprit whose act of evil remains concealed and camouflaged. The colluding media then begins to spin the “correct” version with the help of its reporters and columnists who concoct “fact” out of fiction. Any other explanation or interpretation of the event is discredited and dismissed derisively to ensure that the “credibility” of the dominant narrative remains intact. As the narrative unfolds, the target often embodied in a certain personality is demonized to such a degree that he arouses the ire of the public and becomes an object of venom.
The pattern described here is typical of what is known as a “false flag” operation in which blame for some dastardly deed is consciously transferred to one’s adversary. It has happened right through history and many contemporary nation-states --- and not just the United States --- are guilty of flying false flags.
To protect ourselves from being deceived by such operations, the general public should always ask: who stands to gain from a particular episode? Cui Bono is in fact an important principle in the investigation of a crime. In the case of the MH 17 carnage, the pro-Russian rebels do not benefit in any way from downing a civilian airliner. Their goal is independence from the Kiev government which is why they are fighting Kiev through sometimes violent means including shooting down its military planes.  Massacring 298 passengers in a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur does not serve their cause. Moscow which backs the rebels to an extent also gains nothing from involving itself in such a diabolical carnage.  
10 days after the carnage, it is now clear who is trying to reap benefits from that terrible tragedy in the skies. The demonization of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, orchestrated from various Western capitals, including Kiev, after Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, thus thwarting one of the primary strategic goals of NATO’s eastward expansion, has now reached its pinnacle. After MH 17, it has become a lot easier to convince people--- even without an iota of evidence --- that Putin is a “mass murderer”.  The tarnishing of Putin’s image is crucial for those in the West who want to curb Russia’s political re-assertion so that the US and its allies can perpetuate their global dominance without hindrance.     
MH 17 has helped the elite in Washington in yet another sense. It has strengthened its push for tougher sanctions against Russia which began after the Crimea vote. Given their extensive economic ties with Russia, many European countries such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy have been somewhat lukewarm about widening and deepening sanctions. But will that change now? Will an outraged European public, incensed by the MH 17 massacre, demand that their governments punish Moscow?
It is obvious that those who seek to punish Russia and the pro-Russian rebels, namely, the elite in Washington and Kiev, are poised to gain the most from the MH 17 episode. Does it imply that they would have had a role in the episode itself? Only a truly independent and impartial international inquiry would be able to provide the answer.
In this regard, we must admit that while elites in Kiev and Washington may stand to gain from MH 17, those who actually pulled the trigger may be some other group or individual with links to the powerful in the two capitals. It is quite conceivable that a certain well-heeled individual equipped with the appropriate military apparatus and with access to air-control authorities in the region may have executed the act of evil itself.
Because of who he is, and where his loyalties lie, that individual may have also decided to target Malaysia. Was he giving vent to his anger over our principled stand on the question of justice for the Palestinians? Was he also attempting to divert public attention from Israel’s ground offensive against Gaza which time-wise coincided with the downing of the Malaysian airliner?
As we explore MH 17 from this angle, would we be able to connect the dots between MH 17 and MH 370, between July 17 and March 8, 2014?
We should not rest till the whole truth is known and the evil behind these two colossal catastrophes punished severely.
We owe this to every soul who perished on those fateful flights.

(This article is dedicated to the cherished memory of all those on MH 17 --- especially the 80 children who were on board).

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).


26 July 2014 

Friday, July 25, 2014

Salam Eid Mubarak !

Salam Hari Raya and Salam Holidays to all my blog readers.

Peace !

Friday, July 18, 2014

Prayers is one thing BUT The Government must act to protect the Safety of Malaysians and its Property !

1. MH17 is another tragic disaster to befall Malaysia and the passengers on board.

2. We are of course sad with the loss of lives for their loved ones and our condolences.

3. It is still unclear who shot the plane.

4. If it is the separatists, then Russia too may be held as an accomplice. If it is the separatists, then the theory that it was mistaken for President Putin's plane does not hold water as they are on the same side.

4. ON the other hand, if it is the Ukrainian Government, then it has a lot of explanation to do and the Malaysian Government must hold it accountable.

5. I hope the Malaysian Government is more firm and vocal is declaring to the world that it will do all it can to protect Malaysian lives, the lives of those under its care and Malaysian property.

May the souls rest in peace !

They Don't really Care About US !!!

If you really think about it, the powerful and influential do not really care about us.

Peace !

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Biadap itu Biadap tanpa mengira kaum atau agama.

1. Allah swt tidak mengkhususkan kebaikan bagi satu kaum dan kejahatan bagi kaum yang lain. Ada orang baik dan jahat dalam semua kaum.

