Category Archives: Uncategorized

Pengertian Nama Malaysia: Antara Fakta dan Auta

Saya terjumpa satu siri poster yang menarik di internet, The Literal Translation of Country Names yang menurut tajuknya menyenaraikan terjemahan harfiah nama negara-negara di dunia ini.

Malaysia tersenarai di dalam poster bagi benua Asia, tetapi apabila saya membaca terjemahan harfiah untuk Malaysia, saya amat terkejut!

Kita semua tentu sedia maklum bahawa nama Malaysia terbentuk daripada dua perkataan Bahasa Greek iaitu ‘Malay’, dan ‘-sia’.

‘Malay’ ialah perkataan Greek untuk ‘Melayu’; manakala ‘-sia’ pula ialah satu akhiran dalam Bahasa Greek yang bererti ‘tanah’ (‘-σία’ di dalam abjad Greek); yang kadang kala di pendekkan kepada ‘-ia’ seperti Mongolia, Columbia dan sebagainya.

Ini bermakna ‘literal translation’ atau terjemahan harfiah untuk Malaysia ke dalam bahasa Inggeris ialah ‘Malay Land’ atau ‘Land of the Malays’ dan terjemahan harfiah ke Bahasa Melayu ialah ‘Melayu tanah’ atau lebih tepatnya ‘Tanah Melayu’.

Tetapi anehnya, di dalam poster tersebut, Malaysia diterjemahkan kepada ‘Bandar Gunung’ atau ‘Mountain City’!

Poster “The Literal Translation of Country Names” yang dibuat oleh Credit Card Compare

Bagaimana Tanah Melayu boleh bertukar kepada Bandar Gunung, yang dari segi maknanya pun tidak ada kaitan langsung dengan Malaysia, pertama Malaysia ialah negara dan bukan sekadar bandar dan nama Bandar Gunung langsung tidak bersesuaian dengan keadaan geografi Malaysia.

Apabila saya melihat rujukan poster tersebut, rupa-rupanya mereka merujuk kepada Oxford Dictionary, yang mendakwa perkataan ‘Melayu’ berasal daripada dua buah perkataan Sanskrit, “malai” iaitu Gunung, dan “ur” iaitu bandar.

Sedangkan bila membuat ‘literal translation’ untuk Malaysia, yang patut diterjemahkan ialah ‘Malay’ dan ‘-sia’ dan bukannya ‘Melayu’.

Gambar ihsan TheNusantara.org

Mengarut betul kerja mereka padahal bagi negara lain yang berakhir dengan ‘-sia’ atau ‘-ia’, mereka terjemahkan sebagai ‘land’ atau ‘tanah’, contohnya Russia diterjemahkan kepada “Land of the Rus” dan Mongolia diterjemahkan kepada “Land of the Mongols”

Persoalannya kalau Russia mereka terjemahkan dengan betul kepada “Land of the Rus” kenapa Malaysia tidak diterjemahkan kepada “Land of the Malay” seperti yang sepatutnya?

Apakah ini satu kesilapan akibat kajian yang dibuat secara sambil lewa ataupun adakah ini satu usaha licik untuk mengubah terjemahan sebenar Malaysia iaitu Tanah Melayu kepada suatu nama yang tiada kaitan dengan orang Melayu?

Kita sering melihat berbagai usaha daripada berberapa pihak yang berkeras mahu menafikan bahawa Malaysia ialah Tanah Melayu.

Jadi apakah ini satu usaha di pentas antarabangsa untuk mengelirukan orang ramai dengan istilah Bandar Gunung yang langsung tidak relavan dengan negara Malaysia?

Natijahnya buatlah semakan sebelum mempercayai apa sahaja yang dibaca supaya kita tidak terpedaya dan kalau kita terbaca fakta yang tidak betul tentang negara kita, bersuaralah.

Sempena Hari Kebangsaan 2018, kita sebagai rakyat Malaysia mestilah bersikap patriotik dan berusaha memahami sejarah dan ideologi negara; ingatlah Malaysia ialah Tanah Melayu seperti yang jelas tertulis didalam sejarah dan diperjelaskan oleh mereka yang pakar tentang sejarah tanah air kita seperti Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim dan Datuk Ramlah Adam.