2. Kesalahan, kebiadapan dan dosa tetap kesalahan, kebiadapan dan dosaa tanpa mengira kaum atau agama. Yang baik tetap baik dan yang jahat tetap jahat.

3. Jangan kerana seorang manusia daripada kaum tertentu itu bersikap jahat atau biadap, maka kita hukum keseluruhan kaum itu sebagai jahat atau biadap.

4. Allah swt lah yang mencipta kita pelbagai bahasa, kaum, warna, budaya dan sebagainya. Kepelbagaian ciptaan ini mencerminkan, diantara lain, kebesaran dan rahmah Allah kepada kita.

5. Kita dicipta pelbagai kaum, bahasa dan budaya bukan untuk bermusuhan atau untuk mendiskriminasi manusia lain berdasarkan kaum atau budaya. Kita disuruh saling berkenalan dan sentiasa berlaku adil dan mengejar untuk melakukan perbuatan baik.

" Hai manusia, sesungguhnya Kami menciptakan kamu dari seorang laki laki dan seorang perempuan dan menjadikan kamu berbangsa-bangsa dan bersuku-suku supaya kamu saling kenal mengenal. Sesungguhnya orang yang paling mulia di antara kamu di sisi Allah ialah orang yang paling bertakwa di antara kamu. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Mengetahui lagi Maha Mengenal". (Quran 49:13)

6. Yang biadap atau jahat bukan kaum Melayu, kaum Cina, kaum Rusia, kaum Eropah, kaum Venezuala, kaum India, kaum Jerman, kaum Uzbekistan, kaum Arab dan sebagainya. Yang biadap dan jahat ialah individu yang biadap dan jahat.

7. Oleh yang demikian, jauhilah daripada bisikan Iblis dan syaitan untuk memporak perandakan masyarakat dengan menjadikan perbuatan orang jahat dan biadap sebagai satu isu perkauman.

 "Orang-orang yang beriman, dan tidak mencampuradukkan iman mereka dengan kezaliman; bagi merekalah keamanan, dan merekalah orang-orang yang mendapat petunjuk yang benar" (Quran: 6:82)


Sunday, July 6, 2014

Islam -- Up for Grabs?

 Become a fan

Author, Deputy Director of ISEAS
( Article taken from TheWorldPost)