Related Articles:

  1. Hayati Pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu Dalam Menyambut Hari Kebangsaan
  2. Apakah Maksud Kemerdekaan?
  3. Di Sebalik Hari Kebangsaan Malaysia
  4. Ideologi Komunis dan Kekeliruan yang Nyata
  5. Kebenaran Di Sebalik Sejarah Penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia
  6. Selami Kekejaman Pengganas Di Galeri Darurat Bukit Kepong (Gambar)
  7. Tragedi Hitam Bukit Kepong – Sejarah Hitam Yang Mesti Diingati

Video: 6 Sebab Ku Li Paling Layak Menjadi Presiden UMNO

  1. KU LI PALING BERPENGALAMAN
    Ku Li paling faham sikap dan pemikiran Tun Mahathir. Ini amat penting dalam pencaturan politik UMNO.
    Beliau paling berpengalaman dalam mentadbir negara ketika krisis, berbanding calon-calon lain.
  2. KU LI SETIA DENGAN DASAR PERJUANGAN UMNO
    Jika jawatan Presiden jatuh ke tangan orang lain, belum tentu asas perjuangan UMNO akan terus dimartabatkan, kerana ada calon Presiden mahu mengubah prinsip asas UMNO.
  3. KU LI TAK SETUJU BUKA KEAHLIAN KEPADA BUKAN MELAYU
    Menghayati asas perjuangan parti, Ku Li faham bahawa UMNO adalah wadah perjuangan orang Melayu.
    Ku li tidak mahu membuka keahlian UMNO kepada kaum-kaum lain.
  4. KU LI TERBUKTI SEORANG PEMIMPIN YANG HEBAT
    Digelar “Bapa Pembangunan Ekonomi Malaysia”, Ku Li adalah mantan Menteri Kewangan dan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri yang handal pada era Tun.
    Beliau juga MP Gua Musang (dahulunya Ulu Kelantan) sejak 44 tahun dahulu.
  5. SUMBANGAN KU LI KEPADA PEMBANGUNAN NEGARA
    Digelar “Putera Minyak Negara”;
    Pengasas, Pengerusi dan Ketua Eksekutif pertama PETRONAS;
    Pengerusi pertama Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PERNAS);
    Mantan presiden Malaysian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
    Mantan Presiden ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
    Mengetuai delegasi perdagangan pertama Malaysia ke China pada tahun 1971;
  6. KU LI DIHORMATI DI PENTAS ANTARABANGSA
    Pengerusi Asian Development Bank, 1976;
    Pengerusi International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), 1977;
    Pengerusi Islamic Development Bank (Arab Saudi), 1978;

Sokonglah TENGKU RAZALEIGH HAMZAH demi masa depan UMNO yang cemerlang!

Harvey: Before And After Photos Of Catastrophic Houston Flood

Hurricane Harvey which made landfall as a Category 4 storm in Texas on August 25, caused “epic and catastrophic” flooding especially in Houston and some other parts of Texas.

Floodwaters are expected to rise further in the inundated Houston as the flood situation in Texas is expected to worsen in the coming days.

Below are some before and after photos of the flood caused by Hurricane Harvey taken from Yahoo! News and The Guardian.

Please click the photos for larger images:

Human Rights in Relation to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia – Part 1

Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy (CENTHRA) hosted an essay contest in 2015. I wanted to take part but I was not allowed because the age limit was from 18 years old and above. I was twelve at the time but I still wrote an essay on the topic given, and sent it to CENTHRA  as my submission for the contest even though I was told that I cannot take part because I was too young. I think young people like me must also be given the chance to voice out our opinions and not to be considered as immature. We also have our rights as granted by the Federal Constitution and the Convention of the Rights of the Child and we hope to be given the opportunity to be included in making the decision for the future of our country.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was drafted as the result of the Second World War experience. It was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December, 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.

Generally when people talk about human rights, they will be referring to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) “common standard law of human rights” that was drafted by a group of people who subscribed to the ideology of liberalism.

The question is, is it fair to use the UDHR as the universal standard human rights law for all peoples from all nations in this world?

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993 states the human rights regulations must take into account, the religions, customs and cultural systems of the region. In other words, the human rights of the people must be subjected to the aspiration of the people; and not only subjected to the aspiration of the committee of the UNHRC and the drafters of the UDHR alone.

Part I, Para 5 of Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In my opinion, human rights regulations must be subjected to the state laws of the Member State. Let us take Malaysia as an example. Malaysia is a country which has stated in its Federal Constitution (FC) that, “Islam is the religion of the Federation”, making Malaysia an Islamic country.

Article 3(1) of the FC:

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

Hence, any UNHRC human rights regulations that are against the law of Islam are against the FC which is the supreme law of Malaysia, as stated in Article 4 of the FC:

This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Since the religion of Malaysia is placed under Article 3(1) of the FC, it shows the importance of Islam in the FC; hence the interpretation of other Articles of the FC must be harmonious with Islam; including the Articles about the human right of its people.

If we look at the UNHRC human rights conventions, we can see that some of the Articles of the conventions are against the FC. First, let us look at Article 18 of ICCPR:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Thus, Article 18 of the ICCPR is inapplicable and unconstitutional in Malaysia because, while Article 11(1) of the FC guarantees freedom of religion; the rights to propagate is subjected to Article 11(4). In the Federal Court judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, The Right Honourable Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

“Thus, in the present case, we are of the view that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution must be read in particular with Articles 3(1), 11, 74(2) and 121. Article 3(1) declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 11 guarantees every person’s right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. With regard to propagation, there is a limitation imposed by Article 11(4) which reads:-

“(4) State Law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”

In the same judgement, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif concluded that:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.

Therefore, unlike the UNHRC liberal interpretation of freedom of religion, it is the right of the Muslims to be governed according to the Islamic law and to be protected against the secular and liberal ideology of the UNHRC common human rights regulations; apart from the freedom to manifest Islam in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Article 18 of the ICCPR also gives people the freedom to choose whether they want to believe or not to believe in god. It is very important to understand that according to the Rukun Negara or the National Principles, the “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” means ‘freedom of religion’ and not ‘freedom from religion’. The Rukun Negara clearly states that all citizens of Malaysia must believe in god in its first principal which is, ‘Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan’ or ‘Belief in God’. As opposed to the UNHRC’s ideas of human rights, atheism is not part of the rights guaranteed under the freedom of religion in Malaysia.

Apart from going against the Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the FC; Article 18 of the ICCPR is also against the Articles 37, 38, 76 and 159(5) of the FC. That means it should be void even if it was signed by the federal government as pressured by the UNHRC.

According to Article 38 of the FC, the Parliament cannot make into law and implement Article 18 of ICCPR without the consent of the Conference of Rulers because it touches the matters of religious acts and observances.

Article 38(2)(b) of FC:

The Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of— (b) agreeing or disagreeing to the extension of any religious acts, observances or ceremonies to the Federation as a whole;

Article 38(2)(c) of FC:

consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference;

Also, Article 18 of ICCPR cannot be implemented and made into law without the concern of the Government of the State, as in accordance to Article 76 of the FC.

Article 76(1)(a) of FC:

Parliament may make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, but only as follows, that is to say – for the purpose of implementing any treaty, agreement or convention between the Federation and any other country, or any decision of an international organization of which the Federation is a member.

Article 76(2) ) of FC:

No law shall be made in pursuance of paragraph (a) of Clause (1) with respect to any matters of Islamic law or the custom of the Malays or to any matters of native law or custom in the States of Sabah and Sarawak and no Bill for a law under that paragraph shall be introduced into either House of Parliament until the Government of any State concerned has been consulted.

To be continued in Part II…

“Firstly Islam was a NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, Apa Komen Kak Wan?

Is this PKR man sane and worthy to be a leader of our country?

Lately, making seditious statements is the latest trend for some people who wanted to be seen as a hero for certain group of people. 

Latest is a former PKR ADUN of Batu Uban, Pulau Pinang, Raveentharan Subramaniam’s  turn to do so.

“Firstly Islam was a NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, wrote the former PKR ADUN of Batu Uban, Pulau Pinang, Raveentharan Subramaniam on his Facebook page.

Raveentharan later posted an apology saying that he never intended to offend Islam.

However, how can such a direct seditious, malicious and rude statement on Islam was said as not “intended to offend Islam”?

In fact, not only does the statement offend the Muslims, but worst it can cause a racial tension between the Muslims and the non-Muslims.

It was reported that he will be investigated under Section 298 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

Moreover, by saying that, “Islam was NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, Raveentharan has gone against the Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act, which says:

A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia…

By the way, what does PKR party president has to say about her man’s malicious statement?

And if Kak Wan and her allies say nothing, may I ask if that PKR agrees with Raveentharan Subramaniam’s statement?

 

Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?

Saya tidak terkejut apabila ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera, Zairil yang walaupun mengaku beragama Islam tetapi menentang taraf, kedudukan dan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia seperti yang telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang”, yang telah disiarkan oleh RoketKini.com, Zairil mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang menghalang Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

>>>Tekan sini untuk baca artikel tersebut<<<

Tidak setakat itu, ahli Parlimen DAP itu juga mencadangkan agar bidang kuasa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk menghakimi “hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa” itu dirampas atau ditarik balik.

Lebih parah lagi, dengan memberi gambaran bahawa Perkara 121(1A) itu seolah-olah tidak adil dan satu “dilema sistem kehakiman“, pemimpin DAP itu mencadangkan satu jalan pintas diambil untuk merampas bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah melalui jalan belakang, seperti kenyataannya, “Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121”.