SINGAPORE -- The world is wrestling with a variety of events, all classed under the name of Islam. A storm of social media criticism against the shocking kidnapping by the militant Boko Haram of more than 200 schoolgirls in Chibok, Nigeria, eventually prompted countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel and Canada to offer military and intelligence aid to Nigeria. At the same time, a spontaneous and celebrity-led boycott of top hotels in Hollywood owned by the Sultan of Brunei, though not expected to be effective, is underway after the little Southeast Asian kingdom initiated a staggered implementation of hudud punishments, which would eventually include stoning adulterers to death.
While the two events are not connected, both help fuel a perception of a deep polarization between ways regarded as "Islamic" and those that are not.
Two related dynamics are involved, which if left undiscussed may inflame international relations for decades to come. The first has to do with the excessive use of "Islam" in denoting as many aspects of daily life as possible. With Islam being a holistic religion, modern leaders of Muslim-majority societies tend to encourage the description of as many aspects as possible of modern life under a restrictive Islamic paradigm. Regrettably, this tendency mirrors and sustains the simultaneous propensity of non-Muslims to regard Muslim societies as being steered by a rigid religious ideology.
"Historically, resistance to excessive Islamization in Muslim-majority countries was often headed by the military."
Second, the sense of besiegement felt in Muslim societies since the fall of the Ottoman Empire has discouraged public criticism among Muslims of any aspect of culture their society has already labeled Islamic. This is avoided especially in contexts involving non-Muslims. Again, matters are exacerbated by a growing propensity of non-Muslims to vex unfavorably on Islamic culture.
Typically, the international assistance being given to Nigeria in the search for the schoolgirls does not include Muslim countries. This is a pity and is symptomatic of the treacherous Islam-versus-the-rest paradigm the world has created and of the two dynamics mentioned above
Historically, effective resistance to excessive Islamization in Muslim-majority countries has often been headed by the military, as champions of secularism. This has been obvious in the modern history of the Middle East.
Where monarchies have reigned, Islam's role has been harder to predict. And so in Brunei, a stable country living off oil wells, the sudden implementation of hudud has left many baffled. The government has suppressed social media response against the sudden imposition of hudud. Whether the whole exercise is simply the whim of an autocrat or long-term strategic politics is too early to determine.
In nations where Muslims comprise a small majority of the population, the role of Islam has been more undecided. In Malaysia, where about 60 percent are Muslims, the trend has been towards a homogenizing of Islam and a strengthening of the religious bureaucracy. The incessant drawing of an effective line to separate Muslims from non-Muslims has over the last 40 years also precipitated the painful erasure of healthy distinctions among the Muslims themselves.
"In nations where Muslims comprise a small majority of the population, the role of Islam has been more undecided."
This is an unfortunate historical change. A common understanding about the spread of Islam in Southeast Asia since the 14th century is that it was largely peaceful and commerce-driven. In a wish to attract the Arab and other Muslim merchants who then dominated oceanic traffic, port rulers became Muslims.
Given the hierarchic and caste-based nature of the many ancient Indic kingdoms that dotted the archipelago, Islam came as a liberating ideology for the lower classes. This democratization of religious consciousness did not go very far, and traditional authoritarian structures of power did in fact prevail. The nine sultans in Malaysia and the Brunei Sultanate are a case in point.
Culturally, however, a sense of Islamic cosmopolitanism, inclusiveness and liberation was enhanced over time. Such had been the peaceful historical nature of Islam in Southeast Asia.
However, recent trends spanning the world have come to change this perception.
In Southeast Asia, an Islamic revival has been going on since the 1970s. As colonies, the Malay sultanates, along with Brunei, were governed through a clever formula where the British stayed out of matters of religion and culture. This allowed the populace at large to imagine that they in essence actually stayed uncolonized.
An uneasy co-habitation between civil law and Muslim law thus came to form the fabric of post-colonial society in Malaysia and Brunei. The fact that the majority of the archipelagic peoples were Muslims while migrants into the region were followers of other faiths made the political equation a very difficult one.
In recent times, in line with global fashion, increasing numbers of individuals and groups have opportunistically come to use "Islam" as an easy route to infamy -- and power.
The kidnapping of the school girls in Nigeria is but the latest extreme event involving a claim to know "Islam." The 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, major bombings in European cities, the bombings in Indonesia, the attack on the Boston Marathon, and America's war on terror have all made "Islam" a modern newsmaker that is second to none.
"It is worrying to Muslims that Islam -- perhaps because of its decentralized procedures -- is being so easily hijacked."
A majority of non-Muslims in Southeast Asia may have come to see Islam as a growing threat to their civil and religious liberties, but it is just as worrying to Muslims that Islam -- perhaps because of its decentralized and devolved procedure of doctrinal proclamations -- is being so evidently and easily hijacked.
In Malaysia, the government has banned certain Arabic words central to Islamic discourses from use by non-Muslims, including the word "Allah." The common excuse is that their use by non-Muslims in non-Muslim contexts might confuse common Muslims. The latest inane proclamation is that historical immigration into the region had been engineered over centuries for the sole purpose of robbing Malays of their birth rights.
In truth, much of the confusion is generated within Muslim communities through the strong inclination to couch and simplify all social tensions, psychological pressures and political conflicts as opposing religious positions. And since this is done by any power-seeker, ranging from hooligans such as Nigeria's Boko Haram, unscrupulous opportunists within Malaysia's Malay-based political parties, purportedly devout scholars or aging aristocrats, it has become difficult to tell what seriously rests on religious fundaments and what does not.
In a situation where political leadership is weak, as in Nigeria and much of the Islamic world, this crucial distinction is ignored, encouraging further misuse of the Islamic label as a shortcut to political relevance. Religious pronouncements, true or false, have become an easy path to power and consequence. "Islam" as a self-glorifying and self-justifying marker is up for grabs.
All major religions promulgate rules, but they also teach tolerance and compassion. For some sad reason, the social turbulence of modern times has in public discourse and behavior allowed the doctrinal and punitive aspects of historical Islam to overshadow the religion's compassionate teachings and practices. Resetting the balance will not be easy, and is furthermore a task that is best done from within Muslim communities, in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
The writer is the deputy director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. His articles can be read at
This also appears on YaleGlobal
Rights: Copyright © 2014 The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Illusion and deception of Power

Contrary to popular belief, power and glory are not ‘difficult’ to achieve though it is thought to be achieved by only a select few in society. In a sense, everyone who is born gradually attains power of sorts as he grows until he reaches a pinnacle of power whereupon; his power declines and then ends with death. A simple example will be the comparison between a baby and a teenager. The teenager yields much power compared to a baby. 

This natural aspect of power has often been forgotten by many because of the distraction of “artificial” power”. By artificial power, I mean that power which is enhanced by the use of illusions and deceptive methods. Example, teenager A of equal natural capacity with teenager B is of equal power naturally. However, when the image of teenager B is artificially propped up by various means, teenager B creates the illusion that he is more powerful than teenager A. Examples of artificially propping tools are like certain clothing, a fictitious storyline, etc. 

You can continue reading by clicking here