Bukankah cadangan Zairil itu bermakna menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah secara ‘bypass’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Kenyataan Zairil:

Oleh itu, saya ingin mencadangkan agar Mahkamah Persekutuan dikembalikan tarafnya sebagai pemutus muktamad dalam segala isu undang-undang, yakni sebagai Mahkamah Perlembagaan. Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121.

Penyelesaian kepada masalah ini boleh dicapai melalui pindaan kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman dalam dua perkara. Pertamanya, pendefinisian bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan harus menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dihadkan kepada bidang kuasa yang sama dengan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Kedua, satu prosedur harus diperkenalkan bagi membenarkan pengemukaan petisyen secara langsung kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa. 

~Zairil (DAP)

Kalau dahulu Lim Guan Eng dengan celuparnya membuat fitnah dan hasutan jahat menuduh UMNO sanggup bekerjasama dengan PAS untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect” dalam hal Akta 355, kini terbukti siapa sebenarnya yang berniat jahat untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution” untuk mencapai hasrat mereka.

“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”

~Lim Guan Eng

Lebih teruk lagi, Zairil juga telah memberi sebab yang tidak masuk akal dalam mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A):

Jika kita kembali kepada Perlembagaan, Perkara 75 menyatakan bahawa undang-undang Persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang Negeri, manakala Perkara 4 menyatakan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua undang-undang lain. Hal ini jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan.

~Zairil (DAP)

Walaupun undang-undang Syariah itu dibawah negeri, namun sistem Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan Persekutuan; kerana kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

Selain daripada Zairil, Lim Kit Siang juga mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A).

Menariknya pada masa yang sama, rakan sekumpulan mereka iaitu PKR menyangkal tuduhan DAP dan mengiktiraf Perkara 121(1A) sebagai penting dan baik sehingga mendakwa pemimpin mereka, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memainkan peranan utama dalam usaha untuk menambah Fasal 1A kepada Perkara 121.

At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.

~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia – Page 20

Malah, bukan setakat itu sahaja, tetapi jika mereka membaca Hansard Parliamen, mereka akan mendapati bahawa rakan baik terkini parti DAP, Tun Dr. Mahathirlah yang merupakan orang yang mencadangkan penambahan Fasal 1(A) kepada Perkara 121 di Parlimen pada tahun 1988.

Jadi, apakah Zairil menuduh Dr. M seorang yang tidak cermat dan tidak berfikiran panjang sehingga mencadangkan satu “pindaan semberono” yang “telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita”?

Pindaan semberono yang dibuat pada tahun 1988 telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita dan mencetuskan krisis Perlembagaan dan penafian hak dan kebebasan asasi rakyat seperti yang berlaku dlm kes-kes S. Deepa dan Indira Gandhi.

~Zairil (DAP)

Apakah pindaan Perkara 121(1A) yang dituduh satu “pindaan semberono” oleh Zairil akan benar-benar menjadi satu “dilema” kepada DAP, PKR dan PPBM?

Maka persoalannya ialah:

  1. Apakah pendirian bersama parti DAP, PKR dan PPBM mengenai Perkara 121(1A)?

  2. Siapakah yang akan beralah dalam soal ini atau adakah PKR dan PPBM hanya bermain politik dan akhirnya akan akur akan semua kehendak DAP?

  3. Sanggupkah PKR dan Tun Dr. Mahathir bersekongkol dengan DAP untuk menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah?

  4. Di manakah suara pemimpin Islam mereka yang pernah berkata mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah?

  5. Apakah inilah yang mereka maksudkan sebagai pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah versi mereka?

Aerial Photos: California’s Winter Floods 2017

Floodwaters surround a home on February 22, 2017, in San Jose, California. Thousands of people were ordered to evacuate their homes early Wednesday in the northern California city of San Jose as floodwaters inundated neighborhoods and forced the shutdown of a major highway. / AFP / NOAH BERGER (Photo credit should read NOAH BERGER/AFP/Getty Images)

Floodwaters surround a home on February 22, 2017, in San Jose, California. Thousands of people were ordered to evacuate their homes early Wednesday in the northern California city of San Jose as floodwaters inundated neighborhoods and forced the shutdown of a major highway. / AFP / NOAH BERGER (Photo credit should read NOAH BERGER/AFP/Getty Images)

NBC Los Angeles – Winter storms unleashed days of downpours on California. These aerial images show the extent of the flooding and effects of the unrelenting winter storms throughout the state, including San Jose, where 14,000 people were evacuated after neighborhoods were inundated with water. Several more weeks remain in California’s wet season, which brings the potential for more damage.

Source: nbclosangeles.com